Dwindling Faith

So the Republicans have given the President the power he wants in the trade agreement. Well, so much for their concern about the little guys in this country.  They've stayed true to form paying homage to the Chamber of Commerce and the big corporations.

Back when the Republicans took over the Senate and kept the House I tried to have faith in the promises they made.  I really did, though neither Mitch McConnell nor John Boehner are exactly inspirational personalities.  Unfortunately my doubts won out over hope.

So where do we go from here?  I feel like the country is a ship without a rudder. None of the Republican candidates inspire me.  None of them.  Hillary scares me.  The first female President does not have to be Mrs. Clinton. I don't trust her motivation nor do I think she necessarily has the skill to govern. So where does that leave us?

We need a leader who catches our attention and inspires us.  But who?  Actually it could be a flamboyant Donald Trump. He loves to be the center of attention and knows how to play to it. None of the other candidates in either party have his flair. Nor do they have a set of policies that convince me they're the one.  At least no one is articulating them at this point.  Of course that's politics. Don't give the opposition anything to attack.  And leave us guessing.

I fear it will be based more on personality than skill and that gets us no where.  If it's personality who can compare to Trump?  Cruz? Huckabee?  Maybe except he and Cruz play too much to the evangelicals.  While their concerns are important and they are strong in the early primary states, they are not a reflection of the country as a whole.  Do we matter?  Can one of these candidates please them then shift to the rest of us?  Then we're faced with which side of the candidate to believe.  The one who is far left or right or the one who expeditiously has moved to the center?

A non-politician who doesn't care about the politics of it but cares deeply for the country as a whole and has the policies and leadership skills to carry them out would get my vote. We have three non-politicians running.  Ben Carson, Carly Florina and Donald Trump.

Is there any one else out there?  Please?

Can Trump Triumph?

Can the Presidential field get any more ludicrous than it already is? Like some horse races, if there are too many in the gate they can get hurt at the start from the crowding.

I think that may have happened to Jeb Bush last night.  I watched a bit of his interview with Hannity and literally dozed off.  Inspiring he was not.  Personally I don't think he really wants to run but forces beyond his control, like his monied supporters, pressured him into it.  Couldn't he have just said no if that was the case?

We haven't heard about a lot about many that have already declared but I'm sure we'll hear a lot about Trump even if he has to buy his own network.  He's that kind of guy.  Will he resonate with anyone?  I think he will.  Because of the best thing he has going for himself, he's not politic!  Agree with him or not he'll tell you what he thinks no holds barred.  It will be interesting to see what his policy positions will be.

I wish some of the Republican candidates would have a change of heart and save their money because their chances are nil. Pataki. Carson. Huckabee.  Not that they aren't good men, their appeal just isn't broad enough. However, there is no sign yet that anyone is willing.

Then there are the Democrats.  Who ever though Bernie Sanders could back Hillary into a corner?  He won't win but he's fun to watch and apparently a lot of people agree considering the number he draws for his speeches.

The others?  Eh.  Lincoln Chaffee and Martin O'Malley.  Basically unknowns nationally and invisible when pitted against the presumptive Hillary. The line up is a joke!

Hopefully as we near mid to late summer more Democrats will declare. Ones who aren't as far left as Hillary is being pushed.  Is the entire party really that far left?  Heaven forbid!  We having an eight year preview of what it will be like.

More Republicans will jump in and boy had they better have something to say.  Trump could annihilate them by forcing them to speak to the subject at hand rather than the usual side stepping.

It promises to be interesting watching.  Will someone credible challenge Hillary or not?  Is there anyone capable of standing out as the front runner among the Republicans?  At the moment its any ones guess!

Too Much, Too Soon And Matters Of More Consequence

Does anyone else think it is way too soon to pay attention to front runners in the Republican race?

Just a couple of days ago it was Romney.  He's gone.  Then it was Bush for about 32 seconds.  He's faded.  Now it's Paul Walker who until he gave a speech even people in Iowa didn't know who he is.

The men, and yes they are men rather than women, I'm interested in are at the I won't count it out stage and we're hearing little if anything from them.  That's just fine with me for a couple of reasons.

One it cuts down on the amount of time the Democrats will have to manufacture dirt and two, maybe the electorate won't be tired of them by the time the real race comes around.  Actually I hope there are some outliers in the Democrat Party too.  Any face other than Hillary and Biden would be a fresh face and one can hope with it would come with some fresh ideas too.  I have trouble believing every Democrat is wedded to Hillary though the current polls suggest this is in fact the case.

Back to the Republicans.  I don't understand why those who create disruption within party ranks don't understand the harm it does to their over all goals.  Or don't they really have any?  They are everything in themselves that they accuse the Democrats of being.  Obstinate to a fault.

