That nobody Bob Turner won Weiner’s seat in the house. OUCH Mr. President, NY, OUCH!!! Unless some serious winds change, I think Obama very well may be a one-termer. That race was a canary in the Democrat lithium mine. (Dems don’t like coal) And that canary just up and died.

Question, by Squab Dove: Is it me or do most people only know the word “compromise” as if compromise is the best option? Compromise by its definition means both parties get less than what they wanted. Why don’t people seek out a collaborative agreement, a win-win? Do we not understand what that means? Are we too greedy to care?

The trouble is competing ideology. Either side has a totally different approach to constructing the solution for certain problems.

But yes, indeed, we are talking about negotiation when we talk about compromise. Obama seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation means. Think of the whole opening dialogue with Iran campaign point. He doesn’t seem to grasp that negotiation is and adjustment of wills according to leverage. And the goal is to have both sides leave happy. He seems to think negotiation is charming someone into doing something that they otherwise wouldn’t have without your enlightening charm.

The two sides should come together and discuss each others priorities – and make trade, like two kids trading lunch items. The more leverage you have, the more you can demand. That’s negotiation. That’s how business deals work.

Taking Obama’s legislation as an example. He made one of the biggest mistakes you can make in a negotiation, and gave the Republicans one of the biggest forms of leverage: Ability to withdraw. At first he though he had ALL the leverage, so they went after the Pelosi Special. But this scared off many conservative Dems, let everyone know the Obama administration was being belligerent, and didn’t include any Republican priorities, giving the Republicans that one big stick: Ability to withdraw and form a bipartisan opposition.

There was nothing keeping the Reps in the negotiation – actually – they were kicked right out. Remember? The closed door?

Obama claims ending the filibuster will increase compromise. That’s illogical. Ending the filibuster will only shift more leverage to the majority side. It won’t increase compromise in any way. It will only make one side able to demand more – or kick the other side out all together. This would be in the Democrat’s overall interest, because they’re “Progressives” and have a long list of big changes.

That was the fundamental failure of this presidency. He can try blaming others, but what really happened was he thought he could dictate change and ruined his position, in all of two months. Good work Pelosi. Obama could have pulled the other side in and ONLY passed solutions both sides agreed upon, and strengthened his position – validated his Obama mystique.

Think about that. Think about if he had immediately passed a short and easily implementable healthcare reform bill that first fall. A bill both sides had a stake in and showed some pleasant results that year. He would have earned credibility, and significantly increased his leverage for Phase 2. And Phase 3 might happen in year 6 of the Obama administration and look like a public option.

And yes, there would have been butt-hurt Reps over there holding out on anything. But he could have grabbed half or a third with an honest healthcare reform bill, or at least kept all his Democrats. Had Obama lead his legislative efforts more thoughtfully, the Republicans wouldn’t have had a choice but to support a small attractive bill. They wouldn’t have had the Ability to Withdraw.

Instead he now has the record of passing, or attempting to pass, three bills, all with purely partisan support, and all with bipartisan opposition:

1. Spent $800 billion that didn’t seem to do one good-damn thing.
2. Half passed a cap’n trade bill that scared – and is scaring – the shit out of business during a recession.
3. Passed a health care bill against the will of the people and through the use of parliamentary tricks.

Bad economy or not, the reason Obama’s support has dwindled is this: He didn’t do enough for the Left, and the moderates feel like they got scammed.

The key is to put a serious Republican presidential candidate up in 2012. We need someone who is an actual Conservative AND who will appeal to the Independents – not one or the other. He/she needs to be conservative enough to rally the base, and have a strong and reasonable enough temperament to appeal to reasonable people.

Like I’m always telling people during conversations about this: There’s no hope in hell for an actual centrist to make it all the way up our political system. It was starkly apparent to anyone interested in finding out, that Obama was one of the most Liberal people in Congress. The Left loved him! “The One,” they called him.

But Obama also successfully sold himself as a Centrist to the Independents: We will have the debates on CSPAN. When we disagree, that’s when I will listen most closely to you. We have more in common than we don’t.

