Do YOU believe in miracles?

I am officially old.

I have direct TV. Don't have local channels. So my NBC coverage of the Olympics has been limited to what's been on MSNBC, USA and the other satellite networks of the NBC family. So while I've missed the ice dancing, downhill skiing, and most painful of all, curling, I got to see a fair bit of hockey.

Ethan is ten. He watched hockey, maybe two shifts worth, hoping I'd lose interest and he could sneak in some X-Box time in. Instead he got to listen to a story about another ten year old kid, playing in the winter time outside, pretending to be Erik Hyden (sp?) winning five gold medals in speed skating and wondering how the hockey game was going because his parents had kicked him and the rest of the kids out of the house.

On a tape delay game.

In the end (third period) we got to come in because it was cold out, and I got to see, live (via tape delay) the last seven or so minutes of Our Miracle. And in the thirty years since, I have yet to see its equal in terms of uniting a nation or freezing a moment in history.

Sure, I remember the plane going into the south tower at 8 in the morning Tuesday, Sept 11. Won't forget it. I remember the Wall coming down in Berlin. I remember when Reagan was shot. I remember when the Pope was shot. I was at the lake when Corrizon Aquino's (sp?) husband was assassinated on the tarmac in Manila. I remember when Kirby Puckett retired, and when he died. I watched both Twins World Series victories. I saw all of Wisconsin's modern Rose bowl victories. I watched the New Orleans Saints AND the Tampa Bay Buccaneers win Super Bowls before my Vikings.

But in 1980 we were LOSING the Cold War. No history book can accurately describe the sure and certain knowledge that all young men had that we would register for selective service and some time within our lifetime we'd fight the BIG ONE against the Russians. In 1980 there were American hostages in Iran. Walter Cronkite made a point of closing each news cast by tallying the days. There were gas lines, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, and a lack of 1) identity and 2) pride.

The game between USA and the USSR in Feb, 1980 at Lake Placid, NY didn't win the Cold War for the US. It didn't put people back to work. It didn't fix the economy, it didn't save Jimmy Carter's presidency, it didn't do ANYTHING except one thing.

It proved that miracles are real, and they happen. Sometimes on national tv.

I'll be 40 this year. Older than my parents were in 1980. And beating Canada for a gold medal is not a miracle. Can't even be mentioned in the same breath as 1980. But I am old now. I have to EXPLAIN to my kids who the Soviets were. I have to EXPLAIN why we were underdogs. I have to EXPLAIN that we weren't always what we are now. They'll see their own miracles. This one, 1980 Miracle on Ice, was the single greatest sports event I have ever seen and I feel safe in saying ever WILL see. And it was OUR miracle, our generation's moment. Not a world war, not a speech at the Brandenburg Gate, but a hockey game that didn't even decide a medal.

Okay, I watched them...

I watched Beck and Bachmann, and both gave stirring and inspiring speeches. Both utilized a great deal of historical perspective in their presentations, and that was a big contributor to the success of their speech.

I haven't seen all the speakers, but I have watched nearly half by now, and I can tell you that the stand out BEST speech was from Wayne Lapierre, President of the NRA. I do not say this because I own guns, or because I support the defense of the Second Amendment (I'm not even an NRA member). I say this because he graphically demonstrated the fallacy of the liberal position over and over again in his speech.

Admittedly, he did this in regards to past and present infringements on the Second Amendment, which I think is perfectly understandable given his position within the NRA. That shouldn't detract from the method he employs to make his points... in fact, it should act as an example for the conservative movement as the 2010 mid-terms approach.

The position that the liberal movement in general, and the Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Democrat effort in particular, has taken since 2000 is based primarily on false assumptions and, in some cases, out right lies. Almost nothing that the 111th Congress has fought for or passed has any REAL merit or consequence outside of the cost it will bring to "fix it later"... and that point is NOT being made clearly enough by the conservative movement in America today, regardless of party affiliations.

Beck and Bachmann gave examples, and even used a few graphic representations to show the insupportable nature of the liberal position, but if real progress is to be made by the conservative American people, the GOP, Tea Party and CSU all need to follow Lapierre's example and HAMMER the facts home OVER AND OVER AGAIN until the truth is so plainly seen and understood in its irrefutable nature that the liberal agenda is seen by all to be the empty, hollow lie that it truly is.

Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Rendell, Bloomberg, Schumer, Clinton, Feingold, Durbin, et al MUST be made to answer for the actions and INTENTIONS of their Party and the current Congress. If they have a plan, they need to be forced to explain it to those that demand an explanation. If the don't have a plan, they need to answer WHY NOT. Provide FACTS that your plans are working or will work, and offer facts as to why conservative alternatives won't work... or face the prospect of losing your seat in November.

As we have said before here at the Bund, the GOP and conservatives are finally finding a voice and are beginning to present their case to the American people through things like the Roadmap For America that Rep. Ryan drew up, and through things like CPAC broadcasts and townhall meetings. NOW, we need to see the Dems answer for their positions... something I do not think they can do without revealing the elitist, almost "gnostic" manner in which they view American politics today.

