The Dirty Little Secret of Socialized Medicine, by David Teesdale

July 24, 2009

It is with great trepidation today that I reveal the dirty little secret about the Democrats’ health-care ‘reform’ bill, languishing in mark-up, that neither Democrats or Republicans want you to know. This is a secret so great, that even greater lengths have been gone to in order to make sure you never know about it. That secret, is of course, that the thousand page leviathan snaking its way through Congress will never pass. It will not become law, at least during Obama’s presidency.

Congressional Democrats don't want you to know that the health-care bill is doomed because they want you to support it.  Congressional Republicans don't want you to know this because then you won't belly-ache to your Congressman.  Belly-ache away.

Congressional Democrats don't want you to know that the health-care bill is doomed because they want you to support it. Congressional Republicans don't want you to know this because then you won't belly-ache to your Congressman. Belly-ache away.

There was some question, prior to his inauguration, as to how moderate an Obama Administration would be. Obama tacked to the center in the later stages of the presidential campaign and many expected that he had learned the hard lessons of Clinton’s ill-advised lurch leftward in the early days of his own presidency and would take a more centrist approach early on. Obama cleared up any of those debates within days of his inauguration, signing radical executive orders regarding abortion and terrorist detainees, and by pushing through the massive American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The AERR (probably better spelled ERROR– Economic Retardation and Redistribution for Obama’s Re-election) has thus far been a colossal disaster.

Obama’s leftward lurches were noted by this author as early as January, and upon passage of the stimulus, I declared definitively that as a result of the stimulus battle:

“The Democrats stand to potentially be hammered in the 2010 mid-terms, if only Republicans in the Senate hold their ground and let the Democrats have their win now. It is costly for both sides, but Obama will have spent his political capital on a project only 37% of Americans support. You and I can kiss goodbye the notion of socialized medicine or other hair brained plans hatched 50 years ago by pseudo-socialists.” (Feb. 7, 2009).

Republicans largely stood their ground against the wasteful spending in the stimulus bill, and though it was not evident at the time, this helped to harden Americans against any more socialist-leaning legislation. It was to me evident then, that no plan for the nationalization of health-care could ever pass muster. However, I, like many others, was reticent to point this out and risk the disinterest and dis-involvement that would likely emanate from those activists who would otherwise be speaking out against this bill by calling their Congressmen and generally stirring the pudding. We’ve seen this phenomenon occur most recently during the cap and trade debate in the House, where a highly unpopular and dangerous bill somehow managed to squeak into a position dangerously close the Federal Register.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC):  “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his waterloo. It will break him,”

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC): “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his waterloo. It will break him." Republicans should heed his words.

So why come out now at such a pivotal time in the legislative process and chat up how the bill is doomed? Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) recently stated that Obama’s health-care initiative is like his Waterloo. If Obama is defeated here, that may very well spell the end of Obama’s endeavors to reshape the American social and political landscape in his own very liberal image. While the analogy is imperfect, as all analogies are, it is important to note that if Obama can be stopped on health-care—and he almost certainly will be stopped—Republicans can salvage what is left of America.

Though the stimulus plan has severely debilitated America by plunging us into nearly irreparable debt and by burdening future generations with a crushing tax, we may someday be thankful that the Obama Administration pressed for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ERROR, when they did. In doing so, the Obama White House lurched far to the left, and this bacchanalian spendthrift left America not just with a hang over, but a terrible after-taste, and has ignited opposition to further leftward power grabs. National health-care, which would destroy innovation, hinder care, raise costs, institutionalize a culture of death, deprive us of our liberties and relegate America to European style mixed-economic socialism, would be far worse.

The blows dealt by Obama’s stimulus package are severe, but not insurmountable. National health-care would radically transform America. With calls to Congressional offices running fifteen to one against the plans as they stand, Obama is on the ropes. A resounding defeat here would diminish Barack Obama’s future political capital and neuter the march toward a Fabian-styled social order. To utilize another imperfect, boxing analogy; now is not the time to relent. If this is truly destined to be a defeat for the Obama Administration, we should not be content to win by T.K.O. Just as the Duke of Wellington and allied forces saved the continent of Europe from Napoleon’s forces, we should not see Obama’s weakened state and let our guard down. Republicans and conservative Democrats should press Obama all the more fiercely. Let’s make health-care Obama’s Waterloo.

