And that's the way it is Today ............

I was yet to come to this country but, even so, this interview made the BBC evening news however the aftermath didn’t.

Responding to Cronkite's reporting from Vietnam four decades ago that the only way to end the war was by negotiating with the North Vietnamese, President Lyndon Johnson was reported (though never confirmed) to have said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."

Obama may have experienced his Walter Cronkite moment over the economy.

Now Obama appears to have "lost" New York Times liberal economic columnist Paul Krugman. Krugman, who enthusiastically supported the president's redistributionist and stimulus plans, has bowed to the reality that they are not working.

In a recent column titled "This is Not a Recovery," Krugman took issue with the president and Vice President Joe Biden that we have experienced a summer of economic recovery. "Unfortunately, that's not true," he wrote. "This isn't a recovery, in any sense that matters. And policymakers should be doing everything they can to change that fact."

Krugman asked an essential question: "Why are people who know better sugarcoating economic reality? The answer, I'm sorry to say, is that it's all about evading responsibility."

It is that, and more. The administration is so locked into its left-wing, "tax, borrow and spend" ideology that it has become like someone trapped in a cult: unable to escape and endlessly repeating the same mantra.

In a speech last week to central bankers and economists in Jackson Hole, Wyoming., Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged that the economy is fragile, especially in light of the government's latest report, which showed the weakest quarterly growth in a year. He added that high unemployment poses a serious threat.

Still, Bernanke tried to sound optimistic by forecasting some pickup in growth in 2011 and beyond.

Optimism not based on reality is false hope based on wishful thinking. One might as well ask a high-performance engine to run at peak level after several of its cylinders have been disabled. It is impossible, no matter how shiny the paint job.

An economy burdened down with debt because of too much government spending, a health care law that will add new and unknown burdens, expiring tax cuts that will take more money from the private sector for government to waste and abuse, and a stock market unsure and thus unable to fuel the economic engine to propel us out of this recession, is not a "summer of recovery," but a winter of discontent.

The solution is not a "Star Trek" approach in which we must go where no one has gone before. We know what works and what must be done.

Social Security and Medicare must be reformed; government programs that have failed, or are obsolete, should be scrapped; military spending designed to enhance re-election prospects for some members of Congress, while doing nothing to improve the military, must be ended, and people should be asked to return to the attitude of previous generations that all of us, including government, must live within our means.

Writing in U.S. News & World Report, publisher Mort Zuckerman takes the Krugman view a step further by calling the administration he once supported "The Most Fiscally Irresponsible Government in U.S. History."

Zuckerman writes: "People see the stimulus, fashioned and passed by Congress in such a hurry, as a metaphor for wasted money. They are highly critical about the lack of discipline among our political leaders. The question that naturally arises is how to forestall a long-term economic decline."

The answer is for the Republicans, so eager and so likely to regain power in the House and possibly the Senate in the coming election, to expose the administration's sugarcoating of reality and get out the bad-tasting medicine. The good news is that by swallowing fiscal responsibility, we will all be better off in the end.

But can Republicans withstand and prevail over the Democratic demagoguery that will predictably be heaped on them? They'd better, or they don't deserve to lead.

As Walter Cronkite used to say, "That's the way it is."

T'was the Night after Christmas ...

In just 4 months, on January 1, 2011, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. And they will hit families and small businesses in three great waves.

On January 1, 2011, here's what happens...

First Wave:

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011.

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise and the full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

• The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
• The 25% bracket rises to 28%
• The 28% bracket rises to 31%
• The 33% bracket rises to 36%
• The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

Then there’s the return of the Death Tax. This year only, there is no death tax. (It's a quirk!) For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes, a business and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Think of the farmers who don't make much money, but their land, which they purchased years ago with after-tax dollars, is now worth a lot of money. Their children will have to sell the farm, which may be their livelihood, just to pay the estate tax if they don't have the cash sitting around to pay the tax.

Think about your own family's assets. Maybe your family owns real estate, or a business that doesn't make much money, but the building and equipment are worth $1 million. Upon their death, you can inherit the $1 million business tax free, but if they own a home, stock, cash worth $500K on top of the $1 million business, then you will owe the government $275,000 cash! That's 55% of the value of the assets over $1 million! Do you have that kind of cash sitting around waiting to pay the estate tax?

Higher tax rates on savers and investors will come into effect as the Capital Gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave:

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The "Medicine Cabinet Tax" as thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

Then there is the "Special Needs Kids Tax". This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.

There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States , and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.

Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. ( National Child Research Center ) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.

Under tax rules, FSA dollars cannot be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA (Health Savings Account) Withdrawal Tax hike increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave:

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and Employer Tax hikes will bring some nasty surprises when Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, -the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.

According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can currently expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated."

There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax credits for education will be limited and the deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed and the student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there.

And Obama and Congress are not through yet. One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort.

If you're retired? So what... your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take the tax form you filed last April and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year.

For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the15% that don't have it and it's only part of the tax increases.

Not believing this??? Here is a research of the summaries.....

On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

Now researching this last point on the Web reveals as many confirmatory references as it does denials but we'll soon see.

Note that all this stuff won't hit the fan until after the mid-term elections which I'm sure was mere serendipity. And it's as far away from the 2012 presidential battle as possible but, as I said, I'm sure that's purely coincidental.

Happy New Year!!

Mostly Stupid Network Broadcasters or MSNBC for short ..

Let me confess, MSNBC bugs me. That's simple enough on the surface ........

But the "why" is more complicated. Perhaps it's because it is the "little engine that couldn't" never has and never will. But it still huffs and puffs via little Chrissy and Olberman et al and pretends to be a valid voice whereas the reality is that it is far behind in the ratings and even trails CNN.

Little radio station KFYI in the Phoenix market gets a bigger audience but on Monday last, MSNBC outdid itself in pomposity.

One segment was dedicated to denouncing Sen. Mitch McConnell's response to a question about whether Obama is a Muslim. McConnell said: "We all have to rely on the word of (Barack Obama) -- something about as reliable as a credit default swap.

"No, I'm sorry, that's what The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan said about whether Trig Palin was really Sarah Palin's child.

McConnell responded by demanding that Obama be fired -- or at least have his security clearance suspended.

