How Did We Come To Elect This Couple?

The problem with extracting shale oil is the cracking takes place under great pressure and it often filters into and hurts ground water sources.

That said, there are ways to extract it safely but NIMBYS would prefer we not do so because they claim it despoils the land as in strip mining which is actually not factually true. You decide.( See 1 below.)
---
J Street is allegedly being funded by Soros and its purpose is to destroy world support for Israel.

Most J Street members are either known radical leftists and or hothead youths who haven't the slightest clue of history. Some members and /or supporters are just innocents being duped. (See 2 below.)
---
Matters continue to heat up in Lebanon as Iran plays its control cards. (See 3 below.)
---
A lost teachable moment? (See 4 below.)
---
Angle actually has some interesting, if far out, ideas that she may not be able to get across in the current heated political atmosphere.

Reid is usually in a snit so you can expect anything from him. He will pull out all stops to win even being holier than thou! (See 5 and 5a below.)
---
Class contrasted with cool. (See 6 below.)
---
In the 'old' days of back room politics the Republican and Democratic leadership would have gotten together and picked candidates who could win. In the case of Republicans they might well have considered a team made up of Christie and Daniels .

Then egalitarianism and Democracy crept into the selection process and everything broke down and so now we spend millions and millions selecting candidates who are weak and often not likely to win and if they do are not capable of good governance because they have to play to too many factions and make too many commitments which are bought and paid for by those with deep pockets. (See 7 below.)
---

This is true of both parties. (See 7 below.)
---
Pensions of public servants no longer make them subservient but it is breaking the fiscal backs of states. Firemen pensions, for instance, leave them hosing the public taxpayer and so it goes. (See 8 below.)
---
Democrats continue to run from Obama when he enters their state yet they seek votes and being elected so they can enact his policies. Something weird is going on which maybe November will resolve. (See 8 below.)
---
Our First Lady is first when it comes to living it up but comes in last when it comes to sensitivity and good tatse.

Michelle sets a poor example and though she is entitled to vacation where she pleases she seems not to care about affronting.

I hope she is finally proud of our nation. I am certainly not proud of her and her high handed staffing and blatant display of insensitivity.

I constantly ask myself how did we come to elect this couple? (See 9 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Subject: FW: Oil you better sit down


Here's an interesting read, important and verifiable information :

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and
one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to
ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil
does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more
than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only
scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a
revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in
this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota , western South Dakota , and

extreme eastern Montana ...... check THIS out:http://bakkenshale.net/bakkenshalemap.html

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe
Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign
oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion
barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel,
we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see
their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana
Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found
in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a
formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the
'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and
into Canada .. For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead
end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells
decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up
the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500
billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels
will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years
straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one
should - because it's from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the
largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION
barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In
three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this
motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders,
than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the
environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America
become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of
people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in
this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION
barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in
the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think
again!
It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just
might be funding the environmentalists?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Was J-list in the service of J-Street?
By Lenny Ben David


Even in Israel, the Daily Caller’s “Journolist” exposé has received its share of attention. The Jeremiah Wright and Sarah Palin email threads were less interesting to Israelis than the Journolist discussion of whether to report on the Islamist background of the Ft. Hood Texas shooter.

The Israeli press didn’t get into the details of Spencer Ackerman’s thuggery of attacking conservative pundits as “racists” and his aggressive call “to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. … In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window….”


Pro-Israel consumers of the news as well as the many members of various pro-Israel media watchdogs such as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA) and HonestReporting, would undoubtedly want to see the publication of the Journolist discussions on Israel, Netanyahu’s election, Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, and the Goldstone Report.

Will those threads confirm their deeply held suspicions of media bias against Israel?

The evidence so far indicates that many members of Journolist support the Middle East policies of a Washington organization named J Street. The supposedly “pro-Israel” J Street is a relatively new leftist lobby, PAC and educational foundation that calls itself “Obama’s blocking back” and takes positions critical or outrightly opposed to Israeli defense policy, the Netanyahu-led government, the Cast Lead operation, sanctions against Iran, and the interdiction of the Turkish IHH flotilla en route to Gaza. Indeed, a survey of a couple dozen purported members of the J-List shows many of them to be vocal fans of the upstart J Street lobby.

That shouldn’t be too surprising considering that an Englishman named Daniel Levy, one of J Street’s founders, is listed on the J-List rosters. So is Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films who sits on J Street’s Advisory Council.

Spencer Ackerman, the designer of the “call-them-racists-and-throw-them-through-a-window” strategy, proudly described J Street’s birth thus:

“Beginning today, a band of liberal Jews intends to transform the terms of the American debate over Israel — among the most delicate, controversial and combustible topics in politics. Two young, leading liberal Jews — Jeremy Ben-Ami and Daniel Levy — plan to unveil the first-ever…”

On YouTube, Ackerman can be heard at a J Street event decrying the “injustice visited by Israeli Jews on Palestinians for 40 years.”

Brooklyn College professor Eric Alterman, and Journolist member, praised J Street in a New York Times op-ed and a Le Monde Diplomatique podcast interview.

J-List member Marc Ambinder promoted J Street from his editor’s perch at Atlantic.

Time Magazine’s Joe Klein wrote,

“J Street [is]… a liberal Israel-advocacy group that has been under vicious assault from right-wing Jewish extremists.

“[J Street’s director Jeremy] Ben-Ami seems perfectly mainstream reasonable to me. You wonder what the fuss has been all about.”

The Journolist’s Matthew Yglesias thought so highly of J Street that the organization lists at least four of his articles on their press links. In 2008 he wrote, “Here’s an exciting development — J Street, a new, progressive, Israel- and Mideast-focused organization has launched.”

