pawatercooler.com

From, of all sources, the New York Times.

Yes, I know.  But they’re good.

“Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence?”
“Behind the Cover Story: Robert Draper on Why the G.O.P. Is So Slow to Adapt to the Digital World”

I plan on eventually commenting on these as I don’t quite agree with everything, and think a few things were overlooked.

And yes, these are absolutely required readings.  There will be a quiz afterward.

Of course the constructive thing to do is take a deep breath and soldier on, … swinging pendulum or whatever.  The darker part of my psyche thinks that with this election we’re going to start seeing some of those irreparable consequences folks have been talking about, and that even if things swing back our way in four years there might not be much left for us to work with.

As for learning our lessons, I’m not holding my breath.  You’d have thought we would have learned something from Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle, but no.  And that’s not to pick on the Tea Party, because the Establishment ran losers too (-most notably, Mitt Romney).  Candidate quality is of utmost importance.

Since every other pundit in the universe has spun this election to fit his or her own pet Theory of Everything, I might as well too….

The winning formula that I have discussed at great length is to find a high quality conservative candidate who knows how to translate conservative ideas to non-ideological/moderate/middle voters.  We had pretty much the opposite of that in Mitt Romney, a mediocre candidate with a wobbly conservative history who had no chance of conveying conservative thoughts to moderate voters because he really didn’t understand them himself.  (This would be why I was for Pawlenty, self-professed “Sam’s Club Republican”.)

Agreed, Fred, we should entirely reject the notion that we must become Democrat-lite and either abandon or moderate every conservative position under the sun.  Everybody say it with me now — swing voters don’t vote on ideology.

The one policy exception I see is immigration.  I don’t like to play this card too often, but I’ll BLAME BUSH for screwing up the immigration issue.  The “comprehensive piece of sh*t” he cooked up was so bad that even notable immigration softie Bill Kristol didn’t like the bill.  That fight brought out the worst of people on both sides of the argument, and the real loser was the GOP –even after we nominated John McCain, king of comprehensive immigration reform.  Now Obama will get to be the guy who claims credit for delivering immigration reform — ironically after avoiding the issue in his first term, and while following a bizarre gun policy wherein a key element was that there would be a bunch of dead Mexicans.

Going forward, I’ll try to be as positive as possible.  Just understand that privately I’ll be shopping for miscellaneous firearms and lingering at Cabela’s.  And I am definitely interested in Fredistan.

Why are we even entertaining the question?

The Independence Hall Tea Party PAC, “warned today that it will organize to defeat Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Ron Castille, a Republican, and PA Supreme Court Justice Max Baer, a Democrat, in their respective 2013 retention races, if Voter ID is not implemented in the November, 2012 General Election,” the group wrote in a press release.

“If Judge Simpson does not uphold the law, we will ask Governor Tom Corbett to appeal the case back to the PA Supreme Court,” said PAC President Don Adams. “Bottom line, if this law is not upheld, we will hold Justices Castille and Baer accountable in their 2013 retention election–and, possibly, Governor Corbett in his 2014 primary contest.”

The group is one of Pa.’s largest Tea Party organizations.

C’mon guys.

Let them hear the case (honestly) and not attempt to put a thumb on the scales of justice by appealing to their basest sense of job-preservation.

It’s not like they don’t know retention stakes. We’ve done it (incredibly) before.

Jeez, and I thought Corbett signed the damned thing.

It’s possible.  It shouldn’t be vastly more difficult than a Romney win in PA.

Granted, if you believe the polls, a Romney victory assumes an optimistic scenario.  But given that 2008 and 2010 were both outlier years, there is a degree of uncertainty in the turnout models used by pollsters.  I’m also a fan of playing everywhere.  If you don’t plan to win in PA, you’re planning to lose it.  Obama won a couple of extra states in 2008 because he was organized in every state.  [Begrudging hat-tip to Howard Dean's "50 state strategy" at the DNC.]  And if we lose PA at the Presidential level once again, we’ll see the Keystone state being written off for the indefinite future.

Obama is the worst President within anybody’s living memory.  Economic policy, foreign policy, social policy… pretty much disasters all around. (At least LBJ and Nixon could tell our allies from our enemies.)  What will it say if we can’t beat Obama in 2012?  That’s not a scenario I care to contemplate.

