Warren tells us yesterday that he and his super-rich friends aren’t paying enough in taxes (and I just love how the term “super-rich” always makes me think of “Wile E. Coyote – Super-Genius”).  Super-rich Warren tells us:

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot

Two responses come immediately to mind.   The first, much like Pat Buchanan pointed out this morning – you CAN pay more, Warren.   But I understand that misses the point of his “Stop Coddling the Rich” article.   My second thought is that guys like Warren Buffett should spend less time playing into the class warfare debate and more time choosing which of the several flat tax proposals he likes best.   But maybe that’s an argument for a different day.

Thinking about it further, Warren Buffett has pledged for himself and his family, and he’s challenged more of his super-rich friends to give 50% or more of their wealth away to charity with an eye toward an additional $600 billion in charitable giving by the super-rich.   And plenty of these super-rich folks have signed on.    As Warren explains about his own pledge:

First, my pledge: More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day.

Admirable!   And I want to be absolutely clear about this much – I think it is a great thing that Warren Buffett has chosen to leave 99% of his wealth to charities that provide for education and help the poor and fund the sciences and the arts.   And here’s the greater point that came only after I burned through my first two initial reactions:   government funds all those things too.   Shall we take Mr. Buffett’s actions to speak louder than your words?

If there’s one thing that Warren Buffett’s lifetime of successful investing has shown us it’s that he knows how to get a good return on his dollars.   Surprising that he’s chosen to NOT leave his fortune to the government.   Quite the opposite.  Not only is he not allowing the government to choose how to invest his money on education, science, assistance for the poor, and so forth; he’s gone a step further.   Warren Buffett is taking his money and putting it all in tax-exempt charitable funds.  He’s pledged to raise $600 billion in charitable giving from his super-rich friends and play keep-away with it.     Warren Buffett may be paying less than he thinks he should be paying now, but he’ll be paying even less than that in death – and apparently, that’s perfectly fine.

I’ll say it again, though – charity is admirable.   I’m all in favor of Warren Buffett and his super-rich friend (or, rich super-friends) leaving their money to charity.  What’s galling is when that same person playing keep-away with his money gets all preachy about what others should be doing with theirs.    When Warren Buffett and his super-rich friends all get together and pledge to use their vast resources to retire the budget deficits of federal government or the fifty states, then I’ll take back my insults.   I suspect that everyone will have suddenly misplaced their wallets when THAT pledge is proposed.

Investing in government is a poor use of money.   Which isn’t to say it’s not a necessary one;  just that, given the option, most would choose a better investment.    Mr. Buffett, inasmuch as you, the great master of wise investments, has shown us that giving your stacks of million dollar bills to the government is not the best investment, who the hell are you to tell ANYONE what to do with their own money?!

There IS a perfectly good and acceptable way to address the RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare comparison.    It’s also the simplest answer, and one that rings loud and true with many conservatives: one atrocious piece of legislation is allowed; the other one ain’t.    Our Constitution contemplates states adopting their own boneheaded laws and policies in their own boneheaded ways, but it specifically precludes the Federal government from doing the same without specific authority:

10th Amendment.  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is a fundamental and colossal difference between a state adopting a policy to socialize its health care delivery system and the federal government doing the same by mandating every citizen buy a health insurance product.   The Constitution talks all about the powers that are granted and makes perfectly clear what happens to those powers that are not.  The Founders might look at you with cross-eyes for signing something like RomneyCare; but, they would most certainly appreciate that you can make your own policy choices within the boundaries of your own state.   They expected this.  They even emphasized it and tried to protected it with the language above, which everyone now ignores of course.    Their sole concern was that the wacky policy choices of one state might creep over their border and interfere with interstate commerce of the several states.  And so, they gave us the Commerce Clause, which has since been tortured to the sickening degree  where, in 2011, we’re told that the Commerce Clause is the reason the Federal government CAN adopt ObamaCare.   I can only imagine what the Founders would say to that Constitutional handstand.

And you’re missing this whole point.    Which could actually be presenting as opportunity – an opportunity to say, “Yes, Massachusetts adopted RomneyCare, because we understood that under our Constitution THAT’s where you’re supposed to enact something like a health care bill.”