No, no -- wrong again: That was Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Chuck Schumer, respectively, not taking Karl Rove at his word when he said he had not released Valerie Plame's name to the press. (It turned out Rove was telling the truth; it was Richard Armitage, and it wasn't a crime.)

What McConnell actually said in response to the Muslim question was: "The president says he's a Christian. I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute."

Over at MSNBC, that's Republican code for: "He's a Muslim!"

North Korean TV's Ed Schultz hysterically babbled: "McConnell gave cover. That's what he did. He gave cover to all those low information voters out there who still believe this garbage about President Obama being a Muslim. ... The Republican leadership just loves to feed the fire."

Chris Matthews was so impressed with Schultz's nonsensical argument that he spent the entire hour on NKTV's "Hardball" making the same one: McConnell had expressed insufficient fervor when he said he believed Obama was a Christian! (Perhaps if McConnell had added something about a thrill running up his leg ...)

The statement "I take him at his word," Matthews said, was a "pitch-perfect dog whistle to the haters." He continued: "Yes, sure, whatever he says. Right. This is not about belief. It's an accusation that President Obama is not one of us. The right wing's attempt to de-Americanize the president."What else is there besides Obama's word? If Obama suddenly announced that he was a Muslim -- or a Buddhist -- what evidence would Matthews cite to prove him wrong?

Meanwhile, liberals absolutely refuse to take Republicans at their word when they identify their own children. Or deny leaking a low-level CIA functionary's name to the press. Or when they deny they are racists. Indeed, Matthews' guest, Howard Fineman of Newsweek, accused the entire state of Kentucky of bigotry to explain McConnell's "crafted" words.

Kentucky, Fineman said, is "a state where the nativist appeal outside of Louisville really works big-time." The Republicans, he said, are "going to use whatever fear message they can. It's aimed at Kentucky, for sure."I believe the Bluegrass state has just been called "nativist" without any evidence at all!

Was Kentucky's father a nativist? Was it educated in a nativist madrassa as a child? Did Kentucky just endorse the idea of a nativist cultural center at Ground Zero?

On the following night's "Hardball," Tuesday, Matthews and his guest, The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page, refused to take Glenn Beck at his word when he said that he picked the day for his Lincoln Memorial rally without realizing it was the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. (Everybody knows the 47th anniversary is the big one!)

Accusations of racism apparently do not require the ironclad proof demanded for accusations that someone is a Muslim. And there's a lot more evidence that Obama's a Muslim than Republicans are racists. Let's compare: Evidence for the Proposition That Obama's a Muslim: His father was a Muslim; his mother, an atheist, married two Muslims; he attended a Muslim school in Indonesia from age 6 to 10; and, during the campaign, he proudly posted on his webpage his statement that America is "no longer" a Christian nation, a statement he has repeated as president, while announcing on French TV that America is "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

Evidence for the Proposition That Republicans Are Racist: (Nothing so far.)

Evidence for the Proposition That Liberals Lie About Republicans Being Racist: Try this. Video of a supporter of Rand Paul's opponent pretending to be a racist Paul supporter; Oregon public school teacher Jason Levin caught operating a website asking liberals to show up at Tea Parties pretending to be right-wing racists; The New York Times' Maureen Dowd claiming she heard Rep. Joe Wilson shout, "You lie, boy!" when he shouted "You lie!" during Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress; and the mainstream media lying about civil rights hero John Lewis being called the N-word 15 times at an anti-ObamaCare protest, with no one ever being able to produce a videotape, despite a $100,000 reward.

If Republicans played by liberal rules, they'd just call Obama a racist, who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press, is not Sasha's father, and smokes Newports, not Kools.
　

Health, Death and Taxes

Yesterday marked the end for most of the primary elections across the country and now the surviving combatants can finally get around to savaging their opponents for office instead of just knifing their own party rivals. And they have just over 2 months to do it.

Whether Obama likes it or not, and he won’t, this General Election will not be just about the makeup of the House and Senate. It will be a referendum on him and his policies and his performance. Apart from spending trillions of dollars we don’t have and apart from appointing a whole raft of inexperienced and incompetent people to one office or another, he really has only one thing upon which to hang his hat.

And that one thing is ObamaCare which his congressional lackeys rammed through unread and which is seen by most thinking Americans as a disaster waiting in the wings. Now the GOP aren’t that stupid that they don’t read the tea leaves on this subject and so it is inevitable the issue will play a major role in the run-up to November 2.

Equally, the liberal strategists are not dumb either when it comes to clinging onto power. No, they reserve their stupidity in order to apply it in full to their policies when they do gain power.

And now we know how they plan to fight the inevitable. The message being drummed into liberal candidates around the country is “Improve’ health care, don’t talk cost” , but that is not wholly what is going on. What is going on is a recognition from the Democrats that after a year of trying to sell Obamacare as a panacea of right thinking and improvement, the voters headed to the polls in November disagree and are angry.

Consequently, the Democrats are abandoning all pretenses of selling Obamacare to the public and have cut and run back to “If you don’t replace us with the Republicans, we promise we will improve it.”

This strategy can only suggest that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, it is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal.

The presentation provided to liberal candidates nationwide concedes that groups typically supportive of Democratic causes — people under 40, non-college-educated women and Hispanic voters — have not been won over by the plan. Indeed, it stresses repeatedly that many are unaware that the legislation has passed, an astonishing shortcoming in the White House’s all-out communications effort.

Note just how bad it must be for the Democrats and their messaging if “many are unaware that Obamacare has passed.” This is consistent willful naivety by the Democrats. The public that will most likely vote does know Obamacare passed and they are mad as all get out because of it.

And the kicker — the revised talking points counsel that Democrats should avoid making the claim that Obamacare will reduce costs and cut the deficit.

In other words, the two main selling points are being tossed out the window.

And now it's time to start tossing out the perpetrators starting in just 69 days.

In Arizona it's Primary Day. For Democrats it's Taps

It was a good run for the Democrats, but all things must come to an end some day. I know, I know: it’s downright horrible for the American people to start expecting the political party that’s held Congress since 2006 and the White House since 2008 to actually take personal responsibility for the bad things happening to the economy.

But the Democrats will have to live with it, as the American people have started to assign more responsibility to Obama for the current economy than to Bush - at least, the Republican and Independent sections of the American people have, which is really the important thing these days.