Penn State blogger Michael Berube wrote of J Street, “It ain’t perfect, but this whole J Street thing seems to be a start. More of them and less of AIPAC, please.”


The Washington Monthly’s David Drum praised the launch of J Street in 2008, “Well, the journey of a thousand miles etc. etc. Good luck to ‘em. God knows AIPAC could use the competition.”

Ezra Klein was the founder of the Journolist listserv. Of all of J Street’s sycophants, it’s difficult to find a bigger one. “I’m glad to welcome J Street to Washington,” Klein wrote. “With 1/100th AIPAC’s budget, the organization is not likely, as some are hoping, to prove a quick counterweight to the existent Israel Lobby I’ve added myself to J Street’s list, and I think you should too.”

He followed that with an Op-Ed in Ha’aretz entitled, “Israel is well-served by J Street.”

Writing in the Boston Globe about “The New American Jew on Israel,” J-Lister Jesse Singal lashed out at the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s refusal to meet with a J Street congressional delegation that included a boycott-supporting U.S. church group. In fact, the Foreign Ministry offered to meet with the congressmen, but the uncompromising, confrontational, press-seeking response was in effect “all of us or none of us.”

Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reported at length and glowingly about a J Street poll on American Jewry. He ignored the disturbing fact that the self-serving poll was conducted by a firm owned by J Street’s founding vice president. Stein also reported disapprovingly on the “targeting” of two “progressive” foreign policy groups, J Street and the National Iranian American Council. “Like NIAC,” Stein complained, “much of the attacks on J Street have been through guilt by association.”

Another J-Lister is Michael Tomasky of the British Guardian. In October 2009, Tomasky published two paeans to J Street after attending its national conference in Washington.

But, one may — or even should — ask, what’s wrong with this J-List/J Street confluence of opinion? Isn’t it likely that like-minded people have similar opinions?


The problem with the J-Listers is the evidence that some do not hesitate to promote their biases in the media while censoring and distorting the opinions of their opponents.

The Journolist includes some of Washington’s best political reporters, but while praising J Street, not a single one has investigated the organization’s funding, the identity of its organizational decision-makers, the ties to George Soros and his various organizations, the motives of the Saudi power-brokers, officers of a pro-Iranian lobby, and members of Washington’s Arab lobby who contribute to J Street. Add to that list the recent contribution from the producer of the anti-American, anti-Semitic Turkish film, Valley of the Wolves.

J Street’s critics do not call for the examination of the leadership or funding of any other organizations on the American left such as the Israel Policy Forum. The IPF’s leadership and funding are visible and not hidden, but J Street’s leadership, board, and funders are shrouded in mystery.

Evidence suggests that the Journolist group actually mobilized to protect J Street. After the publication of an article of mine in Pajamas Media raising questions about J Street, Spencer Ackerman (of divert-attention-by-yelling-racist and throw-them-through-a-window infamy) launched a broadside against me. True to his thuggish prescription, he screamed “racist,” and threatened me physically in his blog.

The yappings of a pissant like Ackerman are inconsequential, but within a day, 10 more writers and bloggers – at least half of them known J-Listers — joined in to what looked like a lynching. [See “Did I Get Journolisted?” by this author.] And it appears that they succeeded in deterring other reporters and editors from investigating numerous questions about the supposedly “pro-Israel” J Street.

A left-wing – or right-wing – press grouping armed with a political agenda can evolve into a dangerous cabal against democratic values. Similarly, a well-heeled Washington-based lobby that hides its leadership’s identity while seeking to weaken the strong U.S.-Israel relationship is a danger to Israel and Middle East stability. When the two groups work in tandem, watch out.

Lenny Ben David served as a senior diplomat in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Today he is a public affairs consultant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Four armies on alert, Khamenei takes charge of Lebanese crisis

Tehranthrew all its weight behind Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah ahead of his contentious speech Monday, Aug. 9, by declaring that "Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan are Iran's security belt," and sending its National Security Council Director Saeed Jalili, who is also lead nuclear negotiator, to Beirut Sunday to strengthen his hand. This is reported by Iranian sources.

Upon arrival, the NSC head went into conference with Nasrallah and the spiritual leader's special aide Ali Akbar Velayati, who arrived in Beirut last Thursday, Aug. 5after the Lebanese-Israeli border clash, and is still there.

Jalilee then took off for Damascus to give Syrian president Bashar Assad a piece of his mind. According to sources, in a conversation that went on till early Monday, the Iranian official made it clear that Tehran would not tolerate the deal Assad concluded with Saudi king Abdullah to pull away from - or even reduce - Syrian relations with Hizballah.

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has clearly taken charge of the Lebanese situation. He is maintaining control through two top officials kept standing by in Beirut and Damascus as Nasrallah prepares to accuse Israel of assassinating Rafiq Hariri, four-time prime minister of Lebanon, in February 2005.

This is the gambit Nasrallah is using to blackmail the Hariri government by a threat of civil war and/or a military confrontation with Israel into disbanding the UN special tribunal and so avoid surrendering indicted Hizballah leaders to the court.

With Tehran ranged solidly behind him at the highest level, the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian war planners have put their armies, along with Hzballah, on the ready for trouble.

Iran made sure border tensions remained high after Lebanese army snipers killed an Israeli officer in a clash last Tuesday, Aug. 5. A group of Iranian intelligence and commando officers Friday openly toured the South Lebanese-Israeli borders and studied Israeli positions, making sure they were seen on the Israeli side.
They are still present at Hizballah's forward positions.