Think of it this way: If the Federal government were to announce that it is taking control of all roadway maintenance in the country because of the inequities of roadways maintenance in poor and wealthier communities, we would all consider that absurd.  My local officials know me and I know them, and we share a common plight.   I see the DPW superintendent at the market.  It’s proper that something like the roads we all drive – or the health care we all get – is discussed with a common understanding in our common community.  Which is why RomneyCare in Massachusetts is understandable.   And the Founders knew all this.

So, I’m asking you to meet me half-way.  If you’re going to be the nominee, I’d sooner overlook something like RomneyCare if you used it to reestablish that Constitutional point.   You would do everyone in this country a critical service if you would plant your flag in THAT principle and give up on this idea that RomneyCare was a good thing.   Matter of fact, stop talking about RomneyCare entirely.  It’s not helping.  It’s so Anthony Weiner.   You did it.  We all know with “certitude” what you did and we all have a pretty good idea why you did it.   Simple answer:  it’s Massachusetts and it was a Tuesday.     But you don’t have to defend RomneyCare to stand on solid ground, explaining to the American people that you never would have adopted something like ObamaCare because, in clear and simple terms, you recognize that our Constitution says you can’t.

There.  I got that off my chest.

You may have read about the New York sanitation workers who staged a protest this past Monday, during one of the largest storms in recent years (or so I’ve heard) – a work slowdown, leaving hundreds of city streets and sidewalks unplowed following the storm.

As if that, in itself, wasn’t bad enough.   What you may not have heard yet is this tragic result of the actions by these horrible people.

The New York Daily News is reporting that during the blizzard that covered much of the city, a baby delivered inside a Brooklyn building died after the emergency call for the birth brought no help for nine hours.

According to Daily News reporters, the newborn was pronounced dead on Monday night, 10 hours after the first call from the lobby of the Crown Heights apartment. The mother is reportedly recovering at Interfaith Medical Center. The grandmother states that her Crown Heights neighborhood was not plowed, and hours went by before help arrived. Once firefighters and police officers managed to make it to the apartment, the baby was unconcious and unresponsive.

The infant death is one of many incidents depicting a city struggling to deal with the holiday winter weather.

These are the people who are helping to bankrupt our cities and towns, subject our kids to substandard education, and feather their own nests on the backs of the taxpayer.    The only phrase that seems fitting  – they don’t care.    Foreseeable that an ambulance would have a call somewhere down a snow-covered street?   Of course.   But they don’t care.

As I said, this one broke my heart and enraged me all in the same moment.   I hope someone – SEVERAL someones – get fired and prosecuted.

Have a safe and happy New Year.   And prayers for this little child.

We should all thank you Scott Brown for having the fortitude to persevere.  He worked every day, 18 hours a day.  The guy started at less than zero.  He shook every hand in sight and made retail politics the bread and butter of his campaign.  And it worked.   As a Republican.  In Massachusetts!   Of all places.   He raised money, no thanks to you or the RNC, and it flooded in – small donations – from people everywhere.  My elderly dad asked me to show him how to donate “through the computer.”   Your support can best be described as perfunctory.  At the same time interest in Scott Brown was growing, you were reminding people how the Republican Party CAN’T retake Congress.  Nice timing.

If, God willing, Scott Brown pulls this out next Tuesday, it won’t be because of you or the RNC.  it will be in spite of you.   It will be because the guy was tireless in a place where no one – you included – thought his tireless effort was worth it.  He did.  Win or lose, he deserves our thanks.  But, in either event, don’t you dare jump in front of the parade.

That’s all.  I’ll be watching.

I realize I’m not breaking new ground here, but if freedom and democracy are ever going to breathe in Iran, the stories and the news that these people are trying to tell -the same stories and news that the regime is trying to stifle – they need to be spread far and wide.  The tweets that I read each day, dozens every hour, are gripping. Some of the photos and video clips are brutal.   Brutal though they may be, people need to see them.  They need to be distributed to all corners.