And now I can see November 2 quite clearly despite that which Howard Dean thinks, and we all know how reliable are his political predictions, but it’s just 70 days away.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters now think Obama’s policies are to blame for the continuing bad economy, up three points from last month. Forty-seven percent (47%) say the recession that began under Bush is at fault.

There are, of course, many hidden victims here of this betrayal of the Democratic party by the people of the United States. No, really. I mean, think of all of those soon-to-be Democratic former Congressmen who have to hope that the lobbying industry can handle the sudden influx of new glad-handlers, parasites, and influence-peddlers that comes from a Congressional readjustment!

For that matter, think of those poor, poor staffers who next January will be facing the specter of having no job and no prospect of getting one - and in one of the more expensive metropolitan areas, to boot. Some of them may even have to move back in with their parents.

The horror.

In truth, I am somewhat surprised that things ended this quickly. But I couldn’t be happier but I will be on November 3.

Up to now, the standard operating procedure for the Democrats is that the last Republican President acts as their designated voodoo doll until such time as the next Republican President takes office.

That’s why Ronald Reagan went from a diabolical idiot savant in 1988 to the revered elder statesman of fond memory that Obama looked up to in 2008 campaign commercials, and how George Bush the Elder went from That Guy Who Lied Us Into A War With Iraq For Oil in 1993 to the wise elder statesman who knew better than his son.

And then there was that Guy Who Lied Us Into A War With Iraq For Oil in 2003.

It’s in the best interests of the Democrats to not have things go so south for their current ruling majority, so quickly. So what happened?

Oh, right, the President’s a purblind incompetent when it comes to actual politics.

I forgot.

A Smoking Gun? Or just smoldering?

The red text is merely there to highlight that which may be hard to read otherwise.

Well this story is getting more legs than I ever thought it would.

Frankly, I don’t care if Obama is Muslim, Christian, or a Bush Baptist and that does not refer to the ex-president. What I do care about is honesty and truth. So is he lying?

Well, he’s a politician. He’s a lawyer. He’s from Chicago. Three strikes count for something I'm told.

But from a story in today’s Washington Post headlined Poll shows more Americans think Obama is a Muslim:

The number of Americans who believe that President Obama is a Muslim has increased significantly since his inauguration and now accounts for 25 percent of the nation’s population.

Those results, from a new Pew Research Center survey, were drawn from interviews done before the president’s comments about the construction of an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, and they suggest that there could be serious political danger for the White House as the debate continues. We can but hope.

The president’s religion, like his place of birth, has been the subject of Internet-spread rumors since before he began his presidential campaign, and the poll indicates that those rumors have gained currency since Obama took office. The number of people who now identify Obama as a Christian has dropped to 34 percent, down from nearly half when he took office.

Wonder why that is?

What is illustrative about this story is that roughly the same number of people believe Obama is a muslim and was born outside the United States as believe a mosque should be built on Ground Zero and the US Government was behind 9/11 — too bad we can’t do a Venn Diagram here.

If the Post is puzzled as to why this should be the case, it need look no further than the flaccid, sycophantic coverage it has given Obama the Senator, Obama the Candidate, and Obama the President.

Lack of experience: ignored.

The sale of Obama’s senate seat: ignored.

Failure of Senator Obama’s subcommittee to hold hearings on Afghanistan: ignored.

Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn: ignored.

Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright: ignored.

Obama’s appointment of a pedophile as safe schools czar: ignored.

Obama’s appointment of an avowed commie and 9/11 Troofer as “green jobs czar”: ignored.

Obama's birth certificate: ignored.

I lump these all together for a reason because they are all stories the legacy media should have covered had they been as invested in doing their job as they were in promoting Obama’s candidacy. For those who pooh-pooh the idea that Obama’s birth origins warranted investigation I can only point out that the legacy media did cover the idea that John McCain’s birth in the US Canal Zone — to a US Naval officer and his American citizen wife — might exclude him from the Presidency.

If you’re saying that being crazy per se disqualifies an idea as worthy of investigation I present Exhibit A which proves conclusively that no idea is too crazy to be investigated: the aptly named Gary Sick’s October Surprise allegation.


Whenever an area of controversy has arisen concerning Obama it has been ignored by the press and anyone bringing up the subject demonized. This has had two effects. First, a lot of the nuttiness on this administration has been exposed by nontraditional media. Second, the refusal of the legacy media to investigate gives an aura of plausibility to just about any story circulating about the administration.

So while this lickspittle relationship the media has with Obama did enable him to win the presidency and it has enabled his egregious policies to escape public scrutiny, it has also created a climate where the media have sacrificed all credibility when it comes to dealing with negative stories about Obama.

I don’t know what Obama’s religion is and, as I said, I don’t much care. Obama’s quarter century in a front row seat in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s house of hate isn’t any more dispositive of his Christianity than W attending Matt Hale’s Church of the Creator but that doesn’t make him a muslim. If you’re predisposed to believe he is muslim, you will always fall back on the claim that he’s practicing taqiyya.

Personally, I think Obama believes in one thing and one thing only: that he should get what he wants. He sat through Wright’s racemongering Sabbath after Sabbath because it brought him influence. If he thought becoming a Buddhist would guarantee his election in 2012, we’d see him boarding Air Force One with a shaved head and wearing a saffron robe. He is his own monotheistic religion.

The illustration at the top of this story, though, indicates why this mysterious belief that Obama is a muslim not only persists, but is growing. It is a claim that warrants investigation if the Post sees fit to run a story decrying as a calumny that one in five Americans believe this to be the case. It is a view that isn’t going to go away simply because the media feel uncomfortable examining Obama’s religion.

Candidates from at least Jimmy Carter onwards have had their religious beliefs scrutinized by theological imbeciles in the media, why does Obama get a pass? He shouldn’t.
It wasn’t fair to the country that this and other allegations were ignored. And now, belatedly, the media are discovering that it wasn’t fair to either Obama or themselves.

With this particular president, the debate is over. Any story, no matter how ridiculous, will gain a substantial following because the media have sacrificed their credibility. Maybe in 2012, if we’re lucky, or 2016, if we’re not, the media will return to doing the job it claims it wants to do, to play a constructive role in our political process. They can do that by treating the candidates they like the same way they treat those they don't believe.

How much is a life worth?