"I back Bach!"

This is my Ike take off for Representative Michelle Bachmann (R) MN for PRESIDENT. She isn't running, but I'm drafting her to my fantasy league nonetheless

If you follow this link ACU , it will take you to the American Conservative Union's page covering the 2010 CPAC (cpac being the ACU's annual conference). If you want a "feel" for where the conservative agenda is, the struggle between the Tea Party acolytes and the old guard of the GOP, and just flat out be inspired by seeing there are actually elected officials and public faces that "get it", then this site is a must. It lists access to all of the speeches this year, 2 of which I would heavily emphasize - Bachmann's & Beck's (and as an honorable mention, Mike Pence of Indiana (whom quipped on being the "party of no" - 'No' is very underrated in this town).

Now, it certainly isn't because of this one speech that I'm backing Bacmann. I've been tracking her as she pops up on the national scene for over a year now. She is a fearless, rock solid constitutionalist. And has earned the singular distinction of Nancy Pelosi's top target for defeat in 2010. And although this election cycle promises to be heavily favorable for the out Party, in Minnesota being a conservative, a real conservative, means your reelection is never fait accompli.

At any rate, check it out if you have the time, or even if you don't. I was all set to "text" this entire spiel, but have been as of late encouraged to address as many rants as is possible here. To be honest I'm just glad to get confirmation that each of my cellular messages are actually read, for I wouldn't know this by the response ... *ahem.*

And by the way, I'll address this Keynesian dust up soon enough ...

I prefer a fundamental RESTORATION ...

... as opposed to a "fundamental transformation" of America, as the president has long been promising.

Today he released his health care plan and he is so stoked, so proud, so anxious to tie his name to it that he did a live ... Internet release ... in text format. Read: he put it on his website. Quite the PR endorsement of his signature legislation, wouldn't you say? Among other things it would use 1 Trillion dollars to insure 31 million Americans. Would someone please do the quick math on that? What is $1 Trillion into 30 mil? Could we not make each of America's uninsured targeted in this bill a millionaire several times over if we used half that amount and cut them a one time direct check? It would also seek to give the government the power to "cap" insurance rates of private insurers. The American electorate gets what is going on here - an attempt to destroy private insurance and move to a single payer system, it's madness. The people smell this central planning a mile away and are saying "no." But if he wants to slap the ass of his party as that herd mulls around the edge of a cliff, then so be it ... we'll see you in November Mr. President.

Now ... as to what spurred my blog post today. I will trade all of em.' Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Medved, Bennett, and on and on and on for this guy.

12 times Ronald Reagan gave the key note address to CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Coonference. If there is an ideological "heart and soul" to the base of the GOP, the CPAC gathering is it (although I'd argue they now share that distinction with the Tea Party). And this year its' key note was given by Glenn Beck.

Now don't be mistaken - I don't say this because I suddenly find Limbaugh et al "bombastic", or "full of it," or because I disagree with them on a day to day basis; but rather because their national political discussion is only an inch deep in comparison. And as you move to the mainstream press that measurement amongst talking heads only grows more shallow from there. Whereas Beck is bone deep ... or dare I say "Bund deep." You can view the speech here: Key Note , and I strongly urge that you do. Interestingly the majority of his criticisms are coming from traditional GOP faces. MSNBC and the like chose not even to cover it. Between those 2 facts I'd say he struck the same chord of intense energy currently echoing throughout the American political lexicon via the Tea Parties.

There is a reason Beck's radio ratings are beginning to mimic Rush's (the Carson of A.M. talk). And Glenn's TV ratings are challenging O'Reily's. Now why am I promoting this gentleman? BECAUSE - finally we have a "talker" whose arguments are steeped in US history, and not to mention funnier then John Stewart at times. I am heartened. My countrymen "get it." His ratings, which are higher than all nightly network news broadcasts COMBINED, mean America is no longer asleep at the wheel and they are embracing the study of HISTORY as their guide to the future ... to restoring the nation rather then transforming it.

Combine this with the Tea Party movement and we could be looking at a pivot point in American history. And I say this not because Beck or the Tea Party have made this pivot possible, but rather because an awakened American people have made Beck and the Tea Party possible.

Alexander M. Haig

Alexander Haig is dead at age 87. This man was "old school" and can be called nothing if not a real American hero.

Now, before Ryan or anyone else has a chance to call me "revisionist" in my opinion based on past criticisms of Haig, I will say that I think he has said some pretty dumb things over his 50+ years of public service... but this man's career clearly shows he was a hero and a patriot first, and a "dumby" second.

Exemplary service record in Korea on MacArthur's staff, and a battery of medals and awards while serving with the "Big Red One" in Vietnam (including the Distinguished Service Cross, a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart) show the man was a real soldier. He earned four stars and served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He had a key position on the White House staffs of four US Presidents, and earned Master's Degrees from both Columbia Business (MBA) and Georgetown (International Relations) universities.

