Hello fellow travelers,

Tired and grumpy yet? If you feel like you’re in the car with a bunch of toddlers on a cross-country trip and you’ve run out of juice boxes…well, get ready, because the diapers aren’t even poopy yet. That, friends, comes when the government shuts down (if it does) and the liberals go into full throttle freak out. The shrieking ofLouise Slaughter is only the beginning of woe. There will be more.

Politics

• First, perspective. I haven’t written on this but plan to. The CBO blog today: “The federal government incurred a budget deficit of $830 billion in the first six months of fiscal year 2011, CBO estimates in its latest Monthly Budget Review—$113 billion more than the shortfall recorded in the same period last year.” The Democrats are screaming about a piddly cuts.
• More perspective: What a shutdown means. Andmore.
• More perspective: President Obama hasdecided that the military is non-essential. His schedule. Also, even Dems grow weary of him. Sarah Palin takes him to task.
• Karl Rove is afraid of the shutdown.
• Thad McCotter kicks arse on the House floor today, putting this all in perspective.
• DC is being California-ized.
• Donald trump “a giant among pygmies“. Also,his pro-life conversion.
• Media finally admitting the obvious about Egypt?

This -N- That

• Megyn Kelly: Things not to say to a pregnant chick.
• “I Was Itching Like a Crackhead“: Study Finds College Students Addicted to Media
• Hack Attack In Russia — even the prime minister affected
• Super cool art – go look. Amazing.
• Finally, for the essential and non-essential in your life: The T-Shirt.

Have a great weekend! I bet you’ll survive whether the government is opened or not. Funny how that works.

Melissa

Hello fellow sensible people,

Wisconsin is still not decided. A couple thoughts: 1) How could the GOP not get the vote out better? 2) When it’s this close do you ever question who will win? Yeah, me neither. Also, the Democrat-controlled Senate, along with Republican Susan Collins rejected a GOP amendment that would have stopped the EPA from trying to end-around failed Cap-n-Trade legislation. Obama bureaucracies are doing work the legislators are refusing to do. All in all, a crappy political day.

Politics

• Contemplating judicial partisanship.
• Energy costs are harming the poor most of all.
• D.C. is nigh unto a full conniption considering aShutdown. This irritates me. They’ve had 4% unemployment on the back of the taxpayer when some states have unemployment rates up to 25% in some sectors. A week without pay? I know, horrors. How does it feel? It feels tense. I know this, see, because I’m a small business person and when we go on vacation for a week, guess who doesn’t get paid? I have a difficult time feeling sorry. Also, take away the pay of Congress, while you’re at it.
• Boehner got a full three minutes on the phone with the President today. Lucky him! Tonight, Reid and Boehner are meeting the Prez in the Oval office for a chit-chat to stop the potential shutdown.

Before I get more irritated, I’ll just give some links to helpful and/or more fun info.

This -N- That

• For city dwellars, this is cool.
• Gah! Found something that Houston is the worst at: Gouging on flight fares. Is your city a gouger, too?
• On the positive side, Houston and a few other Texas cities are growing fastest. Some surprises, too.
• Glen Beck is done with his TV Show. Conspiracy theories swirl.
• Studying Congress like an anthropologist. 27% of communication is taunting! So alpha…

So, while the country is going down the debt toilet, DC inhabitants are worried about a shutdown. Please remember: The Democrats had the House, Senate and Presidency all of 2010 and couldn’t find a way to put together a budget the whole year. It reached a crisis in October of 2010, and they still couldn’t do it. The Republicans in the House had a budget 45 days ago and the Dem-controlled Senate is dragging their collective feet. The Democrats need to grow up.

Melissa

Conservatives are walking a dangerous tightrope if they (we) begin cutting people with whom we disagree out of the conversation.  And let’s face it — the discussions we, as Americans and as conservatives, need to be having about our country supersede any qualms some may have about specific issues (i.e. gay marriage, Iraq, etc).

Why are some so ardently opposed to the mere sharing of different ideals — ideals that happen to contradict only one segment of the conservative movement’s mantra?  In my view, we need all of the rational people we can get to be in on the very important discussions about our nation’s future that need to be happening.  Sure, we may disagree on some things, but isn’t that what makes our democracy (and movement) great?

Parties hinge on strategic values, but political philosophies can — and often do — evolve.  Certainly, the bedrock of the conservative movement is small government and a strong national defense.  While these values cannot be amended or abandoned without the house collapsing, the other policies and ideals that surround them, while important, should be open to discussion, reformation and debate.