So for the purposes of talking about the Senate race, I assume that it’s at least conceivable that Romney wins in PA.

As of this writing, the Real Clear Politics spread for the Presidential race in PA is Obama+8.  The spread on the Senate race is Casey+15.2.  Step-one is to close the spread.  Casey has a truly atrocious, liberal voting record.  Given that Casey and Obama are about 98% the same person, and if you think about it, Tom Smith is in a lot of ways a more likeable guy than Mitt Romney, closing the gap should be somewhat easier than people think.

It seems some folks still haven’t gotten the memo that Casey really isn’t a moderate.  Whether you believe the conservative organizations (ACU = 5.65, Heritage Action = 3, NTU = F, Club for Growth = 2) or the liberal ones (ACLU = 73, Americans for Democratic Action = 100, League of Conservation Voters = 100, NAACP = 100, SEIU = 91), Bob Casey Jr. has an extremely liberal voting record.  Our supposedly “pro-life” Senator even scores 65% from NARAL.

Those are the aggregate numbers. Behind those abstract figures lie real liberal votes.  He voted for ObamaCare, destroyer of jobs and religious freedoms. He voted for the abominable stimulus/”Recovery Act” that sunk us deeper into debt to China for no discernible economic benefit.  He voted for EPA regulations that will hurt Pennsylvania both in the form of lost coal industry jobs and in the form of skyrocketing higher electricity costs.  He voted to continue taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, provider of approximately three hundred thousand abortions per year. He voted to continue funding for ACORN even after multiple video stings revealed a systemic propensity to help pimps of underage children evade law enforcement, to say nothing of ACORN’s sordid history with voter registration fraud.  (Hey, didn’t we just go through some kind of big scandal with child sex abuse? Think that issue might have any resonance?)  He supports EFCA/”Card Check”, giving free hand to employee intimidation by union organizers.  He supports taxpayer bailouts of private pension programs.  He voted against several international free trade agreements that would have helped the US economy, including the Colombia FTA, which was a no-brainer for approval from a US jobs perspective, and the rejection of which was a gross geopolitical error (in favor of Hugo Chavez and against a cooperative Colombian government).  He voted against common-sense labor reforms like allowing union workers to earn raises.  He voted for higher taxes on domestic oil production.  He voted for higher taxpayer mortgage guarantees for rich people.  And he voted against Senator Toomey’s amendment that would eliminate legislative earmarks, currency of shady vote-trading in Congress and source of much abuse.

That Casey continues to skate by as a “moderate” with such an abysmal voting record is astonishing.

Expose Casey as being objectively something other than what the voters were led to believe he was, and that Presidential/Senate vote gap should close up pretty nicely.  Assume that the national environment will continue to favor Republicans, and hope that the Romney campaign has some mojo.

So yes, I think it’s possible that Smith wins in November, assuming a few stars align correctly.  They did for Pat Toomey, another guy who “couldn’t win”, and who we now refer to as “Senator”.

 

In front of the entire nation, conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh repeatedly called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute” for her support of an Obama Administration policy requiring health insurers to offer contraceptives.

 

Not surprisingly, the issue became, and still remains, the preeminent national story, pushing it front-and-center in the Republican presidential campaign.

 

Anytime a powder-keg situation ignites into a massive media firestorm, as this one did, it is always interesting to look at who comes out on top, and who is left burning in the ashes.

 

And the biggest loser, by far, may surprise you.

 

So here is a look at winners and casualties of Pill-Gate:

 

Winners

 

Limbaugh The Entertainer Rush has followed the cardinal rule in entertainment: there’s no such thing as bad publicity.  Bet the ranch that his ratings will increase, and with that additional advertisers.  This is not foreign territory to Rush, as he has been engulfed in numerous high-profile controversies in the past, since, let’s face it, controversy pays.  To the tune of $40 million a year.

 

Remember too that Rush has the luxury of saying pretty much whatever he wants without fear of repercussion.  With a net worth in excess of $350 million, he needn’t worry about paying the rent should he get fired.  And how likely is Clear Channel Communications (his employer) to fire the most lucrative figure on the radio?  It’s doesn’t take courage to tell and defend the truth when one stands to lose nothing. For those who idolize Rush in that regard, find a real hero to adore.

