No Runny Eggs

Um, maybe not:

59% Say Americans Angrier Now Than Under Bush

And lest you think it’s just the conservatives getting all lathered:

69% of GOP voters say the level of anger is higher now, a view shared by 53% of Democrats and 56% of voters not affiliated with either party.

Nope, it’s a majority of each political persuasion.

Let’s look back at Barack Obama’s Denver acceptance speech.  After calling out differences on gun rights, gay rights and illegal immigration, Barack Obama said:

But this, too, is part of America’s promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer, and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.  And that’s to be expected, because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.

If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

And you know what? It’s worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn’t work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it’s best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know.

We’ve been told time and again how Barack Obama is the smartest President ever.  While I doubt he has any idea what a can of Spam costs, or even how to cook it, his speech did show him prescient.  Washington doesn’t and doesn’t want to work and people’s hopes are dashed.  This is what has people angry and it is this that has the nation divided.

I doubt Obama sees division within the country as a statement of any kind on his leadership or to be more precise, his complete lack of leadership.  Rather, like the deficits that he has increased exponentially, Obama, having been told that the nation is more divided now than ever would utter his answer that provides absolution from all accountability of his own actions:  “I inherited it from the previous administration.”

Saturday, I informed you about the new definition of racism.  No longer does racism have to do with someone’s race.  No, according to the Left, racism now is based on any disagreement with liberals, Democrats or elites.  This new definition would make all of us that don’t fall into the group of liberals, Democrats or elites, racist at all times regardless of what our views on race really are.  In contrast, this new definition would make it definitionally impossible to be racist if you were within the group of liberals, Democrats or elites can be racist.  Or does it?

New York Governor David Paterson has had an “unusual” term.  After assuming office as a result of the resignation of Eliot Spitzer’s prostitution revelations,on his second day in office, both Paterson and his wife acknowledged having extramarital affairs, one with a state employee.  In his inaugural speech, Paterson called the New York legislature

the least deliberative and most dysfunctional in the nation.

After Hillary Clinton resigned her Senate position to become Secretary of State, Paterson was a character in Caroline Kennedy’s vaudeville like attempts to be appointed as her replacement.  In the final scene, after abruptly declaring she was not interested in the role, Paterson claimed he had “never intended” to pick her.

New York’s financial situation is perhaps the most vexing issue Paterson is facing.  Like many states, New York is facing a budget shortfall.  Being a large state, New York’s short fall has been, well, large.  Paterson’s budget called for tax increases on nearly everything one could imagine taxing.  By one account, the tax increases proposed by Paterson would increase the taxes on the average New York family by nearly $4,000 each year.

As a result of his policy and personal handling of issues, Paterson is polling a 60% disapproval rating.  Polls have also showed Paterson trailing possible Republican contender, Rudy Giuliani by 15 points.

Facing a possible rout by Republicans in an important, reliably liberal state, Democrats are now pressuring Paterson to back off of his bid for reelection (or election if you’re a purist) to Governor.  Some Democrats are even suggesting that Paterson ought to resign to allow someone else a chance to get a running start at the role.  In this article covered by NewsMax, even President Obama is now encouraging Paterson to drop out of the Governor’s race.  To date, Paterson has not obliged any of the requests.

While I’m sure there are many Republicans who are unhappy with Paterson as Governor, it’s not they who are making news asking him not to run; it’s Democrats.  That must mean that there are Democrats who are unhappy with a Democrat.  Further, that must mean that there are Democrats who are unhappy with another Democrat who happens to be black.  Finally, there is a Democrat President, who happens to be black, who is unhappy with Paterson, a Democrat who happens to be black.

If a Democrat, who happens to be black, is unhappy with the abilities of another Democrat, who happens to be black, and asks the second Democrat, who happens to be black, not to run for office, we now know the reason for the dissatisfaction is due to racism.  I’m left with just one question, who’s the racist; the Democrat who happens to be black or the Democrat who happens to be black?