Somewhere in Europe in 1450, a midwife slapped the bottom of a little boy who grew up to be known as Hieronymus Bosch.

He became an artist and some of his paintings were of scenes idyllic but some were of scenes of souls in torment which Christians call Hell.

The Church in Rome loved those because they provided visual “proof” that the threats being sprayed from the pulpits were real which improved obeisance and tithes and indulgences.

It has always been thus; When in doubt follow the money.

Well I saw Hell yesterday in a view of the future should Obamacare come to pass.

I drove a friend of a friend for an appointment at the local Veteran’s Medical facility. He went to get blood drawn and to see a doctor to review his medication dosages.

From start to finish, the elapsed time was more than 3 hours. Now that was par for the course according to my passenger and would have been longer if he’d had to wait for prescription fulfillment.

It so reminded me of my experiences of the National Health Service in England and so it should as this was governmental healthcare at work.

Another friend was on a cruise recently and she spoke to quite a few Brits who were quite happy with their NHS. I pointed out that so was I until I came here and saw a different way, a better way.

In the last few days some entities have dared to bring up the issues of “medical rationing” in our future if Obamacare comes to pass. The whole subject was, of course, vehemently denied in the run-up to the bill’s passage. Well here is a case in point.

Now, if you’ve missed the Avastin controversy, here’s a quick summary of it: Avastin is a general anti-cancer drug that got fast-tracked by the FDA a few years ago and is now prescribed to under 18 thousand women a year in the United States who suffer from the last stages of breast cancer. It doesn’t cure the cancer; it has side effects; and its beneficial effects are disputed… but the drug has its defenders as well as its detractors.

However, now the FDA is contemplating reversing its approval of Avastin, which would probably mean the end of both its coverage by Medicare, and a subsidy program for low-income women.

Why?

Because then it won’t be covered by Medicare and the government can end the subsidy program for low-income women, of course. The difficulty here for Obamacare supporters is that Avastin can cost up to $100K a year - the aforementioned subsidy program only covers about 40% of that, by the way - and under Obamacare the government would have to be the one to make the awkward and politically fraught call on whether or not to spend a lot of money making available a drug that doesn’t magically destroy cancer on the spot.

It’s another ‘take a pill' kind of situation, in other words: or to be even more inflammatory (but perfectly accurate), it’s another ‘death panel’ kind of situation.

There’s no good answer for an Obamacare enthusiast: if the drug’s available and you subsidize it, that’s up to a couple of billion dollars right there per year that the government will have to pay for a treatment of disputed efficacy (and demand for the drug will assuredly go up, if it’s subsidized).

If the drug’s available and you don’t subsidize it, you’re denying care under your system that was available previously (which is precisely what has been promised as not going to happen). But if you can get the FDA to remove the approval, well… problem solved, right?

Assuming that you don’t have advanced breast cancer, of course.

For now, I’m ignoring the mosque at Ground Zero but I’m not going to ignore the premature death of thousands of low income women.

Two years ago it was all about Hope and Change. Now with the midterms on the near horizon, Obama’s speech writers decided to update it and they came up with, "Reach for Hope”.

I suggest that on November 2 we “Reach for Change”.

And this time, mean it.

One Day we'll learn, but I'm not sure quite when ...

Well it happened again. A co-founder of Hamas and Obama are singing from the same prayer book or whatever Muslims use for their devotions.

At the White House “Iftar, a few days ago, Obama declared his support for the mosque at Ground Zero and then, on one of the talk shows yesterday, the killer from Hamas concurred.

Something on my liberal-sensing radar tells me that some bleeding heart somewhere wants to praise Obama for hosting an “Iftar”. What’s an “Iftar” you may well ask?

Well it’s a celebratory meal to mark the breaking of the fast of a day of Ramadan.

“Good”, says my imagined but very real liberal, “But we’re at least reaching out and Obama is doing the reaching”.

Not so fast there. The first president to host an Iftar was not Obama but the Nemesis, the Darth Vader, the Death Star. No, no, cries my real but imaginary liberal .

Sorry but "Yes", it was George W. Bush.

And guess when?

2001 is when.

And what good did it do us then or since or now?

The Imam who wants to build his new mosque near to Ground Zero already has another outlet of his very own franchise of the “Religion of Peace” within 12 city blocks. And there are more than 20 mosques within the city of New York already.

And, Oh by the way; the Houston Chronicle reported that debris from the Twin Towers did fall on the building and the site of this insult. And so did parts of the landing gear and fuselage of American Airlines Flight 175. And who knows what body parts as well of men and women and babies and babies yet unborn.

I spent the weekend with an ex New Yorker and an Obama voter who is appalled by the whole thing. I tried to explain my personal dichotomy namely my head and my heart.

My head says that, provided zoning laws are not compromised the proposal should have been approved as it was,

But my heart is with the survivors of 911. This was not an attack on the World Trade Center alone. Let’s not forget the Pentagon nor wherever United 93 was headed.

It was an attack on all of us. Christian, Jew, Hindu and yes Muslim as well.

What can be gained by building a lightning rod so close to a center of huge emotion? Both love and hatred. For surely, hatred it was that drove those airplanes to the destruction of so many. And equally surely, it is love now that drives the living to remember their dead.

The one certain way to transform that love into a new paroxysm of new hate is to shove a $1 Billion memorial into the minds of those who visit sacred ground.

Then, Obama came out yesterday and today with an attempt to backtrack.

Yesterday, Obama took a swim. Not quite in the Gulf but close enough for liberal media fawning. There on the beach was the “TOTUS”, the Teleprompter of the United States who tried and failed to tell us that he didn’t say what he’d clearly said just a few hours before.

What made the difference? The Polls. What Else?

Mostly, I start out these posts with a cartoon but not today.

G-d Bless America.

Call my plastic surgeon, I need a top-up soon. Make that Now !!

In the greatest party-affiliation cover-up since the media tried to portray Gary Condit as a Republican, the media are refusing to mention the party affiliation of the thieving government officials in Bell, California.

There have been hundreds of news stories about Bell city officials' jaw-dropping salaries. In this poor city on the outskirts of Los Angeles, where the per capita annual income is $24,800 a year, the city manager, Robert Rizzo, had a salary of $787,637.

That's about twice what the president of the United States makes. (To be fair though, Rizzo was doing a better job.)