 

Oh, and his apology? It’s a stretch to even call it that, but all part of the game.  Apologize while not really apologizing, and trash your enemies in the process.  If nothing else, Limbaugh would be a great politician.

 

Advertisers Sure, some advertisers have “temporarily” suspended advertising, but most of those companies are also practicing the above rule.  A business (very publicly) announcing that it will yank advertising from Limbaugh scores a huge coup by receiving untold millions in free publicity.  And in a few weeks when the shelf life of this story dies, most, if not all, will quietly return to Limbaugh.  It’s a win-win for advertisers, and Clear Channel knows it.  And let’s face it — Limbaugh’s advertisers know he’s controversial, which is exactly why they pay top dollar to run commercials on his show. To them, occasional forays over the line of decency are acceptable risks. 

 

Sandra Fluke The are hundreds of thousands of law students, but Fluke has broken through the ranks of obscurity to be forever known as the “Limbaugh slut girl” who wanted taxpayers to foot the bill for her sexual habits.  She helped her issue gain political ground, and will never have to worry about landing a job.  Fluke’s popularity — and notoriety — is her golden ticket.  Who knew testifying at an unofficial congressional hearing could be so lucrative?

 

Mandatory Contraception issue (perception) This issue gained significant momentum, unwittingly helped by a poor student being mercilessly— and personally — attacked by an ultra-wealthy bully.  And what about the actual merits of the issue?  To many in the Great American Middle, they don’t matter. Right or wrong, their mentality is that if Limbaugh is attacking this young girl for just trying to tell her story, she must have some valid points. Conversely, if Limbaugh has to demonize her, his position must be so weak that it can’t be won on its own merits.

 

Too bad, because on the issue, Rush was right.

 

Losers

 

Mandatory Contraception issue on its merits The President is wrong in attempting to mandate contraception coverage from health insurers, as that is a case of government vastly overstepping its bounds. There are religiously-affiliated entities that are opposed to providing certain services, directly or indirectly, such as contraception and abortion. To do so not only tramples on market freedom, but religious freedom as well.  

 

Truth be told, most insurers are more inclined to offer contraception services anyway because it makes financial sense.  Paying for the Pill is infinitely cheaper than shelling out thousands for OB-GYN visits, ultrasounds, pregnancy complications, child births, vaccinations and, of course, the regular medical bills that accompany a new child throughout his life.  

 

But the market should determine that coverage, not government.

 

Limbaugh The Movement Leader Entertainers do whatever is necessary to entertain and make money.  But when they cross the line and represent themselves as serious leaders of a political movement, there are problems. Most Rush fans can’t discern the difference, and that endangers their conservative cause when their iconic leader does something that benefits himself but vastly sets back a core issue.  

 

It’s not that he doesn’t care, but that he puts his own interests ahead of the Cause, even if that means hurting the Movement. This is nothing new, and it isn’t just Rush. Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a “faggot” was another example of needlessly providing red meat to the Left. And make no mistake, this issue will be back in the general election, with Obama and the Democrats painting all Republicans as extremist, mean-spirited Rush Limbaugh-types.  Not a winning image for the GOP.

 

The Republican Party Another fantastic issue in which the Republicans could have differentiated themselves from Obama and the Democrats — and another opportunity squandered. What else is new?

 

Not one Republican leader — and not one GOP presidential contender — transformed this into what it is: the lack of common sense health care reform. And God forbid any of them tell the truth by pointing the finger at themselves as to why we find ourselves having this debate at all. 

 

But here’s the truth.  This is fault of George W. Bush, along with the sizable GOP majorities he had in both Houses for six straight years. Did they make any real attempt to solve the problem of skyrocketing health care costs? No. Had they done so, Sandra Fluke wouldn’t be begging the taxpayers to pay for her contraceptives.

 

As it now stands in America, if you don’t like your employer’s health insurer, you can either pay for a different insurer out of pocket (totally impractical since there are so few options and far too expensive), or change jobs (more impractical).  Notice that there is no option to buy insurance across state lines, since that is illegal.  So while we can buy auto insurance from any state in the country, we are banned from doing so for health insurance.

 

Why such a stranglehold on the free market? Because it’s not in the interests of the big insurance players to have such consumer choice, as they would be forced to actually become competitive.  Thankfully for them, they have deep pockets which they use to fund the coffers of politicians. Result? Consumers are held hostage to skyrocketing rates and decreasing coverage, while the insurers laugh all the way to the bank.

