Intervention

This has to be what it is like having a heroine addict in your family. The endless negotiating that really sounds like begging, the irrational behavior, the thrashing about, the childish fits and angry desperation; all signs of withdrawal from their drug of choice.

So before that addict in your family goes past that point of no return you have to get together and have an intervention, even though the radical behavior will be heightened, perhaps frenzied even and the emotions will get very raw.

But all of you who voted for Obama and your representative Democrats are just the drug dealers who pushed the drugs (spending) on these weak souls.

Not just the junkies but a lot of other people are going to be effected and perhaps hurt and even changed forever. But what's the option? Do you turn your backs on that family member? Do you let them get more drugs and overdose?

Jon Stewart, Unhinged

I caught an interesting clip on Fox News a la the DirecTV link on my Austin bound flight. I had been in a self-imposed media blackout while spending a true vacation with the family so I missed the actual interview and subsequent fireworks but apparently there was a set of verbal gaffes that survived the "24 hour new cycle" the one that vexes the Thin Skinned One. This story wasn't about him, per se, but it survived to be talked about a week later.

The story in question involved a Comedy Central mainstay. Jon Stewart jumped the shark tank. He filled it with water and put his own shark in the tank then . . . he jumped it, or rather into it by saying his job (as a comedian) was harder than that of professional news man Chris Wallace in an interview being conducted by Chris Wallace.

Stewart, who is only mildly funny to begin with, disarmed himself of his only weapons: hipster irony and insouciance. He did so when he allowed his own arrogance to get the better of him. He disarmed himself when he took his personae and his show so seriously by making this ridiculous proclamation of self-importance. Think about it -- the guy who's one-trick-pony is to attack everyone in the political and entertainment sphere as being too serious and self-important told us how serious and important he is. No longer can he be seen floating above it all in a too-cool cloud of detached comedic commentary. Now he's swimming with the sharks; sharks who's biting criticism he must endure now that he has set himself on that same level of importance.

And let's just put this in perspective. Stewart's entire argument about his job being more difficult than that of Chris Wallace, a fallible individual as we witnessed a week later in his Bachmann interview, but a man with a much larger viewership and a reputation as a serious journalist . . . well his argument is one of those sports-talk canards. It is that false debate when die-hard fans compare the baseball dynasty of the one fan's allegiance to the hockey dynasty of the other fan's devotion in a battle for which team is the greatest of all time. There are no winners, only opinions. Comparing a serious news program that stands for something and doesn't shrink from it's political bias to a comedian doing a skit and who falsely prides himself on standing for nothing but the laughs (when he clearly has a bias of his own), a show we are often reminded is "Not a News show" but merely "entertainment" is, well, a poor basis for comparison.

The big difference here is that Chris Wallace doesn't measure his significance by the number of Facebook followers who "Like" him. Because he admits to standing for something, he measures himself on that basis. Is he fair and accurate and do his interviews and panel discussions illicit responses that illuminate certain topics?

What's really comedic about this episode is how Stewart's audience, mostly trend lemmings have to make a choice. They either choose to stand for something even if that something is the guy who stands for nothing or they have to abandon their thought leader, choose not to defend their guy's arrogant gaffes so they can stay devoted to their own hipster detachment . . . and all because they'd rather never be wrong about anything. A bit of a conundrum -- the type that some people recognize as a sign that it is time to grow up.

"You Can't Go To 3rd Base Without A Good Reason"

Obama is attempting to create an unconstitutional No-Fly zone.

No, I am not behind the times. I am not talking about Libya, even though Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act, And that guy Qaddafi, who Obama said, "Must go" is still there. But no. There's another No-Fly zone the White House wants to enact.

It's Texas v. DOJ on the topic of enhanced searches at airports. The Texas state legislature is on the move this session, passing bills regarding parental notification, requiring voters to have picture identification and most recently an attempt to criminalize random pat-downs. If the pat down is conducted without a justifiable cause (read: illegal search) the TSA agent could face a fine or go to jail.

These type of groping, probing searches would still be permitted but probable cause would need to exist. That means old ladies and Iraqi war vets would typically be exempt but the sweaty, nervous guy with a one way ticket to Dulles who has trouble answering some basic questions about who he is, where he lives and whether he's staying in a hotel or with friends after he lands -- he is going to have to step out of line and behind the privacy curtain.

The thuggish DOJ (Eric Holder) and TSA are trying to block passage of this bill by threatening that Texas flights won't be permitted out of Texas air space . . . ironically putting the Lone Star state one step closer to the status of sovereign nationhood. You think the U.S. economy is bad now. Subtract Texas from the balance sheet and you will move the U.S. that much closer to the Thracian brink.

Texas State Legislator, David Simpson (R) was on Fox News this morning and has my vote for the quote of the week. "You Can't Go To 3rd Base Without A Good Reason."

Tepid or Bold: I'll Take Neither

Mitt Romney (if this were the Middle Ages he'd be called Mitt Romney "the Meek") announced his candidacy and in his first major speech, when it was appropriate for him to head off criticism about Romney-care, he provided a tepid rationalization that sounded very calculated and not all that earnest. It may have resonated with a less politically educated electorate say from 3-4 years ago when bumper sticker bromides were sufficient to carry a candidate through the primaries and into the White House.