Rizzo was the highest-paid government employee in the entire country, not counting Maxine Waters' husband -- pending further revelations. With benefits, his total annual compensation, according to the Los Angeles Times, came to $1.5 million a year.

Alerted to the Bell situation, the White House quickly added the Bell city manager to the list of jobs saved by its stimulus plan.

Not only that, but Rizzo was entitled to 28 weeks off a year for vacation and sick leave. To put that in perspective, that's almost as much vacation time as public school teachers get!

Reached in Spain eventually, when her aides could find out which of the 30-odd suites she was in, even Michelle was outraged.

Rizzo responded to the anger over his preposterous salary by saying: "If that's a number people choke on, maybe I'm in the wrong business. I could go into private business and make that money."

(If he wants to grab one of those private-sector jobs that pays $1.5 million for 24 weeks of work, may I suggest the entertainment industry?)

Good luck to him. After leaving Bell, Rizzo will be lucky to land a job at Taco Bell. Before being anointed the King Tut of Bell, Rizzo was the city manager of Hesperia, Calif., where he was overpaid only to the tune of $78,000 a year.

The police chief, Randy Adams, was making $457,000 -- $770,046 including benefits. The assistant city manager, Angela Spaccia, had a $376,288 salary, with a total compensation package of $845,960. Being just an assistant city manager, Angela had to pay for her own yacht.

After the Los Angeles Times reported the stratospheric government salaries in little Bell, and the people of the town revolted, the millionaire government employees all resigned.

That'll show 'em! Oops, except upon their resignations, they qualified for lifetime pensions worth, by some estimates, more than $50 million.

These insane salary packages were granted by the mayor and four city council members -- who also set their own salaries. As a result, all but one was making $100,000 a year for these part-time jobs. After the council members' salaries came to light, the four looters cut their salaries by 90 percent.

According to Nexis, there have been more than 300 news stories reporting on the Bell scandal. Guess how many mentioned the party affiliation of the corrupt government bureaucrats?

One. Yes, just one. Now guess if the government officials were Democrats or Republicans? Yes, that is correct.

Congratulations -- you've qualified for our bonus round!

The one newspaper to cough up party affiliations, The Orange County Register, which I feel bound to boast is a paper that actually printed some of my deathless prose a few years ago, actually reported that these corrupt officials were all Democrats but only in response to reader complaints about the peculiar omission.

Lots of news stories on the scandal in Bell used the word "Democrat" or "Democratic." But that was only to say that the DEMOCRATIC attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, who is running on the DEMOCRATIC ticket for governor, is investigating the Bell officials' salaries.

So we know the media are aware of party affiliations. They just chose not to mention it when it would require them to identify shockingly corrupt government.

Unlike political corruption involving sex or bribery, the outrage in Bell isn't a scandal that hits both parties from time to time -- it's how the Democrats govern.

Elected Democratic officials bestow ludicrous salaries and benefits packages on government employees, and, in return, public employee unions make sure the Democrats keep getting re-elected.The scandal in Bell isn't a scandal at all for the Democrats. Au contraire! This is the governing strategy of the Democratic Party.

Ask Charlie Rangel or Maxine Waters or Rod Blagojevich.

A Touch of Whimsy

It shouldn't take too long for even a casual reader of this Blog to figure out that I'm a history "wonk". And I've been giving this subject on and off thought for a couple of months.

Liberal historians have been ranking Presidents for years and of course there's always a heavy leftward skew to their evaluations. Republicans are inevitably ranked lower than they deserve to be while Democrats are sure to be portrayed in the kindest historical light. Here's a different take on the issue: A look at the worst Presidents of the last hundred years from a conservative perspective.

7) Herbert Hoover (R): Hoover didn't make the list because the Depression started on his watch. After all, it's not as if he created that problem. But, his protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act created a trade war at the worst possible time and helped lock the Depression in place.

6) Warren Harding (R): Harding was only in office for a couple of years before he died of a heart attack. The bright side to that silver lining for Harding was that much of the incredible corruption that was going on during his presidency wasn't revealed until after his death. The worst of these ignominious adventures was the "Teapot Dome scandal," which involved bribery and a new first in American politics -- a cabinet member, Albert Fall, being sent to jail.

5) Richard Nixon (R): Not only was "Tricky Dick" Nixon almost impeached over Watergate, he shook the American people's faith in our government. Given the chronic overreach of the federal government, some might say that's a good thing. But, you generally get what you expect and if the American people don't expect competency, honesty, and decency from our government, we're not likely to get it.

Nixon did improve relations with China. He also put America in a position where we could have won in Vietnam had the Democrats in Congress not cut off supplies and air support to our former allies and left them to be slaughtered.

Still, Nixon did a lot of damage domestically. He created the out-of-control EPA and was primarily responsible for creating the federal government's Affirmative Action program, which codified discrimination against white Americans into the law. Additionally, he imposed wage and price controls that hurt the economy. That’s not much of a domestic legacy.

4) Jimmy Carter (D): Not only did Carter stand by and watch our ally, the Shah of Iran, get overthrown by fundamentalist crazies, he botched the Iranian hostage crisis that sprang from the overthrow in almost every way possible.

It's also worth noting that the Soviets were inspired by Carter's naiveté to invade Afghanistan on his watch. In other words, both the war on terror and Iran's quest for nuclear weapons can be directly traced back to Jimmy Carter's presidency. To top off all of that incompetence, Carter gave away the Panama Canal.

Then there was the domestic front. Carter was famous for his notorious malaise speech, gas lines, boycotting the Olympics, and an economy that was so dismal it actually diminished people's faith in the American dream. Meanwhile, Carter spent his time on such vital chores as scheduling time slots on the White House tennis court.

3) Woodrow Wilson (D): Adding Wilson to this list was a tough call because he deserves a lot of credit for his leadership during WWI. Of course, the failure of the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles, both of which contributed significantly to WWII, also occurred on his watch. Additionally, speaking plainly, Wilson was also a fascist.