It’s hard to predict how formidable of an incumbent Obama will be in 2012. If he pulls a Clinton and moves to the middle, he’ll have Hope. But if you ask me, Obama’s no Clinton. When it comes down to it, Obama is an image, an phenomenal image that’s lost its phenom. There’s not a whole lot to the actual man, little character. He can read a teleprompter like it’s not there. He’s great at saying one thing in a way that three different people wanting to hear three different things each hear what they want to hear. He’s a great campaigner. I’m sure he was a great community organizer. And I bet he would make a great party leader.

But he’s not a good President. He’s not as interested in leading the country as he is in changing it – defeating his political enemies – and so on. Amidst a serious recession he leads the Democrats on an aggressive campaign to grow government (cap’n trade, health care reform, stimulus) vilifying any opponents and claiming horrible consequences as the alternative… Foolish Liberal knee-jerk responses… Cheap baseless political attacks… Dishonest descriptions of the opposition arguments… Dishonest math… Fundamental misunderstanding of leverage and negotiation… Blatant violator of logic… War against FOX… Calling out citizens who speak… making fun of citizens… Reconciliation…

It’s been a constant campaign. Obama was all-consumed with get’n while the get’n was good. But now that it’s not – I’ve got a little optimism sparkling inside me, wondering if we might see Obama transform into an actual leader, an actual problem solver, the guy in his book. Not a jerk selling us ill conceived garbage as a solution.

What do you think the chances are that President Palin and her Conservative majority will repeal this bill and likewise cut all the Santa Clause and turtle tunnels out of the budget – and then disband the IRS and institute the Fairtax?

I think that would be a handy way to keep a handle on the budget. It’s important for an economy like ours to run deficits during war time and economic downturns. But those safety systems have been – and most certainly are currently – being abused for the sake of entitlements and keeping the economy hotter than natural.

I think people would be less likely to strike up the banners of war or be so easily sweet-talked into imaginary-Free healthcare if they thought they’d actually have to pay for it in a couple hours when they swing by the Kwiki Mart. It would also kill off this dumb-ass Liberal/Progressive idea of taxing the prosperity out of the motivated in order to welfare any motivation to seek prosperity out of the poor.

What would really be cool is a Constitutional Amendment in the direction of the Freetax, something that would require the tax to be raised to equal spending – with the exception of actual emergencies in which case an actual fiscal plan would be required. Never mind… No exception. It would get abused.

[facetiousness alert]

I have a suggestion for such a tax reform bill: Ban abortion and institute mandatory reversible sterilization in the name of reproductive freedom. In other words, not forcing ALL children approaching sexual maturity to be temporary sterilized infringes upon their precious right to necessary sexual expression, exposition, and experimentation. Reproduction would require a license that would involve testing to weed out the 12-year-old crack-smoking hill-billies and the morbidly degenerate.

We’ll name it the American America Act.

Hey, we could also add this in thee. You know how the stupid Canadians have their arbitrary hate-speech laws that are only enforced against Conservatives? We could have a similar law using the same sneaking logic. We could make ignorant speech a crime. So like, having a protest were you chant demands for the Government to do something like buy people houses, talking about green jobs, claiming the health reform bill will save money, or abandon Iraq or Afghanistan – that would be illegal. The chair! The chair!

This is a good graphic representation of the political ‘spectrum’.

There is a silly test you can take to see where you fall on this chart, nolanchart.com Although it isn’t a fair test. I fell just on the Libertarian side of the line between it and Conservative. I have a feeling the guy who made this was Libertarian. Just take the survey (test) and you’ll know what I mean.

Or take this as an example, one of four choices:

Government involvement is necessary where private industry can’t do the job all by itself. As an example, agricultural subsidies should continue to support small farmers.

I totally agree that it’s the Federal government’s job to do the things private industry CAN’T do. But ffs – subsidizing small farms isn’t an example of this at all! Try interstate highways, national reserve (money and oil) standing army…

Scott Brown elected Massachusetts State Senator

Do you think a woman who had posed nude could ever achieve national political office?

Disaster in Haiti

The only hope long term for Haiti is a deadly disease that only affects jerks. That’s the only hope for a lot of developing nations criminally ruled by jerks. The CIA got close with AIDS, but they didn’t realize back then that butt-sex and being a jerk were not mutually inclusive. Ah well, dreams for the next conservative administration.

