So, NO LABELS adopts the Pendulum theory

It is both heartening and sobering to read about the new effort to give us, the Middle Indpendents, a voice.
Bloomberg and Bayh? Lieberman and David Gergen? Well, maybe
Read the "Raging Moderate" description of the No LABELS Launch:

http://newmoderate.com/2010/12/16/what-i-saw-at-the-no-labels-launch-part-1/

Yes, even The New York Times gets the concept of the Pendulum!

Ross Douthat wrote a great Oped piece in Monday's NYT.
It describes the utter partisanship that now drives most of America: we either agree with everything one side does or disagree with everything the other side does.
In a description of the swing of the Pendulum, he decries the phenomenon, and offers a slight ray of hope!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Arizona protest

James Rubin advocates by-passing the U.S. Senate

Read Rubin's NYT Oped, followed by my letter to the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/opinion/22rubin.html?scp=1&sq=rubin%20treaty&st=Search

"Rubin advocates by-passing the Senate"

"Farewell to the Age of the Treaty", James Rubin, November 22, 2010

 

I was appalled by Professor Rubin's "cojones", to quote his former boss.

His Oped piece does not even try to disguise the intent, and its slippery slope:

- Unlike other countries, the U.S. "Government" (Executive branch) does not control parliament.

- Goals of Treaties are "held hostage by a small number of Senators who represent a tiny fraction of the American public."

- "Fortunately" there is a legislative alternative that only requires a simple majority (as in 53?)

- "Critical procedures" may not even require legislative action and can be established by "executive agreements" [Presumably President Obama and S.of S. Alb... err, Clinton.]

- The clincher: that is what we are doing with Kyoto and Climate Change.

 

SAY WHAT? Did I just read a former State official actually advocate by-passing the requirement for a two-third majority of the Senate, then if that does not work with a simple majority, then "Executive Agreements" will get it done?

Then again, why should we be surprised? Some are already insisting that Kyoto and Cap-and-Trade can be accomplished by the Executive branch through regulation and rulemaking.

Let's just do away with the U.S. Senate!

I wonder why Mr Rubin waited this long: he could have made his suggestion while George W. Bush was President: he and his buddy Putin would have worked things out just fine! 

 

Guedy

Was the Nobel prize in Economics wasted on Paul Krugman?

Krugman's column is meant as a column on the economy.
Week after week however, it has turned into a systematic and vitriolic attack on Republicans.
Below is a link to his column, and my letter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=krugman%20blood&st=Search

To the New York Times:

"There will be blood", Paul Krugman.

 

I continue to read Krugman's column waiting for nuggets of economic wisdom, explained as clearly as, say, a submission to the Nobel Committee.

All I read though is an incessant invective against "The Republicans".

Monday's column mentions "Republican" or "GOP" no fewer than 11 times, with utter disgust oozing between the lines, while bemoaning the loss of the "Good old days" when our "two great parties came together...". As SNL would say, REALLY?

I'm sure we want to get back to the cooperation that Bush got from Democrats for instance. "Loser!"

More likely, Krugman is waxing nostalgic about a congress where Republicans were perenially in the opposition, a position they learned to navigate adroitly for 40 straight years.

Sadly, Democrats don't seem to have acquired that skill; thus the only avenue left is total ridicule of the other "Great party", to quote Krugman.

Perhaps more sadly, the editorial pages of the Times are nearly unanimous in that sentiment.

Reading the Oped section of the Week in Review, Krugman, Friedman, Rich, Herbert, Biden are all easily interchangeable. Last week, in a column on living with insecurity, Friedman lamented ("I am disgusted by Republicans") for...not supporting an additional gasoline tax so that "we can stop sending money to the people we are fighting." 

Tsk tsk, Mr Friedman, are we really buying oil from the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

What does the Gray Lady hope to accomplish by preaching to the Choir?

 

Guedy

Dennis Miller on Airport Machines and Obamacare

I love Dennis's idea!
Every flyer should be registered as having gone through the machine, and the scan sent to their doctor.
That would in turn eliminate the need for mammograms, chest X-rays, TB screening, etc...
We would save a ton of money in support of Universal Health Care!
Leave it to Miller to make lemonade out of this!

Are you sure you would not vote for gingrich?

Let's forget the ideological battle.
Let's listen instead to what the individual's perspective on American History is.
Gingrich is a Historian (and zoologist)
Let anyone propose an opposing viewpoint that is not ad hominem..
Then we'll be having a real Historical debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qtjfMjjce2Y

Will you boycott Disney? Credo.com wants you to

This is really interesting.
Credo.com hates Sarah Palin. No surprise there.
It is a commercial enterprise (providing cell phone and credit card services) whose tag line is "turning every daily action into a Progressive Act"
Fair enough. Nothing wrong with combining commercial endeavours with ideology.
So, why is credo.com calling for a boycott of Disney?