On the other end of the spectrum you have bold anti-party pronouncements being launched from the tongue of a Newt . . . Gingrich that is. Perhaps there was some calculation on his part too; with some pundits saying he was trying to ingratiate himself with the Medicare voters. Either that or he is just the stupidest politician of the 21st century. Regardless he has ended his run before it was able to somersault through the first five or six 24-hour-news cycles. The pained explanations and public and private apologies have done nothing but give more fodder to those who were already slightly or extremely skeptical about him.

On Monday, April 12, 2010 in So What Now?

I had written "Let's start by saying Gingrich is off my list for many reasons. God forbid he becomes our only alternative to Obama in 2012. He sounds good when he knows he's in front of a conservative audience but he has demonstrated poor judgment and an over-eagerness to coalesce with the Democrats on too many occasions."

And that means events of this past week return us to the question: So What Now?

I will continue to be on the lookout for that winning, Reagan-esque characteristics: Sincerety and Leadership. These two guys have been political animals for far too long and are completely lacking in those personality traits.

The MSM "Assassination" File Cabinet Is Open

This is the file cabinet containing all of the character assassination stories culled by the liberal main stream media as they've geared up for the 2012 election. Just like Obama, they've been punching air for months in their not so quiet desperation. They've needed a real target and with several Republicans making formal declarations to enter the race they both have their targets and the file cabinet drawers are swinging open.

Clearly this story could have been started years ago and awaited the eventual release to coincide with a campaign announcement: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/us/politics/10gingrich.html

The Longest . . . Forty Four

Between the short attention span and the narcissism I'd have to say on one level, Barrack insane Obama truly is the "American" President. He is reflective of the self-absorbed masses in a constant quest for immediate gratification and self-aggrandizement in an on-demand, mundane-passes-for-celebrity culture that has defined us in this decade.

His comments about his experience in the Situation Room was that "it was the longest 40 minutes" of his life "except maybe "the possible exception of when Sasha got meningitis when she was three months old."

As I wrote to one of my favorite radio shows.

"I don't know about his forty minutes in the Situation Room. I can only suspect how long four hours awaiting care for a sick child in a future Obamacare Emergency Room will be. I know with certainty, though, that this Presidency is the longest 4 years of my life."

The Tin Man, Pandering Scarecrow, Stuttering Lion & Pizza Man on Their Way to Oz

Many may have missed it last Thursday because the headliners like Romney and Palin were not on the playbill. I did not. I DVR'd it so I'd have the option to watch it if there was some media worthy moment (not expected) being talked about the next day. That way I could do a rewind to catch the full context. In the end I watched the GOP debate in Greensville, SC the same night I recorded it because my curiosity got the better of me. For those of you who missed it here's a scorecard so you can know your players.

Facing them from Left to Right as they stood on Stage

Ron Paul a.k.a. Dr. No loses me every time on matters of foreign policy and national defense. It would seem that in his want of returning us to Constitutional Federal government he wants us to have collective amnesia about 235 years of American history and simply withdraw from our place in the world because it is fiscally inconvenient. His consistent point around fixing the Federal reserve made my eyes glass over which tells me he lost 99% of the non-Accountants in this country as well. And then there was the delivery . . . not mellifluous . . . not ready to take down Obama in a war of words.

Herman Cain is not quite "The Rent is Too Damn High" party. I've heard him speak on a couple of occasions before the "debate" and he appears serious enough. I can't get past the fact that he's going to apply his experience from corporate America. A little like trying to teach an indigenous people about calculus and advanced electronics. The current DC government is so far removed from sound fiscal theory that it's going to take more than a quick discussion about the nation's balance sheet. His lack of real foreign policy experience ranks right up there with the Donald Doctrine of taxing imports at 25% and laying claim to another country's oil fields. Once we get past the national threat of our debt and deficit and the malaise of our no-jobs recovery we will have very ominous threats from North Korea, Russia, China, etc. You can't privatize or outsource those solutions.

Tim Pawlenty, maybe by virtue of the lighting but almost certainly because of the odd angles in the underlying bone structure of his face, looked like the Tin Man. His unnatural hand gestures weren't helping either. I honestly can't recall much of what he said because I kept wondering which Media Consulting firm had been working with him for all of about 1 week on his "presence". It was so obviously forced that it was distracting. By the way Unnatural Hand Gestures spells UHG and that about sums it up for Pawlenty.

Rick Santorum was taking a little while to get his comfort level but once he did I think he started gaining momentum over the rest of the candidates. On one hand I like the "fire" he showed when asserting he was the guy for the job . . . the job being to beat Obama. On the other hand I am not sure that looked entirely Presidential. It looked more like the end of so many job interviews I've conducted as a hiring manager where I ask, "why should I hire you" and I get the stock response "because I'm a hard worker, a fast learner and a people person."

and then there was Gary Johnson. Did he really come out in this non-partisan, largely conservative forum and say he would pander for votes? His selling point, other than he has 3 more big mountains to climb on various continents which are mostly not in North America (apparently that's his Porous Border Foreign Policy Doctrine), was that he was okay with abortion so if he miraculously coasted past everyone in the primary after openly admitting that he's squishy on the topic of when life begins (read your history Gary, particularly the chapter on Rudy G's 2007 primary run) he was in a better position to win the general. But if you were a jobless, free-love twenty something and that wasn't enough for you well, hey, he's pro-drug legalization too. Gnarly dude.

And there you have it, and it is early yet, except if your Obama who has been campaigning hard for six months in a non-primary election.