Oh well, I'm not going to be following the rise and fall of potential candidates just yet.  I'm more interested in  what's going on in the world and how we're going to handle the turmoil. That's where the real concern is and unlike many of the candidates, it's not going to fade.

So, to the media, go ahead and continue to play enabler to the childish game of electoral politics.  The rest of us will find enough sources to keep informed about the real world - the one where the only game being played is which terrorist faction can make the U.S. look its worst.

Retreads And Underqualified Newbies

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Sarah Palin is seriously interested in joining the 2016 campaign. All we need is one more retread.  An irritating one at that.

Unfortunately many of the better qualified haven't made the front pages yet.  Or maybe they're smart.  The others will be suffering from voter burn out by the time the campaign gets serious.

I'd like to see some of them go now for various reasons.  Mitt Romney.  He may have been a better President than Obama has been but there are many now running that would be better than him.  He's old news and a lousy campaigner and still carries the same baggage.

Jeb Bush.  Other than being another Bush...  Well, maybe that's enough.  Ben Carson.  No political experience, no business experience.  He'd be a great Health and Human Services Secretary.

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio.  We tried a first term senator and look what we've got.  Maybe they have good ideas but not enough experience nor domestic and foreign policy acumen.

I won't go through the entire list nor state what are strictly personal opinions as to reasons, but I hope those younger governors will not be scared off by the big money needed.  Naively I hope ideas will win out and that they'll actually articulate them.

One last thought on the whole process is about the money involved.  These elections are now much like professional sports.  It's all about the money.  It's obscene that we're talking in billions when people's work weeks are being cut from 40 to 30 hours, they can't get full time employment and what wages they get are stagnant.  The economy is still sluggish and likely to remain weighed down by the world economy and a steadfastly obstinate President.

Remember growing up and you wanted something a bit pricey and were admonished by your parents who said, "Money doesn't grow on trees"?  That's true. The reason why is it's used like fertilizer by special interests and those who do their bidding.

I guess if you want a living wage and unlimited hours become a campaign worker. But please, pick a good candidate.

No Guts, No Glory

Hillary, you haven't seen anything yet!  The shoe toss was merely an indication of what you're likely to face in a run for the presidency.

Sure you laughed it off.  You have presence of mind enough to do the expedient thing. But did it bother you more than you let on?  Is that why you canceled your speech to the Western Health Leadership Academy in San Diego?

Or is it because Sean Smith's mother was planning to be part of a protest?  Remember Sean? One of the four Americans killed in Benghazi on 9/11/2013?

C'mon, what difference at this point does it make now? Well, to a lot of people it makes a huge difference and if you think you're going to be able to evade the "what really happened?" question for an entire campaign season you're sorely mistaken.

I know it was tough having to face the families of our fallen Americans as they arrived in flag draped caskets at Dover. Was it hard to lie to them about a really bad YouTube video having been the cause? You did lie, didn't you? All the evidence seems to point that way.

It's going to be a tough campaign.  You have no experience at running anything what's more a nation as complex as ours.  Your time in the Senate was merely marking time for more ambitious pursuits. You had to settle for less than first prize and yet you've been having trouble listing any accomplishment what-so-ever in that lesser position.  Secretary of State.  Unless you consider having the word 'overcharged' in place of 'reset' on the button that was to be symbolic with our new U.S./Russian relationship.

It's too late to alter the outcome of your tenure at State, but you could do a lot by coming clean about Benghazi.  If you insist you were no more than an innocent bystander, don't be surprised if the voters think you should remain a bystander to the presidency.

The truth though.  Well, it would give you a whole new image, something unique in the world of politics, and the American people are a forgiving lot.  Think about it.

Red State Blues

Maybe Iowa and New Hampshire have the right idea.  I don't  believe either state should have the power in choosing our political nominees that they do because I don't think either is representative of the country as a whole.

That being said, what they do have is access to the candidates up close and personal.  What better way to assess a person than in person?

That's why I was so excited to see a headline in the local paper heralding the fact that Chris Christie was coming to northern Idaho!      Okay, he wasn't coming to campaign for himself but to help raise funds for our Governor.  I understand the need for fundraising, but it sure cuts out the little guy.  Especially in this economy.

Sure, the masses will be able to see him at a rally for a whole half hour for $50 a pop.  Oh well.  Out of my budget.  The big spenders will be able to attend a VIP reception for $1000 per couple.  Way out of the budget!

The problem is, this is likely to be the only time he comes close.  If he actually runs he may make a token visit to Boise, the capital, but that's it.  It's because we're such a solidly red state, the Republicans don't bother with us because we're a given.  The Democrats stay away too for the same yet opposite reason.  We're just here.  Taken for granted.  Do we have unaddressed concerns?  Does anyone really care?