David Teesdale, is particularly fond of analogies.  Mr. Teesdale is to rice pilaf as Steve Irwin is to: __________.  Comment here or e-mail him at for the answer.


Will the Blame Game Backfire for Obama on National Security?, by StairwaytoKevin

July 19, 2009

While the office of the presidency carries with it immense difficulties, it appears the Obama administration has identified at least one useful loophole.  On an array of issues, ranging from national security to economic policy, the administration has been able to escape defending its positions by merely uttering “Bush-Cheney.”  Such a standard poignant response is obviously intended to evade valid policy concerns by shifting attention to the unpopular previous administration.  “This is Bush’s economy,” or “Iraq is Bush’s War” are just a few we have heard.

This week’s revelation that the post-9/11 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) planned to develop anti-terrorist assassination teams is only the latest installment of the Obama vs. Bush presidency.  Congressional Democrats feigned disbelief that they were kept in the dark on such a significant program.  Plans were sporadically devised to train assassins to take down Al-Qaeda operatives in friendly and not-so-friendly nations.  The Obama-Panetta CIA reportedly discovered the Bush-era program and reported it to Congressional representatives hoping to avoid another Pelosi-CIA showdown.

Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA and Reluctant Assassin

Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA and Reluctant Assassin

Many Americans logically responded: isn’t that the mission of the CIA, don’t we want our nation’s national security agencies killing our enemies?  Others wondered: why the fuss over a program that was never actually implemented?  It has been argued that by blowing the whistle on the CIA program, Obama strengthens his hand by steering clear of a Congressional quarrel and placating the international community, while once again reminding Americans that he is not George Bush or Dick Cheney.

This assumption is misguided for several reasons.

Obama’s overtures to the U.S. Congress or foreign leaders has yet to pay dividends.  Obama’s congressionally-deferred health-care, energy, and stimulus bills have all been politically loaded at the expense of functional legislation.  This is frequently the case when the executive branch cedes too much authority to legislative interests.

On national security matters, the executive branch is the indisputable leader.  Pre-constitution scholars such as Locke and Hamilton recognized the need for strong executive government in state security.  The constitution, therefore, primarily vested powers with the executive branch.  Over the past two-plus centuries, the president’s role in national security has swelled (I will gladly defer the constitutional arguments to my more legally-seasoned blog colleagues).  Excluding Congressional Democrats from intelligence and security decisions seems even more prescient when considering the regularity with which the nation’s secrets have since appeared on the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post.

Dick Cheney - Sith Lord and vocal proponent of killing terrorist leaders.  There were no terrorist attacks on U.S. Soil post-9/11.

Dick Cheney - Sith Lord and vocal proponent of killing terrorist leaders. There have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. Soil post-9/11.

Obama has consistently stated that he intends to pursue a less abrasive and more inclusive foreign policy than the maligned Bush administration.  And while many of our allies around the world are undoubtedly relieved to discover they will not have American hitmen operating on their soil, here too the costs to our national security greatly exceed any benefits.  International terrorism is just that, international.  Terror networks extend to friendly and belligerent nations alike.  It is doubtful that had the program become operational, American assassins would be operating on the streets of London.  It is assumed (because the program was top secret…and because the New York Times has not yet published its details) that the program was meant to supplement previously-existing policies whereby we relied on cooperation with allies to disrupt terror cells in their territory.  But what of quasi-allies like Pakistan or non-aligned, wannabe states like Sudan or Somalia, where diplomatic deference rarely delivers security payoffs.

On national security issues, the “blame Bush-Cheney” card is proving less effective for the Obama administration.  Cheney’s favorability ratings jumped after he engaged Obama on terrorism policies such as interrogation.  Regardless of its final approval ratings, the Bush administration can credibly boast of protecting the country from terror attacks for the duration of its tenure.  Even critics acknowledge the Bush administration’s primary concentration was preventing terror attacks.  Critiques of the administration centered upon it doing too much to avert attacks (warrantless wiretaps, interrogation, Guantanamo/military tribunals).

