Quick Hits

Yeah, I know I just did one of these, but a few things have happened since the last one, so...

- Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints for winning the Super Bowl this year. The Saints and the Indianapolis Colts are both great teams, but for the Saints to win it all is a great testament to not just the team's athletic prowess, but to their commitment to the city. Now, I want to see the city match the Saints' commitment by getting committed to improving their conditions.

- In an op-ed piece in USA Today, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan wrote, "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda." Hmmm...when the Bush Administration said the same thing, didn't the Left scream about dissent being patriotic?

- More fallout from Climategate has the eco-Left digging in and going on the offensive. Instead of defending their misdeeds (which are indefensible, given the depths they've sunk to in order to keep up the myth that AGW is settled science), they've decided to attack those who are raising legitimate doubts. So much for the science being on their side...

- Meghan McCain has announced that she's a progressive Republican. I know. I was shocked, too. Anyway, it explains a lot about her advice for Republicans on how to win the youth vote in upcoming elections. What it explains: she is the last person the GOP needs to consult for advice on winning elections. Her father's approach has been tried and it has failed in two straight elections. Putting a new face on a failed strategy doesn't make it any better.

- Sarah Palin has caught a lot of heat from Leftists for notes she wrote on her hand prior to a speech she gave recently. As a public speaker, I understand the importance of notes to delivering a good speech, so I don't criticize Palin too much for it. Notecards would have been better, but sometimes you have to go with what you have handy, if you'll pardon the pun. Having said that, seeing how sparse her notes were makes me think the Left's criticism of Palin in this case is much ado about nothing. Seriously, you're getting on Palin's case for a few words written on her hand? If that doesn't scream "Palin owns us," I don't know what does.

- A new billboard of George W. Bush and the slogan "Miss Me Yet?" appeared near Wyoming, Minnesota, recently. It even got the attention of National Public Radio, who initiated an investigation into whether it was real and who put it up. Wow. With all of the stuff that could and really should be investigated (you know, like ACORN and government fraud under the guise of "stimulus money"?), it's nice to see NPR take the lead on something so insignificant. Then again, if the media did their jobs, we might not have had Obama in the White House...

And finally...

- A strip club in Ohio hosted an event called Lap Dances for Haiti. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to book a flight to Ohio to support this good cause because, dang it, I CARE!

Quick Hits

I figure there's been a few things in the news that I haven't talked about yet, so let me rectify that.

- President Barack Obama promised that he would enact a spending freeze effective with the 2011 budget that would keep spending at the 2010 budget levels for 3 years. Maybe he slept in when this was covered at Harvard Law, but there’s this thing called the separation of powers that prevents one branch of the government from intruding too much on another. And according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, federal spending falls under the duties of…the Legislative Branch. Funny that a Constitutional law professor missed that part of the Constitution, huh?

- Nancy Pelosi stated that she would do everything in her power to get the health care reform bill passed. Considering she essentially passed the House version of this bill by 3 votes the first time around, and there’s still a matter of reconciliation to address, I’m not sure she should be so confident of the outcome because conditions have changed since December. Failure by the Congressional Democrats to see this will result in the health care reform bill being watered down or defeated outright.

- Newly elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was sworn in yesterday after a longer-than-necessary delay. When similar situation occurred in NY-23, the Democrat was sworn in immediately to vote for the health care reform bill in the House. Wouldn’t have anything to do with Brown being a Republican, would it?

- Senator Al Franken lambasted the Obama Administration for a lack of leadership on the health care reform bill. He cited how they failed to give Senate Democrats direction on how to proceed. Although I agree with Franken, I have to question the reason for his objection. After all, doesn’t he work for the people, not the White House?

- A recent report regarding the whereabouts of the funds from the Pork-A-Palooza bill shows that money was sent to Congressional districts…that don’t exist. Maybe that’s why the Obama Administration has taken the position that only some of the money is being misspent: because compared to the funds going to districts that don’t exist, the money being misspent is a drop in the bucket.

- In response to the recent controversy surrounding a pro-life television ad airing during the Super Bowl, “The View” co-host Joy Behar said that it was just as likely that Florida quarterback Tim Teboe could have been born a "pedophile rapist." Yeah, it’s possible that Teboe could have wound up as someone far less savory than what he has become. You know, like an unfunny talk show hack stinking up the airwaves on two different TV shows?

