With two more Tea-Party-approved candidates winning their primary last night, most notably Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, the Tea Party groups are racking up an impressive number of wins over establishment Republicans than anyone ever thought possible.  That an upstart, grassroots effort like this could make such headway in such a short time is something I’ve not seen in my lifetime, as best I can tell.

That the Republican establishment is taking this so poorly is an indication of how much this was needed.  The party has decided that it’s more important to have an "R" after your name than to actually stand up for the party platform and philosophy.  Witness the spendthrift ways of a Republican Congress under a Republican President.  True, they didn’t hold a candle to the precedent-setting debt our current Democrat is sinking us into, but they gave up the mantle of fiscal responsibility when they abused their power.  They stopped being conservative and just wanted to be liked.

Well, we’re reaping the whirlwind that created. 

Instead, the Tea Party says that it isn’t that the Congress needs more politicians of a certain party, but more politicians of a certain responsibility.  They need to stop doing what doesn’t work (aka stimulus), stop ramming massive government takeovers down our throats (aka ObamaCare(tm)), and instead actually represent the people they’re supposed to be representing, and start dismantling this huge behemoth that has become a farce of the limited government model the Constitution permits.

Some say that the O’Donnell win last night mean Republicans won’t take back the Senate.  They’ve somehow made that the goal post and declare if it doesn’t happen that Republicans will somehow have failed.  Nuts to that.  The goal is more responsible government, and it’s not going to come about in a single election cycle.  Sure, O’Donnell may lose in November.  However, the message has been sent to the Republican establishment that conservatives are through pulling the lever for Republicans after hearing so many promises of being responsible, only for them to forget them as soon as they pass through the border of the Beltway.  This is a good message to send, and we’ve got to be in it for the long haul, and not be bothered by folks saying we failed if we don’t meet their expectations.

But here’s the thing.

If these Tea Partiers get to Washington and don’t do what they said they would — if this become more of the same — I half expect a third party to grow up out of this; an official Tea Party.  There is so much frustration at Washington politicians at this point that I can see it happening.  Articulating a vision that holds government to it’s Constitutional boundaries and not over-extending itself, while still meeting its obligations to the people is eminently possible.  It needs to be done, and if Republicans won’t do it, I think — I hope — someone else will

That’s the kind of hope and change I want to see.

A couple of encouraging pieces recently regarding the abortion issue in American and the world.  First, Ramesh Ponnuru notes that 2010 looks to be the Year of the Pro-Life Woman.  Having little to show for itself in Washington, DC, the pro-life movement is getting some allies.

Two pro-life women won Republican nominations for the Senate this week. A Tea Party favorite, Sharron Angle, and the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina are running for the Senate from Nevada and California, respectively.

A third pro-life woman, Susana Martinez, became the party’s nominee for governor of New Mexico, and a fourth, Nikki Haley, a South Carolina state legislator, is expected to be a gubernatorial nominee in her state. If they win their primaries, Kelly Ayotte, the former attorney general of New Hampshire, and Jane Norton, the former lieutenant governor of Colorado, will also be pro-life Senate candidates in November.

None of these candidates is a single-issue pro-lifer. But these women have not been shy about discussing the issue, either. Neither Ms. Fiorina nor Ms. Haley would have been likely to get Ms. Palin’s endorsement — valuable in a Republican primary — without firmly opposing abortion. Likewise, Ms. Angle would not have been able to unite populist conservatives and beat the party establishment’s candidate had she been pro-choice.

Why this is happening is seemingly paradoxical, but read the whole thing for his excellent analysis.

In other news, the United Nations is having trouble forcing the issue overseas.  Seems its reasons for funding abortions worldwide has fallen apart under scrutiny\.

Deep divisions with top United Nations (UN) officials and abortion activists on one side and maternal health researchers on the other became public this week during the Women Deliver 2 conference in Washington DC.
The dispute threatens to derail hopes of raising $30B for family planning at international development conferences in the coming months. These include the Group of Eight summit this month and the UN High Level Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Review in September.