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/06/sarah-palin-and-a-boycott-on-disney/

 

OK, hating Sarah Palin is common. But then, should they boycott the Discovery Channel for airing her show? After all, she hates bears, only wants to shoot them.

So why do they want to boycott Disney merely for advertising on the show?

Funny thing is, Disney-ABC has gone left of NBC, and Disney is the most friendly corporation to Gay issues, so why the selectivity?

Probably goes to exercizing the Power of the Base, but I don't know

A responsible, intelligent Pendulum Swing by and for Environmentalists

It's about time: honest skepticism is not denial. On the contrary, it is Dogma that works against the goals, Reason that brings them closer.

This article is about true environmentalists honestly looking at what the movement has done wrong and what can and should be done to correct course:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8116595/What-the-Green-Movement-Got-Wrong-Greens-come-to-see-the-error-of-their-ways.html

Laurence O'Donnell's fascinating statement

This week-end, the latest addition to the MSNBC line-up made a statement that I believe warrants intelligent discussion: starting with an exit poll statistic where 20% said they considered themselves Liberal and 45% Conservatives, he then admonished his Liberal guests y saying: "I am not a Liberal who hides from it by claiming to be a Progressive. I'm a Socialist, therefore I believe we need to elect Blue Dog Democrats, and hide behind them."

Truly, the National Dialogue is out in the open now. Just as some Republicans claim that they should have done anything to elect more "Republicans" of any strip to get the majority in the Senate to get things done, the 20% on the left is no longer hiding the "end justifies the means", i.e. help elect Democrats that we don't even agree with because we can them hide behind them to advance a "socialist" agenda.

What do you think? It is not really shocking or surprising. Those of us who considered ourselves Socialists in the 60s and 70s have redefined ourselves as Progressives, unless we moved right altogether.
So is O'Donnell just being honest?
Guedy

Is Bi-Partisan Political humor back ?

Nancy Pelosi announced she will remain in Congress as a minority leader, to protect Health Reform and create jobs.
To which the RNC tweeted back:
"We welcome Nancy Pelosi's decision to remain in a leadership role, due to her ability to create Republican Jobs...
Pretty funny...

Tea-Party, Ross Perot... This was a debate in early October:

At least in the Senate races, the Tea Party may well prove to be this year's Ross Perot, splitting the Right to give the Left victory:

 

Item 1: Delaware would have been an automatic R with Castle. Likely to be a D now.

Item 2: Any "Republican" would have turned Nevada into an "R". Instead, it's a toss-up.

Item 3: Any serious Republican might have turned Connecticut into an "R" after Dodd's Fannie Mae issue

Item 4: Alaska was an automatic "R" with Murkowski. The Tea Party candidate may lose

Item 5: Florida's Charlie Crist would have been a shoo-in "R" before the Tea Party went for Rubio

Item 6: Kentucky would have gone to any Republican. Now Rand Paul is fighting for survival

Item 7: Barbara Boxer could have lost to a good Republican candidate as opposed to a newcomer

 

So, the Tea Party may well end up handing the Senate back to the Democrats the way Perot handed the White House to Clinton by taking away the angry Republicans from GHW Bush.

 

The only explanation as to why the Democrats are electorally worried about the Tea Party anger, is perhaps that it carried on to giving the Congress to Gingrich and co in 1994, and in this cycle, that could mean that the anger would carry to 2012 and go beyond the Congress and topple the  White House.

 

Guedy

Just the second post, and I am arguing with myself!

Google! I am able to host this new blog for free, but Google, using their famed "context advertising" must have decided from the first comments that this was to be a "Right wing" blog, and they immediately started adding ads for right wing causes and products.
I found it both amazing and amusing. I do not intend for this to be a self-congratulatory blog for right wingersof course. That would defeat the purpose.
The amusing part is that Google is a decidedly Progressive organization, so in their book, if your blog contains the words "Tea party", well then you must love Anne Coulter and hate Barney Frank!
So it will be fun to watch how they flip and flop as different comments are posted.
Let me try to fool them: Obama good. Reid rocks! Nancy Pelosi for a Nobel Prize. I love Michael Moore!
I want to see if their ads change!

Here we go

The American Political Pendulum swings once again.
The Talking Heads are at it once again. Lob one at me, I'll lob one at you.
The Politicians have to watch every word for it will come back and haunt them, but we don't.
I can say that the Tea Party caused the Republicans to NOT win a majority in the US Senate, and I can also say that MSNBC is pathetic when they leap into demonizing Sarah palin again and asking Michele Bachman if she is under hypnosis on election night, when she does not answer a question directly.
Go ahead and argue with me: but if you plan on just lobbing one one-sided bomb and waiting for someone to lob a counter-bomb, with numbers and all, you are wasting your time on this blog.
We are looking for serious conversation for the next two years at least, and not just for Michael Moore meets Glenn Beck; there is plenty of that on TV, especially if you have PIP and can keep two channels on at the same time and end up with nothing new!
Guedy