Sunday, Lebanese foreign minister Ali Al-Shami flew to Tehran to appeal for help in toning down the ultimatum posed by Nasrallah for Prime Minister Saad Hariri to disband the special tribunal established by the UN and Lebanon to probe his father's murder and instead accuse Israel before the UN Security Council. Al-Shami maintained that this move would break up Lebanon's unity government and open the gates to a recurrence of civil warfare and fighting with Israel.

His appeal to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fell on deaf ears. Instead, Jalilee was put on a special plane to Beirut to strengthen the Hizballah leader's hand. This was clear from his remark: "The power of resistance and unity of the Lebanese Army does not let the Zionist regime to even cut a tree. Earlier, the Zionist regime could advance to the borders of Beirut fearlessly. Today the Zionist army gets a strong response from Islamic Resistance…"

His words meant that, for Tehran, the Lebanese Army's 9th Battalion is no longer a separate, autonomous entity but integral to Hizballah and a partner in its radical mission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Why Obama Does Not Address Connecticut Shootings
By Jack Cashill

A week ago, as is well enough known, Omar Thornton shot and killed eight of his coworkers while being escorted out of the building after having been terminated by his employer, a Connecticut beer distributor.


As I write this, President Barack Obama has yet to address this subject in any public way. He is not alone in his restraint. The media have soft-pedaled the motive -- the whole shooting, for that matter. Four days after the fact, my wife, who watches CNN and listens to NPR, had not heard about it. Unlike, say, Oklahoma City or even Columbine, the tragedy served no useful political purpose. Just the opposite.


"You probably want to know the reason why I shot this place up," Thornton told the dispatcher in his final 9-11 call. "This place is a racist place. They're treating me bad over here. And treat all other black employees bad over here, too. So I took it to my own hands and handled the problem. I wish I could have got more of the people." For a media desperately seeking a whiff of Tea Party violence, this was not welcome news.


To the degree that the media have covered the subject, they have largely taken Thornton at his word. "Beer warehouse shooter long complained of racism," read the headline of a typically sympathetic Associated Press article. The AP shies from concluding what it should have: The complaints may have been real, but the inspiration for those complaints ranged from the trivial to the imaginary.


During Thornton's well-paid tenure at Hartford Distributors, there had been no claims of "racial insensitivity" made by him or anyone else through the company's anti-harassment policy, the union grievance process, or state and federal agencies. The company asked Thornton to resign only after he had been caught stealing beer.


Given the higher threshold of proof HR managers require for protected classes, especially blacks -- "If you're white, male, and under 40," one HR exec joked to me, "we just kick your butt out" -- Hartford did not terminate Thornton until Thornton was caught on video stealing. It was not his first offense.


For Obama, this should have been a teachable moment. He could have shown black Americans the extraordinary safeguards the corporate world has put into place to protect their rights. He could have explored the historic roots of the deep-seated paranoia that undermines black self-confidence and explained the burden that paranoia puts on black ambition, but he has done no such thing. In that void, many blacks, and not a few whites, will insist on seeing Thornton as more of a martyr than a madman.


Author Shelby Steele, who is biracial himself, has seen these kind of scenarios played out around him from the time he was a boy in a still-segregated world. In his underappreciated 2008 book, The Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win, Steele dissected Obama's soul with more precision than anyone before or since, and he did so before Obama had won a primary. The book's subtitle, by the way, only seems to suggest a miscalculation on Steele's part. The "win" does not refer to the election.


Obama's dilemma, as Steele sees it, is that in his lifelong quest to seem an "authentic" black man, Obama feels compelled to exaggerate the state of black victimization. Rather than fixing problems, many of which are generated within the black community, the newly authentic Obama fixes blame.


When Obama has attempted to address moral issues, some more authentic black leader can be counted on to slap him down, as Jesse Jackson did in July 2008 when he threatened "to cut his nuts off." This posture does not make for a useful governing strategy. Instead, says Steele, it "commits [Obama] to a manipulation of the very society he seeks to lead."


Unfortunately, Obama did not look to Shelby Steele as a potential mentor. For guidance, he looked to people like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. The good Reverend relentlessly instructed his congregants, says Steele, "to think and act as if the exaggerated poetic truth of white racism is the literal truth." Writing well before anyone had seen those telltale videos, Steele asks a fundamental question: How could Obama "sit every week in a church preaching blackness and not object"?


Ayers, the man who in Dreams From My Father lent Obama his voice on the subject of blackness, gives all appearances of being white. Skin color aside, Ayers and Obama had much in common. Both grew up in comfortable white households, attended idyllic, largely white prep schools, and have struggled to find an identity as righteous black men ever since.


Although Ayers rages at "structural racism" in all of his books, that rage reaches a primal scream stage in Race Course: Against White Supremacy, a book he co-wrote with wife Bernardine Dohrn after Obama's election. One would think that victory would have eased the pain, but it has done no such thing for Ayers and any number of other radicals, black and white.


Among the eternally irritated tenured radicals is Tim Wise, author of Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama. Self-described as an "Angry White Male" in the title of one of his earlier works, Wise penned his jeremiad post-election precisely to deny whites even a moment of self-congratulation.


In his book, Wise quickly reassures his audience that the "deep-seated cultural malady" of racism has been "neither eradicated nor even substantially diminished by Obama's victory." To support his arguments, he marshals the most outlandish set of statistics I have seen in a book that was not self-published.


Wise, like all believers in institutional racism, sees remediation only through "productive anti-racism and social justice work." In a similar spirit, Ayers rejects any easy "end-of-white-supremacy narrative." He fears that Obama's victory may actually set back the cause of social justice by taking black concerns off the table to preserve the illusion of racial harmony.