I don’t want to break any rules of the site, and if I am, I apologize. Please feel free to edit or delete as you see fit. I’m just asking on behalf of these people who are literally dying for their cause that we help their message get through. Maybe if enough people read and see what’s going on in the fight for freedom and democracy it will help embolden them further. Maybe it will even help some in this country appreciate what others are willing to do for a little piece of what we have.

If you are on Twitter, I recommend following these hashtags for starters: #iran, #neda, #IranElection, #ashura #HumanRights.  If you’re not on Twitter, you should be.

Follow and retweet for some of these people, and share their news:

http://twitter.com/Nedaagain
http://twitter.com/iranangel
http://twitter.com/IranStreets
http://twitter.com/cyrusShami
http://twitter.com/IranRiggedElect
http://twitter.com/dailyniteowl
http://twitter.com/PahlaviReza
http://twitter.com/JShahryar
http://twitter.com/mousavi1388
http://twitter.com/iraneema
http://twitter.com/ASLANmedia
http://twitter.com/mamad2020
http://twitter.com/iranbaan
http://twitter.com/tari00
http://twitter.com/Sonja_Jo
http://twitter.com/persianbanoo

I could post more links, but if you leaf through even one of those Twitter pages or hashtags, you’ll get a flood of new links on your own. You’ll see blogs, facebook pages, video clips – many that you might find too graphic.  Forward them.  Retweet them. Spread them around. Who knows – some day WE may be looking for help and support when we need to take to the streets for our freedom and democracy.

Let’s have a constructive debate. http://bit.ly/nr7eE

I know, I know. . . following Al Gore is idiocy enough (check out his young-skinny Al profile picture, by the way). I compounded things by clicking his link to “Al’s Journal”:

A constructive debate
November 12, 2009 : 3:05 PM

Last week the Environment and Public Works committee, under the able leadership of Senator Barbara Boxer, passed the most comprehensive piece of climate legislation in a generation. The vote was 11-1. Not a single Republican on the committee showed up.

This is a serious issue that requires our full attention. Republican Senators have decided that the better tactic is to ignore and stall and delay. After not showing up for the vote, they now complain about not being part of the process.

There is room for bipartisanship on this issue, as Senator Lindsay Graham has demonstrated. It is my hope that other Republicans begin to take their cues from him.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!! This from a guy who has ducked every tough question or request for debate for the last four years. Suddenly, when Harry Reid hints that legislation to enable Al Gore’s next billion may be put on the back burner, NOW debate is so critical.

He’s just precious.

As I was leaving work yesterday I was stunned when my cell phone registered a few Twitter tweets about the US Senate debate sponsored by League of Women Voters.  The fact that the woman, Martha Coakley, failed to show up at the debate is a whole other story.

Anyway, I’m walking out of my store when I’m alerted that Capuano suddenly picked up his name plate and walked off stage without any explanation.  Next, I’m alerted to the fact that before Cappy exited stage right that he was getting bombarded by State Senator Scott Brown on the issues of the federal stimulus failing to create jobs as well as on cap and trade legislation.

What is the official response by Rep. Capuano’s people?  Evidently, Cappy was “simply exhausted.”

I shouldn’t be surprised that I couldn’t find a single mass media description of this, but someone MUST have video of it somewhere.  If Coakley were there, you can be sure she would have leaked a clip of this.

“Simply exhausted” perfectly describes so many things about Michael Capuano and his campaign these days. He’s done. He’s been called out in one Boston daily for skipping too many votes, and another for flip-flopping.   But this story, if true, is less about Mike Capuano and more about a House member whithering and running away from criticism of his Congressional work.   This is a story that should be blasted up on Youtube for all to see.  Unfortunately, because the Massachusetts political media has anointed Martha Coakley, Rep. Capuano knew he could quietly and unceremonious retreat.   That’s galling.

I get upset first and foremost because there are troops now in the field who know something awaits, but haven’t a clue what that is.  And so, until white smoke appears atop the White House, we ask the soldier in the field to tread water with a plan that we have told him is imperfect.  What leadership.