And finally...

- With the Super Bowl this Sunday, I’m torn as to who to root for. On the one hand, the Indianapolis Colts have proven to be an exceptional team on the field. Then again, the New Orleans Saints have proven to be an exceptional team off the field. Regardless of the score, I’m going to be happy for both teams because they’ve shown that they can do things right where it counts.

The War Against Glenn Beck

Arianna Huffington seems to have it in for Glenn Beck, if her recent comments about Beck are any indication. Huffington's point is that Beck is dangerous for America because he "incites violence." (Of course, she can't seem to point to any real evidence of Beck-inspired violence, nor has she attempted to explain away Beck's comments advocating non-violent protests, but I'm sure she'll address that any day now.)

The fact that Huffington's comments are echoed by a number of Leftists isn't surprising. The fact that Huffington's comments are so at odds with reality isn't surprising, either. What is surprising is how ineffectual such comments have been. Most people who watch or listen to Beck are the type who pay little attention to the Huffington crowd, and those who may be lukewarm towards Beck, but are aware of the facts, may not agree with Huffington's assertions. That leaves those who are predisposed to agree with Huffington, and that group is pretty small, comparatively speaking.

At the heart of Huffington's anti-Beck comments is an attempt to marginalize Beck using the classic Saul Alinsky method. Beck has been open with his flaws, which the Left has taken to paint him as a drunk, drug abuser, divorced, college dropout and, thus, not a credible source of information. Others have taken it a step further, accusing Beck of rape, tax evasion, and murder using facts even more tenuous than Huffington's. Why is the Left spending so much time, money, and energy to simultaneously dismiss and slander Glenn Beck?

Because he's effective.

The Left operates on a principle of keeping people ignorant and, thus, easily controllable. As much as the Left says that's Beck's shtick, Beck and his staff do their homework before they go public with anything. His recent documentary about the rise of progressivism was well-received by many people, except for the Left in academia who claimed Beck was factually inaccurate. Beck did clarify one of his statements and apologized for it, but as yet the people accusing him of being factually inaccurate have been at a loss for words when asked to show what Beck got wrong. But it's not about Beck being wrong; it's about Beck being right.

What makes Beck so effective is that he's really not driven by the same two-party fervor as other talk radio show hosts. He is concerned about finding the truth, no matter whose ox gets gored in the process. On the other hand, Huffington and her ilk have a purely ideological purpose for trying to destroy Glenn Beck: to preserve the Leftist status quo. To them, it's a battle for survival against the biggest threat they've ever experienced. To Beck, it's a battle for the survival of the country he loves.

I'm not usually a betting man, but in this case, I'll go all in for Beck winning this one.

Bipartisanship, Chicago Style

President Barack Obama was invited to a Republican function yesterday where he took questions from Republicans in an attempt to reach out to them. This was all a part of the Administration's attempt to make the President appear less partisan and more willing to work with the GOP in the aftermath of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. And what did he do?

Gave lip service to the Republicans about being more bipartisan while attacking them for blocking his agenda.

Okay, I'm willing to believe Obama may be serious about working with Republicans in the future, but this isn't the way to forge a new relationship. The question I have is whether it was a serious attempt, given the past year. From the beginning of his Administration, Obama said he wanted to reach across the aisle to fix the problems of this country. When given chances to do that, he hasn't. What he has done, though is used Republicans as scapegoats for everything that's wrong with the country right now. Granted, this isn't unexpected, but it is rather troubling for someone who ran on being a uniter to be do divisive.

The Republicans bear some responsibility for this, too. Congressional Republicans have dug in and tried doing as much as they could to delay or derail the President's agenda, such as it was. Yet, they didn't have the numbers to do much derailing. Although they may not have been the most willing to work with the President, I can't think of a time when Obama reached out to Republicans in a meaningful way. What he has done is rubbed the Republicans' noses in his victory whenever possible. Remember the "I won" comment after an early meeting with Congressional leaders?

I think Obama's trying to play both sides of the political spectrum with this new approach. He needs to keep his left flank happy by attacking Republicans while at least sounding like he's trying to work with Republicans to appease his right flank and the Independents who voted for him. After a year of playing to his left flank, though, his strategy to move towards the center may not work because it isn't credible. It looks like an act of political expediency more than principle.