It's back to voting by guess and by golly.  I can do no more to inform myself than to read as much as I can.  I didn't do enough of it with Obama and I've vowed not to make the same mistake twice. Listening to stump speeches tell me little and are so repetitious I get to the point of tuning them out.  Listening to the talking heads gives no more than slanted insight from those I feel sometimes are even less informed than I am.  It's perplexing.

I don't know if I'll still be interested in Christie when it gets closer to the presidential sweepstakes, but I'd have a better sense if I could actually see him.  Feel a handshake.  Is it strong?  Look him in the eye.  Do his eyes meet mine? Listen to him speak.  Is there a dynamic the television mics don't pick up? There is certainly the matter of context.

Back to business as usual. Reading, listening and trying to figure out the being within from afar.  No wonder we make so many bad decisions at the ballot box.  In most cases we haven't a clue for whom
we're voting!

Liar Liar Pants On FIre

The President and his minions have been very careful about calling candidate Romney a liar or a felon.  They've well  learned the art of parsing a word or phrase, probably from Bill Clinton.

As they are quick to point out, they've never directly called him either.  It's always, "if he did or said such and such he may be a liar, felon, whatever."  But the damage has been done.  The words sit there like a rock and I'm not referring to may.

The poor guy can't win.  Or maybe he can if voters are getting tired of character annihilating accusations.  Or insinuations.  First they blasted him because he never laid out his policies.  That wasn't quite true, they were just so complex they were difficult to articulate in an easily understood manner. Now that he's actually saying something he's lying.  Sheesh!

Politics aside, it's time for it to stop.  It won't of course because when challenged the administration has to run from having nothing concrete with which to counter.  They've tried quoting experts from outside the administration but when they parse what those experts have said, they're beginning to come forward and say, "Wait a minute.  I didn't say that!" Oops.

We're down to the final weeks of what has been an agonizingly long and dirty campaign.  Neither side can claim the high road. Some of Romney's fellow Republicans have been his worst enemies. But lets stop demeaning one another.  Whoever wins is going to be the President of the United States.  The supposed leader of the free world. What sort of image are we portraying to the world, especially our enemies of which it seems we have more of than friends, when we're calling our potential leader a liar at best and a possible felon at worst.  It's bad enough to be detached, disinterested, arrogant, naive and everything else that has been directed at Obama. It's insulting and only a certain number of voters will agree anyway. Still, it's no where near the level of being called an outright liar or likely felon.  That insinuates corruption at the highest level.

I don't think even Obama views being more equal with other nations in quite those terms.

I also wonder about the surrogates that sling that mud.  It's shameful and disgusting.  If those speaking for the candidates can't present a convincing argument for their own candidate without stooping to that kind of rhetoric I can't help wonder why they support him in the first place.

Or is this what we've become?  A community that makes decisions on inflammatory rhetoric, and yes, lies,  rather than substance and fact?  If this is the case it's no wonder the country is in such a mess.

Franken(stein)'s Monster - He Of His Own Making

Remember when Senator Al Franken (D - MN) was a comedian of some note?  I never thought him funny then nor do I think he is now, years later.  His humor, to me, was always crude and I don't find such humor laughable.

Now he's a Senator, though I wonder why.  He certainly didn't have the credentials when he ran and won under a cloud of suspicion.

That being said, however, it is interesting to note that the Democrats have someone as clueless as Republicans Akin and King on the campaign trail.  It's fitting, isn't it, that Al Franken is campaigning with another famous for quips of questionable taste, Joe Biden?

So what has my dander up about Mr. Franken?  The fact that back in his days as a writer on Saturday Night Live he made quips about raping Lesley Stahl, a reporter for CBS. Humor?  Funny?  You tell me.

"... and I give these pills to Lesley Stahl. Then when she passes out I take her to the closet and rape her."

and

"When she passes out I put her in various positions and take pictures of her."

How crude, insensitive and offensive can you get? 

Yes, it happened a long time ago.  So?  It's an issue now and improprieties have a way of never going away. Why make yourself vulnerable to it now that it is a huge issue?

What is it with these men? Are they really that insensitive as to what rape is all about? Do they not understand it? After all, they are the ones who commit it. Are we still living in an age when women are merely tolerated, being here solely for their pleasure or sport?  

Of course not. The men I know are not like this, but the last several days shows that still too many are.  The idea that they sit in seats of power is disgusting and certainly demeaning. To women and to men who don't and never have wallowed at such depths.

The issue of abortion is an issue about the 'when' of life.  It has it's legitimacy even though I don't believe the political arena is where the debate should be played out. Rape is an entirely different matter.  It's a crime.  For politicians to be so  uninformed as to exactly what rape entails is pathetic.  To joke about it is worse.