I get upset also because military opinion on this seems remarkably consistent.   We’re not getting a flood of retired colonels and generals offering a variety of strategies.  Ralph Peters is one of the few strong anti-COIN voices I’ve heard.

I get upset with the disgustingly political way that this new strategy decision is playing out.  Did John Kerry even READ the McChrystal Report?  If he did, he’d know that much of what the good Senator suggested  in his wonderful speech was already embodied in the report.  The only difference, I guess, is numbers and resources.  How about selling the merits of the plan?  Clearly, the Senator doesn’t dispute the thrust of the plan, but he wants to “nuance” things in the course of covering for the “something less” we seem to be soon to get.

Lastly (but not really lastly), on that same point about politicizing warfare, this notion that we have to wait for a fair national election is just insulting and “upset” isn’t a strong enough word for me.   If there’s one pervasive theme of the McChrystal report, its that emphasis must be on a DEcentralize approach; winning the Afghani people on the village level, where the only choice is between the Taliban and the unknown “something worse” (my words, not McChrystal’s).   At best, the report suggests assisting the national Afghan government with the “battle of perceptions”; but the larger focus is on building all at the local level.   Again, the approach is decentralized, and yet we wait on this one election, with what everyone seems to concedes is a foregone conclusion.  In the end, the best we can hope for out of President Karzai is that he doesn’t screw up whatever operation we finally do install.   I can’t help thinking that the dithering has more to do with the November elections in THIS country than in Afghanistan.  But I’m not the first to suggest that.

So, with all that said, on to six minutes with McChrystal.   I know many here have seen this documentary before, but there’s one particular part that speak so strongly to the current debate on Afghanistan.  This is the National Geographic film Inside the Green Berets.   It’s one of the most compelling pieces of film making I’ve ever seen, but there are six minutes of it that should be required viewing for anyone who would ever think to utter an opinion about our next step in Afghanistan. It starts at 13:40 and runs to 19:40.

Briefly, a Green Beret patrol returns to camp.  They arrive to find a few dozen Afghan elders, some who have walked for more than a day, entering their camp to speak with them about their “Taliban problem.”  Several things are abundantly clear, and illustrate much of what the McChrystal report says:  This is a people that trusts no one yet; these people WANT to trust someone; these people want to trust someone other than the Taliban; and, finally, these people will put their own lives on the line with those whom they genuinely do trust.   That last part is my leap of faith, but that’s the implication in the clip – that these tribal elders risked their lives to meet with the Americans at Camp Cobra.   This is essentially McChrystal in broad and general strokes.

Again, the part I’m talking about runs 13:40 – 19:40, but if you haven’t seen the whole thing, I can’t recommend it highly enough.

That’s all I have.

October 15, 1962 – 47 years ago this week – our U-2 reconnaissance plane snapped shots of Soviet nuclear missile apparatus being assembled in Cuba. In the weeks that followed, a stand-off between our President, who had been previously considered by the Soviets as weak (or, at least, bluffing), and a Premier looking to advance the Soviet Union in the the race for international superiority.

Scroll forward to October 14, 2009.

In an interview published today in Izvestia, Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Kremlin’s security council, said the new doctrine offers “different options to allow the use of nuclear weapons, depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy. In critical national security situations, one should also not exclude a preventive nuclear strike against the aggressor.”

Can there be any doubt that there is purpose behind announcing a work-in-progress in a newspaper interview like this, while our Secretary of State is prancing around Russia, and while the United States and Russia are renegotiating an extension of the expiring START? Coincidence? Is this not the 2009 equivalent of parking a small flock of nuclear missiles off the coast of Florida? Is there any functional difference between a public Russian announcement of a doctrine of preemptive nuclear response in 2009 and active nuclear advancement in 1962?

Maybe. But in October 2009, it’s hard to believe in coincidences.

What does seem clear is that this is the test – or, one of them – that our embarrassing uncle, Joe Biden (think: Uncle Leo), told us we would see. This is the foot in the door that Russia has sought for the last 20 years, following an era where it was resigned to the position of also-ran. This is the same probing and aggressive spirit that led us to a showdown off the shores of Cuba. Barack didn’t even have to spend the travel money that JFK did in 1961 when he emboldened Khrushchev in Vienna. With one swift presidential announcement, the United States hastened its retreat from Eastern Europe (dude obviously never played Risk) and the message for Russia was clear: now is the time to assert. The U.S economy is weakened, the new administration embraces international parity, and U.S. and Russian negotiators are, no doubt, engaged in START negotiations. This was clearly the opportunity, and it was handed over with glee.