His confusion as to the order by which Presidential succession is followed was more hype than reality, though, and his biggest mistake during the Reagan assassination attempt was to offer any reassurance at all. His role with Reagan's Cabinet was SoS... but I think his background in command and control made him flash back to his role as Chief of Staff and that was what prompted him to claim that he was "in control" after Reagan was shot and Bush was out of the country.

He gets a lot of flack from his time as Nixon's Chief of Staff, but seeing as how he took the job AFTER Halderman was forced to resign, I can't simply assume Haig was in the Watergate "loop" can I? He did his job, clearly to the best of his abilities, and served his President well. Well enough, in fact, to get left in his position for the initial phases of the Ford Administration, too.

I was really not a fan of his '88 run for the GOP nomination. I clearly recall his reference to Bush as a "wimp" during that debate in '87... and I am convinced that this is what cost him the nomination. There is no clearer example of someone who was far too much in the habit of speaking his mind rather than saying what needed to be said... and that is death to a politician in the modern era.

I don't think he would have made a good CIC... but he made a damn fine General, and he left a record of national service that is a model for future generations to admire.

Rest in peace, General.

Another comment from the peanut gallery...

I can't find what post the comment was connected to, but it made me giggle. Seems that an anonymous reader isn't all that interested in our topics of discussion, but finds the TITLES interesting enough to get him to read the posts.

At least we're doing something right...

Phone texting...

It never ceases to amaze me how much Ryan loves to text. I enjoy getting them, and it is a quick and (relatively) easy way to keep in touch and share the latest news... and he uses it to get my head turning very often, which is a good thing. I'm just not coordinated enough to respond with the lightning speed that my children are so able to employ on the phone I have now, so many of Ryan's text rants go unanswered by me (although all get read, I promise you that).

However, if Ryan put even half the energy into posting on this site that he does into texting his views and opinions, we'd be a lot busier here on the Bund.

So, he sends me a text last night (or yesterday, as I am not in the habit of carrying that damn phone with me everywhere I go) about something I wrote concerning my perception that Reagan employed Keynesian economic planning to help bring the US out of the recession started during the Carter years and helped push the US into the "boom" years of the '90s. The gist of the text was that Reagan didn't use Keynes strategies at all, because Reagan only "deficit spent" on military expenditures that directly confronted an external foreign threat (i.e. the USSR).

This leads me to believe that Ryan thinks Keynes entire economic theory is based on the premise that a national government must deficit spend to successfully manage an economy. This simply isn't true.

To put it as simply as I possibly can, Keynes promoted the idea that when a nation faced a booming economic climate, the government should work from a balanced budget, with that balance coming either from a moderate hike in taxes or a smaller budget. When that same government faces a tightening economy, then the tax rate should be lowered and the government should be allowed to deficit spend to continue functioning. This premise is based on the conviction that the burden of revenue should never act as a "brake" on economic recovery in tough financial times.

There is no historical figure from American politics more associated with Keynesian economic than FDR... but I want it clearly understood that this is NOT TRUE! FDR and the New Deal policies only followed HALF of Keynes formula (spending money we didn't have) while ignoring the rest of his ideas (lowering taxes to keep money in the hands of consumers like you and I). This method of economic planning was followed by every American administration after FDR until 1981.

The first (and only, to date) American President that followed Keynes ideas correctly and successfully was Ronald Reagan. He did this by recognizing that the American economy was in a very bad place, and he lowered taxes and allowed the Federal government to operate "in the red" where necessary, knowing that the economic turn-around that would come would allow for future balanced budgets and a reduction of the national debt.

I can't stress this enough... both Carter and Reagan signed budgets that were far above what the Federal government was bringing in with revenue (meaning deficit budgets). The ONLY significant difference between the two was that Carter RAISED taxes and Reagan LOWERED them. That is why Carter's administration was unable to fix the recessions that started under the Nixon-Ford years through an entire four-year term, while Reagan was able to show marked and measurable improvement in less than 18 months.

So, Ryan... please stop giving me all these 200-character essays explaining why Reagan's deficit spending on programs and departments that focused on external or foreign threats means that his administration wasn't following a Keynesian economic patterns. The point isn't that he was fighting a cold war to defeat the godless Communists and their Evil Empire, because technically every President since FDR was doing the same thing whether they admitted it or not. Reagan WAS fighting that cold war, and he WON that cold war because he changed the paradigm by which all previous administrations had acted before his.

I am utterly convinced that Reagan's unquestionable economic success domestically is due entirely to his clear understanding of what Keynes said, and his ability to get that understanding into a functioning government budget. He lowered taxes, increased Federal revenue, and where he felt he could better spend funds already allocated, he did so by cutting spending in one area and moving it to another. The most glaring examples would be his massive cuts to the Depts of Education, Agriculture and Interior and his increased spending in DoD and national security facets (CIA, NSA, etc).

The flaw in the argument that Reagan didn't utilize Keynesian theory in his budget proposals and actions is two-fold. First of all, it is patently UNTRUE, as I think I have demonstrated time and time again. Secondly, the modern perception of "Keynesian economics" means that the term is automatically associated with liberal or progressive government policy that demands "out-of-the-black-and-into-the-red" spending at every level of government through massive work projects or huge government entitlement programs, which simply isn't the case.