Here's Jonah Goldberg describing American life under Wilson during WWI,

"The first appearance of modern totalitarianism in the Western world wasn't in Italy or Germany but in the United States of America. How else would you describe a country where the world's first modern propaganda ministry was established; political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon, and thrown in jail simply for expressing private opinions; the national leader accused foreigners or immigrants of injecting treasonous "poison into the American bloodstream;" newspapers and magazines were shut down for criticizing the government; nearly a hundred thousand government propaganda agents were sent out among the people to whip up support for the regime and its war; college professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues; nearly a quarter-million goons were given legal authority to intimidate and beat "slackers" and dissenters; and leading artists and writers dedicated their crafts to proselytizing for the government?"

Admirable though Woodrow Wilson's leadership may have been during WWI, it doesn't make up for all of that.

2) Lyndon Johnson (D): You can thank Lyndon Johnson for dramatically ramping up our forces in Vietnam while simultaneously putting rules of engagement in place that made it nearly impossible for our troops to win the war. Then there was the Immigration Act of 1965, the Gun Control Act of 1968, riots in American cities, and the roots of the modern welfare state in America.

While Lyndon Johnson deserves credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was signed on his watch

with lots of Republican help, Johnson can also fairly be blamed for instituting an extraordinary number of bad policies during his limited time in office.

1) Barack Obama (D): It's impossible to fully evaluate Barack Obama's presidency because it's not over, but he has already done a devastating amount of damage in a freakishly short period of time.

Happily, there's still some hope that the utter destruction of the American health care system that he's trying to implement can be reversed. The socialistic takeovers of whole segments of American industries that began in the final days of the Bush Administration and expanded under Obama can also still hopefully be reversed in the coming years.

Additionally, we can still hope against hope that Iran will be stopped from getting nukes, that Obama won't lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that none of his other disastrous policies like Cap and Trade will be passed. (The word “hope” comes up with Obama as often today as it did during his campaign, just in a different context)

However, Obama's massive expansion of spending and government for domestic purposes is not only unique in American history; it came at the worst possible moment. At a time when there were genuine concerns in America and across the world that our country no longer has the intention or even the capability of paying off our debt, Barack Obama massively increased spending under the auspices of fighting a short term recession. In this case, the cure is almost certainly worse than the disease.

Could America default on her debts because of what Obama is doing? Absolutely.

Could this spending be the reason future generations of Americans aren't as prosperous as their parents? Certainly.

Is it possible that we're literally experiencing the turning point that will take America from super power to economic basket case? Yes.

This country is now facing its greatest moment of risk since World War II and it’s an entirely self-inflicted wound.

PS: Many conservatives will undoubtedly be asking why Franklin D. Roosevelt isn't on this list. Had the list merely dealt with domestic policy, he would have easily been a contender for the top spot. His awful management of the economy alone, which extended the Depression for years, would merit a top 3 spot.

And before someone wants to pretend that the New Deal was a "big deal" and tries to draw parallels between it and the stimulus programs of the Obama regime they should take note that, as late as 1939, the unemployment rate was 21%. No, it was WWII that ended the Depression and it was this same conflict that created the Roosevelt legacy we hear about today.

FDR's leadership during World War II was so meritorious that it simply could not be overlooked despite the taint that his handling of the Holocaust is questionable.

That being said, FDR is often ranked by historians as one of America's great Presidents. A man whose greatness on the foreign policy front is quite nearly matched by the titanic damage he did to America on the domestic side certainly doesn't deserve that sort of honor.

Politics makes Strange Bedfellows!

I’m really not much of a fan of TV and certainly not late-night television but every once in a while the arms of Morphius elude me and I turn on the insidious box.

Thus it was recently that happenstance took me to the CBS show hosted by one David Letterman who is a liberal kind of guy, and like many on the left, old Dave is kind of frustrated these days. A new Gallup poll has Obama's job approval rating at just 41 percent, with 53 percent disapproving. Those are the lowest numbers Gallup has posted since Obama was inaugurated more than a year and a half ago.

So Dave is seeking answers to the president's diminishing popularity, and that kind of conversation usually involves the Fox News Channel, which is considered by the left to be all anti-Obama, all the time. Now I and the outlet itself dispute that perception but there is no doubt that Fox News is the most skeptical TV news organization when it comes to analyzing the president.

And isn't it about time someone did?

Consider this: If Obama was being worked over the way President Bush was by the establishment media, his job approval rating would probably be in the 20 percent range. Remember the brutal media beating Bush took? Today, the mainstream press is largely neutral or positive on Obama, even as many Americans are having doubts about him.

But let's get back to Letterman. Speaking with far-left MSNBC News commentator Rachel Maddow on his program, Dave listened as she put forth the preposterous theory that Fox News wants to frighten white Americans by reporting negatively about black Americans. "Scaring white people is good politics on the conservative side of the spectrum, and it always has been. The idea is that you sort of rile up the white base to be afraid of an other, to be afraid of scary immigrants or scary black people..."

In the past, paranoid, dishonest rants like that would have been dismissed as fringe speak. But not anymore. Without a shred of evidence, a guest on Letterman's "Late Show" (which by the way gets trounced in the ratings by Fox every night according the people who check these things) defines an entire news organization as a racist enterprise. And Letterman goes along with the program, adding: "These people are continuing to fan this flame and ... that is cancer."

Please.

The only people Fox News is scaring are far-left loons who see their shining city on the hill on fire.

For 18 months, the United States has been governed from the left, and things are not going well. I'm sorry if this analysis frightens some folks, but when you spend a half-trillion dollars trying to stimulate the economy and you create just 600,000 jobs, well, people are going to notice.

When the war in Afghanistan turns chaotic, Americans are not going to be pleased. When the nation's debt is increased by more than a trillion dollars a year because of record spending, folks are going to get a bit nervous. So, in order to counter those realities, the far left must divert attention from them. Thus, the scary black people deal.

In reply, here's a Top 1 list for Letterman and his liberal cronies: The American people don't need to be "riled" up by phony race baiting.

They are already riled up by reality. And the polls prove it.

Who Speaks for Us?

Yesterday, I wrote about reasons why independents should consider deserting the Left when the first Tuesday in November comes around.

Previously I spelled out some talking points for conservative candidates and back about 3 weeks ago I wrote about an easy-to-understand agenda and policy.

Now it doesn’t matter too much for the mid-terms but when the national races loom after that it most certainly does. We need a spokesperson.

So, with that in mind, I cast my eyes across this land. Frankly, I do not see a spokesman inside the Beltway who can articulate a program that can energize the silent majority, in other words the Right and the Independents. And so, it seems, we must look elsewhere.

