Ah ha . . . some agreement!

Bobby Jindal . . . I couldn't agree more that he, at 37 years old, an accomplished (that's putting it lightly) conservative, pragmatist with stone ones when it comes to facing down sate vs federal government rights, IS the future of the Grand Ol' Party, if the Republicans have an ounce of sense left. I heard the derisions of his response as well, the same radio interview (I assume), and as Jambo will note I have been tracking his career since he first ran for governor at age 32. Unfortunately I don't feel we can count on the GOP machine to have that ounce of common sense (in this new budget Republicans have 40% of the ear marks - there goes your high moral ground on spending), so Bobby will need to pull an Obama - take the Party over from the current "powers that be" with the grass roots, and barn storm into the GOP nomination for 2012, being pushed there by his ability to excite the rank and file, just as our current president did in the Democrat Party (no one thought some upstart could oust the Clinton machine, including me). I too Titus, find it curious that the 2 candidates MOST outside the beltway, MOST conservative (compared to DC Republicans), possessing the MOST ability to ignite the grass roots of the GOP: Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, find the least of support from beltway Republicans and other falmiliar GOP faces. But I'll tell you right now Governor Jindal, if you're listening - I will knock on doors for you. In the immortal words of that great poet, Larry the Cable Guy: "Get er' done!"

****
PMC's - that was a fine question badboy. I agree with what seems to be the Bund consensus, they are legitimate. As to what pushes them from legitimacy to illegitimacy? I think the answer is before us, we just dislike saying it out loud. It leaves a bad taste in our mouth as Americans. If they are fighting for us, our allies or any of the interests thereof, they are legitimate. If they are fighting in opposition to any of those, they are illegitimate. Is that hypocritical - ABSOLUTELY! National self interests often tend to be hypocritical, but national self interest is the manner in which our government MUST conduct itself. Why? Because I truly believe historically we hold the higher moral ground (not to mention I live here). Our version of liberty is far from perfect but it IS the most perfect man has ever witnessed, in my opinion. I'm reminded of a Churchill quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other one." This is true. And this is not to say you all disagree with me here, I'm just making an argument in general. Yes, it would be great if our government could operate internationally free of hypocrisy at every turn, but that isn't the way the world works. We are all big boys and girls and should realize that everybody singing along, holding hands, playing by the same rules is not the way strategic geopolitics works. So, if you fight for us or our allies you are "good", or legitimate. If not, you are "bad." In the same way we disallow our citizens to do business with rouge states, but we do business with those that do (China, Russia), is this hypocritical? Of course. But it is in our strategic best interests, and those interests can not, and must not, be constrained by a Pollyanna definition of hypocrisy, but rather a strategic, real world assessment of how best to preserve our democracy and that of our allies. This is not to say we abandon moral clarity (if Blackwater screws up, they pay the price) but rather unrealistic constraints on what could be definitionally considered "hypocritical."

****
Now, as to why I clicked on today . . . The president submitted his budget. And among this monstrosity (which almost triples Bush's last) is $634 billion for universal health care. Is it just me OR DO WE NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE? He is collecting taxes, putting them in what is described as a "lock box" for a program that does not yet exist. We have had no debate, no legislative votes, no law, no program to mandate this, yet he is raising revenue for it. How is this even legal? This is de facto law by decree! What's next? Illicit arms sales through Israel to Iran in order to raise revenue for a personal, narrow cause? See, I can have a sense of humor about Reagan ... hallowed be his name, peace be upon him. This is beyond "back door", it is jammed in sideways. Uggh . . going to be a long 4 years. Bobby - PLEASE don't have any skeletons in your closest. We need you guy . . . ASAP.