However, much of this liberal condemnation never resonated with the American public.  Surprisingly – almost eight years removed from 9/11, after electing a President vowing to reverse many of Bush’s policies, during a recession where an increased focus has been paid to the economy – Americans still err on the side of overprotecting against terrorism.  The latest Rasmussen poll showed Republicans leading Democrats 49-40 percent on national security.  I would venture a guess that should Democrats or the Obama administration dwell on the CIA assassination team issue, that gap will only widen.  Americans believe in a strong executive that is willing to do whatever it takes to protect our homeland.

StairwaytoKevin can be found tapping your phone wires, or reading your emails.  However, it saves him a lot of time and effort if you comment on this blog.

Better than I could have said it…

July 16, 2009

So I was in the process of writing an article on the basic, fundamental flaws in President Obama’s economic philosophy (in fact, it’s darn near Ayn Rand distopian), when along comes Victor Davis Hanson to blow me out of the water. Check out his EXCELLENT article here. I wish I had written it.  More posts to come soon!  It’s been a particularly busy week on the homefront.

Give Him a Chance! by David Teesdale

July 13, 2009

Since Barack Obama was nominated in January, much of his presidency has, unlike that of—well, any of his predecessors–been spent attempting to escape blame for the results of his policies, by reminding America that he has “inherited” any of those ill conceived ideas which have gone awry. Many Democrats and Republicans alike have pleaded from very early on for Americans to “give him a chance.” A chance, they say, for Obama’s policies to succeed. My question is: how long should we wait?

In the immediate aftermath of the throngs of American Idol voters who swarmed to the polls and swept Obama to victory last November, the American electorate overwhelmingly granted Barack Obama his grace period, nearly 70% supporting him in Gallup polling. Those who voted for Obama dismissed as rabble rousing and partisan politics ,the cries from many on the Right who warned of Obama’s socialist influences, dangerous associates and liberal voting record. Obama supporters and Republican pundits hailed Obama as a post-partisan uniter and a ‘centrist.’

Obama himself dismissed these accusations, promising static tax rates for anyone making under $250,000, or $200,000, or $100,000—depending of course on which day it was on the campaign trail. Obama laughed at charges of “re-distribution,” nationalization and class envy. Those who listened closely enough to Obama could see through the rhetoric, however, such as when Obama told Joe ‘the Plummer’ that he just wanted to “spread things around.” Astute individuals and students of history knew that for Barack Obama to succeed in implementing his agenda spelled trouble for generations of Americans. However, the rest of America gave him a chance. Barack Obama quickly set about reneging on many of his milk and honey campaign promises.

As of July, Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress have already passed a massively unpopular “stimulus” bill, are pushing the massively unpopular national health-care and cap-and trade legislation, and have tripled the national deficit. Obama promised while on the campaign trail to have all legislation available online for five days prior to votes in Congress. Now fully into Barack Obama’s presidency, this has been discarded. 1,000 page leviathan after 1,000 page leviathan have been passed by a punch-drunk Congress, who have enacted these bills without ever posting them online, and without reading them.

These are not the result of the “failed policies” of the Bush Administration. These are deliberate choices and Statist pet projects, which have been fermenting since the 1960’s and are being pushed now for the sake of ideology. Meanwhile, instead of cyclical sequences of events unfolding and the economy recovering naturally, the recession has deepened beyond the Administration’s worst case scenarios. Obama’s promises of the stimulus halting unemployment at eight percent were illusory, and the ranks of unemployed may in fact broach eleven or twelve percent. The stock market, recovering in early 2009 on the wings of “hope” and “change,” is again crumbling at a startling speed.

Stimulus money, supposedly designed to urgently ignite the sagging U.S. economy (definition of a stimulus), is being diverted to frivolous pork projects. Despite the fact that counties which voted for McCain in 2008 pay an inordinately higher amount in taxes than Obama voters, the money that is actually being dispersed prior to 2010 is going to Obama voters in absurd quantities. Stimulus money received by the counties which voted for Obama averages out to $69 a person. Counties which voted for McCain received an average of $34 a person. Nothing like rewarding your constituencies, right? Of course, elections have consequences, but using the vote to steal from future generations and to redistribute already borrowed wealth to your own voters is a little ridiculous if you ask me.

The general public is also becoming wary of proposed tax hikes by Obama and Congress. Cap and trade represents nearly $1,000 in additional taxes on each American each year despite the fact that northern states are experiencing a year without summer and have not seen a temperature increase in eight years. The Congressional Budget Office has revealed the stratospheric costs of Statist health-care and others have pulled the curtain back on the farcical claims of fifty million uninsured Americans (more likely there are seven to eight million). Americans, despite their personal affinity for Obama’s person, are now beginning to overwhelmingly disapprove of his policies.