It makes me wonder if it's a battle women are winning or if we're just being paid lip service by those holding the most vile of attitudes that they try to veil with smiles and platitudes. Until the veil is accidently dropped and we see the truth of what's hidden.

I Give Up!

I give up. I really do.  The folly of Representative Todd Akin's views on rape and abortion is one reason.  He made the mistake of opening his mouth.  But was that the end of it? No.  Representative Steve King, in defending Akin,  extended the issue to include statutory rape and incest.  In his vast well of knowledge he said he didn't know anyone who had become pregnant from statutory rape or incest but he'd be open to learning more.  I  don't know anyone either but I have no doubt what-so-ever that it happens!

How can these people legislate on issues where they have such scant knowledge?  Aren't these the very people who are so sure exactly when life begins? How can they be so precise on one while being so ignorant of the other.

I understand this is where their stand on abortion comes from.  If life begins the moment sperm meets egg and killing said life is criminal than abortion for any reason would be criminal.  But it's not criminal.  It's still legal in all 50 states.

There's one big problem with this thinking.  Not everyone agrees.  While many hold this belief, it is not a scientific fact.  It is opinion.  Conception versus birth.

I do believe some things should not be legislated and this is one of them.  I've ranted about government intrusion in my life for a very long time.  I will also rant about religious intrusion in my life.  I may choose to surround myself by like minded people on social issues.  There is some comfort in that, confirmation that others believe as I do.  I will not try to force those who do not agree to do so. Nor condemn other opinions and beliefs as being wrong or criminal.  There are too many variables and complexities.

I find it disturbingly ironic that those who bemoan the government taking over more and more of our freedoms don't recognize the parallels among themselves when they try to do the same with their social/religious beliefs.

For me it boils down to very simple truths.  If I choose not to pass on the gene pool of a rapist it should be my right.  If I don't care to breast feed my baby it should be my right.  Should I want to drink a large sugar laden soda it should be my right.

It should not be the right of some ill informed politician to be making those decisions for me.

I cannot see in either party a platform I can come close to supporting.  Don't tell me the Republican platform doesn't reflect Romney's views, just the party's.  What's the point of having it if it isn't going to be adhered to by those elected?

In the same vein,  what's the point of having laws if the President is able to bypass them by executive order without the country having recourse?

I don't know what to think any more.  Nothing seems to make any sense.  Listening to the falsehoods and nastiness and ignorance is exhausting. There was a time I thought we could do better and I was heartened.  But I no longer do.  How many more out there are like me?  Ready to turn away in disappointment and disgust? Ready to just give up?

Tea Party - Hijacked Movement

Hitch your political wagon to the Tea Party and you're assured a place in infamy.  This post is based on observation from reading various publications without reference to fact or figures.  After all, it's how most of us get our news these days anyway.  Even Obama's spokesperson thinks we get it from programs like Entertainment Tonight. How I hope she is wrong!

I do admire that a group of citizens fed up with out of control spending was able to cobble together a movement that is known as the Tea Party. There lack of cohesive leadership, however, has been detrimental to their cause and most certainly the Republican party.  Candidates who otherwise would not have had a chance to be elected were savvy enough to latch on to the Tea Party mantra thereby garnering their support.  Too many of them have been losers and good people have been turned out of office or kept in office because of them.  Sharron Angle losing to Harry Reid was probably the worst.  There was Christine O'Donnell who was odd to say the least. There are others. They all wear the Christian Conservative badge.  Now we're saddled with Todd Akin who seems to think the most important election of our time revolves around his being forgiven for a statement for which he obviously is not sorry. He is a Tea Partier.

If the Tea Party wants to maintain influence without a formal organization they're barking up the wrong tree.  They're going to have to vet candidates who claim to sympathize with them or we will continue to have a divided Republican party with moderates on one side and nut cases and obstructionists on the other and a Tea Party losing it's steam.

Granted, and I've said it often, a lot of the old war horses should be turned out to pasture but be sure it's for the right reason.  Willingness to work with the few Democrats who are also willing is not it.

Romney is a weak candidate.  I'd hoped he'd learned from his last run what he did wrong and make an effort to make corrections but that doesn't seem like it is to be.  When the VP candidate is more popular than the presidential candidate you've got a problem.  It's deja vu all over again!  McCain/Palin.  At least this time the VP candidate has some substance whether or not you agree with his positions.

Meanwhile,  as I often say, Syria continues to be a blood bath, our soldiers continue to be killed in Afghanistan and Iran is getting ever closer to a nuclear bomb.  Can we afford to turn a blind eye to the Akins of our political world hoping they'll miraculously 'get it' before it's too late?  I'd say the Tea Party has a part to play in this.  The ball is in their court. Tell Mr. Akin he must go.