‘We are the world’ Haiti relief recording session begins

These people need to be stopped. Send your money to Red Cross.

State of the Union address

I don’t know why people take Obama’s speeches to seriously. I mean, they were never meant to be taken literally. His message is one of hope and change. We can all learn valuable lessons from his speeches but – lol – you can’t apply those ideas directly to policy – that was never the intended purpose of his message.

Toyota Recall

Yeah! Another fat-cat scapegoat! Yeah, let’s get’m! Whoohoo!

Obama getting tough on China for trade agreement infractions

I’m getting tough on my credit cards too. I’m taking a different approach though. I’m paying off the debt – or at least trying.

Underpants bomber now talking, encouraged by parents

Wow Obama administration! Way to go getting the kid to ignore his lawyer’s advice. If only all terrorists had responsible parents. And thanks for telling us about it too. Now all of America knows how great of a job you’re doing protecting us. Hey, so have you gone ahead and put Al Qaeda on the list to receive your FUCKING news letter yet?

Sarah Palin to receive $100k speaking fee for Tea Party Convention

Only a Liberal would find this controversial. She’s a Conservative from Alaska. What do you think she’s going to do with the cash? Buy something with it? You give those people a rifle and a pair of boots – a few years later they’ve got a city with a shipping port. Watch, she’ll invest in some unknown little jackass somewhere and turn another baby-blue state red. Astroturf my ass… U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A

Healthcare reform bill stalled

Ok guys, I get it. You got caught up in all the inaugural excitement. We elected Obama assuming “change” meant a thoughtful approach, but you thought we gave you a mandate to turn the country on its keel. So you went after you’re dreams: single payer, sky-rocketing business costs, and reduced carbon output. I can’t blame anyone for going after their dreams. And hey, at least you go that juicy stimulus!

But those darn Democrats, they got in your way. Single payer was compromised into single payer under a different name – then into a public option. Then even that was compromised – first into some fancy long winded name coined by Pelosi that essentially meant public option, and finally, a year later, into nothing more than a list new regulations – more similar to the Republican alternative to Hillary Care than the brilliant progressive stride we were all assuming would slide through. (Eh, regardless of the naïve math and unfunded state Medicaid mandates) And to add insult to injury, you have to buy some of those Dem votes too.

And darn-it – you could have passed it. Hell, you could have passed a bill covering sea lions FFS. I know you’d like to blame the Republicans, but shit man – you knew you had all the power and that’s how you wrote the bill. No Republican could have voted for that thing any more than you guys could all climb on board with invading Iraq! Or – wait. You got tricked on that one – hu? Well, you know what I mean. You can’t blame the dog you’re walking when you walk into a pole – even if he was enthusiastic about it.

So the question is: What now. Indeed, this bill is shot to shit. Stack that monstrosity on the back of the toilet in the staff bathroom. But what now? Should you pole-vault over the wall with Pelosi? Should you try to come to some reasonable consensus with a few reasonable Republicans? Should you keep this unorganized circus with your ring leader off in his own ring singing his poems?

I’m not sure what you should do. I’d like to see some actual reform though.

Congress to cut funding for KSM trial in NY

Every time anyone asks Obama or anyone in his admin a question about trying KSM in civilian court, they duck the question and assure us he’ll be convicted and executed. So if this is just going to be a $1 billion show trial – why not just “have the trial” (wink-wink)? You know – take a few days off, “have the trial,” print up some transcripts and stuff, execute the bastard, and use the $1 billion on some new Predator drones or something.

Don’t ask don’t tell – once again up for debate

What part of “don’t ask don’t tell” is so hard to understand?

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2791

This is the standard ‘big tent’ definition of Evangelicalism, using my words:

Evangelicalism is a Christian Protestant movement that began in the 1730s in England and America, led by the likes of Puritanism, Pietism, and Methodism in England, and the likes of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield in America. It maintains four essential priorities:

• the primacy of Scripture

• the centrality of Christ’s death as substitutionary atonement for human sins

• the necessity of personal conversion

• the importance of ‘kingdom living’ (actively following Jesus by engaging such efforts as the spiritual devotions, Christian community, deeds of compassion, justice, etc)

Anything else, or anything less, is not Evangelicalism-proper, but someone’s personality or opinions fused in with these four pillars. For instance, Evangelicals did not vote George Bush into office. Political/social conservatives, who also happen to be Evangelicals, voted him in. Further, many political/social liberals, who also happen to be Evangelicals, voted Barrack Obama into office this time around.

