Does the media know what Bipartisan means?

It would seem from all of the press coverage of the "stimulus" bill that the term bipartisan is a bit confused. Based on a quick review on dictionary.com, I found that it means "representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions"... odd. Based on the coverage of the vote it would seem to mean "voting for something that democrats vote for" and though that would then create a bipartisan vote it is not the definition.

There were two bipartisan votes yesterday on the "stimulus" and both are getting very little coverage. The first was a vote against the big pork barrel main bill all the Republicans and 11 democrats voted against the bill. By definition that would be bipartisan. The other vote was for the Republican alternative bill which garnered 10 Democrat votes. But I see no coverage of this fact.

I did see Howard Dean on CNBC. He expressed the overarching "new definition" for bipartisan. He words were cleaned up but the basic message was this "we won the election, vote like us or you will keep losing". No understanding for the bipartisan opposition to the pork in this bill. No value is placed on the constituents that put these Representatives in office. Simply "vote like us".

This bill is not stimulus. Even the CBO stated that only .12 of every dollar (For the Obamatons that would be "a lot less than half") will go towards stimulating the economy. So 88% of the money goes to what? Pork...the NEA, Acorn, Alternative Fuels, an ATV trail (that might count on the 12%) and adding more children (with family income over the median and up to age 30) to the government healthcare roles. In other words pet projects for Democrat constituents that got them elected. I know many will say that is why they are there and this is what their constituents expect. I tend to agree. The American people say they want change they say they want things to be different. But in the end they want something for themselves and if it means $9000 for every tax paying family to that they can get some spare change back. They continue to put these people in power.

But Taxes are not going up and the economy is in decline. So this "money" does not exist. How can a project be run on money that does not exist. How can the programs that can't be paid for now, be increased? It is called "printing money" or "deficit spending". I thought this was the reason Republicans lost power in 2006. Too much spending and yet we have turned the spicket into a fire hose and left on on full.

I blame us. We put them there. We keep them there. We are rewarding deficit spending. They overspend, we overspend, we are all in debt and the economy is collapsing. So we spend more. What sense does that make. We are the greedy &^*&(%^ that care more about soaking the other guy then preserving the economy for future generations.

Unfortunately, I do not think the spending will stop. This "porkulus" bill will fail to help the economy. It will grow government and government jobs and dependency. And we will ask for more help and another bill will be passed, spending even more money we do not have.

If it were to continue, the interest on these payments will eventually outpace revenue (that would be money taken from most of us...still most for a few more months) and out debtors will realize we are in default. The economy will go deeper into recession (probably depression at this point). But that is ok because this bill "saved jobs". They will argue that it would have been a lot worse, the media will parrot the sentiment and the spiral continues.

Some will remember the brave 188 that voted in a bipartisan vote to slow this train, they tried to take another course. I hope enough will join will them in the coming months and years to stop the train. The path out of deficit spending is hard and disciplined. It means cutting back not spending more it means putting votes at risk to do what is right. I wonder if enough of them have that much courage.

Moderate Republicans and Crossing the Aisle

Well, it has been a while. Licking wounds, pondering the future... no. Sometimes work and kids take you away. In this case it was a needed and welcome diversion. It has given me time to work up a lather over the post-election coverage. So on we go....

There are two dominant opinions working there way around the Republican party in these post-election days. Both admit defeat in the election and both say that it is about time to change the message. Hard to disagree when both sides want the same thing. But they have very different messages and goals.

The moderate Republicans believe that the party needs to learn from these losses and try to join the Democrats on some of the big issues. Americans want civility and someone who can get things done by working with the other party. They say, "We need to understand that the American people have spoken. They want universal health care, they believe in climate change." The theory is, if these are winning platforms, you need to run on them to win. I do not subscribe to this theory.

What I believe is that a large population of voters, believe that Republicans are mean spirited, racist homophobic free market anarchists. They say they don't want divisiveness that they want someone in the middle like everyone believes they are. So you can jump into the Socialist big government pool with the Democrats. This leaves you to be a less mean spirited racist homophobic Socialist. These folks will surely like you more. But they will never vote for you over the loving caring free-love green Socialist that is today's Democratic party. This is the real lesson of John McCain. A lost Republican trying to befriend the left and get along only looks like a cheap copy. No one wants a cheap copy when they can get the real thing by voting for a Democrat. No one wants to vote for someone that has come to their views out of fear instead of conviction.

What Republicans need to do is not to blur the lines as they have begun to do. What they need to do is differentiate themselves on the one key issue: The role of Government in America. The more I discuss issues the more I find that no matter what someone wants, no matter the issue they find dear, they have another issue (usually more) that disgusts them. The country does not want universal health care. They want a solution to rising health care costs. They don't want higher taxes. They want to trim budget deficits. But in this election no clear distinction was given.

Let me state is clearly... Republicans lost this election. It is time for Conservatives to run for office again. McCain tried but when you do not believe it in your core, you cannot deliver the message with emotion. You also cannot counter the media and the lofty speeches of your opponent. I agree with Ronald Reagan... now is the time for bold colors. Now is the tie for conservatives to stand clarify their message and begin to articulate it again.

I am sure there will be plenty of options to articulate the differences in approach over the coming years. In my opinion the failures of the coming policies will be seen. There needs to be a clear alternative in the mind of the voters, a message that says, "We have another idea, we believe in less government [not no government]. We believe in the power of the American people and not the power of elite government bureaucrats. We believe in this option or that option." When the failures come, and they will, they will eventually be followed by a election and the voters will know what to do.

Until then. I will do my part to articulate my views and other options to those being proposed. If I happen to agree, I will strongly push for those as well. More to come.