"Insanity" is the perfect word...

I used to give Ryan a mountain of crap over his choice to live SO far from where he worked... pre-Katrina, that is. The man would drive... what, 45 minutes?... one way to work each and every day, and was late at least as many times as he was not.

I am now the one making the 50 minute commute to work (each way), and while it was a pain at first (and still hurts the budget at $3.36 a gallon), I have grown to appreciate the time after work that I get to unwind in the car and let go of the stress and drama of the day.

Except for last night.

The day was particularly trying, the drama particularly "dramatic", and my relax-time was shattered by replays of the Crocker-Petreaus hearings and the end of the Andrew Wilkow show on Patriot 144.

Don't get me wrong... Wilkow had his best show to date, I think. It was his first truly "rational" argument, and it was perfectly executed. He read a speech given by JFK to Congress in 1961 decrying the state of the US tax code and the "former administration's" support of welfare taxation. It was a speech that is routinely given by the likes of modern-day conservatives every day now, and couldn't be further from the position of the two Democratic candidates at all. A true 180 degree shift in perspective in less than 50 years.

Wilkow was using this speech as an example of how far the Democrat party has gotten from its iconic roots. As this is a topic we have discussed here at length, I pondered the thought rather deeply... what is the mentality that would push the party into the position it is in now? What drives this kind of agenda?

As I am pondering this, I hear the Q&A between none other than Crocker-Petraeus and the honorable Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold. This man, whom I have, in the past, openly supported because he promised independent leadership, now touts the "party line" to such an extent that he actually said the words "every day we have troops on the ground in Iraq helps bin Laden and al Quaeda."

Of all the ultra-liberal crap I have heard come out of Democrat's mouths, this is the most unsupportable! What good does he possibly think could come of an immediate withdrawal of US troops from the theater? Does he actually suppose that the al Quaeda elements and Iranian insurgents will simply pack up and leave the Iraqis to themselves? Peace and prosperity will suddenly bloom across the Mesopotamian desert because there are no Americans there anymore? Can ANYONE in this day and age think that al Quaeda is fighting to REMOVE US forces from Iraq? That they are fighting for the rights and liberties of the Iraqi people?

Wilkow asked, and I pondered, "What is it that has so twisted the mentality of the DNP leadership over the last 40 years?" I thought about this well into the night.

I have concluded that in the span of two Presidential administrations, this nation saw the focus of the DNP platform go from one of legitimate ideals and agendas to simple "opposition politics"... roughly 10 years. From 1964 to 1974, the Dems forgot their "traditional" roots and adopted the role of "anti-GOP" rather than pro-anything.

Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam, but did nothing to change the failing strategy of established military pundits. Nixon did the same... with the exception of Operation Linebacker, which was patently illegal and produced no measurable results anyway. Johnson carried his success with civil rights legislation in 1965 into the Great Society movement, but what he was actually doing was ensuring the poor of this nation (white and black) would have MORE difficulty freeing themselves from the new "welfare system" then they had ever had under Ike. Nixon did NOTHING to reverse this trend.

Most importantly, BOTH Presidents compromised the national "image" of President by abusing Executive authority while in office, and ignoring calls by Congress and the Supreme Court to defend their actions. By the end of his term, Johnson was no more popular with the "people" than Nixon was at the end of his term... and I'm not kidding here. Johnson's ratings in '67-68 were right on par with Nixon's in '73-74!

With both parties "tanked" in public opinion... what brought the GOP out of the malaise of the Nixon-Ford years... but was lacking in the Dems right through to 1992 (and beyond)?

Ronald Reagan. Reagan brought new ideas and a promise of vitality and prosperity that he could back with well-thought plans and details. He was thinking "out of the box" and making the American people do the same with every speech and stump-stop he made. He hearkened back to periods of history when it was expected that the public was PROUD to be American, when it was normal for young men and women to dream of being PRESIDENT of the USA when they grew up. He made it "ok" to take pride in citizenship, and he championed the causes of liberty and freedom in foreign policy as much as he did in domestic agendas (as he saw them, of course... I still have some issues with "Reagan-omics").

Since Kennedy was killed, NO Democrat has come from the rank-and-file to fill the same role as Reagan did for the GOP. Not Johnson, obviously. Certainly not Carter. Clinton? Almost NO successful policy, fiscal, domestic or foreign, was Clinton's. He took a WHOLE lot of credit for the Republican-controled Congress's actions for the 8 years he sat at the BIG DESK... so the only credit he gets is for keeping his "veto" pen in his pocket... nothing more.

Since Nov. of '68, all the Dems have managed to do is shout "CHANGE!" with no substantial reasoning behind the chant. Pure opposition politics.. nothing more.

Man, I'm pissed at Feingold! What a dope.