For Ayers, social justice means nothing less than communism, albeit with a small "c." In 1993, a year before Dreams was finally written, Ayers would concede in an interview for the book Sixties Radicals, Then and Now, "Maybe I'm the last communist who is willing to admit it."


Listening to these radical voices, Steele believes, has kept Obama a "bound man." He is not allowed to extrapolate from his own experience and preach the value of education, marriage, family, hard work, and success. At exactly the wrong moment, Ayers and Wright crawled into Obama's head and shielded their charge from his better angels.


The duo had the chance to help Obama establish himself as his own man, but instead, they insisted that, to be authentic, a black man must rage at the machine -- which is what Omar Thornton did to the very end, violently. If Obama argued for redemption through self-help, his core supporters, black and white, would deny him his authenticity. For someone who has struggled so long and hard to establish an identity as a black man, that denial is scarier than defeat. This is why, implies Steele, "He Can't Win."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Harry Reid Plays the Religion Card Against Sharron Angle
By Lee Cary

Senator Harry Reid can't play the race card in his race against Sharron Angle. He wouldn't dare play the gender card. So he's playing the only face card he holds -- the religion card -- as he aims to frame Angle as a Christian zealot holding extreme notions about the federal government that put her outside the mainstream of Nevadans.


A Las Vegas Review-Journal article written by Laura Myers, entitled "Angle's religious zeal criticized: Reid campaign says opponent's comments show 'holy crusade' against government," recently slapped down the religion card for the Reid Campaign.


U.S. Sen. Harry Reid's campaign criticized his GOP challenger Sharron Angle on Wednesday for telling a religious broadcaster that the Obama administration is violating the First Commandment by expanding federal programs and making "government our God."


"We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government," Angle said in an April interview with TruNews Christian Radio. "We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not our government."


Reid campaign spokesman Kelly Steele charged that Angle's comments show the Southern Baptist believes her campaign "represents a holy crusade -- a religious 'war of ideology' in her words -- against government programs like Social Security and Medicare."


Note the language in the article's title, where the reference is to "Angle's religious zeal" and not merely her religious beliefs. "Zeal" is code for "extremist." Terrorists are zealots. And so are those wild-eyed Tea Partiers.


Despite the beliefs espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints against gambling, Harry, a Mormon, has been good for the gaming business for a long time. Back in 1998, when asked about the campaign contributions he received from gaming and associated industries, Harry said,


"Gambling is a personal choice," Reid answered when asked by The Tribune in 1998 if a devout Mormon could promote gambling in Nevada with a clear conscience. "I do everything I can to protect Nevada's No. 1 industry but I have no obligation to protect gaming in other places."


That same article notes that


[o]ther prominent Mormons have worked as top executives for legalized gambling conglomerates. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, was once the chief corporate public relations officer for Howard Hughes, who controlled extensive casino holdings in the gambling capital.


This would be the same Senator Bennett who lashed out against Angle after he was defeated in the GOP primary race in Utah. Bennett blamed those radical Tea Partiers for his defeat. Angle enjoys wide support from folks who align themselves with that grassroots movement. You suppose that had anything to do with Bennett's remarks?


The gaming business has been good to Harry and to Vegas. So it's no surprise when the Review Journal tags Angle with the zealot label.


What is a surprise, though, is what Harry has said, in the past, about the influence of his religion on his political beliefs. In a 2007 speech at Brigham Young University, he made these statements.


Let's talk politics. It is not uncommon for members of the Church to ask how I can be a Mormon and a Democrat. Some say my party affiliation puts me in the minority of our Church members. But my answer is that if you look at the Church membership over the years, Democrats have not always been the minority, and I believe we won't be for long. I also say that my faith and political beliefs are deeply intertwined. I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it.


So is Harry on a partisan crusade of his own? He continued with,


Growing up in Searchlight, my mother always had on our wall a small pillow case -- royal blue with gold fringe, with the words, we can, we will, we must. And the name on the bottom in large gold letters -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt. President Roosevelt was the closest we had to a worshipful figure as I grew up. For my economically challenged parents, even though a man of great wealth and privilege, Roosevelt represented them.


He fought for the workers of America. President Roosevelt is the basis of my political direction. Social security is the most successful social program in the history of the world. A government program that helps the old, the handicapped, widows and orphans."


The Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps programs that put hundreds of thousands of unemployed people to work. Not handouts, but jobs.


Roosevelt tackled our greatest economic crisis with the 3 R's: relief, recovery and reform.


So Harry grew up worshiping FDR. Maybe someone should tell Harry that Social Security now pays out more money today that it takes in, and that it has been the biggest Ponzi scheme in world history. And Harry might consider the case made by those economists who argue that Roosevelt's New Deal polices prolonged America's ordeal of the Great Depression. Oh, and while someone is at it, Harry needs reminding that the current administration, where he plays a starring role, is not creating jobs but is delivering record handouts.


In that same speech, Harry said that "[d]uring a crisis[,] people have only three places to look for help...family, government and God."


Angle's point -- characterized as zealotry by the Review Journal -- is that today, people are becoming more and more dependent on help from an increasingly intrusive, omnipresent, and omniscient -- in the minds of its minions -- federal government.


It was the man Harry grew up worshiping who said,


"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt


5a)The voters’ blinding hatred of Harry Reid
By Jon Ralston (contact)


Sharron Angle is dead, one in an occasional series.

The question cannot be ignored considering all that has happened since the primary: If Sharron Angle truly is as cuckoo as Harry Reid says she is and as her own words occasionally indicate, why isn’t the Senate majority leader, arguably the most powerful Nevadan in history, running away from her in the polls?