So, these are Barack’s Thirteen Days.   As promised. Man, that “reset button” thingy is like some sort of weird on-switch for Rube Goldberg diplomacy.

Read her heart-wrenching story. Tweet it. Retell it. Pass it along to others. It adds perspective to today’s “historic” announcement. Plus, it’s such a great story.

Irena Sendler passed away in May 2008. Her heroic story in a nutshell:

Irena Sendler is 97 years old. She has seen this image in her dreams countless times over the years, heard the children’s cries as they were pulled from their mothers’ grasp; each time it is another mother screaming behind her. To the children, she seemed a merciless captor; in truth, she was the agent to save their lives.

Mrs. Sendler, code name “Jolanta,” smuggled 2,500 children out of the Warsaw Ghetto during the last three months before its liquidation. She found a home for each child. Each was given a new name and a new identity as a Christian. Others were saving Jewish children, too, but many of those children were saved only in body; tragically, they disappeared from the Jewish people. Irena did all she could to ensure that “her children” would have a future as part of their own people.

She listed the names of every rescued child and buried the lists in a jar, hoping that the children could be reunited with their families after the war.

Mrs. Sendler listed the name and new identity of every rescued child on thin cigarette papers or tissue paper. She hid the list in glass jars and buried them under an apple tree in her friend’s backyard. Her hope was to reunite the children with their families after the war. Indeed, though most of their parents perished in the Warsaw Ghetto or in Treblinka, those children who had surviving relatives were returned to them after the war.

Yet Irena Sendler sees herself as anything but a heroine. “I only did what was normal. I could have done more,” she says. “This regret will follow me to my death.”

And then there’s this. . .

For two years, Jolanta’s covert operations were successful. Then, in October 20, 1943, the Gestapo caught up with her. She was arrested, imprisoned in Warsaw’s notorious Pawiak prison, and tortured. Her feet and legs were broken. She still needs crutches and a wheelchair as a result of those injuries, and still carries the scars of those beatings. She refused to betray any of her co-conspirators or to reveal the whereabouts of any of the children.

Jolanta was sentenced to death by firing squad, a sentence that she accepted with pride. But unbeknown to her, Zegota had bribed one of the German guards, who helped her to escape at the last moment. He recorded her name on the list of those who had been executed. On the following day, the Germans loudly proclaimed the news of her death. She saw posters all over the city reporting it. The Gestapo eventually found out what had happened; they sent the guard to fight on the Russian front, a sentence they felt was worse than death. Irena spent the rest of the war in hiding much like the children she had saved. Relentlessly pursued by the Gestapo, she continued her rescue efforts in any way she could, but by then the Warsaw Ghetto had been liquidated.

Due to the Communist regime’s suppression of history and its anti-Semitism, few Poles were aware of Zegota’s work, despite the unveiling of a plaque honoring the organization, in 1995, near the former Warsaw Ghetto. Mrs. Sendler continued her life, simply and quietly, continuing to work as a social worker … until the discovery by the Kansas teenagers catapulted her into the public arena.

Marty Baron:  Okay guys, what do we have in the works?

Metro:  Mayoral election.  That’s always  big.

Baron:  Good.  I need a few sideline pieces.

Metro:  Got it, boss.

Baron:  What else we got?

National:  The U.N. is in high gear.  G20.   Mahmoud will have something, I’m sure.

Baron:  Right.  Done to death, though.  Anything new?

National:  There’s probably something more to flush out with ACORN, boss.

Baron:  Bah.  ACORN bores me.  Find a new angle and maybe we ‘ll find some room on Saturday.

National:  Done.   Any particular angle you’d like?

Baron:  Surprise me.