One contender may be New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who is taking on the state's entrenched special interests, shrinking government and fixing the budget hole -- all without raising taxes. He's doing in his state what the tea party movement is demanding of the federal government.

In the August issue of Townhall Magazine contributing editor Meredith Jessup reports on the impact Chris Christie is having not only in New Jersey but also on American politics. Below is an excerpt from her feature, "Throwdown in Trenton."

After years of aimless wandering through the post-Reagan desert, the search for a conservative political leader may finally be over.

A young Republican from New Jersey is spreading the gospel of small government, fiscal restraint and responsible governing. Many elder politicos of Washington may dismiss his preaching as heresy; but the young governor's words have enthralled many voters looking for real change and a restoration of common sense in government.

More than his words, Gov. Chris Christie's actions during his short tenure in office to date are making a real difference, both in lifting the state of New Jersey out from underneath it's overwhelming debt and in reigniting Ronald Reagan's brand of small-government conservatism.

It's fitting that at age 18 in 1980, Christie cast his first vote for Ronald Reagan. With his zeal for smaller government, Christie has prompted comparisons with Ronald Reagan. But in the end, Christie insists his personal character and governing style are his own: Reagan-esque, "with a Jersey edge."

The road to the New Jersey governorship was an uphill trek for Christie. Since Christie's historic victory, the glaring national media spotlight has largely faded. But a close look at the Republican's efforts since taking the oath of office in January reveals that this conservative’s star continues to burn brightly.

On Day 1 in office, Christie inherited the nation's worst state budget deficit—$10.9 billion on a budget of $29.3 billion. Over the last decade, New Jersey's municipal spending had increased 69 percent, while property taxes had spiked by 70 percent.In his first weeks in office, Gov. Christie put the brakes on New Jersey's runaway deficit spending. He announced spending freezes on hemorrhaging public programs and signed an executive order declaring a statewide "fiscal emergency."

Before a special joint session of the New Jersey legislature, Christie announced his planned fiscal solutions for closing the budget gap. Citing both his duties as governor and his "moral obligation" to future generations, he candidly told state lawmakers he would undertake "bold action" to balance the state's budget. He pledged to:

• "Cut government spending and end public union excesses we can no longer afford";

• "Reform government to cost less and operate better"; and

• "Restore some sense of balance to the obligations we take on—so that in the future they are both sensible and sustainable."

He promised to "forge a new course" to bring state spending in line with revenues, and like leaders before him, Christie promised to hammer out a fiscal plan that "lays the groundwork for a better tomorrow."

But unlike Democratic politicians of the state's past, Christie understood that securing tomorrow meant tightening the belt today.

And, so far at least, he’s doing it

The View from the Trenches .................

Anyone who knows me could tell you that I’m a list maker. I make lists for the grocery store. I make lists when I take a trip. My critics may claim that I make a list of the lists I need to list.

However this list is very, very serious because it is addressed to the ones who actually decide elections. In other words, the independents or the moderates.

Now, picking a politician to support is like trying to decide whether you want to rent your apartment to a crack addict or a raging alcoholic. No matter which one you choose, it's going to cost you money, it's going to leave a mess, and it's probably going to end in sorrow.

Granted, you do occasionally have a Ronald Reagan type who shocks you by paying his rent on time, keeping the place clean, and putting a fresh coat of paint on the walls before he leaves, but that's not typical for politicians. What is typical is choosing between the lesser of two evils in D.C.

So, if that's the situation you find yourself in, let's talk about why your evil of choice should be Republican instead of Democrat!

1) We Need Checks and Balances: Most Americans pay less attention to politics than what time their favorite TV show comes on. In a strange sort of way, that's good news: It means that Americans are normally confident enough that things aren't going to spiral out of control that they don't feel a need to watch the politicians in D.C. like hawks.

Unfortunately, the Democrats did so well in the last couple of elections that the GOP simply didn't have the power to keep them from engaging in cataclysmically stupid policies that never would have seen the light of day under normal circumstances.

America desperately needs more Republicans in D.C. to keep Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid from continuing to implement their extremist left-wing agenda.

2) Restraining Spending: The GOP wasn't fiscally responsible under Bush. You know it, I know it, we all know it. However, we also know the Democrats weren't fiscally responsible under Bush either and since Obama got into office, they've gone completely out of control.

We have whole nations defaulting on their bills in Europe, nobody has any sort of realistic plan for how this country is going to pay back what it has already spent, and yet we're spending more money at the highest clip since World War II.

Moreover, Obama freely admits that if he has his way, the country will be running deficits for as far as the eye can see.

If the GOP simply held spending back to the levels it was at in the Bush days, it would be an improvement. But, like them or hate them, the Tea Party movement is putting a tremendous amount of pressure on the GOP to engage in fiscal restraint -- and it's working.

So, if you don't want to see your children buried under a mountain of debt bigger than the Himalayas, you need to get the Republican Party back in control of Congress so they can slow down the economic crazy train that's rolling out of control towards Bankruptcy Junction.

3) Ending the Uncertainty Created by Government is a Key to Economic Recovery: The Democrats have tried to create an economic recovery with massive amounts of spending mixed with more regulations, bigger government, higher taxes, and a wildly unpredictable government that's hostile to business. In the words of Dr. Phil, "How's that working out for you?" Not so well, right?

Republicans have a different vision of how to help the economy. They favor low taxes, fiscal responsibility from the government, free market principles, cutting regulations, and ending the uncertainty created by wildly fluctuating government policies. Given how poorly the economy has fared with the Democrats in charge, doesn't it make sense to give the Republicans a shot at it? It's tempting to say that it couldn't get much worse, but when you see what's happening in Greece you realize things could get a lot worse in a hurry. That means time is short, the situation is very serious, and people need to get serious about deciding which way this country is going to go economically -- towards the policies that have made America successful in the past or towards the policies that have created a disaster in Greece and potentially elsewhere.

4) Repealing Health Care Reform Before It's Too Late: Obamacare will destroy the quality of health care in America, eventually lead to a complete government takeover of the health care industry, cause the deficit to explode, lead to rationing, death panels, and government funded abortions. The good news is that it's still possible to stop health care reform or at least we can slow it down by strangling the funding. Look at Missouri yesterday where more than 71% of the ballot said "No" to imposing mandates on citizens with respect to their coverage.