Although it’s possible Reid may continue to gain ground on Angle — he has gone from being down double digits to having slight leads in most surveys — the inexorable number in nearly every poll is the one that shows about half of the electorate disapproves of Reid. With 10 weeks until early voting begins, and with Reid hoarding enough money to unload all of the ammunition Angle has provided, it has become clear that either the majority leader can’t beat anyone this year or the GOP nominee is the only person he can survive.

At first glance, the prospect is startling: The most powerful man in Nevada, who controls the Democratic Party and is as canny as they come, could lose to a backbencher assemblywoman, who has no help from the party, who is on a mission from God, who thinks entitlements are extra-constitutional and who doesn’t think gays should adopt. I could go on with positions she has espoused, despite any current rhetorical mellowing, that generally are seen as out of the mainstream. But no need.

It’s almost preposterous, right? Sharron Angle defeating Harry Reid? Come on.

But here’s the rub: People hate Reid. I tell my daughter never to use that verb, but it’s the only word for it. It seethes, blinds, sputters.

I am asked all the time for the provenance of such animus. I still believe it is a combination: Anger at the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda that folks blame for their economic lot, Reid’s four decades in politics, his general mien and, of course, his intemperate remarks (war is lost, taxes are voluntary, tourists smell).

But it is profoundly irrational, too, much of the time, and thus impossible to change with a “She’s from Crazytown” campaign. And that’s what keeps the Reid folks up at night, knowing no matter how skillful they are — and he has the best campaign team Nevada has seen — the Reid-haters will not listen. They may be able to scare a small percentage to stay home or vote for “none of these candidates” — and that may be enough — but Team Reid can’t be sure, no matter what the next Angle revelation is.

Angle benefits not just from her own social conservative base (thank you, God) but also from the core of Reid-haters she inherited after the primary. Is it enough to get her to the 43 percent to 47 percent needed to win this race? Perhaps.

Further illustration: For months I began columns with “Harry Reid is dead …” and no one, even the Reid folks, complained. Not a peep. Now, with similar wryness, I start with the demise of Angle, who clearly has plummeted, and the vituperation is screeching.

Two recent favorites, via e-mail:

• “I never realized you were such a $@&* left-wing commie. I have lost all respect for you, and I mean that with all due respect.”

• “Are you going to take back that Angle is ‘dead’ now that Harry’s lead is gone? I have come across some lowlife’s (sic) but you are something special. You must not only hate anyone who challenges the establishment, but you appear to have a problem with women.”

What does this tell you about selective perception and the Reidhate out there? Only answer that matters: It tells you why Angle can still win.

Angle’s conflation of God and government could be enough on its own, despite the video catalog of her other greatest hits Reid possesses, to sway enough independent-minded voters to cost her the election. Even people of faith are squeamish about being asked to vote for someone who says God wanted her to run or that the Almighty is offended by Social Security, Medicare and health care reform. It’s a bit much, even for the devout.

Angle will continue to say “Obamacare, bailouts and Harry Reid” as an incantation designed to make her own words and deeds disappear from voters’ minds. But Reid’s own sleight of hand campaign — don’t look at the economy, just remember she’s nuts! —might reach critical mass, if it hasn’t already.

Sharron Angle may indeed be dead, and we don’t realize it yet. If so, not even God can save her.

And how ironic it would be after she brought Christianity into the race if Angle had helped to resurrect Harry Reid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Obama's 'Cool'
By Frank Burke

Barack Obama's affinity for pop culture is emblematic of his administration's greater disconnect on programs, policy, and ideology from the mainstream of American society. Much of this has to do with the dichotomy between the terms "class" and "cool."


Though difficult to precisely define, personal class is one of those things of which it may be said (to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart) that "you know it when you see it." Its attributes include maturity, rational self-possession, a sense of the appropriate, generosity of spirit, and the humility that begets both charm and wit. Though frequently associated with childhood training and education, class knows no boundaries when it comes to gender, economic status, or even political persuasion. William F. Buckley, Jr. and Daniel Patrick Moynihan held opposing views, but both were possessed of great personal grace and were sincerely liked by even their opponents.


The American people have always valued class in their presidents and other leaders, and for good reason. Its highly personal characteristics are the prime means by which presidents are first observed and measured by foreign leaders, friend and foe alike.


This does not mean that individuals possessing "class" are immune from mistakes, miscalculations, or even personal misconduct. The way in which they handle adversity is perhaps what defines them most.


Despite multiple personal and political failings that we have become aware of in recent years, John and Jacqueline Kennedy possessed such respect for their country and themselves that they worked diligently at projecting the proper image to their fellow citizens and the rest of the world. The pride in American history reflected in his speeches and her restoration of the White House, their support of the fine arts, and their ongoing interaction with younger Americans presented an image that, though some might call it hypocritical, at least preserved us from the tabloid presidency that is the Clinton legacy, and increasingly Obama's.


It is impossible to conceive of John Kennedy presenting the British Prime Minister with a set of DVDs (even ones that worked) or the Queen of England with an iPod of his speeches. Contrast the Kennedy administration's approach to physical fitness for the nation's youth which stressed personal responsibility (the fifty-mile hike) with today's big-government solution (micromanaging the school cafeteria and excluding certain soft drinks).


From the inception of his campaign, Barack Obama was described by his younger supporters as "cool," and, as with an American Idol contestant, that was what caused many of them to vote for him. It likewise explains why he persists in trying to maintain the rock star/pop star image long past its useful life.