 

Then there are the flexible spending accounts that still have a “use it or lose it” policy. Instead of encouraging savings, such plans only serve to have consumers making a mad dash to the pharmacy so they can buy 27 bottles of aspirin before their money — yes, their money —disappears. 

 

Medical malpractice reform? Did the Republicans and President Bush —while riding an unprecedented wave of popularity — have the guts to take on the trial lawyers who, more than anyone, are the cause of massive increases in health insurance premiums? A look at how many Republicans took big money from these scourges of society is all you need to know.

 

And the GOP failed miserably throwing the Left’s hypocrisy back in its face.  These are the people who advocate unrestricted abortion, screaming that government has no place in the uterus, while asking the same government to fund their contraceptives (which, I believe, affects that very same uterus).  The inconsistency of those folks was a gimme, a political homerun for the Republicans.  But their silence has been deafening.

 

Had the Republicans did what they had promised — what they surely could have achieved with just a bit of political will — this whole Rush/slut/contraceptive debate would never have taken place, because there would never have been Obama, and hence, no Obamacare. But that is a lesson lost on way too many Republicans, who find it convenient to blame everyone but their own Party.

 

*****

 

Perhaps those on the Right would do well to 1) realize that the Limbaughs of the world are entertainers, not Movement leaders, and treat them as such, 2) refuse to defend the indefensible when such entertainers cross the line, 3) stop blaming Obama for the things he very clearly told the nation he was going to do — make government-run nationalized health care a priority, and 4) hold the Republican Party accountable for its deliberate failures to fix America’s problems (offshore drilling, border walls, health care reform, smaller government), as promised in its Party Platform.

 

Maybe then this nation could have a constructive dialogue on the pressing issues of the day.

 

And what a Rush that would be.

 

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

 

I don’t expect to convince the haters. Just making my position known.

It’s actually pretty straightforward.

Have you noticed that the candidates who are most vocal about wanting an open primary have the least chance of winning a general election against Casey, and the candidates who have expressed support for the endorsement process are the higher quality candidates?

If we were to vote against endorsement, the primary election votes among the higher quality candidates would be diluted, and the likelihood that one of the less electable candidates might win the primary would increase. By voting to endorse one of the more electable candidates, the likelihood of fielding somebody with a good chance against Casey increases dramatically.

Conclusion – Our best chance of unseating Casey is to endorse in the primary process.

I also quite resent the notion that by choosing to support Mr. Welch, that I have demonstrated some combination of the following deficiencies: lack of independent thought; RINOism, failure to properly vet the candidate. For those who might agree with that assessment, I have no time for you. I shouldn’t have to explain to you that all candidates — for all offices, everywhere, and for all time — are flawed, including your guy, whomever that might be.

For the record, at no point did Mr. Gleason, Mr. Asher, or any state committee employee contact me about which candidate to support. There are no orders from on high, or at least none that made it to my phone or email in-box.

I am supporting the candidate who is best capable of projecting a pro-jobs, pro-growth conservative message that I firmly believe is capable of beating Casey. In the end, however, should the state committee choose to endorse another candidates, that candidate will have my full support.

 

There is an age-old adage: if you’re going to do something, do it right — or don’t do it at all.

Based on poll results exclusively obtained first by Freindly Fire, nowhere is that more applicable than in the fight for school vouchers in Pennsylvania. According to the Pulse Opinion Research poll conducted on behalf of UNITE PA, which surveyed 500 likely voters across the state, the majority of Pennsylvanians prefer that any school choice program be open to all students (or at least most of the middle class), as opposed to just low income, predominantly inner city students. This result is not surprising on any level, and, undeniably, leads to five rock solid conclusions:

1) The middle class realizes that ALL schools need improvement, and competition through choice is the best way to achieve that objective;

2) Pennsylvanians, by a whopping 78 to 9 margin, favor a broad-based choice program;

3) If a comprehensive choice program isn’t offered, citizens would prefer an expansion of the EITC educational tax credit — by a 3 to 1 ratio;

4) The reason voucher legislation failed in the Spring, and in all likelihood won’t pass now, isn’t due to opposition to school choice, but because the senate refuses to consider a broader, more inclusive bill, and therefore:

5) If a suburban or rural legislator supports vouchers only for low income families, while their constituents would be left out in the cold without receiving a penny, they do so at their own peril.  A full 40 percent of likely voters stated that they will be “less likely” to support that lawmaker in his or her next election based on that vote.