By calling to exclude people who embrace the foundations of the movement, some are evoking less-than-palatable leftist strategy.  Let’s be open to discussion, prepared for debate and ready to defend our values (and that goes for all sides).

Perhaps some are too afraid to see their ideals tested; I’d argue that an inability or reluctance to defend one’s values is cowardly at best.  Melissa Clouthier has an excellent piece on this subject here.

Scarborough begins his Politico piece by calling Palin a major problem for the GOP, denigrating her as a mere “reality show star” and insinuating that she simply “cannot be elected”.  It’s tough to pick a starting point, but allow be to commence with Scarborough’s assertion that Palin is a “problem” for the GOP.  First and foremost, why is it such a horrific prospect for Palin to be the “most talked about” figure in the conservative movement?  If anything, her star-power has served as a positive force for a number of conservative candidates.  When Palin shows up, thousands of people rally and the monies flow in.

So, what’s the issue?  Is Palin really that much of a problem for the GOP?  Clearly, Scarborough is petrified at the prospect of a Palin White House run in 2012, but dismissing her as a mere “problem” fails to recognize the absolute benefit she serves as a promoter, mouthpiece and fundraising machine for right-leaning candidates.

In terms of Scarborough’s assertion that Palin is not a viable candidate, let’s remember that there have been plenty of people throughout history who’ve been deemed “unelectable” and they’ve shown critics up.  In the end, who’s to say whether Palin is or is not “electable”?  That’s a decision the American people will have to make if and when the time comes.

Later in the piece, Scarborough (clearly overtaken with sarcasm), writes, “Maybe the publishing world’s favorite reality star can keep drawing attention and selling billions of books by spitting on John Wayne’s grave or “manning up” by shooting an American bald eagle.”  He goes on to continue referring to Palin as a “reality star”, as though her time in government was a figment in the minds of Alaskans – and Americans, for that matter.  But, that’s beside the point.

Scarborough is so interested in insulting Palin that he omits basic truths and acts as though Palin has been a do-nothing buffoon.  He dismisses her resume as “thin” and rants on with the same vitriol one would expect to hear from a career politician railing against an opposing candidate.  To his credit, Scarborough writes, “Sarah Palin is not a stupid woman.”  But, again, moments of factual clarity are rare in the piece.

Love Palin or hate her, she is only the second woman in American history to campaign for the vice-presidency.  She certainly made history and her most notable achievement had nothing to do with reality television.  Stringing together a slew of insults that serve as little more than obnoxiously child-like pokes at a figure who has – like it or not – proven herself larger than life does nothing of real value to our democracy (nor does it make a viable case against Palin’s political force).

In a fit of irony Scarborough questions, “What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a résumé as thin as Palin’s would flirt with a presidential run?”  Do the words “Barack Obama” ring a bell?  Surely they do, though Scarborough sees Obama as vastly more qualified going into the presidency than Palin would be, should she run (another absurd insinuation).  I’m by no means stating that I believe Palin should be president in 2012 (or beyond), but I am reaffirming her right to – at the least – run for the presidency.  This is America, isn’t it?  And even if she doesn’t run, dismissing her as a “problem” and acting as though her impact and viability are non-factors is intellectually dishonest and just plain silly.  “Sarah Palin is stupid and/or unqualified” has become liberal code for “I disagree with her belief system” and conservative code for “I’m jealous of her charisma.”  Get over it, people.

Scarborough’s concentrated insidiousness seems so over-the-top and uncalled for it’s a wonder anyone advising him would have recommended he publish it.  Then again, judging from works produced by the other personalities over at MSNBC, this may be the most conservative piece of “journalism” to spew from the network in years.  Perhaps we should be counting our blessings?

Clinton’s political team, many of them still in exile from the Obama White House, whether in the private sector or in other government posts, remains on standby. They are also the most invested in her prospects: Their relevance depends, to a degree, on hers. One, Ann Lewis, maintains an organization based on Clinton’s massive email list. It’s called NoLimits.org. Another, pollster Mark Penn, conducted a public survey for The Hill this week that included a pot-stirring match-up of Clinton and Obama in 2012.

Read more on Politico.com…

In July, the FBI released summaries of more than 20 interviews and casual conversations the agency carried out with former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.  Aside from creating a more robust picture of the conditions that led up to the Iraq War, the discussions flagrantly expose Hussein’s motives in resisting U.S. pressure to cooperate with U.N. inspectors.  Furthermore, they provide an informative lens into his psyche during the months leading up to the invasion.