As it applies to culture, "cool" is largely associated with the personal journey we call "adolescence." A large part of that process involves a search for self and for independence and is characterized by the adoption and rejection of multiple role models, as well as rebellion against parental and other authority. "Cool" figures have always combined traits that not only typify but idealize this. James Dean's agonized "Rebel Without a Cause" was the spiritual ancestor of Peter Fonda in "Easy Rider." From Elvis' sideburns and hip movements to the Beatles' new sound, clothes, and haircuts to the grotesqueries of Madonna and Lady GaGa, the elements of novelty, non-conformism and rebellion are readily apparent. Frequently, the cool people try to project a "serious" side by involving themselves in causes that, therefore, appeal to their fans: No matter how egregious, if the star is for it, it's got to be cool.


Right from the start, the Obama campaign was designed and produced as a pop culture phenomenon. From the screaming, fainting fans to the walk-on endorsement of pop icons to the world tour replete with Las Vegas production values, the cult of celebrity was everywhere prevalent. Like many rock songs, the lyrics "Hope and Change" and "We are the ones we've been waiting for" were long on sentiment and short on substance. All of this was greatly magnified by the candidate's youth as opposed to John McCain's age. Barack was cool.


In the relatively short time since the election, reality has intruded.


In the world of pop, nothing breeds contempt like overexposure and, except for the most fanatical fans, it takes only a couple of bad albums or films to consign even the once-brightest star to the dismal world of Golden Oldies and Trivial Pursuit. The failed Stimulus Bill, the toxic Obamacare initiative, and so-called financial reform are a lot less sexy than Hope and Change and never even made the charts. It hasn't helped that the star's lead act, Reid and Pelosi, is on the far side of the generation gap.


Obama's juvenile behavior has not helped, either. Lecturing the Supreme Court at the State of the Union address -- publicly, and in their presence; insulting those who disagree with him; and looking for an "ass to kick" are more indicative of immaturity than rebelliousness. The perpetually cold, aloof persona, the self-indulgence, the incompetence and vacillation have made his ascendancy a distant memory.


Even in the world of pop culture, the best can sometimes reinvent themselves. After careers defined by "Top 40" hit songs, Linda Ronstadt, Rod Stewart, and Carly Simon all turned to the classics of the Great American Song Book to interpret music written when their grandparents were young. Unfortunately, politics isn't showbusiness, and, as opposed to reinvention, we are left with the protracted adolescence of Barack Obama.


Cool is transient. Class endures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Christie and Daniels: The Yin and Yang of a New Republicanism

Despite disparate personalities and temperaments, the two governors are enjoying success by dint of their honesty and courage in confronting problems.
By Rick Moran Share

In looks, demeanor, temperament, and life experience, Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels are as dissimilar as the states from which they hail. The former is a blunt, outspoken, even pugnacious former U.S. attorney with a career in New Jersey noted for reforming a local political cesspool and prosecuting white-collar crime. The latter is a soft-spoken, balding, lifelong Hoosier political junkie who spent a decade as a top executive of a Fortune 500 company.

Despite their seeming opposite natures, the two governors share a common denominator that may hold the key to fostering a new kind of Republican Party where principle and pragmatism combined with confidence and competence offer the voter a real choice in governance.

Neither man can be considered an ideologue. Nor do the two governors pander to any faction in the party or outside of it. Instead, both seem to have hit upon formulas for success that are peculiar to their own state — and their personalities.

By necessity, Governor Christie has found himself in a confrontational role. His state’s finances were in dismal shape when he took over early this year, and arrayed against him were powerful interests bent on submarining his plans to bring budget discipline to Trenton. Public employee unions, including the powerful teachers union, were preparing for war in order to maintain the status quo on pensions and other benefits.

But Christie outfoxed and outhustled his foes. He took to the stump, going around New Jersey explaining in plain language the problems he was dealing with and trying to address.

Rich Lowry, writing in National Review, explains:

He matched unyielding principle (determined to balance the budget without raising taxes, he vetoed a millionaires’ tax within minutes of its passage) with a willingness to take half a loaf (he wanted a constitutional amendment to limit property taxes to 2.5 percent, but settled with Democrats for an imperfect statutory limit). He’ll need an Act II to get deeper, institutional reforms, but New Jersey is now separating itself from those other notorious wastrels, California and Illinois.

Indeed, while California and Illinois whine about hard times and tough choices, begging the Feds for more money so that the state politicians are spared from making cuts to programs that serve their favored constituencies, Christie’s triumph in getting many of the budget cuts and building his own constituency for fiscal discipline is a model for other governors across the country who are feeling the squeeze of tight budgets in hard times.

Where Christie has succeeded with calculated confrontation and a practical streak when it comes to negotiating with the opposition, Mitch Daniels has quietly revolutionized government in Indiana by working with friend and foe to reform the way the needs of citizens are addressed. Using a combination of privatization, creative budgeting, and hard-headed negotiation, Daniels turned a significant $600 million deficit into a $1.2 billion surplus. He was rewarded by being re-elected by the largest margin for a Republican in Indiana’s history.

Both men have been mentioned as possible candidates for president in 2012. Christie has flatly said no, while Daniels has not totally rejected the idea, bearing in mind that the possibility of the Indiana governor throwing his hat in the ring is remote.

Rather than speculate about their political aspirations, it might be more profitable to examine the nature of their success as leaders and wonder if their approach to politics, to the people, and even to the opposition holds any lessons for the rest of the GOP.

Going into the midterm elections, Republicans are rolling. The Democrats are becoming more dispirited as anger against them in the hinterlands grows. Those Democrats who might have been hopeful that the people are beginning to forget about the ObamaCare debacle were disabused of that notion last week when more than 70% of Missourians symbolically rejected individual and business mandates for national health care. Similar measures are on the ballot in two other states — a number that will probably grow.