I feel that Reagan's success is ample evidence that I am correct in that opinion.

Russia... again

I can't help but think that I am being proven right about my concerns with the "new" Russian attitudes about their military and foreign policies.

Russia has announced that their entire military establishment will be fully re-armed with the latest in military hardware and technology by 2020. Last month, they announced a reformed national military doctrine which outlined in very clear terms that ALL military and security options would remain open to them, should the Kremlin determine those options in the country's best interests (an eye-opening read, let me tell you).

Since 2005, the percentage of front-line contract soldiers within the Russian Ground Forces has reached more then 70%, and all rapid deployment regiments and battalions are now 100% contract (meaning non-conscript) soldiers. Conscription terms are now limited to 12 months (down from 36 months under the Soviets), and are to be phased out completely by 2020. Pay increases of more than 65% have been implemented since 1999, making a career in the Russian military a far more promising prospect than it ever was under Soviet rule. That puts enlisted pay per month at more than $2,700 and officer's pay at more than $4,200 per month... very nearly on-par with our pay grades, wouldn't you say?

The Russians have a new series of Kalashnikov rifles (the AK-10x series in all its variations) which is a combination of the NATO 5.56 caliber round with the proven reliability of the Kalashnikov design, meaning a lighter, more dependable round in a lighter, just-as-dependable rifle. This will be the standard issue rifle for Russian forces by 2020, replacing the AK-74 series. They are issuing a new sidearm, the MP-443 "Gratch" which can fire 9mm Parabellum OR 9mm NATO rounds at will (very nice feature, I think).

They have a new HMMWV (Humvee) of their own, the GAZ-2975... every bit as versatile as our own, but with nearly twice the armour and 20% more cargo room. They plan to have tripled their stocks of T-90 MBTs by 2015, with the latest variants in all front-line units by the end of 2012. I've already written about the increased naval procurements from both foreign and domestic sources, and Russian aviation advances are progressing at breakneck speeds (pardon the pun).

I remember making my warnings about this development when Bush was still firmly in the White House, and fearing that no one would take this situation seriously... but now that Obama has the reigns, things can only get worse. I say this because of what is clearly written in the "new" military doctrine link I posted above. If you haven't read it... do so now. Russia is PLANNING on the biggest threat coming from "encroaching NATO influence on Russian territory", and with former Soviet republics like the Baltic States now full-fledged members of NATO, this should not be ignored.

More on the Laffer Curve...

We have a follower called Orphe who provided a link to a video site from the Cato Institute detailing the reasoning behind the Laffer Curve, and he asked that we post the video and comment on the content.

The videos can be seen HERE.

While no one can accuse me of being a Libertarian, I can empathize with their points and see that there conservative position is based on solid, historical facts centered around the founding principles of our nation. However, the facts surrounding the Laffer Curve are irrefutable and move far beyond simple party politics, so the actual affiliation of the creative minds behind the videos is secondary to the primary message that is being presented... higher taxes only result in lower revenue over time.

They use examples from outside the US as well as historical examples from our own economic past... the mini-recession of '91 after the Bush "Read My Lips" tax hike, the Celtic Tiger boom stemming from a reduction in the corporate tax rate of Ireland which went from 50% to 12.5% while the revenues went up 300% and the GDP tripled in 9 years, and Russia's adoption of a national flat tax and how they have more than tripled their revenues from their progressive Soviet past.

Definitely worth watching, but I am not sure there will be much debate here about the merits of the information... all here know and understand the importance of the Laffer Curve. I was actually MORE impressed that the makers of these films took the time to present real OBJECTIVE information... clearly showing examples of when the Curve does not apply, and how those situations can also effect a national economy or why they would be desirable to implement. They avoid using the label, but there is no question in my mind that what they are explaining is basic Keynesian economics, Reagan-style.

It worked once, so who's to argue?

Oh well...

So much for my hopes that the Tea Party would dodge the status quo and avoid fielding candidates under their own names. Seems they have a name picked out for a run at Harry Reid's NV seat.

Is the name "F Ryan"?

Hehe...

"Where is the Rebel base?"

Tomorrow is the big "punch" the Iranian government has promised to deliver the West. It's to "celebrate" the 31st anniversary of the revolution.

You know, if our president had the slightest relationship with history, its' grand strides, causes, and in particular the way in which the United States has served as a cause for good and liberation in this world, especially throughout the 20th Century regarding evil empires the world over, he would don a green tie tomorrow morning and hold a press conference. He would state in the clearest of terms that WE stand with the Iranian rebels, refuseniks and protesters. That WE are "all Iranians today" as WE mark in protest the day their government marks in triumph. And then he would go about obstensively conducting a cold war against that regime in a fashion similar to Reagan. Were he to make the internal liberation of Iran the grand cause of his term the way Ronnie did versus the Soviets he could very well secure his place in history among those presidents whose name is elevated to the status of noble.