Of course, if health care reform goes into effect in 2014, it'll start to destroy the private health care industry in the United States. Then, we'll be stuck with a health care system that will be inferior to the one we already have until death do us part.

5) Fighting Massive Corruption: Capitol Hill has become riddled with corruption and scandals since Obama got into office. Charles Rangel has tax issues. Maxine Waters is about to go in front of the ethics committee. Eric Massa has resigned from Congress in disgrace. The Justice Department turned a blind eye to voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers, there has been a sleazy politicization of the census, there are allegations that the White House tried to bribe Joe Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvania race - it just goes on and on for so long that it could be a whole column unto itself.

Unfortunately, this is just a natural consequence of having one party that controls all the levers of power. After all, when the defendant, the prosecutor, and the judge are all on the same team, it shouldn't surprise anyone when justice isn't served.

So, whether the Republicans are Boy Scouts or not (Bet heavy on not until they definitively prove otherwise), balancing things out is the only way to start draining the swamp.

6) You've Got to Punish Bad Behavior or You Get More of It: Politicians are like children. They will get away with as much as they can, as often as they can. That's why the voters have to set rules, boundaries, and limitations for them. If your son punches his little sister in the mouth and you just shrug your shoulders, what's going to happen the next time he gets mad at her? He may very well do it again. And, believe me, I speak from up close and personal experience.

If you let the Democrats get away with cutting crooked deals to benefit their union pals in the auto industry, health care reform, a failed trillion dollar stimulus, ethics scandals, pushing amnesty, cap and trade, and bowing to foreign leaders, they're going to be encouraged to do even more of it.

Given how unpopular their agenda has been and how arrogant the Democrats have been as they've pushed it through over the concerns of the American people, if the Democrats aren't going to get a spanking this November, then the American people may as well give up on the idea of disciplining them.

The door to the woodshed is less than 100 days away.

When you wet the bed, did your mother scold you?

Only twice in my life have I sought sessions with a professional in order to better understand where my head was at.

In neither case did the person have a couch but that’s the stereotype so lets stick with it for now and let's fast forward to the present, somewhere, almost anywhere in America and the therapist’s monolog could go like this ...............

“Come in. Make yourself comfortable. What's that? You are a congressional Democrat? You voted to triple the national debt, destroy a health care system that the overwhelming majority of Americans were happy with in a way that creates a massive and infinitely complex new entitlement, bailout the banks and car companies, and "stimulate" the economy with an $862 billion boondoggle that hasn't created a single private-sector job?

Your president is suing the state of Arizona for having the effrontery to enforce a law he wishes not to enforce (though he does have the constitutional responsibility to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’)?

The war in Afghanistan is not going well? The president's approval ratings are under water? Congress' approval ratings are running even with Mel Gibson's? Naturally, you're upset.

Relax. Here, wipe your tears. The wizards at the Democratic National Committee have the answer. The strategy is one you may remember from past campaigns. They call it the Great Smoke Blower. Jimmy Carter used it against Reagan in 1980. When things are objectively bad and you can't run on your record, you accuse the Republicans of extremism. Remember? In 1980, inflation was running at 14 percent. Interest rates were about 15 percent. American hostages were paraded on Iranian television. The economy was febrile.

What did they do? They accused Reagan of being a warmonger. They said he would divide north from south, white from black, union from management, and Christian from Jew. They said he would plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon. It was a reprise of the anti-Goldwater effort of 1964.

The newest ad from the DNC seeks to link the Republican Party with the tea party. Flashing faces on the screen, now Rand Paul, now Paul Ryan, now Sharron Angle, now John Boehner, all distinctions are blurred. Then they present the ‘Republican Tea Party Contract on America’ with 10 items. These, they expect, will frighten the heck out of John Q. Public.

Item 1: "Repeal Health Insurance Reform."

Item 2: "Privatize Social Security or Get Rid of It."

Item 3: "End Medicare as it Presently Exists."

Item 4: "Extend the Bush Tax Breaks for the Wealthy and Big Oil."

Item 5: "Repeal Wall Street Reform."
Item 6: "Protect Those Responsible for the Oil Spill."

Item 7: "Abolish the Department of Education."

Item 8: "Abolish the Department of Energy."

Item 9: "Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency." I

Item 10: "Repeal the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators)."

Clever, right? Hey, why are you still weeping? Oh, I see. Rasmussen found that as recently as July, more than 60 percent of voters favor repealing the health care behemoth? So it wouldn't be scary if Republicans actually ran on that item.

Oh, and your opponent doesn't favor privatizing Social Security? Not even a little? Hasn't she ever said something like "We may have to consider changes to the retirement age?" because that can be demagogued as wanting to privatize Social Security. Well, you make a good point. The Republicans (to the dismay of philosophical conservatives and libertarians) have been embracing Social Security as Linus did his blanket, for many an election cycle.

I guess, while we're at it, we might as well go ahead and concede that these same domesticated Republicans haven't exactly been carrying the banner for eliminating the Departments of Energy and Education (far less EPA!) for a really, really long time, though some wish they would.

There, there. Don't fret. What? Your opponent actually is in favor of repealing the "Wall Street Reform"? She says it will create 243 new regulations, just for starters, and that the federal government will now have the power to decide whether pretty much every business in America is taking too much risk. If a federal regulator decides you are making bad decisions, he can close down your shop. Besides, it completely sidestepped the biggest reason for the financial meltdown, Fannie and Freddie, because those were Democrats' sandboxes.

Hmmm.

The unemployment rate in your district is 17 percent? Twenty-five percent among the young? The expiration of the Bush tax cuts will raise taxes for small-business owners, and this will make hiring even less likely? According to the Small Business Administration (another agency principled conservatives would happily kiss goodbye), small businesses were responsible for between 60 and 80 percent of net new jobs in the past decade. But now they're worried. They don't know how the new Financial Reform bill will affect them, and they've seen what the Massachusetts health reform did to business there so they're extremely nervous about the effects of the national health reform. They're getting by, but they're in no mood to hire.

In fact, they're in a firing mood. And they're looking at you. Here, you're going to need these tissues after all.

And me as well so pass the box please.

Pay my nurse on the way out however, we don't take Medicare but Visa and American Express are both fine.