Cavemen In Congress

 Picture the caveman dragging a woman by her hair with one hand and wielding his club with the other.  How often have you see that caricature?  Don't you wish that's all it was?  A caricature? Don't you wish we didn't have any such caricatures in Congress?

But we do.  This time it's Representative Todd Akin, Republican from Missouri.  He's anti-abortion.  No matter the circumstances which might have caused a pregnancy - like rape.  After all, he tells us, he understands from doctors that pregnancy resulting from rape is really rare and that if it's a 'legitimate' rape a woman's body can sense it and halt the pregnancy.

I'm not going to get into the breast beating about the horrors of rape and how demeaning this is to women.  Enough others are handling that.  What I wonder is how a grown man, regardless of his occupation, can be so ill informed this day and age!  What's worse is that he actually seems to believe it!  Whew!

I'll be generous and assume he misunderstood the doctors with whom he spoke.  If I weren't being generous I'd assume he spoke to no one, what's more a doctor, because this is what he wants to believe for what ever reason. Apparently it doesn't have to be based on fact, but then politicians have trouble with facts all the time.

He even supported rewording circumstances for federally funded programs to provide abortions only for  cases of  'forcible' rape versus 'ordinary' (my word) rape such as statutory rape.  I don't blame women for being upset.  I don't blame every one who is upset for being upset.  And I fully support every one who is calling for him to step down from the senatorial race against Claire McCaskill.  He should step down from office, period.

What apalls me most though is that he is a congressman in the first place.  He helps make the laws we live with.  I've often complained that too many in congress are totally ignorant of the subject matter and blind to the potential unintended consequences of the legislation they write and pass.

There is no better example of ignorance than this.  Yet he resists stepping down.  He is either monumentally stupid, monumentally arrogant or both. This affront to intellect has no party boundaries.  Both sides have members of an equal level.  It's just that Akin is the most recent to put his foot in it.  Don't accept the apology.  He doesn't mean it.

Don't reward him with any more time in office.  He doesn't deserve it.  And we can't afford him or any more like him.

Tag Team Mudslinging!

The Republicans now have their team.  As has been said by some,  this presidential election is really about one thing.  Not jobs, not the economy though each has an important role.  It's about the type of country we want going forward.

Do we want one where government intrudes in everything?  Obama has made it clear this is his thinking.  The problem with it is we, who will be paying for his 'investments', don't get to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down on them.  So far government's track record has been dismal.

The Republicans say they are for less government and fiscal responsibility.  We'll see.  Paul Ryan is a plus if it's true but he, as well as his potential boss, has to do a better job of explaining how his ideas will work so as not to scare us to death like the Democrats are doing.

This election poses contrast like never before.  Don't forget the peripherals either.  Little things like foreign policy.  Our soldiers are still being killed in Afghanistan.  Syria is a disaster as the Secretary of State boogies in Africa. Iran and Israel get closer to war.

It's a disgrace and an embarrassment to me that this country allows it's politicians and their surrogates (super PACs) to stoop to such demeaning levels in their campaigns for the highest office in the land.  Some would say in the world.

Both sides are guilty.  Look what Romney did to his opponents in the primaries.  He didn't think it foul then, he has no right to now.  But when Lanny Davis, one of the most dyed in the wool Democrats around, says it's time to discuss policy issues rather than trying to destroy the opposition's reputations as human beings, you know it has gotten more than dirty. Try unscrupulous and unprincipled.

Can the bar be raised?  I doubt it.  So one more time we'll be stuck with the team left standing after all the mud is slung.  Lucky us.  Lucky world.

Come Out, Come Out Where Ever You Are!

Have you noticed nothing is working this silly season?  The vitriolic ads coming from the Democratic side are so fast, furious, mean spirited and inaccurate people are beginning to get disgusted with them.  Even with untold numbers of fund raisers, their results are lagging behind Romney's.  Time for a new strategy.  Get out the vote in key states.

That's a pretty good idea and probably less expensive than what they're doing now.  They're spending millions of dollars to defeat an invisible candidate!

Yesterday I had reason to spend hours in the car.  I listened to talk radio.  Ingraham and  Limbaugh who of course are conservative stalwarts to Jerry Doyle and Michael Savage who have yet to find a politician of either party they'd give the time of day to.  My kind of talk shows - equal opportunity bashers!

To a man, and a woman, they were all asking the same question.  Where the heck is Romney and the Republicans?  It's bad enough the candidate himself is missing in action but so is his entire party!  When Garry Trudeau does a rendition of Romney I expect it will be an enigmatic smile and nothing else.

If he were British I might understand his stiff upper lip doggedness,  gentlemanly don't you know, against everything being thrown at him.  But he's not British.  He's American and running for President.  I'd expect at least some vocal indignity from being accused of not paying his taxes, being a felon and causing the death of a woman to cancer!  But no.  Just that smile.

