What Have We Become?

I've been wondering about this quite a bit lately. Office holders are fleeing their posts while others stick tenaciously to policies that the people vehemently oppose. The President has no control over his own party. The Republicans have no leadership. At least no one has risen to the top of the political heap unless you really want to consider Sarah Palin.

Is anybody in charge of anything? Take Obama's recent pronouncement he wants to see a resurgence of nuclear power. At the same time he has caved to exhortations by Harry Reid and shut down the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain after we've spent billions of dollars on it. Further more, as with much needed oil refineries, the permitting process is excessively long and convoluted and that's before the environmentalists get into it. These are Obama's people!

This is a nightmare from which I would like to awaken. Instead I find others share it.

In a Wall Street Journal column, Judy Shelton quoted an observation by former Polish President Lech Walesa, "The world has no leadership. The U.S. was the last resort and hope for all the nations. Today we have lost that hope. They don't lead morally or politically anymore."

He has a point, as chilling as it is. When our President deems it necessary to bow to the wishes of the Chinese by refusing to meet with Dali Lama, there is a problem. Fortunately, the Dali Lama has returned and this time the meeting will take place. But what caused the refusal the first time?

The Chinese consider the Dali Lama as no more than a thorn in their side pushing for Tibetan independence rather than the actuality of his being the Tibetan spiritual leader. The Chinese, up until recently, also have been our largest creditor. Our "leader" feared offending them. Feared. Oh, my.

Japan has now taken over that dubious position. What concessions will be expected to keep them happy? We're fighting wars with diminishing numbers of allies. We apologize to the world for attitudes justifiably held.

It isn't just President Obama; it's the thinking of the far left. We should be equals, not leaders. What a repugnant attitude. The United States has always been the leader of the free world and now we have leadership that does not aspire to that.

What have we allowed to happen to us? As much as I understand why some Senators and Congressmen are getting while the getting is good, this is not the time! That is not leadership. That's deserting a sinking ship! We need them to stay, to band together and fight. Not for their party but for their country.

Before we elect one more person to high office, we would do well to take the time to see ourselves as others do. Mr. Walesa has made his opinion clear. How many others share it?

Bye Bayh!

There he stood at the podium, his wife with a tear in her eye and his two sons at his side. He was not there to heap embarrassment upon them, but rather heap embarrassment on the United States Congress. I wonder if he succeeded. I doubt it. They are beyond embarrassment.

When a man of Evan Bayh's caliber and experience ops not to run again because he does not love Congress, it is a sad day for the country! Why does this popular two term Senator no longer love it? "There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress. Too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem solving."

There you have it. Out of the mouth of one of their own! What more will it take for Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi to take note? Oops. Wrong. They know. The problem is just what to do about it. They are the ones I'd like to see leave. Not Evan Bayh.

Every time a Senator or Congressman who is known to be willing to work with those across the aisle quits, it weakens the body. The numbers are interesting to me. While the lowest percentage of his career, he has voted with the Democratic caucus 71% of the time. That seems pretty indicative that he is a Democrat, yet he is known as the Senate Democrat least likely to vote with his party this Congress. Is there something wrong with this picture?

We so badly need more willing to work across party lines yet they are being driven out by the leadership's refusal to budge. It would seem the President is more in sync with the leadership than those willing to try the bipartisan route or he wouldn't have dug his heels in on Pelosi's health care reform.

It's going to be an interesting several months leading up to the 2010 mid-terms. I anticipate little more than contentious bickering.

I also anticipate the tea party movement throwing a monkey wrench into the elections by putting up their own ideological candidates thereby weakening Republican chances to make significant gains. If the Democrats prevail they will consider it a mandate. They will be wrong.

Is the voting public wise enough to not let that happen?

How I wish there were more like Evan Bayh. If there were perhaps they could have worked together to move both parties rather then feeling compelled to leave.

One more time, we lose.

Get Your Feet Off The Furniture!

There was a time when parents admonished children to do just that. I can't imagine that George W. Bush didn't hear it. I don't know about Obama. He's of a different generation. If he didn't however, it's his loss. We already know he's lax when it comes to proper protocol.

Perhaps this small issue is part of a larger one. A certain arrogance. Disdain. Lack of respect where it is due. You see, this desk is not just any desk. It's our desk. The people's desk.

It is also much, much more.

It was a gift to the United States as a token of friendship and goodwill from Queen Victoria.

While on an Arctic expedition the HMS Resolute got stuck in ice and was abandoned by its crew. Nearly a year later an American whaler found it adrift, caught it, repaired it and returned it to England as a gesture of good will. When the Resolute was retired in 1880, Queen Victoria commissioned a desk to be made from the ship's timbers.

She then presented it to President Rutherford B. Hayes as a memorial to the courtesy and kindness of America in returning the ship to England.