My only piece of advice to the President on this is if he's really holding out an olive branch to the Republicans as a sign he wants to work with them, he'd better not be hiding the hatchet he used to cut down that branch behind his back.

The Real Fluke

In the aftermath of Scott Brown's stunning victory to win the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy, Leftists and the media have been trying to figure out a way to minimize the impact of said victory. One of the most popular is that Brown's victory was a fluke, that he merely tapped into the country's anger against Barack Obama and/or the Democrats. I'm sure they're sincere in their beliefs (or at least as sincere as Leftists can be), but they're missing the point. Conservatives and Republicans, too, aren't looking at the big picture. Yes, dear readers, the Brown victory was not a fluke victory by any stretch of the imagination.

Go back a few months to New York-23, and you'll see the real fluke. In that race, an established Democrat with the backing of a Republican (who, surprise surprise, was being backed by a different arm of the same Leftist political enterprise, ACORN) barely beat a member of the Conservative Party. For those of you unfamiliar with the facts in this case, the Conservative Party is a separate party in New York State from the Republican Party. In other words, they're a third party. When you consider a third party candidate with less time in the race than the other two candidates almost knocked off the Democrat in an election season where public discontent against government was already high, it's clear that the Democrats were lucky to come away with that victory.

Of course, at the time, the media and the Left were crowing about "taking the seat away from the GOP, who held it since the Civil War." (Of course, that's not true, as NY-23 was represented by a Democrat way back in 1993, but let's not get into those details here.) They were so psyched about their win that they overlooked a good chunk of the whole picture, and that cost them in Massachusetts.

Now that the Left is in full excuse mode, it's unlikely they will look at Brown's victory as anything but a hiccup, a once-in-a-lifetime thing. The problem is that it's not.

It's a sign of things to come.

You Heard It Here First!

It was July 31, 2009, and a blog post by your friend and mine Stella Rondo made its appearance here. As much as some like to dismiss her observations, I'd say she was right on target with this one, and only about six months before the events she outlined happened...

Any Leftist who wants to apologize to Ms. Rondo for mocking her can send your apologies to me, in care of this blog.

Here is the post again for your viewing pleasure.

http://thebottomlineblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-post-by-stella-rondo.html

A New Post by Stella Rondo

I used to work in something called Organizational Change Management which is fancy schmanzty consultant-speak for "the structured process of leading an organization through the very predictable difficulties that they'll encounter as they go through any change."

The fact is, even if it's the right idea at the right time, most change efforts eventually fail. The primary reason for this is that those leading the change don't account for and address the resistance they are inevitably going to get. It sounds so obvious and simple, and yet it's a consistently ignored factor.

So even if Obama health care bill passed, I think there's a good chance it would eventually collapse in implementation for two reasons:

First, Obama has done a poor job of the most basic step: He has not identified the correct problem - he merely identifies symptoms ("47 million without insurance"). Also, he cannot tell you in a coherent and relatively simple fashion what the solution is going to look like. He had a preconceived idea of the solution he wanted to use (government) and shaped the problem to fit his solution, not the other way around. So he is trying to implement the wrong solution on a problem that can't be defined on a population that, according to polls, increasingly does not want.

Second, Obama is trying to force a solution that goes contrary to core American culture. By culture, I don't mean Britney Spears and American Idol. (Consultant speak alert!) Culture is all the unspoken assumptions a group holds about the world and how it works, if the group has survived by conforming to those assumptions. Culture provides the unspoken context and answers for every thing we do, from "why does our group exist?" to "How will we talk to each other?" to "What happens when you make mistakes?"

We used to say,"'culture eats strategy for breakfast", and Obama does not realize what he's up against when he tries impose a change that goes contrary to it. Culture is so powerful that people will deny, minimize, ridicule, or dismiss the reality of what they see or experience if it conflicts with their core cultural assumptions. (This is why so many people cannot believe that Obama would deliberately do anything to harm the country - their cultural assumption is that all presidents love America and have her best interests at heart.)

The polls reflect these types of cultural assumptions - the public does NOT think that government is the best place to solve problems, they do NOT want larger government, they do NOT like all this spending, and they do NOT want to lose the individual freedom they have to determine their own lives. And yet that is the very type of solution Obama seems intent on implementing.

