No Blago, Richardson, Geithner, Daschle, Clinton, etc…

I would posit that the majority of the public would have supported ANY Obama-endorsed stimulus bill, regardless of the contents.

The public believed in a ludicrous, extreme version of an all-benevolent, Obama-led fantasy government on Nov 5.

IMO, like a series of body blows, the continuous scandals since Nov 5 have taken an extremely important cumulative toll on the free pass that the public was giving the Democrats on Nov 5? Recall the series of the events in the fall. Early Sept, Obama & McCain are tied. Sept 15, the Lehman crisis releases the full wrath of the credit crunch. In the aftermath, despite the HUGE role Democrats played in laying the foundation for the credit crunch, Obama and the Dems roll to easy victory because the public basically believes the repeated slogan Bush = Worst. President. Ever. and Obama and the Dems are not Bush.

Yes, even in the absence of corruption, there’s a crucial argument to be made that government will provide inferior outcomes vs free markets due to the lack of competition, feedback, incentive to adjust, and accountability. Unfortunately, however, the majority of the public believed in Santa Claus on Nov 5. Have the vivid examples of corruption assisted conservatives as we make our case not to trust government with more of our money? I believe the answer to be an overwhelming “Yes!”

But as you say, the next 2-3 weeks are crucial, as lasting laws hang in the balance. Time not for body blows, but for head shots (the content of the Stimulus bill). In football, there is a notion of the “24 hour celebration” rule.
You get to celebrate a victory (i.e. Daschle) for 24 hours, but then you put it behind you and focus on the next game.

The next game is the Super Bowl (the Stimulus Bill), and it deserves our full attention. But to argue that the momentum from the winning streak Conservatives have been on in the weekly changes in public opinion since Nov 5 have not mattered introduces some “cognitive friction” (i.e. Huh??), which in itself could be a distraction from the upcoming game.

Pork is just dead wood. Government programs are vampires that can’t be killed while they kill on a continuous basis, sucking our blood.

We cannot become the green eye-shades party.
We cannot become merely the anti-pork party.

We must become the party of freedom, self-determination, and humble government.

I would not include as pork funds that are spent to fulfill a federal mandate. I might well question the wisdom of the mandate itself, but funding the mandate is not pork.

Projects which cross state lines might or might not be pork – that depends on the severability of the projects between the involved states and assessment of whether the purpose of this expenditure substantively falls under mandated Federal responsibilities.

Another aspect refers to the process – whether awards are made through a competitive process mediated by an impartial group, or whether they are made noncompetitively at the behest of individual members. Another modulator is germaneness to the purposes of the bill.

The House is being particularly irresponsible, and the Senate coupled with Obama fidgeting in the wind may ultimately kill this thing.

Ta.

For example “pork” . Could you please enlighten us with an objective definition of pork? My guess is pork is whatever you disagree with in any particular bill. Or will you say you can’t define it but you know it when you see it?

Let me see, the stimulus bill in question is 638 pages long, so would you care to lie to us and tell us you have actually read the bill? While you are at it, tell us what percentage of the bill is pork and what percentage is stimulus.

Since you have read the bill are you in favor of the iron and steel provisions? Are you in favor of the prevailing wages rates requirements? Are you in favor of the accountability provisions in the bill or do you seek significant changes? Do you believe there is any stimulative effect in spending $350 mil in water shed and flood prevention operations? Can I assume you live in a desert state, or some place where flooding is not an issue?

How about commenting on the tax provisions as well and tell us what stimulative effect they will have. We should have a sustained and long debate about the Bill, but repeating something we heard on a talk show or a TV news program is no substitute for drilling into details and other sources to advance well reasoned opinions and/or fact based arguments.

So what’s my point? or points? First, read the damn thing and don’t accept as fact what any radio or TV person tells you without some independent verification. All sorts of misleading crap has gone over the airways about this bill, some of it half truths and some of it outright fabrication, and none of it any serious analysis of the many provisions in the bill.

Second you can be part of the problem or part of the solution, whining about pork, or whining about everything will get you exactly no where.

Third and last think for yourself, Limbaugh, Hannity, Lou, and a whole host of other talking heads, the talkocracy, care more about their ratings and their own pocketbooks than they care about mine or yours. To them we are basically chumps, drones who are supposed to run around repeating the crap they spout.

And do you really want to quote Ronald Reagan on the economy? President Reagan was certainly the Great Communicator, but even his most ardent fan would not call him the Great Economist.

Anyway since you seem to worship him, here’s something else from the Great Communicator:

Reagan vowed to reduce the Federal government and cut some cabinet departments. By the time he left office, he’d increased the government’s size and added a department.

In Illinois, the topic is the recently ousting of Blago, another major ally of the Hero.

Good for the Dems, I should say.

When Rush appeared on Hannity’s show the most important lines got lost in the hype…
—————
“The growth of government. I think the intent here is to create as many dependent Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation.
If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it’s over, Sean. We’re never going to roll that back. That’s the end of America as we have known it because that’s then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided.”
—————

Never ending programs are the real issue. The idea I think is creating a permanent majority.