The medical journal The Lancet published a study in April refuting UN research claiming 500,000+ annual maternal deaths has remained unchanged for decades. The new study put the figure at 342,900 with 60,000 of those from HIV/AIDS, and said the number has been declining since 1980.

[…]

Scientists flatly refused to back up the 20 year-old claim by UN agencies and activists that family planning improves maternal health. The Guttmacher Institute’s president, Sharon Camp, asked Murray whether his study’s finding linking declining global fertility rates to better maternal health supports the idea that more family planning will reduce maternal deaths. Murray replied that "there is no scientific way to prove that."

Scientists also undercut UN staff’s use of the world’s slow progress toward MDG 5 as a basis for urgent pleas for family planning funds. Boerma and Murray both said that its aim of reducing maternal deaths 75% by 2015 was unrealistic since it was not based upon "historical trends." The world would need an 8% annual drop, whereas 4% has been the best so far.

Downplaying the remarks, Guttmacher’s Camp defended a joint Guttmacher-UNFPA report which was based on the now discredited UN figures, and which calls for a doubling of family planning funds in order to reduce maternal deaths by 70%. Camp did not explain why the same amount of funding would be required for a smaller overall reduction.

Leftists have so much pull at the UN, and hence big (really big) government solutions have been all the rage.  It’s just that their appeal to science has pretty much failed.  Of course, that doesn’t mean they’ll stop pushing their agenda, but it’s interesting to hear this from liberals who accuse conservatives of being anti-science.

Like the Bush strain before it, Obama Derangement Syndrome is an overly hysterical reaction to what are essentially policy differences.  The most recent episode of the podcast I contribute to, Shire Network News, dealt with this very real issue.  (And this is a right-leaning podcast; we do police our own.)  Talk of a possible military coup because of Obama’s policies is akin to suggesting that Bush would declare marshal law at the end of his term so he wouldn’t have to leave. 

As Col. Cucullu, the featured interviewee notes, during at least one time in our history we had a wholly unelected President — Gerald Ford — who first replaced Vice President Agnew, and then got a promotion when Nixon resigned.  We had this situation for a few years and yet no tires were burning in the streets.  This particular republic has proven to be extremely resilient in the face of strangeness like that

I’d like to point out another, more recent example; Oath Keepers.  Founded in March by a former Ron Paul staffer (which, in itself, throws a ‘paul’ over it), it is a group of "non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution."  They have a list of 10 specific orders they say they will not obey.  (Compare this to the 7 promises that men of the Promise Keepers say they will keep.  Odd coincidence there.)

OK, fair enough, although if they swore an oath, and they apparently take it very seriously, why do you need an organization to promote that fact?  Following a quote from Gen. George Washington that starts, "The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves…", they say "Such a time is near at hand again."  Really?  Why didn’t this organization get started any earlier that March, 2009?  Did something happen then that caused these people to think that they would need to strive even harder to keep said oaths? 

A Presidential inauguration, perhaps, just 2 months earlier?  Coincidence?  I think not, especially given whom its founder supported in that election.  And this from a group calling itself "non-partisan".  Here’s an article in the group’s hometown newspaper, Las Vegas.  I’ll let you decide how "non-partisan" they are.

This is ODS in action.  At best, it’s inappropriate and nonproductive.  At worst, it’s wrong and counter-productive.  This is America, folks.  We can handle this.

Mr Obama has won a Nobel Peace prize. One reaction, from the left reads:

Of course the Republicans are going to freak out. Our guy wins a Nobel Peace Prize after 9 months in office, primarily for tinkering with the worst excesses of the wars their guy started. That’s humiliating. Humiliated Republicans lash out, news at eleven.

Hmm. Lash out? With remarks like this?

We appreciate his effort for peace which he just initiates and we have to wait for the result.

Isn’t it a bit premature for him to get the prize? We are not sure how it will affect his mindset.

or this?