Of course, that’s all conjecture.  But, in the last week, there has only been ONE acorn story to make the front page of the Boston Globe, so I’m just not sure how else something like this happens:

With conditions right, acorns go nuts

Instead of firing up its competitive spirit, after being embarrassed by the investigative journalism skills of two twenty-somethings with a $1300 budget, a mini-cam, and a faux fur shawl, the Globe takes the acorn news in an entirely different direction to give us important revelations such as:

I laughed out loud.   Genuinely. It’s the natural reaction. Yes, let’s bail these folks out. They’re too important to lose. Heh.

On the 233rd day of his presidency, Barack Obama grabbed the country’s lapels for the 263rd time—that was, as of last Wednesday, the count of his speeches, press conferences, town halls, interviews, and other public remarks. His speech to Congress was the 122nd time he had publicly discussed health care. Just 14 hours would pass before the 123rd, on Thursday morning. His incessant talking cannot combat what it has caused: An increasing number of Americans do not believe that he believes what he says.

But Google Doodles have, according to Google, a rich history and a certain level of importance:

Google doodles, the drawings that are designed on, around and through the Google logo on our home page, have long been part of Google’s history. As a Google intern in 2000, Google Webmaster Dennis Hwang began celebrating and marking worldwide events and holidays with doodles. Since then, the work of the doodle team has been seen by millions and reached cult status, with fans waiting with bated breath to see the next creation on the Google homepage. We spoke to Dennis about doodles and how he got a job that combined his two passions: technology and art.

In the last two weeks days, Google customized its logo for:  Ivan Kostoylevsky’s Birthday (Ukraine), 09/09/09 09:09:09, Brazil Independence Day (Brazil), Unexplained Phenomenon, Doraemon – (Japan), Vietnam National Day – (Vietnam), Malaysian Independence Day – (Malaysia), Japan Elections – (Japan), Michael Jackson’s Birthday, Battle of Flowers in Laredo – (Spain), Qi Xi – (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the 400th Anniversary of Galileo’s First Telescope.

At the same time, today, Ask.com and Bing.com have real nice entry pages recognizing September 11th.  Good for them.  I’ll use them more often now that I know this.

To be fair, Google didn’t go entirely silent in recognition of this day in our nation’s recent history:

Google is, however, pointing to a site from the company’s official blog, that invites people to “share their experiences of 9/11 and its aftermath in an effort to preserve the memories of that time.”

The site is called Make History, and utilizes Google Maps Street View and Google’s App Engine. People can submit their photos/videos of the site of the World Trade Center attacks, the Pentagon, and the site of the Flight 93 crash, as well as their stories.

Okay.  Nice.  Still, customized Google Doodles have come to mean something.  You know how I know that?  Because those who wanted to make a malicious point on this day in 2007, did so by hacking the Google logo and posting these two alternate logos of Osama bin Laden and the burning twin towers.

My point with all this?   Something’s missing today.  You know it, I know it, but more importantly, Google knows it.

So, when next our Congressional leaders get back to negotiating, leaving aside the questions of cost, which STILL haven’t been answered; leaving aside the issue of rationing, which STILL hasn’t been acknowledged; leaving aside the cuts to Medicare, which STILL haven’t been admitted; there is the matter of true intentions.  We know that the goal of a public option is as a transitional step to single payer.   They told us this.  They ALL told us this.  And for this reason, the response to anything including a public option, triggered or not, must be an emphatic and uncompromising ‘no’.

Having said that, in the scheme of marketing the opposition, a simple no just won’t do for the independents that have joined the Republican side of the fight.   For them, there has to be an non-ideological answer for every argument.   If competition were a true goal, things like portability, tort reform, and other market incentives would be inserted unadulterated into a bill.  That would clearly be a better option.   So, in the scheme of marketing opposition, two words must be justaposed against the term “trigger” when speaking of  public option:  Off-switch.   That is to say, if market forces are genuinely allowed to work, the off-switch would REMOVE the foot from the door and take the trigger-switch out of the legislation.  And, if the public option were to be triggered, the off-switch would be set to cap it, and keep it from engulfing the market.  If there is any compromise for a trigger-switch – and I BEG the Republicans in Congress to hold fast against it – then  “off-switch” should be the other side of the debate.  The Democratic leadership will never agree to  it, and the President can’t either, but that really isn’t the point at all.  The point is one of appearances and holding ground with independents.