According to The Washington Times, “The new documents paint a picture of the Iraqi dictator in the final years of his life as arrogant, defiant and often delusional.” At points throughout the interviews, Hussein would often insist that he was still the president of Iraq.  He denied ties to the al Qaeda and insisted that “…Iraq does not have orphans walking the streets.”

While the aforementioned elements are offsetting, the most startling revelation was Hussein’s own admission that he purposely misled the world to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  Even more alarming is the motivation he attributes to this self-proclaimed action.  In the interviews, Hussein told officials that, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, he feared a nuclear-equipped Iran more than he did any reaction from the United States.

George Piro, Saddam’s FBI interviewer, wrote, “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.”  Thus, the reason for Hussein’s intended deceit – a trickery that led to intense regional and global instability – was rooted more in political posturing and survival than it was in his narcissistic desire to exponentially increase Iraq’s power in the Middle East.

Importantly, this admission raises a number of red flags.  Since 2003, American liberals have railed against the U.S. government, stating that former President George W. Bush purposefully misled the American people in his affirmations that Iraq possessed WMD.  According to those on the left, Republicans used weapons-based rhetoric as an excuse to initiate military operations in the region.  However, the release of these transcripts devalues this notion.

Teamed with the countless pieces of evidence contradicting Bush’s alleged purposeful deceit, Hussein’s own admission provides a basis for amplified understanding that sheds light on the bluffs and malfeasances that led the U.S. to invade.  It is with this information that a more rational understanding of U.S. operations can be processed.

Considering Hussein’s weapons bluff, it is not surprising that the United States was led astray.  When placing Iraq’s violently aggressive history and non-compliance into context, there was surely reason to believe that the nation was, indeed, illegally cultivating and harboring WMD.  In fact, politicians were candid about their belief that Hussein did possess weapons in the decade preceding the Iraq War.

Prior to the commencement of military operations in 2003, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and others, from both sides of the political aisle, publicly stated Iraq’s threat to the international community.  Following Iraq’s use of chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s and Hussein’s vocal hatred for the West, this caution on behalf of American political minds was fully justified.

However, when the war broke out, liberal politicians were suddenly less vocal about these dangers and, collectively, their tone changed dramatically in the years following its inception.  Nonetheless, their prior warnings about weapons are well documented and corroborate the fears and insinuations that reinforced U.S. rationale in striking Iraq.  On an episode of Larry King in 2003, President Bill Clinton said, “When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.”

In a 2002 speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Al Gore reiterated Hussein’s insatiable lust for weapons when he said, “Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction.”

Hussein’s possession of WMD was universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike, as those individuals with access to privileged information – whether they were former presidents or members of Congress – all reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein either possessed or sought to possess dangerous materials.  This, teamed with Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with the international community when questioning about said materials began, inevitably led to U.S. military action.

The historical record now shows that it was Hussein, not George W. Bush, who manufactured and allowed the fester the idea that Iraq possessed powerful weapons of mass destruction.

According to the governor, pushing for this legislation is a natural progression. As per the Times, he said, “The timing was always right…It’s just who is willing to take that step. And I am.” Considering his grim approval ratings, the move may be viewed as a strategic shift aimed at appeasing leftist voters.

Going back mere months, Patterson was catching heat from the left for his U.S. Senate pick. He selected Kirsten Gillibrand to fill former Sen. Hillary Clinton’s seat, a move that was deemed unpopular by some liberals who viewed some of Gillibrand’s more conservative stances unfavorably. Now, when the governor needs all of the political support he can get, he is taking on a tone that is undoubtedly more Democratically-pleasing.

Although he will surely gain support from the left, many New Yorkers on both sides of the aisle are disengaged with his policies following proposals for the “fat tax,” state levies on music downloads and other legislative gems.

Also, it’s important to consider the impending effect the affirmation of his stance might have over his relationship with conservatives. According to the Times, “The governor also risks alienating socially conservative voters at a time when he can least afford to drive away any more support.”

Patterson’s most recent actions might be construed as partisan, although one could also claim that his selection of Gillibrand, teamed with his support for gay marriage, provide an eclectic, somewhat moderate, take on a cornucopia of sociopolitical issues.

Either way, it is difficult to deny political motive in his timing, as he has had many months to make such a declaration, but has chosen to do so at the height of his unpopularity. Nonetheless, his announcement will be welcome news to gay marriage proponents both in-state and nation-wide who continue the fight for gay marriage.