But he won't. Opportunity is often missed because it shows up wearing overalls and looks like work. And he is to busy in his quest to "fundamentally transform" America to bother with transforming Iran.

{sigh}

A conundrum...

As recently as Dec of last year, I posted a note about the Russians selling Soviet-era warships to emerging regional powers like India (HERE, for example) and gaining several advantages from the deal, not the least of which is cold hard CASH.

Today, I read an article about the proposed sale of a Mistral-class naval vessel by the French to the Russians. This article wasn't front page material, mind you... it was buried within a list of 479 other articles on recent European economic stories. Now, follow the above link and read the details about this particular class of warship. 45 day cruising ability, with the capacity to transport one-half of an entire heavy regiment of infantry and one-third of a regiment of tanks AND all the command and control features found in American "flag ships" today. In short, the ENTIRE Georgian intervention that gained so much press time last year by the Russians could have been conducted and controlled by ONE of these ships, which would then be next to impervious to counter attacks.

Perhaps you remember that France renewed its full member status in NATO in April of 2009. It has now agreed (for the second time) to allow its military forces and facilities to be utilized by the NATO Command for the mutual defense of Europe and the member states. This is the conundrum I spoke of in the post title: Is this sale of state-of-the-art naval technology to the Russians counter-productive to the goals and objectives of a NATO member?

I'm a huge fan of treaty obligations never being allowed to compromise national sovereignty, whether that sovereignty is US or anyone else. Part of me wants to say that if France is producing a "product" that they can profit by through selling to "partner states" (and Russia is a trading partner with the French), then it is their sovereign right to be able to do so.

I'm also perfectly aware of what the Russians/Soviets are so very VERY good at doing... reverse engineering technology for their own gains. Let me give you an example:

In 1945, Truman was pressured by the Soviets to turn over a regiment of B-29 Super Fortress bombers through the Lend-Lease Act... but Truman refused to do so because the B-29 represented the pinnacle of aviation technology at the time. However, three B-29s had been forced to make emergency landings in Soviet territory late in '44 and early in '45... and the Soviets kept the planes for themselves.

The result? The Tu-4 "Bull" bomber, which almost immediately spawned the Tu-85/95 "Bear" bomber... which is STILL in service today and constitutes the pinnacle of Russian long-range bomber/reconnaissance technology. From only three examples, the Soviets countered the threat that the B-29 presented to the USSR and bridged the gap between the US and USSR strategic aviation capabilities for the next 40 years.

My point in all of this is that the Russians are selling off the "old" (but perfectly serviceable) Soviet surplus for cash and are "buying" the latest and greatest technology from the "west"... even from NATO members themselves! I don't have to restate my opinion on the long-term goals of Russia, and especially the Putin-Medvedev partnership in the Kremlin, do I? They want their "super power" status back in a big way.

My questions is: Is it wrong for France (or anyone else) to help in that effort by selling them platforms and technology that can help Russia reach those goals?

For every paper towel you ring out & reuse ...

... I'm going to use 2! I'm also going to transport my groceries back home in my F150, one bag at a time. And I vow to flush the toilet twice, after number 1 !!! That's my pledge to the Green Evangelicals, their Pope AlGorian II, and their Messiah President Barak Hussein Obama.

Let me just say, if I didn't have this blog to vent I'd go crazy, become an alcoholic, or rejoin my ex wife - triple redundancy.

In the midst of a huge snow storm blanketing the Eastern US, Obama's genius knows no bounds ... this from Fox News online:

The Obama administration is proposing that a new agency – known as the Climate Service – be created within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to study climate change. This comes on the heels of President Obama's decision to ditch NASA’s manned space program in favor of more climate monitoring programs, and growing skepticism about climate change research being done in the U.K, at the U.N. and in the U.S.

First off, if this doesn't prove the Democrat Party is no longer the Party of JFK, I don't know what does. Why not disband the Peace Corps while you're at it? My guess is Obama walked through his children's room while Star Wars was playing, heard the phrase "Imperial Craft" and his Saul Alinsky Rorschach kicked in ... at any rate ...

The added sweet news is the President has directed resources at CIA, let me repeat that: C-I-A, to study the effects of climate change on national security. Mother #$#!!&%*&$^#!!!! Are you kidding me? At this point I'm soliciting foreign language expletives from any overseas readers so as to help me properly describe my feelings. Lets put aside the idea that we are in 2 wars for a second, shall we? And perhaps the fact that Jihadi's the world over are looking to eviscerate our very existence. Doesn't good old fashioned pride kick in when competing with the Russian Security Service? There has to be some CIA chiefs out there that cut their teeth on the Cold War thinking directives meant for NOAA got mixed up with theirs. Putin's got to be murmuring over his Vodka: "how the hell did we lose to these guys?" Oy ... I think perhaps we are heading towards the future in that Audi Super Bowl commercial faster then we'd like to admit.