But with Democrats on the ropes politically, and a favorable climate for a GOP takeover of the House and perhaps even the Senate, the Republican Party has so far failed to offer a coherent plan to get the economy out of the doldrums and create the jobs the U.S. so desperately needs. At this moment, there is no “Contract with America II” around which GOP politicians — both incumbents and challengers — can rally. It would seem the Minority Leader John Boehner is counting on the high level of anger directed against Democrats by voters to drive the GOP to victory in the fall.

Not a bad strategy at all, and one more than likely to work. Make the other guy and his party the issue and let Republican enthusiasm, Democratic activists’ dispiritedness, and independent voter anger at President Obama and the Democrats form a perfect storm that will create a wave that will sweep the majority party out the door and the GOP into power.

As an electoral strategy, one can find little with which to argue. But as a governing strategy, it leaves a lot to be desired.

On January 3, 2011, after being elected speaker of the House, John Boehner is going to have to stand before the American people and inform them how the Republicans are going to clean up President Obama’s mess. A consensus is emerging among economic policy wonks and private economists that things are so bad thanks to the massive spending of the Obama administration that it is going to be impossible to grow our way out of $1.5 trillion deficits without painful — and politically unpopular — cuts in middle-class entitlements.

The GOP is going to have to do something that neither party has demonstrated a capacity to accomplish: look the American people in the eye and give them the straight scoop about how bad things are, and what it is going to cost them to get the economy, the budget, and the country back on track. This is exactly what Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels have done during their terms in office and it has made them the most popular politicians in their states.

Might it not also work on a national level? Making the argument for repealing much of what Obama and the Democrats railroaded through Congress these last two years is easy. Telling seniors that Medicare needs to be cut and that changes need to be made to Social Security so that it survives long enough for their grandchildren to receive benefits is going to be a tough sell. Cutting other favored health and welfare programs will also hurt. Perhaps even military spending will have to be drastically curtailed.

If the GOP really has reformed and has decided to stand on principle, cutting the massive debt created by liberal overreach and ensuring fiscal solvency into the future is going to take the kind of honesty, courage, competence, and optimism exhibited by Daniels and Christie. They have developed different templates for government that work for their states. It remains to be seen whether we can apply the examples they are setting to the national stage and find our way out of this morass of spending and debt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8)Why Public Employees Are the New Welfare Queens
Jonathan Cohn
Jonathan CohnSenior Editorview bioJobs to Fill, Nobody to Fill Them? Why Public Employees Are the New Welfare Queens Citizens of the Week August 8, 2010 11:56 pm
21 comments MorePrint.More From this Author
Jobs to Fill, Nobody to Fill Them?
Citizens of the Week
The Passion of Peter Diamond: Everything You Need To Know About the Republicans’ Newest BogeymanThis is an item about why your local fireman or teacher has such a nice retirement package, why you probably don’t, and the way conservatives are using that contrast to advance their broader economic agenda.

Friday’s New York Times had a column about the “coming class war,” focusing on the fact that retirement packages for public employees seem to be a lot more generous than the ones for private employees. This is not a new discussion. Experts and think-tanks have been churning out research on the topic for years. But, thanks in part to the recession, the pension gap has become a major political controversy.

Conservatives say that excessive public employee pensions exemplify the greed of unions (which sought these generous benefits for public employees) and inefficiency of government (which agreed to pay them). If local and state governments are struggling financially, these conservatives say, they should figure out some way to reduce or revoke those promised benefits, rather than come to Washington and beg for help from the taxpayers.

The Senate Republican Policy Committee sums up the right’s mantra succinctly: “No state bailouts should be contemplated until the wages and pensions of public sector employees are brought into line.” Translation: You shouldn't have to give up another cent of your taxes until government stops paying its bureaucrats so damn much.

I'm sure that argument resonates with a lot of Americans, particularly those who are struggling themselves. But is the premise of the overpaid public employee valid? That's not so clear.

While raw statistics show that public employees get more compensation than private employees doing comparable work, research that adjusts for variables like education has suggested otherwise. Earlier this year, a study with such adjustments by economists Keith Bender and John Heywood concluded that compensation for local and state workers was, on average, 6.8 to 7.4 percent lower than compensation for comparable private sector workers.

Also, as Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research points out, many public employees don’t get Social Security. Overall, he says, “most public sector pensions do not provide retirees with an especially high standard of living.” Exceptions to this rule frequently include firefighters and police, particularly in New York. Then again, they risk their lives to protect the rest of us from lethal threats, which is more than you can say for CEOs like the former telecom executive who in 2007 retired with a $159 million benefit package.

To be clear, I can't vouch independently for the calculations or the conclusions in all of this research. (Among other things, Andrew Biggs, of the American Enterprise Institute, suggests public employees really do fare better once you account for retiree health benefits.) If nothing else, the fact that so many public employees still have traditional pensions is increasingly an anachronism. The majority of private sector retirees don't have retirement plans from their employers. Those that do increasingly have private investment accounts (like 401Ks) that don't guarantee fixed benefits.

And to the extent this gap exists, conservatives are surely right when they say that unions and government accommodation of them are the main reason. Unions represent around 37 percent of public sector workers, compared to 7 percent of private sector workers. Note that one of the few exceptions to the public-private compensation differential seems to be unionized industrial laborers, like the auto workers--and that, during last year’s debate over what to do with the auto industry, we were having a very similar conversation about the relatively rich benefits that members of the United Auto Workers were getting.

But ask yourself the same question you should have been asking then: To what extent is the problem that the retirement benefits for unionized public sector workers have become too generous? And to what extent is the problem that retirement benefits for everybody else have become too stingy?