Most Americans, according to Rasmussen, now view Obama as less ethical than most politicians, and only 30% trust Obama in dealing with the economic crisis. Majorities of Americans disapprove of Obama’s policies on Iraq and Afghanistan, while support for Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and his health-care plan is wavering. On the foreign policy front, dictators in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea are running amok unchecked and Obama’s limp diplomacy is transparently weak, emboldening nations such as Russia, China and even India to expand their spheres of influence.

Obama’s teleprompter crashing to the floor yesterday may be a metaphor for the state of things currently.  A teleprompter, which, with great eloquence, assisted in foisting untruths wrapped in sweet sounding rhetoric–with only the occasional slip.  A teleprompter is transparent to those at the right angle, just as Obama.  Though I’m sure TOTUS will be replaced, Barack’s beloved Cyrano de Bergerac’s untimely demise gave us a glimpse of an Obama exposed.  Perhaps now, with the curse lifted, Americans will continue to awaken from their hypnosis and will blow away the chaffe of lies they have thus far believed.

Seven months into Obama’s presidency, Republicans now lead Democrats on generic ballots 41-38% and Obama’s approval rating, while still at 51%, is slipping quickly and is well below George Bush’s approval rating at the same point in his presidency. Americans are waking up from their Obama induced slumber. Still, the Administration and Obama-apologists alike continue to try to attach Obama’s failings to Bush, with waning success. Liberals wanted us to give him a chance. Seven months is enough. Obama has spent the doubt in that benefit, and barring an incredible turn of events, the writing on the wall is clear: Obama is a one-term president.

David Teesdale, wonders who buys Twinkies, and are they still manufactured–or is the current stock what is left over from the Cold War? Comment here or e-mail him at with the answers to these and other life questions

Strange Days are Here Again, by StairwaytoKevin

July 10, 2009

With the recent passing of former Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara, pundits and journalists provided a surprisingly monotonous elegy. The commentary gave a brief synopsis of McNamara’s private sector roots and post-SecDef career at the World Bank, but focused heavily on his role in the Vietnam War.

Remarkably absent from the media dia…er…monologue…was any mention of the intellectual and moral hubris that guided individuals like McNamara and administrations like President Johnson’s. The same arrogant mentality that brought us the Vietnam debacle also brought us a “not-so Great Society.” Many elements of the “government can and should accomplish everything” mindset have re-emerged through various aspects of the Obama administration.

With most 60s-era hippies entering the stale retirement lives they vigorously opposed decades ago, McNamara’s death presented the media one last hurrah to denounce the foreign policy blunder dubbed “McNamara’s War” by dovish critics. Much of the animosity – then and now – evoked by the war was directed at McNamara as well as Presidents Johnson and Richard Nixon (though curiously little blame is affixed to President Kennedy, despite the growing declassification of government documents showing the late president’s primary role).

McNamara came to Washington from Detroit, where he had built an impressive resume. He ascended to become the first non-Ford family member to serve as the company’s president. The technocratic planning and reorganization practices that had been so successful for McNamara at Ford would soon be brought to the Pentagon.

As one of Kennedy’s “New Frontiersmen,” (the young, intellectually-acclaimed cabinet members) McNamara came to the Department of Defense insisting on bringing his own whiz kids with him to occupy all the appointed positions within the Pentagon. McNamara then dogmatically relied on numbers, computers, and data to formulate his bureaucratically top-heavy war. Bombing targets were determined by top political brass rather than the military establishment.

The war mentality meticulously calculated and carefully avoided risk. Ironically, assuming our adversaries would logically respond precisely as our data models predicted was itself a monumental gamble (and ultimately a failed one). The political assumption was that the American public would tolerate a war where the scorecard was a winning death count (minimal losses on our side versus overwhelming casualties for our enemies). In another paradox, the body count barometer utilized by the Johnson-McNamara Pentagon became the tool universally employed by the media to turn public opinion against the war. The human element – of our North Vietnamese/Viet Cong opposition and the American people – was grossly misconstrued by brilliant public servants who haughtily assumed those elements were controllable with the right statistical models.