So should the bill pass, Obama is entering implementation with a poorly defined problem, a poorly defined solution, and a resistant, increasingly hostile, and impatient public whose core cultural beliefs are attacked. I would not be surprised to eventually see things like a return of Congress to the GOP, doctor strikes, public marches, computer programming snafus, "sick-outs", and computer hackings, to name just a few ways in which people could resist.

I know people voted for "change" - but here's what I came to learn about that. When people say they want change, they really want one of three things: 1) some novelty, 2) some relief, or 3) for the OTHER guy to change to their lives will go back to 'normal' without them having to expend any effort. People do NOT willingly vote to change their entire concept of self and country, which is what Obama is imposing - and why he ultimately will fail.

A Very Special (Election) Blog Post

First, let me offer congratulations to Senator-Elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts. The impact of the election to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy will be felt for a while. Here is a list of some of the winners and losers from last night.

Winners

- Scott Brown: This one's self-explanatory. Brown ran a stellar campaign, appealing to the spirit of the age with his common man approach and promise to vote against the ObamaCare bill still in Congress.

- The TEA Party movement: The victory that didn't come in NY-23 came in Massachusetts. No matter how much the Left ridicules the TEA Party movement, it's clear from post-election interviews that there are more TEA Party people than the Left cares to admit. That should tell them that Brown's victory is a validation of the TEA Party.

- Conservative House Democrats: It's unusual to think of a Republican winning helping Democrats, but in this case it works. With Brown's potential vote against ObamaCare, conservative Democrats in the House can make the argument that ObamaCare won't be able to pass by traditional means. That means they could vote their conscience with the House version instead of voting with their party in the hopes of being reelected.

Losers

- Martha Coakley: Although she was hand-picked by the Kennedy family to take Ted's seat, Coakley ran a laughable campaign. Hard to believe that she was up by 30 points at one time. Her campaign's meltdown will be the source of much discussion within Leftist circles, mainly to protect President Obama from the fall-out.

- Barack Obama: In the short term, Brown's election means health care reform and other Obama initiatives are threatened. In the long term, Obama's inability to deliver victory in three high profile races (New Jersey, Virginia, and now Massachusetts) will be a reflection on his bank-ability as a Campaigner-In-Chief. If the 2010 midterm elections become a referendum on Obama, more and more Democrats will distance themselves from the President, making him seem more and more like a lame duck.

- Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid: Brown's election throws a spotlight on Pelosi and Reid's failure to deliver a workable health care reform bill last year. In their attempts to bribe and bully their respective houses of Congress into voting for ObamaCare, they "forgot" the art of diplomacy and preferred to hammer through a fundamentally flawed bill with the promise that it could be "fixed" later. Here's a tip: if you know it's a bad bill, pushing it through won't make it any better.

- the Kennedy family: There was once a time when a Kennedy supporting someone in Massachusetts meant a guaranteed victory. With the Kennedy family's support of Coakley, though, no victory was to be had. This is a sign that the Kennedy name is no longer a force in Massachusetts politics, possibly even national politics. And the sad thing: it is a self-inflicted wound.

Take 'Em and Pick 'Em

- the Republican Party: At this point, I'm not sure how the Republican Party will react to the Brown victory after the euphoria of the victory wears off. If they look solely at the Senate makeup and don't consider how Brown won, their chances in the midterm elections will be negatively impacted. Brown's victory can be used as a blueprint for other Republican victories, but only if the party leadership recognizes it.

- the Democrat Party: Brown's victory should be a wake-up call to the party. The tactics they used served not to discourage support for Brown, but discourage support for Coakley. They simply can't rely on attacking an opponent as a "teabagger" because there are a number of people who actually agree with the TEA Party movement from all walks of life. With a growing number of Independents willing to vote for a Republican or a conservative, the Democrat brand may not be as strong as it was back in 2006 and 2008.

- third parties: With the rise of the TEA Party movement, there has been a lot of talk about the possibility of third parties rising in popularity and what it means to the two major parties. Brown's victory may give third parties reason to pause. After all, if they can find a Republican, conservative, or Independent candidate that can support and be satisfied, there may not need to be such a powerful move towards third parties. Then again, it may be just the motivation they need to step up and make a better argument for their causes.