I would suggest it's more the latter than the former. The promise of stable retirement--one not overly dependent on the ups and downs of the stock market--used to be part of the social contract. If you got an education and worked a steady job, then you got to live out the rest of your life comfortably. You might not be rich, but you wouldn't be poor, either.

Unions, whatever their flaws, have delivered on that for their members. (In theory, retirement was supposed to rest on a "three-legged stool" of Social Security, pensions, and private benefits.) But unions have not been able to secure similar benefits for everybody else. That's why the gap exists, although perhaps not for long.

The fact is that local and state goverments have promised a lot more than they can deliver financially, in part because people love public services but hate to pay the taxes for them. In the short term, then, budget cuts are probably inevitable. And, in this political universe, the likely alternative to reducing public employee compensation is cutting essential services for people who are just as worthy and quite likely more needy.

In the long term, though, it seems like we should be looking for ways make sure that all workers have a decent living and a stable retirement, rather than taking away the security that some, albeit too few, have already. But that's a conversation about shared vulnerability and shared prosperity--a conversation we don't seem to be having right now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8)White House Downplays Bill White's No-Show In Texas
By Scott Conroy

When President Obama touched down in Austin today for a DNC fundraiser and education policy speech, he was greeted by an applauding Texas gubernatorial candidate. The enthusiastic welcome might have seemed a positive sign for the president's political clout in a deep-red state, until you consider that the clapping politician was incumbent Republican Governor Rick Perry, not Democratic challenger and former Houston Mayor Bill White.

While Perry publicly welcomed Obama's Texas visit, White was nowhere in sight, preferring to spend the day campaigning in other parts of the state. The reason for White's absence can be found in a July RasmussenReports poll showing 56 percent of likely voters in Texas strongly disapproving of the president's job performance, with only 25 percent strongly approving.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton denied President Obama was insulted by White's decision to avoid being seen with him.

"No, he thinks that candidates should make their own decisions about how best to spend their time," Burton said. "He definitely does not take that as an insult."

To coincide with president's visit, Perry's campaign released a web ad highlighting White's ties to Obama and turning the tables on imagery from a star-studded 2008 Obama campaign "Yes We Can" video.

And in a move that seemed designed to highlight his differences with the president on one of the most pressing issues in the Texas race, Perry handed a letter to White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett requesting an increase in National Guard troops and law enforcement resources along the Mexican border.

Aboard Air Force One, Burton acknowledged the reality that there will be more than a few Democrats embroiled in close midterm races who will want to keep their distance from the president this fall.

"I think that there has never been a president in the history of this great country who has been wanted by every single candidate across the country to come and campaign for them," Burton said. "President Obama has said plainly that he is going to go out and be helpful where he can be most helpful and spend his time doing things that are helping Democratic candidates across the country. And in the sense that he's come to grips with that, it's a historic fact of life."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9)A foolish trip. Michelle Obama's PR disaster
By Kirsten Powers

The first lady's well-publicized, expensive vacation in southern Spain last week was a PR gift to her husband's opposition.

After all, we're in the middle of a major recession, with many Americans suffering terribly. President Obama himself, in discussing American economic woes with George Stephanopolous in January, said, "Everybody's going to have to [sacrifice]. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game."

"Sacrifice for thee but not for me" is not a great campaign slogan.

Plus, Obama's worst political weakness has been with white-working class voters, who've viewed him with suspicion at least since the 2008 primaries. Mrs. Obama's jaunt through an expensive resort town in a one-shouldered Jean Paul Gaultier top won't help on that front.


It also plays into a favorite right-wing attack: branding Democrats as elitists who can't relate to average Americans' struggles.

In 2004, Citizens United ran a 30-second ad that called the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, "another rich liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he's a man of the people." And no one will forget the famous wind-surfing ad.

In 2008, Obama himself fed it with his comment about voters' "clinging to guns and religion." Media elements used "Joe the Plumber" to "prove" that the candidate hated the middle class. Meanwhile, John McCain -- whose father and grandfather were Navy admirals -- managed to avoid this tarnish despite being married to an heiress worth more than $100 million.

George W. Bush, the Ivy-educated scion of a wealthy political family, managed to come off as just plain folks -- despite once joking to rich supporters, "Here we have the haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base." Man of the people, indeed.

Yet the facts don't matter much. Earlier this year, Sean Hannity branded Obama as an elitist for putting Dijon mustard ("a very special condiment") on his burger. (The monitors at Media Matters dubbed it "Dijon Derangement Syndrome.")

The Drudge Report recently linked to a story about Michelle Obama's commissioning a London designer to make her a coat.

Clearly, no issue is too trivial to support the "Obama doesn't care about you" meme. But if the right will try to use mustard as a political weapon, it's foolish to hand them a lavish foreign vacation, too.

Yes, the initial reports of Michelle Obama's traveling with a 40-person posse were wrong; it's actually two friends and four of their daughters, a couple of aides and advance staff members. But at this point, it hardly matters; the damage has been done.

Better to take a pointer from Laura Bush -- who, as first lady, continued her 15-year tradition of vacationing for a week with four girlfriends at Washington State's Olympic National Park, where they stayed in the Lake Crescent Lodge and went hiking.

Some argue that Michelle should be able to travel wherever she wants if she's paying for it herself. This is naive. She is the first lady at a time when Americans are experiencing great economic pain. There are endless great locations here at home that she could put on the map with a visit -- American hotels and restaurants that would be grateful for the business generated by such a high-profile visitor.

If it's a huge sacrifice for her, so be it. Sacrifice is actually a noble trait, last I checked.

Plus, if she keeps this up, she will be able to vacation anywhere she wants in about two years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------