Does Obama deserve The Prize? Has he done anything to warrant it? Does giving it to so young a man, in the infancy of his Presidency, devalue all those who worked long and hard to earn it? Or does it not matter at all, because the Nobel is such a political prize anyway (as anybody who has read Irving Wallace’s The Prize will know), given to Yasser Arafat and Menachem Begin?

or this?

This may well turn out to be the watershed year in the decline of Nobel Prizes. What were the committee members eating or smoking?

President Obama may well deserve this award in years to come. But not at this time. He has just begun his strive and is yet to leave a mark on world peace.

Oh, wait. Those weren’t conservative wingnuts at all. That was a collection of South East Asian blog reactions. Try Egypt.

There is a point here. The “conservative” bloggers  and “Republicans” are “lashing” out in exactly the same way as, it seems, is the rest of the world with at best, a collective “huh, wtf?” And if you don’t find that sort of reaction reasonable and ordinary … I suggest you need to dial the tension down your partisan wig and let some blood flow return to your little grey cells.

I’ve been reading Rod Dreher, the Crunchy Conservative, for a few years now. While I’ve enjoyed most of his writing I’ve been taken aback, in the near past, with his increasing propensity to drift into some other-world region neither Right nor Left nor Libertarian nor… Crunchy. While such a position is not, in and of itself, reason to pull ranks, and while I can put up with most of his doom and gloom prognoses on issues such as the economy, a recent post of his, regarding the uproar pertaining to President Obama’s planned speech to schoolchildren nationwide is the last straw.

From Dreher,

A teacher in a Dallas suburban district just phoned the colleague of mine who works in the office next to mine. She’s a personal friend of his. He says she phoned from the break room at school, close to tears. She told him, “This is getting out of control. Parents are calling up the school and yelling at the principals. The principals are freaking out.”

All because the president of the United States is going to give an address on education to students.

Meanwhile, it took no time for a commenter on the Dallas Morning News editorial board blog to compare the president to Charles Manson. Which was followed by this:

This all sounds very familiar. Oh yea, Hitler was well liked by children. He could speak to them very well, and won them over. Hitler organized the youth as an army, complete with regiments. A boy could rise from the simple rank of just a boy to lead a squad, platoon, company, even a battalion. A girl could rise to become a leader. Even lead them into community organizers. Don’t drink any more of Obama’s Kool Aid. Wake up people.

Obama would be smart to release the text of his planned address to defuse the crazybomb on the Right. I doubt that will be enough. A Texas Republican friend this morning told me two things: a) not all conservatives agree with these people; and b) that said, this is the last straw for him, that he doesn’t want to be associated in any way with the GOP, which in his view has lost its collective mind.

No, Mr. Dreher, the furor is not because the President of the United States is going to give an address on education to students. It’s because people were sold a bill of goods when they naively thought hope and change was coming to our land (albeit, the globe) via the White House. Instead, we’ve seen a concerted effort to “spread the wealth around” with a decidedly socialist agenda. Citizens of the United States do not want government intruding into their lives and they especially do not want to let THEIR children become a captive audience to such culturally socialist mantras.

Consider this video that was shown to school children at an elementary school in Utah.

Our children should be taught about patriotism, responsibility, human rights, civic duty, and our rich history. They should not be expected to “pledge service to Barack Obama” (3:17 into the video above), or any other human, be they Democrat or Republican. Granted, the video above was not shown nationwide and is not part of the President’s planned presentation, yet one has to wonder why such a blatantly political video would be considered as acceptable to broadcast to public school children in the first place?

Parents are concerned because time has shown that increased government intrusion in the lives of its citizens results in less freedoms for said citizens. This is a president that has clearly demonstrated his desire to increase the federal government’s role in the private sector. That alone should be cause for concern when this administration expresses a desire to speak to the nation’s children – correction – the parent’s children.

Unfortunately, Dreher fails in his attempt to illustrate the utter craziness of the crazybomb Right with a blatantly disengenous comparison of his friend’s tearfully compassionate teacher with that of an anonymous foul-mouthed internet troll who compares Obama to Hitler.