This disastrous overconfidence would repeat itself later in the Johnson administration with the advent of the Great Society. This revolutionary undertaking sought to alleviate social ills with government programs. Yet – save a few ardent partisans – historians, social scientists, and public officials concur on the failings of the Great Society (Johnson’s “other” war, poverty, rages on). The costs continue to accrue, even as results have not been delivered. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of few sensible geniuses, acknowledged that flawed thinking when he laid out a realistic purpose of social science: tell us what does not work (as opposed to assuming it can omnipotently devise universal remedies.

The failures of the Vietnam War and Great Society can be attributed to the same intellectually-superior but practically-flawed hubris. The war and Great Society, by ignoring human factors such as enemy resolve or behavioral incentives, respectively, offer a contemporary lesson in restraint.

We are told our nation is under the vigilant guidance of masterminds such as Obama, Larry Summers, and Tim Geithner. Yet these modern whiz kids made generous underlying assumptions regarding government’s role and aptitude. Bailouts and takeovers of Wall Street and Detroit ignored sensible realities questioning government’s ability or right to manage business. Health care reform will categorically replace private insurance plans with government-run programs. The infamous energy-climate bill even assumes the U.S. government can control global warming by taxing Americans for energy use.

Neither this article nor its author in any way contests the need to gather the most enlightened individuals to steer the country. We need McNamaras and Geithners at the highest levels. What our nation does not need, however, is an intellectual class crafting programs and policies that are inherently naïve and overreaching. The current administration must cease the same condescending intellectualism, top-heavy power consolidation, and lofty expectations of government that brought us Vietnam and the Great Society.

StairwaytoKevin can be found tripping in his room, staring at a tie-dye mushroom poster. All comments are welcome, except those that would harsh his mellow, man.

Treatment of Palin Indicative of a Party in Disrepair (Part I of II), by David Teesdale

July 8, 2009

This week Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and darling of the conservative movement within the Republican Party, resigned for no apparent reason. And there were those in the Democrat Party and in the Republican Party who cheered. Those Democrats who embraced Palin’s decision were happy because Palin represents a conservative threat not seen since Reagan. Those on the right who cheered are indicative of precisely what is wrong with Republicans today.

As an intern working under Karl Rove in the White House in November of 2006, my colleagues and I quickly became admirers of Sarah Palin–a singular victory in an otherwise tumultuous mid-term. An articulate, young, unabashedly conservative outsider had swept into the Alaskan Governorship and we all knew that her star was destined not to stop there. I won’t deny there were a few inappropriate remarks thrown around, “G.I.L.F.” being the one I heard most frequently, but that wasn’t the only reason to believe in Palin. She turned Alaskan politics on its ear, espousing true conservative values and reflecting them in her personal life.

While Palin may no longer be a viable Republican nominee in 2012, I would not count her out. Nixon famously quit politics in 1962 only to be elected four years later.

While Palin may no longer be a viable Republican nominee in 2012, I would not count her out. Nixon famously quit politics in 1962 only to be elected four years later.

It is, however, silly not to concede that Palin is a beautiful woman. In the months after Palin’s nomination as McCain’s V.P. choice, this came to be the biggest fault found in Palin. Despite the fact that many naive Republicans will applaud what they believe is the end of Palin’s career, no one was happier to see her resign than Democrats. Make no mistake, Sarah Palin was not dangerous to the Republican Party (should we even call it a party anymore? Seriously?), she was an apocalyptic threat to the Democrat Party. Palin routinely eviscerates unfair stereotypes liberals attach to conservatives, which squishy Republicans for some reason feel the need to defend, thereby granting them validity. As a family-woman, a mother, the epitome to the pro-life movement and a staunch bulwark against political elitism as an outsider getting things done inside Alaska, Palin became quickly became a favorite of most Americans.

The McCain campaign has been run over and over again. Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole ran the same campaign as McCain and lost similarly to young, smooth talking neophytes who quickly proceeded to make a mockery of the presidency. When will Republicans learn to stop running moderate-to-liberal candidates who are strong on defense? When Republicans nominate conservative candidates, espousing conservative values unabashedly, they win big, almost all of the time. But surely Sarah was a drag on the campaign, with the upper-mid-western drawl and “aw, shucks” speeches, right? Wrong.