To take it a step further, where are the leaders of his party?  Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.  I haven't heard a word from either! And darn little from anyone else except the conservative pundits.  Flash to Romney,  they can't carry it for you.

My friends over at the Picket Project are advocating group collaboration as a tool to make a difference in our political climate.  Maybe it's time to collaborate on an Om Mantra to penetrate Romney's brain and inner circle and convince him he's got to answer back! Say something!  Last I heard they're considering a new strategy.  Get out the vote in key states.

That's the flavor of the day.  Who knows what it will be next week.  I have a feeling, however, that by November Ommmm will change to Zzzzzz and the only thing we'll be getting out is snow shovels.

Party Time!

If ever there was a need for a third party it is now.  Every election cycle brings up the topic.  Some attempts are being made like American's Elect and the Modern Whigs.  I don't think the country has time to go through the Americans Elect process and the Whigs don't seem to have the support on local levels that they need.

So why bother?  Consider the Republican field.  Actually that says it all.  They all want to be President, that's for sure, but why?

Newt has such a dislike for Romney he's staying in the race strictly to deny Romney the necessary delegates before the convention.  That's not a reason to vote for Gingrich!

Santorum insulted the Puerto Ricans today by telling them that in order to become a state they'd have to declare English their only official language.  Strange.  There is no federal law with that as mandate!   Do you think maybe a presidential contender would know that?

Watching this ludicrous primary season is getting more and more painful. As Hub often says, "Out of 300,000,000 people, is this really the best we can do?"

 I've had a thought about how to get a successful third party going.  Instead of leaving politics out of frustration as are many of the moderates, perhaps they should take a page from Michele Bachmann's playbook.  Form a moderate caucus like she did with the tea party supporters.  Look at how the movement grew.  Since many of their ideals mesh with the christian conservatives and since all the candidates are claiming to be conservative, leave the Republican party to them.

Form a coalition of moderates and become spoilers for both the far left and far right, but do it from within.  Let it trickle down from the top where the power is.  It would have a far greater chance of success than the efforts of the voters who are unknown, unorganized and without clout.  Just a thought.  Another brilliant Dogwalk solution!

Well, that's my thought for the day.  My brain is drained.  Self interest rules at all ends of the spectrum.  I can hardly wait to see what tomorrow brings.  How many more people will be slaughtered in Syria?  How long before Karzai physically removes us from his country?  Which government subsidized green company will fail next?  Between Limbaugh, Mahr, Shultz and Matthews, whose statements will be the most coarse and bazaar?

Only a week to go before some down time.  I'll make it. I think.

The Face In The White House Is Ours

It's times like these that I really miss ole Bacchus and our daily walks.  It was during the quiet of the early morning and my mind was fresh.  I allowed it to wander along with the dog.  I had the time to sort through things that puzzled me or bothered me or just interested me.  I've been too long without.  That once luxurious time is gone now, put to other less compelling uses.  My ability to reason things through is more constrained now and I find myself more and more confounded.

For instance, today, as I brace myself for one more debate, I wonder what more can be said that hasn't already been hashed to death.  Will the two little boys once more take their balls and go home while the other two languish in obscurity?

Watching the Republicans implode has made me wonder just which is the face we want in the White House?  Which face would put the best face on the nation?  For that is exactly what the Occupy the White House movement is all about.  Us.  And what the world thinks of us.

Forget the President for the moment.  We already know what he is and what the world thinks of him and therefore us.  Let's think about those who would replace him, particularly the leaders at the moment.  Romney and Gingrich.

Neither are off to a very good start by virtue of the activities of their surrogates - the super pacs.  It seems a shame the candidates can't win the voters with solutions to our problems rather than having to diminish one another.  But diminish they do.  That tells me they don't have any solutions to begin with.  Just rhetoric.  Empty at that.

Beyond the questionable accuracy of the attack ads we have to sort through the padded resumes that are put before us.  Had any one of us in the real world padded our resumes like the candidates do we'd never have worked a day in our lives.  That is if a potential employer had the sense to see through our bloviating.

Why are we so gullible?  Why are we swayed by mean spirited half truths such as the ones continually coming from Gingrich?  Do we really want to sign off on these 'fundamental' changes he's so fond of touting?  If we do, can he deliver?  Is this personality of extremes in both ideas and temperament really representative of us?

Mr. Romney is another issue.  We're to believe that his 'experience' is the elixir of success.  In actuality his proposals differ little from what we already have. Tentative and vague.  This isn't the face of America of the past, though it seems common place now.

We tend to forget that none of the fixes proposed are going to happen over night and I don't think we're prepared for that truth. We seem to be drawn to the outrageous rather than the pragmatic.  We're in search of instant gratification where none exists. We're not listening to what the candidates are really saying nor are they listening to what we're asking of them.

