We just held a singular election. The winner was by no means obvious, at least to the great cognoscenti, who inform us of our opinions, our interests, and what is “right”. So, we were told, it is OK to vote for a liar, corrupt politician, and obfuscator but it was not OK to vote for a guy who made millions (nay, billions) and has a motor mouth. AND happens to say totally “incorrect” things. Like we need new deals with the world on trade. Or we need to control our borders. Or we need to send out illegals who are causing problems. OR — we need to actually consider what our real interests are and then defend them.<\/p>\n
The new cabinet is forming. It appears to be quite conservative, containing quite a few seriously rich (and successful) businessmen and a number of generals. What is notably lacks, apparently, is people with “experience”, which is another way of saying no politicians. How quaint! Selecting people who actually accomplish things versus politicians. Because it wouldn’t be the politicians who have gotten into the terrible mess we are in, now would it. Mitt Romney, who is desperate to be\u00a0something<\/em> will apparently not get SoS. Neither will Giuliani.<\/p>\n Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have “seen the light”. They are now totally “on board”. We await to see what that means come the new year. A continuing resolution (now there’s a new idea) has been passed, because Heaven forbid the federal government should be shut down! Such a calamity cannot even be considered; yet another Voldemort of federalism.<\/p>\n ?But what now are our risks. I would submit that\u00a0in retrospect<\/em> one of the best things that could happen to us was the 2012 re-election of Obama. Had Romney won, we would now be faced with a more\u00a0efficient<\/em> intrusive government, one that was better at sticking its nose into our affairs. ?Why – because Romney is good at\u00a0fixing things<\/em> but he’s not very good at\u00a0creating<\/em> things. So he would have had no new ideas on how to actually get our government back to somewhere we can live with it but boy, would it run well!<\/p>\n So our risks now are that despite winning the election and having control of both the administrative AND legislative bodies – and hopefully the judicial soon – we will fail to actually shrink government. We will not manage to “drain the swamp” and it will continue to boil and bubble with stupidity and asinine behavior.<\/p>\n ?And what of the democrats. They appear to have no inspiration from the trouncing they have been getting at the polls for, lo, these 8 years. Nancy Pelosi has once again been elected minority leader – she who has overseen the more or less serious destruction of the democrat party. Charles Schumer is on the other side, and he is hardly any different from Pelosi (or Reed), just hasn’t been in control as long. But he, too, has no ideas. We are hardly immune from this same destructive thinking. Paul Ryan is simply younger than Boehner but he, too, has been there since somewhere in the 90’s. Mitch McConnell has long past his “sell by” date.<\/p>\n ?So what do you guys think. ?Will we actually change anything or are we merely going to rearrange the chairs.<\/p>\n We just held a singular election. The winner was by no means obvious, at least to the great cognoscenti, who inform us of our opinions, our interests, and what is “right”. So, we were told, it is OK to vote for a liar, corrupt politician, and obfuscator but it was not OK to vote for a guy who made millions (nay, billions) and has a motor mouth. AND happens to say totally “incorrect” things. Like we need new deals with the world on trade. Or we need to control our borders. Or we need to send out illegals who are causing problems. OR — we need to actually consider what our real interests are and then defend them.<\/p>\n The new cabinet is forming. It appears to be quite … Continue reading