In the iPad era, people’s lives are decentralizing and services are becoming more customized. Community solutions are being found closer to home. Giving more power to a-one-size-fits-all federal government is out of synch with that reality.
No Good Options for Obama, Scott Rasmussen
(A very America 3.0 view of things, and a correct one.)
Willy Wonka: It’s all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!
He is not going to blink.
Ah, but you have not reached the merits, sir.
Obama has nothing to lose. Some of his party comrades do and will eventually force a resolution. Unless, of course, the Republicans cave in, in which case they are toast. Not the party; the incombents.
I like the quote but disagree with the article. This part:
is, um, wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/its-time-for-stocktaking-by-gop-leaders/2013/10/12/0604c656-334d-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html
Yeah, he is wrong. The GOP gets the blame, and Obama is handed a massive unearned victory.
The GOP will get blamed for whatever happens, so they may as well try to be effective. Right now they are blocking additional spending overall, and pushing back a bit on Obamacare. Good. Better that than an eager capitulation to avoid being called names.
What the Republicans could do better is criticize relentlessly the Democrats’ hypocrisies and corruptions on Obamacare. Instead we hear bland talk about continuing resolutions and similar green-eyeshade stuff that’s too dull and abstract for most voters. It would be better to hammer the point that the Democrats want to privilege members of Congress and their staffs as well as big businesses and unions while putting the screws to everyone else on ACA implementation and subsidies.
The Republicans should focus on Obamacare delay as it is increasingly obviously necessary. The debt ceiling is a false issue since we can pay the interest from monthly receipts. If Obama wants a default he can create it.
I am so sick of politics that I no longer listen to talk radio in my car. I have several CDs of country music. That’s what I listen to while driving.
Just listening to the local news station in my car. They played a soundbite from someone at or affiliated with one of the veterans’ demonstrations today. He said he just wants the politicians to get together and get things working again. Nothing about the Democrats’ use of shutdown theater to punish citizens at memorials and parks. I am suspicious. This sounds like astroturf. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrats are using their media influence and propaganda expertise, to shift public attention away from outrage over the Obamacare debacle and over partisan misuse of the Park Service, and toward front organizations and agents of influence who will insist that the pols of both parties stop squabbling and start working together (i.e., fund Obamacare fully and resume spending at unsustainable levels).
Just for grins and giggles, my daughter got a long informational packet from her health insurance provider yesterday. There is a tiny increase in her policy if she remains on their basic plan – $87 a month. To go to their plan which meets the ACA/Obamacare standards means an increase to $234. Of course, she is one of the young and relatively healthy adults who have to be corralled into signing up for the ACA/Obamacare option. But she won’t be signing up for it – she is sticking to the $87 option, as it is the one which she can afford in the first place.
There is an ad running from a “progressive” vet group. Nice try but anyone who Googles them sees right through it.
In the iPad era, people’s lives are decentralizing and services are becoming more customized. Community solutions are being found closer to home. Giving more power to a-one-size-fits-all federal government is out of synch with that reality.
Ah, but one of the bigger questions, related to that, is, “Is a large, monolithic nation a functional entity in a networked world?”
I’ve never read it, but perhaps the nation, and North America, is really headed for a breakup into smaller pieces, a la The Nine Nations of North America? Not suggesting that whatever causes or arguments it produces from 30 years ago are still directly valid, but there may, arguably, be new causes and new impetuses for such a breakup, esp. in lieu of the efforts by liberals to use PC bovine excreta to eliminate the fabric that wove the USA into a single group of disparate parts.
Perhaps the world needs smaller nations, not giant centralized monsters?
Among the benefits I’d argue:
1) Less likelihood of military adventurism, and FAR less world significance when it really does happen.
2) Smaller, more responsive governments less distanced from the “pain feedback” of the constituents
3) Less cultural friction
4) Economies better adaptable to Comparative Advantage
Just thinking….
}}} to shift public attention away from outrage over the Obamacare debacle and over partisan misuse of the Park Service,
Exactly. The thing is, despite the media, the message of the Dems — “Ve Ar Yur Masters, Und Yu Vill Surrender!!” — IS getting out. They’re doing it themselves by doing things like taking the handles off water spigots in places they can’t really control access to, and blocking access to the PARKING LOT at Mount Vernon, when they don’t control MV itself. This kind of pettiness is not lost on the people, no matter what the media focuses on.
All the polls are based on what was being said at the start of this crap, nothing about what is being actually said NOW, hence your suspicion of astroturfing is very much in concurrence with my own.
}}} There is an ad running from a “progressive” vet group. Nice try but anyone who Googles them sees right through it.
The real question is, how many LIVs have the modern edumacashinal system produced in relation to the overall populace…?
It can be pretty subtle, too. There was a Sprint commercial, for example, at the start of the school season with “students” texting about history and art and literature, for example, that describes Lincoln as a “progressive” president. It’s “aimed” at the parents trying to get them to get their kids smart phones, but still… I wonder how many students are now likely to associate Lincoln with modern progressives…?