The desk, known as the Resolute Desk, has been used by Presidents ever since.

Both Hub and I came from families in which our parents were avid collectors of antiques. We were instilled not only with the value of them but also their historical significance and taught to respect both. Had we a piece with the history of the Resolute Desk, we would have used it because it was meant to be used. We would also have respected it for what it was and how it was meant. That precludes propping one's feet on it!

It's a generational thing, perhaps. If true, it's a shame for we are losing touch with who and what we are. You see it daily in disdain for simple good manners. Sloppy clothes where dress is required. Hat's worn everywhere, often backwards,including restaurants. Often filthy.

I can't help but think as we grow more sloppy in our daily lives, the more acceptable it becomes, it's no wonder that even those who we choose to govern us are very much the same.

It's an indicator of what we are becoming. Self-absorbed narcissists with little consideration for others. We were angry with George Bush for side stepping the Constitution in the name of security. We're angry now with Obama and Congress for ignoring the wishes of the people.

It's really understandable when you look back at history and see how we're turning our backs on the very foundation that made us great.

Does anybody want to reset the direction? Does anyone care?

The Obama Bush Blend

This picture appears on a bill board on I-35 outside Wyoming, Minn. It was paid for by a group of small business owners obviously not happy with the Obama administration's policies.

I chuckled while thinking how many of us voted for Obama because he seemed to be the exact opposite of Bush. He is in many, many ways yet in some respects he is not.

Perhaps the most obvious is both believe that what they think is right. Remember when Bush was asked if there was anything he regretted during his term and his answer was "No"? I see that steadfast resolve in Obama. In his recent interview with Diane Sawyer he commented, "I'd rather be a really good one term President than a mediocre two-term President." That's an indication that he believes his policies are the correct ones even as the country continues to protest. If the electorate doesn't see it that way, it's our problem, not his. He's right. On that basis it certainly is our problem!

We see him creeping more to the center when the banking and brokerage bonuses are suddenly acceptable, when he reluctantly allowed, at least partially, the numbers needed for success in Afghanistan, and possibly backtracking on civilian trials for the 9/11 terrorists. I can see Bush's little smirk as I write this.

Where he differs is disturbing. He is now considering advancing his agenda by a series of executive orders. If he really tries to do this expect legal challenges. It would not only be a resounding slap in the face of the American public but also Congress. He was not elected dictator!

The excuse of Republican obstinacy is running thin when Harry Reid throws out a bipartisan jobs bill. The excuse that all our problems stem from the Bush administration would carry more weight had Obama made some progress in correcting them.

We also need to remember as we try to sort through all the finger pointing and blame gaming that the Democrats were in charge of the House and Senate for the last two years of the Bush administration. The legislation in place is courtesy of a Democratic House and Senate even if the Executive branch was Republican.

I'm sorry Mr. Obama is having difficulty governing. He had no practical experience before coming to office and the voters, including myself, should have paid more attention to substance over style.

If the style, as indications show, becomes dictatorial, Mr. Obama will indeed be a one term President. Unfortunately, he won't have been a really good one.

What If You Don't Have A Computer?

Tonight there is a "chocolate walk" in downtown Coeur d' Alene. Hub and I thought about going but there was no ad in this morning's paper telling times and places participating. I spent the next while going through the weeks papers until I found the one. One ad. In it we were told to go to a web site.

I got to thinking about how often we hear that. The local news always tells us if we want a more complete story go to their web site. So do all the network news shows and the cable shows. Even Jon Stewart will post an over long interview.

My computer space is not unlike the one pictured. I spend way too much time here. How many, however, don't have a computer or ready access to one? It must be frustrating for them if they want to dig deep into a story. Newspapers don't go into nearly the depth they did awhile back. Budget restraints. Smaller paper, fewer reporters. More and more news to investigate. Not a heartening equation.

Then there are those who don't have a computer nor do they read a newspaper. If they get news, it's the sound bites that pass for it. I'm assuming those without computers or papers do have television. It is the mass media of the moment. Computers soon will be.

Computers are a luxury becoming a necessity. In the meantime does the broadcast media have an obligation to get away from the soundbites and actually report the news? British Broadcasting does the best job of anyone at the moment but I'd guess it's not available everywhere.

I worry about our uninformed electorate. They still vote. As issues and policies become more complex and confusing how will they decide who to vote for with limited information or information skewed by political philosophies? Will it merely be the person they like best? The one they relate to? It will be interesting to see if the Republicans can unearth a candidate that will counter the cool, elitist image of the President. One who understands what the people are saying. Could it be a "personality" like Scott Brown or Sarah Palin? Should it?

Web sites will have analysis twenty four seven as elections draw near. Television tends to be reducdant and papers skimpy.

Will those with only televisiont be a class of voter unto themselves? How will they figure into the results? Or are they too insignificant to matter?

Just wondering.