The message of this poll is clear: do vouchers the right way, or don’t do them at all.  And since the senate has already passed a low income version by the slimmest of margins, with its leaders stating that’s all they will do, expect the voucher bill to die what may be its final political death, and look for the EITC expansion to pass as a stand-alone bill (which it did in the Spring by a virtually unanimous 190-7 bipartisan vote on Rep. Tom Quigley’s House Bill 1330).

Failure to act responsibly will leave the GOP politically vulnerable, and, infinitely more important, abandon yet another generation of Pennsylvania’s future.

*****

Since last January, Republican Senator Jeff Piccola has been trying to pass legislation offering school vouchers only to students in underperforming schools who meet low income requirements. Despite crafting Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) during the Rendell Administration (when there was a Democratic State House and an anti-choice governor), Piccola never bothered to broaden the bill to reflect the new ten-seat Republican majority in the House, and pro-school choice Governor Tom Corbett.

Piccola, along with Democratic co-sponsor Senator Tony Williams, ran the bus over anyone who dared question why SB 1 was being treated as hallowed legislation, scoffing at — but not answering — queries as to why no attempt was made to broaden the bill, given the favorable legislative climate.  In the process, many SB 1 proponents demonized long-time political allies for their “brazen” attempt to improve a badly flawed education reform bill that would neither educate nor reform.

That intransigence directly led to vouchers dying on the vine in June.  Despite repeated assurances that it would pass the Senate, it was never brought to the floor for a vote. Piccola’s excuse for not running the bill was that the House wasn’t embracing SB 1 with the same fervor, yet the truth is that he didn’t even have the votes in his own chamber.

Last month, a watered-down version of SB 1 finally passed the senate after much arm-twisting, but as the poll shows, it’s back to Square One, meaning that SB 1 faces a tough road ahead. Many folks in Pennsylvania view vouchers favorably, but when they learn that the only voucher bill being considered is one that will never impact them, their support plummets.

Many traditional supporters of school choice have had SB 1 sold to them as the be-all-and-end-all.  But the huge irony is that these people in turn become the biggest detractors of SB 1 upon learning what the legislation does, and, more importantly, doesn’t do. From Catholic school advocates to Tea Partiers to everyday parents, the majority of those who favor school choice become irritated, if not downright angry, after discovering that in SB 1, a full seven years after enactment, middle income students would still be excluded. Because of this, many look at SB 1 as nothing more than yet another targeted entitlement program for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

The results of the Pulse Opinion Poll are so clear cut that it’s a good bet many House members on the fence will now be moved to oppose the voucher aspect, instead calling for other educational reform measures to be considered individually rather than part of an SB 1 package.  Charter school reforms, teacher evaluations, and the EITC should be debated on their merits and not held hostage by certain senators hell-bent on ramming an ineffectual voucher bill down the House’s throat — or all-else be damned.

And if the House decides to eliminate the voucher and significantly expand the EITC, what then? Will Piccola once again call that legislation “dead on arrival” and kill it upon its return to the senate?

And if so, will the House leaders do the right thing and relegate Piccola to the dustbin of irrelevancy by simply mandating that the EITC expansion be part of the 2012 budget? 

It’s time to stop playing games.  Pennsylvania students are 42^nd in SAT scores, ranking low in literacy, graduation rates and those attending college.  Their performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress exam has not improved.  And most startling, nearly HALF of all 11^th graders are not proficient in math and reading.  This cannot be attributed to just the poor-performing urban schools pulling down scores, but is testament to an across-the-board educational failure. 

Advocating school choice for only low-income students results in the default perception that education is adequate everywhere else, which is not remotely accurate. We cannot afford to waste another decade, forsaking our children — our future — because some choose to ignore the widespread failure occurring on a daily basis.

The poll clearly shows what common sense already dictates: only competition can begin to reverse decades of educational failure. Comprehensive school choice provides that free-market solution, and, if passed, would be a model for the nation.  But since stubbornness, personal agendas and lack of political will are still prevalent in the Senate, let’s hope the House of Representatives acts responsibly and does the right thing for our children. 