Lastly the President, in an attempt to make good on his health care debate televised on C-SPAN campaign promise, is inviting the GOP to another open forum "debate", this time issue specific - health care reform. Of course that wasn't the promise, the real debate on the actual bill is what he swore to. At any rate I'm sure the GOP will attend but I don't know how one makes any progress when one side (the president) has already declared flatly that he is not starting over. We will see ... its set for 2/25 I believe.

"So Washington DC is covered in snow. There's a blizzard, two feet this week alone. So its true ... the Saints won the Super Bowl when Hell froze over." -Jay Leno

Nice Pun-t ...

... ok, that one hurt.

I am of the opinion that were the Tea Party to go Third Party and field a candidate of their own they would be doomed to fail. Within our 2 Party system, lets say post-Whig or so, the most effective route to influencing national politics has come in the form of organized issues driven groups whose support, admiration, or flat out endorsement are sought. Consider this - would the AFL-CIO have greater influence or less were they to field a "Union Candidate" in the presidential election versus simply endorsing a candidate? Or the women's/minority Suffrage movement? The Tea Party, if they remain true to their current heading, will find GOP pretenders to the throne lining up around the proverbial corner to kiss their rings if they remain issues oriented and field support, versus candidates. You could see a scenario where candidates refer to themselves as a "Tea Party Republican", or dare I say "Tea Party Democrat" in some blue dog districts. If instead there is an actual "Tea Party Candidate", the movement is doomed.

And no matter how you slice it, Jesse Ventura is one of the most bone-headed individuals I have ever witness discuss the issues of our time (or any era for that matter). He's hosting a "conspiracy theories unraveled" oriented program on cable now. Because, "I've been on the inside" as he puts it. Oy vey. Look, you were a Navy Seal, kudos. But you were also in the WWF, so lets slow down with the pontificating there biff.

We asked for it ...

... and according to the buzz inside of the "conservative intelligentsia" (the likes of Bill Bennett et al) it is here. We have been clamoring for a new contract with America, and Congressman Paul Ryan (R) WI, a rising start in the GOP, a man of faith, of conservative values and an uncharacteristically (for politicians anyway) understanding of government budget policy and economics is its' primary author.

It is entitled "A Road Map For America's Future", and you can find it HERE. I haven't investigated it especially thoroughly yet but as far as I can tell "The Road Map" is precisely the type of overarching putting policy to principle "theme" the Tea Party would seek to endorse rather then an individual candidate.

OH! - and how bout dem' Saints!

Two point conversation...

Sorry... couldn't pass up the football pun.

First point: Congratulations goes out to the World Champion New Orleans Saints! I think that was one of the most exciting Superbowls I have seen in a long time, and I'm glad as hell that the Saints get to carry that trophy back into the city that has waited so long for it. I know everyone here at the Bund was watching (as best they could) the game, and my only comment on the event is that I think the better team won... not because of mistakes made or opportunities missed by the Colts, but because the Saints were playing to win while the Colts were trying not to lose.

My second point: El Casa Grande, a follower of our blog, made a comment about my last post that I wanted to comment on further, and I have chosen to bring the comment out of the hidden nether-world of our blog and put it front-and-center for comment and review by all. Shamelessly hoping for more participation from the "peanut gallery" has nothing to do with this decision, I assure you.

El Casa Grande writes: "When Jesse Ventura won the governor's race here in 1998, he was expected to take votes from the Republican candidate, Norm Coleman. Instead, the Iron Range, which usually votes largely for the Democrats because of the large unionized work force, voted heavily for Jesse, thus leaving Coleman pretty close to pre-election projections. However, Ventura, projected third, won the race with Skip Humphrey finishing third."

I agree 100% that a third party campaign can have an impact, and even win, an executive race in the modern era, as both Ventura's '98 campaign and Perot's '92 campaign show very clearly. However, Minnesota has an almost unique dynamic in that the Minnesota voting block has a built-in third party in the Democratic Farm-Labor Party (the famous DFL Party). Let's compare the '92 presidential election with the '98 governor's race, and see what happens.

In '92, we saw the Reform Party take 24.1% of the popular vote, and nearly 43% of the "conservative" vote, away from Bush Sr. Had everyone who voted for Perot voted instead for Bush Sr., the GOP would have carried MN in '92 by more than 20 points (my source is HERE). There is no guaranty that the Perot supporters would have automatically supported Bush, but as I said in my last post, I feel Perot was a "progressive" more than he was a "conservative" as it is defined today by the likes of Ryan, et al. It is my opinion that Clinton WAS NOT the first choice of typical "DFLers" in MN because he wasn't socially conservative enough for their tastes, and that many of them were drawn to Perot because of it. Yes, the DFL officially endorsed Clinton, but I still think that Perot did as well as he did because Clinton wasn't selling himself to the typical mid-western sensibility at all. He was an elitist... and mid-westerners don't like elitists.