I want to be clear – I’m not advocating compromise.  What I AM saying is that,  “trigger” will be offered as to test the good faith of Republicans.  As if to say, “We’ll go it your way unless and until it doesn’t work.”  But, we know how this “unprincipled fight” is supposed to go.  This is supposed to be a reform that fails and, as a result, DEMANDS a single payer.   The term “off-switch” is, in poker terms, the call; as if to say, “Let true competition work and install an public option off-switch when it does.”   A simple ‘no’ won’t work against this coming onslaught.  An off-switch is the next best rebuttal.

At it’s core, it’s wrong.  Barack knows this, of course.   It isn’t that the willing masses waited for a movement, a moment, or a sign; it’s that the masses, once congealed, waited for a charismatic leader.  More correctly, arrogant as the statement is, Barack’s line should correctly have been, “I am the one you’ve been waiting for.” The movement waits for the leader, not the push.  Barack gets this.  I think Bill Clinton does also; but his great success was in starting with less than a majority of approval, and then building it into more than a majority by triangulating and picking off constituencies.  You can hate the policies, but recognize his political savvy.

Conversely, Barack, for his part, started with a strong majority and counted on keeping the pack congealed. My own thought is that he counts on his magnetism (read: cult of personality) transcending the various national constituencies that tear ANY policy a dozen different ways.    One need only read the Federalists to appreciate that the draw of multiple factions will always screw with our Republican system.   But I digress  200 years back . . . .

I’m jaded.  So, when I see Barack these days (or, in truth, for the last two years) I think of Monty Python’s Life of Brian without all the reluctance of the savior.  My favorite, of many favorite parts:

Follower #1: Give us a sign.

Follower #2: He HAS given us a sign.  He has brought is to this place.

Brian:  I didn’t bring you here, you just followed me.

Follower #1: Ooh, it’s still a good sign by any standards!

In that nearly five-minute clip, there are several howlers when you juxtapose Brian, the reluctant messiah, against Barack, the all-too-willing messiah.  The guy who understands the concept of the movement waiting for a leader.  ANY sign will do.  And, as another digression, since his adult followers seem to be dropping off, he’s apparently reorganizing to bring his leadership to the ultimate of leaderless movements – elementary school children around the country.   (As another aside, I do a “mom test” on these sorts of things, and my mom was positively horrified by this one)

History showed us how this works.  Nazism moved because the people were frothy and rallied around a charismatic leader who played to their prejudices.    Mussolini, likewise, played to nationalism and the cult of personality grew from there.  In more contemporary American terms, this country YEARNED for a leader to bring them out of the gray 1970′s.   From LBJ. . . . to Nixon and Watergate. . .  to the Ford custodial presidency. . .  and then WHAM! – Jimmy Carter.  The people were begging for a leader to take the gourd or the sandal and lead them.   Enter Ronald Reagan – the leader that found the hovering and idling movement.   And so, there was this wonderful creation of “Reagan Democrats.”  So craving a true leader, they crossed party lines to follow the Reagan gourd.

As I said – Barack gets this.

But here’s the thing, and this is why I felt compelled to bang this thing out on my laptop this evening:  there is most definitely an idling movement these days.  There are rumbling masses congealing around issues that are important in the American scheme.  They have passion.   They have issues to motivate them.  The one thing they’re lacking is the leader.   These are Reagan Democrats without Reagan.

So, in a strange sense, WE are the ones we’ve been waiting for – but that isn’t enough.  Republicans have tanked in two National election cycles because they had no motivating interest.  It certainly wasn’t John McCain.   But we have that congealing political interest now.  What we lack is a leader.   I’ll tell you my own favorites (*cough* Paul Ryan) but that doesn’t cut it.  We can’t have Brians.  We need willing and charismatic leaders.

Little held here, guys.

That is all.

P.S. – I so badly want to scold this country much the way Brian’s mother did.

He’s NOT the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!