As another example, A Christian who says she is an Evangelical because she really has a heart to love the poor is not an Evangelical. She is a Christian who has a passion for a Christian principle which also happens to be one-quarter of the essential priorities of Evangelicalism.

In a single payer option there would be no competition. That’s why it’s called single payer. That’s what Canada and Australia have. It only concerns the payment side, like Medicare. Obama did believe in this until just recently. I mean, that was one of the reasons many people voted for him. But now he no longer supports it.

He claims, from what I’ve heard, that he doesn’t think single payer is a good option for our country, not American. And the piles and piles of video clips the Conservatives are pounding him with – well he’s just pretending those never happened. More likely he’s either given up on it because it has totally lost popular support, or he’s still planning on getting it but – as he explained in a few of those videos – will have to start with the public option.

A public option is simply a government run or government controlled health care insurance provider. Single payer would kill – perhaps with direct legislation – any private competition. It wouldn’t directly affect the health care industry, but would almost certainly affect is through timeliness and size of payments. So – more than likely – new advancement would be slowed because – being new – the new advances would not be recognized by the single payer insurer. That happens with public insurance too, but there are options in public industry. You can leave, make demands, start a website, bitch to your employer, and all the other consumer things.

According to Obama a public option would simply add one more insurance provider to the market, and be good for competition. This directly contradicts the reasons for even having a public option though. There are uninsured people, people who can’t afford insurance, and people whose insurance doesn’t cover their illnesses. Those are the people single payer would be created to serve. To serve these people the public option would have to be comparable with the best common private insurance plans – the ones that actually pay medical bills – AND be super cheap. Great coverage at an affordable price doesn’t exist in the private sector because it’s not possible – forget about profit. Blue Cross provides great coverage, is non-profit, but still costs over $500 a month for a single person.

A public option would eventually become single payer because everyone would move there for the better deal, or be dumped there by employers looking to cut that cost. There’s no way around it, unless you have a lot of faith in complex regulations and piles of forms.

Socialized medicine is a HUGE step further – HUGE. That’s what the UK has. The medical industry its self is a government run entity. Achieving this just isn’t possible in our society. It’s also totally insane and actually against the constitution. Britain’s system was changed during WWII out of total desperation for survival.

Anyone seriously advocating socialized medicine in the US is either innocently confused about what it means or is just plain uninformed. A serious move like that could seriously cause a revolution. It would involve government taking over everything from publicly (public stock, not government) held hospital and university institutions to privately owned private practices and clinics. And the government would have to either steal them or buy them, and since the government only gets money from taxes, it would have to tax (steal) a big chunk of cash to do it. A lot. That boat wouldn’t float.

A friend of Noisy Dove had a good story to tell this week.  Enjoy..

I was talking with my employer this week about his feelings as one of the top 1% of Americans who would be surtaxed to pay for Obamacare. He began by saying he was fortunate enough that he could afford it, meaning in the grand scheme of his finances the surtax wouldn’t be a big deal to him.

He went on to state, however, what he didn’t like was some politician giving that money to some guy who didn’t care enough to work for it. He suggested a better use of that money would be to let him and others like him invest it in the economy – everyone in the 1% has to invest a certain amount in the American economy each year or have that amount surtaxed.

He then called George W. Bush a moderate. Helping me back up from off the floor, he explained that Bush’s bailouts for the auto and bank industries were bad moves for American innovation. Like all creatures, companies and their business models must die. The current auto and bank companies had their chance and after making trillions upon trillions of dollars, they finally blew it. They needed to be allowed to die so that new companies with new people and new business models could prosper. It’s the way of life; one thing must die so that another may live.

While the old dogs are suffocating beneath their debt, those newcomers could gain significant ground to take the field. Those newcomers are young bucks like us scraping to touch the American dream. Letting the old dogs live isn’t helping to spread the wealth. Letting them die so we can pick their bones does, though.