As Voltaire said, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

And jettisoning a bad voucher program while passing other meaningful reforms is a very good start.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

The background: H/T to Lisa Mossie for sharing a Ross Douthat NYT column in which he describes the inability of the populist/Tea Party faction(s) to produce an effective insurgent Presidential candidate.

I don’t want to sound like I’m co-signing Douthat’s piece here, but his point about the populists having legitimate gripes with the party ring true to me.  And yet, as Douthat points out, the solutions and candidates offered by the populists are often found wanting.  I find myself less distressed about the possibility of a Romney candidacy than I once was.

The 2012 US Senate race: Like the Presidential race, I think there are a few people who could potentially win, though none of them has really knocked it out of the park for me.  Every candidate I’ve examined has notable flaws.

I wonder how much “the establishment” really thinks we could beat Casey.  I think we have a good shot at it, provided that the political stars align.  That’s to say, I think it matters who we choose, and it matters that we get behind that person, and with the right national environment it’s a do-able race.  The idea that we might not take the 2012 Senate race seriously reminds me of the adage, “He who fails to plan, plans to fail”.

If you don’t think we can beat Casey, just roll over and die already. Please.

Tea Party at the RSC Fall Meeting:  I’ve been more than apologetic for the Tea Party since its formation.  I’ve argued that it doesn’t fall neatly into the right-left spectrum that many people imagine exists.  I’ve argued that (high overall quality) candidates can win while espousing Tea Party values. And I still believe those things.  But the Tea Party folks should be disappointed with the displays put on at the PAGOP fall meeting.

First off, if you are a committee member, it is generally bad form to wear t-shirts to official meetings proclaiming your wish to remove three incumbent “RINO” Congressmen.  The RINOs in question? Gerlach, Dent, and Platts.

Don’t get me wrong, I think each of these three men has less than stellar conservative voting records. But understand that Gerlach and Dent represent D+4 and D+2 districts, respectively.  I’m willing to cut those guys some slack and let the voters in their districts make that decision.  Platts’ lifetime ACU score of 72.74 could and should be better considering that he represents an R+12 district, but that’s nowhere near “RINO” level.  To hear some people talk, you’d think Platts was Arlen Specter crossed with Linc Chafee.

And I know that some of you folks think the people who spoke up at the meeting were heroic, but to most of the rest of us they just looked foolish.  Please understand the difference between a fundraiser (that costs money to attend) and official meetings (which are free to attend, provided you can get yourself to the meeting). Understand that not following Robert’s Rules of Order actually forces the Chairman to shut you down.

The sorts of displays put on at the RSC meeting did not reflect well upon the Tea Party, and only served to distance the committee membership from their cause.  And that’s a damned shame, because I truly believe the Tea Party has something to offer the Republican Party.

The Party:  I know that the straw poll didn’t really count for anything, but I thought it was sort of silly that they pushed Rick Santorum.  Given that the poll will only be taken seriously insofar as a serious candidate wins it, I thought it was a wasted opportunity to give an honest impression of how the committee members felt.  Perhaps we might have had some infinitesimally small influence over the process had we chosen either Romney or Perry.  Later that evening I asked a party official what the committee really accomplished by voting for Santorum.  He answered that we raised a bunch of money, which I suppose is at least a legitimate answer, but I still feel it was a silly thing to do.

The party actually pushed through some fairly hard-core conservative resolutions. Had anybody in the “populist” backbenches actually bothered to read them they might have liked them.

But to come full circle back to Ross Douthat’s column, the populist critique of the GOP is probably more about the style and manner in which the party leaders conduct business than it is about purely ideological matters.

On any given day, tens of millions flock to the beach for the sun, sand and surf.  Yet because there have been fifty cases over the last decade of people digging deep holes being trapped in sand cave-ins (including one this week), there is a renewed call to ban digging holes at the beach.  Some towns have already done so (Myrtle Beach) and some are close to following suit (Los Angeles).

It’s such a “serious risk” that the LA Lifeguard Division Chief, when asked by a reporter what advice he would give parents who are heading to the beach, replied, “Don’t let your kids dig holes.”

Talk about burying your head in the sand. 