Bob Dole and a much younger, but still quite old John McCain in 1995...  Their presidential campaigns were a two for one sale.

Bob Dole and a much younger, but still quite old John McCain in 1995... Their presidential campaigns were a two for one sale.

Ronald Reagan too was an “aw shucks” type candidate. Liberals viciously attacked him and America voted for him in two landslides. Indeed, Palin shook the roof off of every venue in which she spoke, and shook the Left down to their very core. Palin’s unabashed conservatism ignited a campaign that was dead in the water—if only until the McCain campaign muzzled her.

And thus, it was imperative that liberal Democrats destroy her. Liberals, from the day she was announced as the V.P. nod, set about attacking Palin’s clothes, hair, accent, verbiage, her good looks, her religion, her state, her hobbies, her husband, her daughters, her downs syndrome son—anything but her ideas and beliefs—because that resonated with America. Anything to distract from those. And Republicans, keeping in the tradition of Jack Kemp, who famously thanked Al Gore for the backhanded compliment that Kemp was not like all the other bigoted, sexist Republicans in his party, played into their hands.

Establishment Republicans (read: country-club Republicans) rushed not to be equated with Palin, as Tina Fey and the rest of the media (using some of the most despicable libel I’ve ever witnessed) built up a straw woman to be torn down. And Republicans stepped back, refusing to stand for anything meaningful, and perhaps, ultimately, losing their next shot at redemption. With the end of the McCain’s awful White House run, when McCain went back to being Democrats’ favorite Republican, liberals didn’t call off the dogs. In fact, they heightened their attacks. Palin has endured fifteen ethics investigations, which have cost her $500,000 personally and the state of Alaska millions in legal fees, resulting in zero charges and zero disciplinary actions. Sarah Palin was lynched by political bigots on the left and the right. Palin, the consummate political outsider, decided that paralyzing government while she defended herself, like Bill Clinton did, was unacceptable.

If Sarah Palin was not a dynamic threat to the Democrat establishment and the flaccid Republican status quo, there is no way the media and the Democrats would have launched such a four alarm assault on her. For example, if Sarah Palin were indeed the walking gaffe machine that one poor interview, Saturday Night Live and Vanity Fair might have us believe, would not Democrats do as Republicans did to the mind-numbingly dim Joe Biden and let her supposed stupidity speak for itself—as Biden’s did repeatedly during the campaign?

We need more candidates like Gov. Palin, who are political outsiders.  Perhaps Palin's family life played the biggest part in her decision to step aside.  No greater sign of someone whose head is screwed on properly than someone who places family first.

We need more candidates like Gov. Palin, who are political outsiders. Perhaps Palin's family life played the biggest part in her decision to step aside. No greater sign of someone whose head is screwed on properly than someone who places family first.

Indeed, Palin was attacked because she had the ability to unite conservative Democrats and Republicans into a winning coalition, as any true conservative does. And she still does. Sarah Palin knows what she is doing, and those who are reporting her demise are likely premature. Sure, she smacks of her blue collar roots, and ruffles feathers. If polished, same old same old candidates are what the Republican party is looking for, however, we already have several hundred serving in Congress—and doing a bang up job, by the way. Sarah Palin’s P.T.O. president to Governor tale is one Republicans should embrace, because that is what we need.

The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Elitist Republicans like Peggy Noonan who sniped at Palin embody exactly what is wrong with the party currently—they embrace leftist premises and shun those who embody comprehensive conservatism. Republicans have to jettison the Christian-right, or pro-lifers, or social conservatives in order to win, they always say—its always packaged differently but the end game is the same. Beltway Republicans want to go back to the days of arguing on Democrats’ terms, and pretending to be able to do what Democrats promise, only better. We end up with Dole in 1996, or McCain in 2008. So long as the party embraces politics as usual, and plays to an elusive center, Republicans will continue to lose elections. And it is insane.

David Teesdale found it extremely difficult to write a pro-Palin piece without the entire piece amounting to the inane anti-Republican Party scribblings on his bedroom walls written in blood-red ink.  He believes he found a healthy balance. Comments are welcome, and you may contact him at

About Time…

July 4, 2009

Colin Powell finally expressed some doubts about the man he endorsed and campaign for in 2008.  We here at Musth can only say:  about time!