Ventura's win in '98 stems from the same dissatisfaction with the DNC that I think many middle-aged and older DFLers have. It's not the ONLY reason, mind you... I think Coleman has run two of the worst campaigns in history, one in '98 for governor and one in '08 for Senator... but it is a big factor. Minnesotans are not socialists and commies... they are rural, small-town farmers and factory workers and YES union members who know all-too-well what extra deductions from their paychecks mean to their bottom line. Minnesota, like other traditionally "blue" mid-western States like WI, IL, SD and MI, may currently hold a very "progressive" mind-set, but they are NOT as far left as CA or NY or MA when it comes to political views and party support. The State is TOO rural for that kind of "Left Coast" mentality to take over... for now, anyway.

My point is simply that I think that there is a deep-rooted sense of separation between the "average Joe" and the DNC, and the Dems are doing NOTHING to address this kind of separation that could very easily remove them from their majority status within the next 4 to 6 years.

Everything I said about the Tea Party can ALSO be said about the DFL... they are not a party of iconic, wildly-popular party leadership and ultra-recognizable candidates. They are a party (right now, anyway) of issues and concerns that they take to the DNC and determine to be "addressed" in the general platform of the Party Convention, or they can field their own candidate. In fact, the DFL has even had a Vice President in the famous "Hube" Humphries who won alongside LBJ in '65 to '69.

So, to your point, El Casa... yes, the Reform Party's record in MN is a good example of third party success because of the Ventura win in '98. I simply think it is a BETTER example of issue-driven party efforts in the example given by the DFL's efforts since 1945.

Ahmedadenajad - is that 3 "E"s or 2?

I mean can I buy a vowel here or what?

I think you have NAILED the agenda of the Tea Party. Issues oriented, decentralized leadership (at least in terms of no camera hogs / well-known faces) all in an effort to advance down the most logical path in American politics post 1800 - force the 2 parties to address your issues.

Sarah Palin, whose speech at the TN convention I watched on Fox, was very aware that the mainstream press and casual observers could deem here the "leader"; so in an effort to avoid that she several times went out of her way to point out, "this is a movement of issues we care deeply about, not leaders."

My favorite line was: "The Obama, Pelosi, Reid agenda is going to leave us less safe, in more debt and under the thumb of big government. That is out of touch, out of date, and if Scott Brown is any indication, running out of time."

Fun to watch indeed ... maybe even more fun to join!

And not to alarm anybody, but the 11th of February is just days away - this being the promised date that Ahmedadenajad says Iran will deliver a death blow to the West. In a completely unrelated story today news broke that the Iranian government has ordered their nuclear apparatus to enrich Uranium at a much higher grade. The Brits say it is a clear violation of UN resolutions. I think Israel is rapidly reaching a point of no return - this isn't a theoretical exercise to them.

I'm going to enjoy this...

I'm looking forward to watching as the Tea Party develops its position in American politics. As a fan of history I know that "third party" organizations have a terrible track record, and are far more prone to hurt the agendas of their similar "mainstream" parties than help them, but there is just the chance that this one will be different.

Every third party effort ever made in this country since the 1890s has failed to put its candidate in the White House, and in most cases has resulted in large victories for their opposite number across the political aisle (as did Perot in '92 and Roosevelt in '12). That's not to say that third parties don't always run anyway... but when they gain a large up-swell in popular support, they tend to detract from the mainstream more than forward their own agendas. In fact, there aren't even that many instances where candidates from third parties have won executive elections at a lower, more local level, either. Ventura's win in MN in '98 as a Reform Party candidate is an exception, as is Frank Zeidler, the only Socialist Party member to win an executive position in a major metropolitan area and the only Socialist Mayor of Milwaulkee, WI for three terms.

What I find fascinating is the seeming intention of this "party" to avoid centralized leadership and to instead focus efforts on making issues important to the party plainly visible to the public AND to candidates from the traditional parties. There is merit and opportunity with this sort of plan, I think.

Imagine the Tea Party having no more of a following than the Reform Party has ever had (historically speaking, less than 10% of the "conservative" vote), but rather than finding someone that those 10% can agree on as the best choice for candidate and knowing that this candidate will take votes away from the traditional party candidate (again, '92 is a great example), what if this third party simply forced the GOP candidate to address issues during his/her campaign that the Tea Party has made a priority for their endorsement? This doesn't detract from the GOP campaign by dividing the voting base, but rather forces the larger GOP convention to address issues that are deemed vital for the support of the Tea Party members. If the GOP wants the support of the 10% of conservative voters that agree with the Tea Party positions, then they'll have to field a candidate that they can support... its as simple as that.

Ross Perot was a progressive candidate with a keen (and probably functioning) understanding of Keynesian economic models and the applicability of the Laffer curve in government budget planning... but he wasn't a "conservative" when it came to foreign policy or national defense. Any Libertarian candidate that you care to point to loses conservative support when the issues of drug law enforcement and national security are raised. Constitutional Party candidates are nothing more than Christians who want the US to be a Christian-first (or Christian-only) nation, and are not traditionally conservative at all outside of abortion and strict drug control. In short, the Bob Barrs, Cindy McKinneys, Ralph Naders and Alan Keyes do nothing more than detract from the candidates of the traditional parties and do very little to forward the platforms of their respective parties.