The end result will boil down to the media.  They giveth and they taketh away.  They made Obama and as happens with all administrations, they are now reviled when they finally do their job.  Gingrich hasn't even waited to gain the office before he beginning his repudiation.

It makes me wonder if it matters at all who is elected.  People like me will continue to have blog fodder because promises are being ignored.  The whole process reminds me of any number of evening gab fests where the host and guests shout at one another incessantly, no one listens, no one hears and the segment is a total waste of time.

What can be done to change the tenor of the discussions so sorely needed?  I haven't a clue. Even if Bacchus were still here and we were still walking, I don't think we could go far enough to sort it out.

Newt and Barack - Brothers Under The Skin?

One is a shade taller and darker, one is quite a bit heavier but that's all superficial.  They have more in common than not.

Both love to hear themselves talk.  Both think they are far more brilliant than the rest of we mere mortals.  Both think it's their destiny to be President and have their way with us.  What a choice.

Obama will stake his claim tonight.  It will be political theater to be sure.  There will be applause lines, lines for which to cheer.  Hearty handshakes and hands being sat upon.  This of course will be the State of The Democratic Campaign speech.

Newt too needs this type adoration to flow his way.  He was in a snit today because the audience was asked to remain silent during last night's debate and did so.  Now Newt says he'll do no more if that is to be the rule.  Oh, my.

Bret Stephens asked in his Wall Street Journal column this morning  that if this election is as important as everyone is saying, where are the Republicans who could actually win it?  Could reluctant wives not be convinced the future of country is worth it?  I know how grueling the campaign can be.  Heck, we wallow in it or it wouldn't be such.  Still, the country needs better than it has or is being offered.

Michelle Obama has allegedly said that our country doesn't deserve her husband.  I actually agree with her but for the exact opposite reason than she intended.  I can say the same for Newt, Mitt, Rick and Ron, too.  We don't deserve them.  Or do we?  I'd like to think we deserve better but maybe we don't.

When even the top tier of individuals who could win with good reason refuse to step up to the plate, something is being said about the will of our country to regain it's stature in the world.

If leaders aren't willing to lead, who do we follow?  That which is left.  The Newt's and Mitt's and Obama's who's interest in the office is more for personal glorification than the forwarding of a nation.  One used to be a business man.  How does what he did at Bain work for the country?  How does a man who is reputed by people of his own party to not have the temperament nor ability to lead going to fix anything?  Especially when there are no applause lines.

Maybe, as Stephens suggests, the worst of all in this election scenario are those who could run and should run yet refuse to do so.

Is patriotism being redefined as well as the Constitution?

Jon Huntsman Is Right, You Know...

At least some people have come to their senses and are looking at Jon Huntsman.  At least enough to have him polling third in New Hampshire.  Now if only...

The pundits seem to enjoy telling us how this rough and tumble that's called primary season is good because the candidates get vetted.  Do they?  The only one who is focusing on policy is Huntsman.  The rest, including Romney, are focusing on destroying one another and in the process their party.

Take Gingrich.  Again.  Now that an angel has come out of Las Vegas with cash in hand for his super PAC he's doing his best to distort venture capitalism.  A venture capitalist, Romney, is not a corporate raider.  Actually their aim is to fix troubled companies.  As with any business venture, they are not always successful.  To do this, the capital for the venture (get it? venture capital) comes from investors who get a return on that investment only if the turn around is successful.  One hardly goes into it with the intent to kill business.  But then Newt marches to his own dictionary.

My issues with Paul remain the same.  His foreign policy is not realistic considering the conditions we face.  At least he had the good grace to ask that an ad by his PAC be withdrawn - one that called Huntsman a Manchurian candidate, focusing on his adopted daughters - one Chinese and one East Indian.

I don't care for Santorum's views on gays or abortion and, say what you will, the story of he and his wife taking their dead child home for their children to familiarize themselves with is unsettling.

Perry?  I haven't a clue what he's about.

I understand why people just can't get excited about Romney.  His policies aren't particularly innovative.  Too much like big government Republicanism versus big government Democratism.  He has devolved to the level of the others.  Demeaning Huntsman because he served as ambassador to China in the Obama administration is fool hardy.

Huntsman's claim that when one is called upon to serve by the President, it's not easy to refuse rings true.  He chose to do so for his country.  He cited as an example his two sons currently serving in the Navy.  It matters not to which party the commander-in-chief belongs, they are serving their country.

What ever happened to the idea that our goals for the nation, regardless of party,  should be the same.  The difference comes as to how to accomplish those goals.  The ideas can vary greatly and of course that's where compromise enters.  Or at least where it's supposed to enter.