So, adios Crunchy.

Commenter JA recently offered that “anyone who compares Social Security (SS) to Bernie Madoff shouldn’t be taken seriously.” Now Bernie Madoff is the latest in a list of various enterprises employing a Ponzi scheme for raising money. The comparison to Mr Madoff is not to suggest that the motives behind the SS program is the same as Mr Madoff’s, but that the SS program has a number of features which classify it as very similar to a classic Ponzi scheme. This BW article is instructive.

Superficially, these critics have a point, and there is a parallel between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. But on a fundamental level, they are very wrong, and it’s worth explaining why.First, the parallel. Social Security taxes current workers to pay Social Security benefits for current retirees. In other words, the new entrants into the Social Security system, the young workers, pay off the previous entrants, the older workers. And despite the fact you have a Social Security “account”, there is no necessary link between what you paid into the system in taxes, and what you receive.

That’s very similar to the structure of a Ponzi scheme, where new investors pay off the original investors. As long as enough new ‘victims’ are brought into the scheme, it keeps growing and growing. But when the new investors runs out, the Ponzi collapses. Analogously, the slowdown in population growth puts pressure on Social Security finances.

But there is one enormous difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme: Technological change. Over the past century, new technologies have enabled the output of the country to grow much faster than its population. To be more precise, the U.S. population has more than tripled since the early 1900s, while the U.S. economic output has gone up by more than 20 times.

So SS is in fact a Ponzi scheme with the modification that unlike a standard Ponzi scheme which depends on infinite population size (victim pool) to continue, the SS program depends economic growth to outstrip any demographic changes.

It is curious to me why the left so aggressively defends this program. Time and time again you will find the left defending progressive taxation as opposed to a flat or other non-progressive tax scheme. Yet, here is SS a blatantly non-progressive tax, which they defend conveniently ignoring its very non-progressive nature.

The criticisms of this program from the right center on its size, a 13% tax, and its very poor rate of return (which calculation assuredly uses the wrong figure for the tax amount, i.e., 7.5%). The answer to that from the left, as far as I can see, is to try to buy into the accounting fiction that the 13% is really 7.5%. I think the reply to the second is, “meh”.

From the right’s point of view, the insistence by the left that this program aids the poor and indigent (yet provides universal coverage) seems myopic at best. Nobody on the right would insist that we fail to provide for the retired people without means, yet when one asks why this enormous tax is paying retirement benefits to those who are well off has no answer.

It seems to me a political feasible solution would be the following:

1. No change to the coverage of currently retired people would be made. SS made promises and should therefore make good on those.
2. Currently working people, starting “now” (now = when this change is put in place) would be informed that any new benefits (figured in the fictional accrued that comprises SS) will only be means tested in order for that payment to take place. That is to say, it would be as if you stopped working right “now” and your benefit would be frozen at that point. If you need benefits in excess of that amount, means testing will be required before you will receive money.

The effect of this is that over the next generation (or two) the tax would return to the 3% level at which it began. People will plan for their retirement independently, realizing that SS would be a safety net for retirement. When the “SS” generation expecting “a rate of return” sort of benefit payment are no longer in the working force, the SS tax could be removed from its special tax/payment status and tax and receive its funding from standard mechanisms.

I should point out this is not exactly the proposal I would really prefer, although it might be a stepping stone to the same.

One of the rising mini-blog storms in the right (and responses on the left) that arose today is about the silence on the left regarding the troops and low level conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan (and perhaps Pakistan). The default notion that arises here is that this lack of response that this reflects how much that the left was anti-Bush and the conflict was just a proxy for that animus. There may be some truth to this accusation, however I think that is not the whole or even the larger part of it. For while it is true that the anti-war propaganda and general energy/excitement that is present now has pretty much vanished, it is also true that the small government, e.g., tea party, sentiments that have and had been strong on the right vanished during much of the Bush tenure.