Fifty cases out of millions is insignificant — and that’s just the equivalent of one beach-going day. Now extend that out over ten years, and we’re talking about creating laws to ban an activity that had negative results for only 50 out of literally billions of beach trips.

Given that this warped mentality is now the norm, it’s no surprise that America just got handed a horrendously bad debt ceiling deal by Congress— one that will only exacerbate the problem — yet is already being celebrated as a necessary step and part of the “solution.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

So what do passing ridiculous laws and debt-raising deals have in common?  Both ignore the real problems, with  bury-your-head-in-the-sand thinking. Bad decisions are rationalized in a paternalistic, group-think way, accomplishing nothing but providing the decision-makers with a false sense of feeling good. 

It’s bad enough that we now make laws to “protect” idiots who want to dig side by side six-f0ot holes and try to tunnel between them. But laws intended to prevent stupidity never work.  So why don’t we instead focus on the real problems that we have, instead of passing do-nothing regulations that only hinder law-abiding folks using common sense? Because it’s the easy way out.

Welcome to the M.O. of the United States Congress.

Let’s look past the rhetoric and ponder the real implications of the debt deal recently passed by Congress and heralded as absolutely “necessary” to save America:

1) If virtually everyone in Washington agreed that the high national debt was a bad thing, then how could those same folks turn around and raise it?  It’s like locking an alcoholic in a liquor store for a week and expecting sobriety.  If the debt was admittedly the problem, then raising it, by definition, would only make the problem worse.  Go figure.

2) How can Congress be expected to solve the nation’s educational failures when its own basic math skills are suspect?  So to cut two trillion in spending, the solution is to add two trillion to the debt? Hmmm.  Granted, columnists are not that smart, but that one just doesn’t seem to add up.

3) A number of Republican Congressmen voted for debt deal “so that the small businessman wouldn’t be hurt” and to avoid a credit rating downgrade. Now, they get the worst of both worlds.  As any high schooler could have told you, the downgrade was coming, since the cuts weren’t nearly substantial enough.  So now faith in America takes a huge hit, interest rates and inflation will rise, and the markets will continue to freefall.  Yep, those things really serve the interests of small business.

4) Who exactly is going to buy the additional trillions in debt?  Sure, there will be foreign nations, investors, and fund managers, but there simply isn’t enough money out there to buy that much debt.  And don’t look to China to buy a whopping share of the new debt, since they aren’t exactly thrilled with the way things are going.  They are nervously watching their current U.S. debtholdings, and don’t want to be holding a worthless bag of goods as the value of the dollar continues to plummet. The Chinese may be a lot of things, but being imprudent with their own money is not one of them. They were cutting back on buying U.S. Treasuries well before this current fiasco.

5) Most significantly, does anyone really have any idea what a trillion is, let alone two, or 17, for that matter?  No, not even the brightest astrophysicists. It is an incomprehensible number.  So to give the debt increase some perspective, we have just given ourselves the green light to borrow more than the twice the entire economic output of Texas, currently the most productive state in the nation in terms of attracting residents and businesses and beating the recession.  For that matter, the debt increase is greater that the Gross Domestic Product of all but four countries — just the increase!

The truth of the matter is that America’s credit rating should have been downgraded quite some time ago, so it is a mathematical certainty that it will be downgraded again in the relatively near future.  And regarding the argument that raising the debt was necessary to avoid default, that’s Washintgton-speak, plain and simple.  There were numerous ways to pay the nation’s bills while not raising the debt ceiling.  Don’t get hypnotized by the “complexities” foisted upon us by a Congress — both Parties — with an insatiable appetite to spend.

They could have fixed the problem. They chose not to.

And the beauty of it all, at least from Congress’ perspective, is that they got what they wanted: more money to spend now, and down-the-road reductions that can, and absolutely will, be ignored by future Congresses. 

So what happens? Given our unprecedented situation, no one really knows for sure, but none of it will be good, and the pain level will be huge.

The West is experiencing its financial bankruptcy in large part because of its spiritual bankruptcy, and until that changes, don’t expect things to “get back to normal” anytime soon. 

But there is one measure of preparedness that will undoubtedly come in handy as the economic storm worsens: when at your foreign owned service station, learn to ask for your Middle Eastern-derived gasoline in Chinese. 

 

An accredited member of the media, Chris Friend is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com