For the moment I'm pretty disgusted with the way all of the candidates are conducting themselves, including the President.  It seems to me all the nation building going on is outside our borders instead of within.   Within it's ego building supported with delusion and falsehoods.  That isn't vetting by my definition. If it is to be the standard by which we choose, none deserve the job.

Newt Says "Nuts To The Country"

If there has ever been an action to illustrate how unsuitable a candidate is for President,  Newt Gingrich is showing us what it is.

He has proven what I've long thought - everything is about him and heaven help you if you cross him.  Forget the country.  Destroy the front runner because he didn't play nice.

You'd think anyone who has been in politics as long as Newt and carries his amount of baggage should have expected to be slammed at every juncture just as he was.  I thought his body language and facial expressions indicated he never expected it.  His ego is such.  He set the tone in the debates to go after Obama, not the other candidates.  Debates are one thing, an actual election or caucus is something else. He could be that naive but I doubt it.  It's ego.  Newt has spoken.  The others are expected to follow.

He could have taken the high road such as there is one in politics.  I guess that would be the equivalent of slinging mud at his opponents rather than dragging them through it.  Not much of a difference; still, a nuance.  But no.  He has lowered himself to the level he has accused Romney of holding.  He has vowed to destroy him by any means possible.  Ah, the sweet taste of revenge.

Will it work?  That remains to be seen.  If he does indeed pursue that goal he will certainly give both Santorum, his dear friend, and Perry a step up to being the Mitt alternative.  Vengeance may not sit as well with the electorate as it does with him.

Actually I think he is totally flummoxed.  He isn't thinking clearly.  He's still in the race.  Everyone is watching to see what he can do with his limited funds.  Ads, positive or negative, are expensive.  His staff is skeletal.   Is he still running for the nomination or not?  Is he just hell bent on revenge?

Romney is not the end all as a candidate.  His super PAC may have over stepped the bounds of propriety yet he's still the most likely of the Republican field to give Obama any sort of challenge.

Rick Santorum, like Newt is just another big government politician.  Look at his record.  He's also one more lawyer with no real world experience.  We've got one in office now.  If it comes down to the devil we know versus the devil we don't I'm willing to bet the electorate will vote for the one they know.  That means another term for Obama and the consequences thereof.

If that's the case, the blame will lay at Newt's feet.  If he spends the rest of his time as a candidate trying to ruin Romney, he's in essence saying nuts to the country.  His ego needs stroked more than the country needs to be rid of Obama.

If I were Santorum I'd keep the guy at arms length.  You never know what guilt by association might render. I don't think the country as a whole is looking for a Conservative, by his and Newt's definition, for President.  Even their own weren't interested in Michele Bachmann who is as conservative as they come.  They want more than that.  Things like a plan, experience and pragmatism - palpable substance.

If Newt wants to go after Romney, that's his prerogative.  If he does, I hope he takes it outside the campaign.  The party is divided enough as is. We don't need an egocentric wedge rendering it totally impotent.

Does The Biggest Bag Of Dirty Tricks Always Win?

Well, the time has come.  Politics will now consume the airwaves full time until next November.  It isn't going to be pretty.

I can't remember a time when I've heard so much complaining about negative ads this early.  Of course prior to this year it hadn't gotten started this early.  But this year it is going full bore thanks to the super pacs.

Of course in order to take advantage of them, you have to have the money to either produce them yourself or have a super pac behind you.  I get a kick out of Newt Gingrich doing so much complaining when the truth of the matter is if he could afford it he'd be doing it too.

Personally I hate negative advertising.  Somehow there seems to be something wrong with a process that depends on tearing your opponent down with half truths and sometime outright lies.  My, how proud the candidates must feel when their ads are successful!  Does it make you wonder about the mindset of these people we elect?  Does it make you wonder about our mindset knowing how well negative ads work?  It's a form of blood lust.  Thumbs up or thumbs down.

That's politics I'm told.  There's nothing that can be done about it.  It's the nature of the beast.  Do you suppose that's why there is nothing but partisanship in Congress?  They've gotten so used to lying to us or shading the truth that they no longer recognize it?

Is there a politician out there that recognizes his or her own hypocrisy?  Like President Obama bragging that he will raise a billion dollars for his campaign while the country and the people in it are staggering under its debt load? I can think of a lot better uses for that billion.  Are we really willing to contribute that amount?

I'm going to watch as the campaigns heat up.  I'm not going to like what I see.  It will begin in earnest Wednesday morning when the spin doctors for the various campaigns make known their rationale for losing or staying in the race when chances of success are nil.

Wishful thinking?  Hope springs eternal?  Or one more sign of hypocrisy.  I worry about the ability of a person to govern when they can't face their own truths.  Never-the-less, the show must go on. Soon enough it will be curtains for someone.  I just hope it isn't us.  Wishful thinking?  Yep.  Pessimism? Absolute.