Ronald Reagan, I think, coined the “11th commandment: thou shalt not speak ill of your own party”, which is largely at play here. A corollary of this commandment is that while one does not speak ill of the doings by those in your party that you disagree with … one’s defense of the same is usually tepid or absent as well. For example, on my part, while I did not really soundly thrash Mr Bush for expanding Medicare entitlements … I did not defend it one bit either. I was silent. Likewise, we see the left, while they are silent as Mr Obama expands operations in Afghanistan (and likely delays withdrawal in Northern Iraq) neither will they, I suspect, leap to his defense against those who would speak against this. Likewise on Medicare and now the two COIN operations, criticism does largely not arise from the other party, which is in general agreement with those moves (even if they might criticize implementation details). The criticism arises more from non-party aligned people further to the right or left (or in the case of Medicare … the Libertarian fringe movement).

Scott Ott, of ScrappleFace blog fame and occasional CNN guest, is running for Executive of Lehigh county in Pennsylvania.  Tuesday night, he went strolling around Allentown, looking to strike up conversations, maybe hand out a few campaign bookmarks; no real agenda in mind.

Turns out that when he enters a store and starts talking to the guys there, a chance to really discuss the issues crops up and he has what he called "an intensely practical, intelligent discussion about political ideology and freedom".  The conversation begins:

"What will you do for me if I vote for you?" the shop owner said. "Will you get me a grant for my store?"

I’m a bad politician.

I said (paraphrasing from memory), "The first thing I’ll do for you is put an end to the idea that public servants should hand out special favors to people who support them."

I told him that the next thing I could "do for him" was to abolish the idea that government is going to save you from your troubles, and to exchange that for the idea that you are responsible and free, and that no one cares more about your children, your business, your home and your neighborhood than you do. In addition, no one is better equipped to deal with the challenges of your neighborhood than you and your neighbors. But it won’t happen until you stop thinking that someone else is to blame, or that some outside agency is going to intervene to fix things.

He looked at me and said, "You’re a Republican."

I was delighted that he associates freedom and responsibility with my party.

His thoughts on that discussion, what the aims are (or should be) of the Republican party, and a sense of community that’s been lost elsewhere can be found here.

From Politico (HT: Holycoast), former Governor Mark Sanford writes,

Immediately after all this unfolded last week I had thought I would resign – as I believe in the military model of leadership and when trust of any form is broken one lays down the sword. A long list of close friends have suggested otherwise – that for God to really work in my life I shouldn’t be getting off so lightly. While it would be personally easier to exit stage left, their point has been that my larger sin was the sin of pride. They contended that in many instances I may well have held the right position on limited government, spending or taxes – but that if my spirit wasn’t right in the presentation of those ideas to people in the General Assembly, or elsewhere, I could elicit the response that I had at many times indeed gotten from other state leaders.

"Buyer’s remorse" is a phenomenon where, once a purchaser gets a product home and uses it, they decide it’s not living up to its potential, the advertising hype, or their expectations (realistic or otherwise).  According to Rasmussen, looks like America is getting a case of "Voter’s remorse".

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker.

Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin.

If voters didn’t realize that a President and a Congress in the hands of Democrats was going to be a big-spending perfect storm, they were just reading the advertising hype before casting their ballots.  Republicans certainly tarnished their "fiscal conservative" image in the last 8 years, no doubt about it.  But claims of "It would be worse with Democrats" is ringing true right on cue. 

And how about that "culture of corruption" that the Democratic party has tried hard to pin on Republicans?

Republicans also now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters. That shows a large shift from May, when Democrats held an 11-point lead on the issue.

There are others, and it’s worth reading.  Again I will say that most polls (or as fellow Stone Mark refers to them as, "cricket races") are simply a measure of emotion, and it’s also true in this case.  Polls that ask whether or not the economy is getting better measure what people think is happening.  What is really happening may be completely opposite to that. The general public, myself included, don’t know enough about economics to make the answer anything but a hunch.  But this poll is asking who people trust, which they, in fact, are experts on.  If the winds blow a different way tomorrow, these numbers could in fact change again.  However, the trend right now is that folks see where we’re heading, and they don’t like it.