How much more of an impact would a partyhave if, instead of spending millions of dollars on getting a candidates name/face into the mainstream American press, they spent their millions of dollars on getting the ISSUES into the mainstream American press so that the two traditional parties were FORCED to address them, item by item?

Well, since I can't text the world ...

You can watch the entire 1:48 sec clip HERE.

But the part of the Mayor's quote I like best, which I text Titus: "... and I can assure you when he comes to visit here [next month], I will do my best to give him the boot back to Washington. Let him visit his failures in DC."

And by the way - several left wing economists are championing the Obama economic policy as "Keynesian Economics." And it occurred to me that the President will do more to discredit that name then 10,000 of my anti-New Deal posts ... hehe.

The "Tea Party"?

Am I witnessing history being made here? Are the very vocal but still rather small organizations around the nation that have organized and promoted the various "tea parties" and town-hall meetings actually be coming together to form a NEW third party in American politics?

Seems that a couple of thousand of these vocal conservatives have come together for a convention in the Nashville, TN area... and it is beginning to have an impact on Democratic planning for the 2010 and 2012 elections. I don't know much about it yet, mostly because the only real article I read about this convention was from the Washington Post and can hardly be considered objective in its nature... but it seems that this convention specifically avoided picking "leaders" so that the focus never shifted away from one group and onto another. In other words, no one set of issues or concerns are elevated above others by the very nature of "leadership" priorities. An interesting thought, that...

Much of the reporting seems to be on the "fractious nature" of the convention, because some of its initial supporters weren't given a prominent enough roll in the event... but this seems to be because the group as a whole doesn't want traditional structured leadership that might marginalize certain points and issues in favor of others (as stated above). This is the bias of the liberal media, in my opinion, and until I feel I have found objective views on the event, I am not going make any judgements.

Thoughts?

Sarcasm is so unbecoming...

Just kidding.

All good points, but the best point you made wasn't even posted. Ryan sent a text about the Mayor of Las Vegas, NV bashing Obama over failed policies and broken promises. When liberal Democratic Mayors decide its okay to mock the President of the United States (who is also the leader of their party), sarcasm is probably the easiest path to follow.

And the Dems call the GOP "splintered and divided" in the modern era?

shock and awe shucks ...

I agree about the malware beasts ... you bring the water, I'll bring the boards.

So Iran launched a rocket into outer space. That doesn't seem to concern the president, or the main stream press. Or frankly anyone as far as I can tell. I mean why should that worry us, or Israel? Ahmedadenajad is a puppy dog, harmless, great beard, it's going to look nice when it grows in. Oh, and just for kicks and giggles he has promised to "deal the West a crippling blow" on February 11th. I'm sure he's kidding ... he wont really occupy the Rhineland ... err ... I mean ... cripple the West.

Speaking of being malicious ... the NSA is teaming with Google to thwart cyber attacks, in stunning waves and scope, from China. The Pentagon has confirmed similar attacks on their servers from our cheap tennis shoe making brethren to the East. So in an awe inspiring act of strength and steel the Obama administration took a hard line and downgraded ... the threat level ... and spy searching ... for ... Chinese attackers. Forgive my stuttered speak, it's just this isn't exactly a confidence building reaction. I'm sure it'll be fine though. Obama will give a stunning speech thus delivering a clear signal to our enemies: "Now let me be clear, what I have said is this is an extraordinary act, because we live in extraordinary times, and what I have said is we musn't return to the old way of doing business, that would be an extraordinary step, so let me be clear, I am extraordinary." Then chocolate covered skittles will fall from the sky while miniature postal workers in gnome clothing deliver pots of gold door to door.

So Pelosi says that quote, " ... we will get health care through the gate. If the gate's locked we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high we will pole vault in. If we can't pole vault we will parachute in, but we will get health care reform done for the American people this year." Uh huh. First off, the idea that the madam would "pole vault" anywhere, under any circumstances, is enough to trigger my gag reflex ... but did she ever consider that the gate was locked and fence built BY THE VERY AMERICAN PEOPLE SHE CLAIMS TO BE DOING THIS FOR????? God give me strength these people are officially causing blood to squirt from my eyes! That's fine though, keep slapping those Dem horses right on the ass 5 feet from the edge of the cliff ... the Ides of March comes November this year.

Well that's my round up this week ... it didn't really take that long, I must of saved or created millions of minutes in time. And don't worry. We can all take comfort that the malware designers will, in the next life, be dealt a more harsh and punishing brand of justice than we could possibly render here . . . . they'll be married to my ex wife.

Fixed

Word to the wise... if your current anti-virus software doesn't protect against "malware" attacks, get yourself something that does.

My wonderful wife Liz managed to clean up my machine and remove the "security alert" attack that was crippling my computer, and it took her the better part of two days. This thing was insidious, I'm telling you! It wouldn't let anything else run, and kept blocking each and every operation due to "infected files" that it was creating itself. It was constantly asking for credit card information to update non-existant protection, and every time you canceled the requesting window, another popped up.

So, like I said... get the malware protection or get yourself a Liz. The malware is cheaper, but no where near as funny to watch clean in the morning.