Neither do the folks in Europe, where EU Parliamentary elections finished up recently.  This election, following the global financial crisis, shows which way the world leans when the find themselves in an economic pickle; to the Right.  The love affair with the Left and the Socialists has grown cold — more voter’s remorse — especially in France, which started a move to the Right with Sarkozy and continued with a crushing defeat for the Socialists, losing almost 20% of its French seats.  They may cheer Obama on the Left, but then they go home and vote Right when the chips are down.

Back when Mr Bush was nominating people for President, I made what I felt was a strong argument that the Senate should have readily nominated his appointees. I stand by this argument now that the other party is now in the White House. I based this argument on Mr Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #76. Mr Hamilton notes:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

He also notes just prior, mentioning consequences of what might occur if the Senate took too active a role in vetting and selecting nominees.

Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. […] And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations. [emphasis mine]

In view of the last two decades of despicable SCOTUS and other similar interviews, Mr Biden and his parties behavior during the Thomas hearings comes to mind, a rejoinder to Mr Hamilton might be, “D’ya think? They might put considerations of party before who might be fit for the station.”

Mr Hamilton suggests the Senatorial advise/consent be exercised to insure the nominee free from “unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.” If Ms Sotomayor is free from these issues, my view would be to approve her to the position.

Let them brand themselves.

A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

No, no, no, no, no.  Let their actions speak for themselves, from purchasing interests in financial and auto companies, to ignoring bankruptcy law when dealing with those companies in order to pay off special interests, to spending billions (and taxing more) on universal health care, they can pretty much fill out the "Hello, my name is" badge themselves. 

I’m with Michael Steele on this.  All this will do is give the media and the Democrats a tool to hammer Republicans with.  "They’re comparing him to Hugo Chavez" or something like that.  While the truth is that they’re pulling us in that direction and not letting a crisis go to waste (as Mr. Emmanuel has declared), labeling them doesn’t change minds, or at least not for long.  Pointing out why their policies are flawed will.

Okay, today’s lesson is to test how well you’ve been paying attention. Listed below are gaffes uttered by a prominent politician. Your task is to choose whether the gaffe was committed by: a) George W. Bush, b) Sarah Palin, or c) Joe the Plumber (no, he’s not a politician, but he’s been in the political limelight).

Good luck.

Our person in question:

1. Made the claim that the 1908 Model T had better fuel efficiency than a typical 2008 SUV.
2. Repeatedly pronounced the word Orion as “OAR-ee-on”.
3. Referred to Great Britain as England.
4. Referred to the “Austrian” language.
5. Thought that the nation of Turkey is older than the U.S.

Well, how’d you do? Truth be told, this was a trick quiz. Each gaffe listed above was committed by our own President Barack Obama*. While no one is immune from making minor goofs, I have to wonder, how would the media have treated these slip-ups had they been committed by Bush?

* HT: (HotAir) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

A growing list of "honest mistakes" by Democrats is leading this op-ed author to ask, "What does it take to disqualify Democrats from public service?"  If tax evasion, suborning forgery and using campaign funds for personal expenses ain’t enough, what is?  As commenter "socrates" writes:

Failure to pay $150K in taxes normally gets one in front of a Tax Court judge with the IRS burning your house down.

If you’re a Democrat it gets you a Cabinet position.

Both sides have corruption in their ranks, make no mistake about it.  But as I’ve said multiple times in the past, it’s not about corruption; it’s about accountability.  On the whole, Republicans tend to remove those involved with corruption, while Democrats, when they do anything, pass a motion and continue with the business of the day.  Read those links for a number of examples.

Nominating them for cabinet positions, right "socrates"?

Man is sinful; that’s just the way it is.  But if he’s not held accountable for his actions when he breaks the law, do we expect that we’ll have less law-breaking?

Here’s a video giving us a timeline of what happened when in the story of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapse.  Take special note of who was for regulation and who was against it. 

Read the rest of this entry