No Runny Eggs

Shoebox is right (see previous post).  The President and congressional leaders have proposed a draconian takeover of the healthcare system.  So if they back off just a bit, Republicans might be comfortable.  Just like going from a goal of 20% sales growth to 10%. So, how do the Republicans avoid this, and still win the argument in front of the American people?  They need to be clear and concise right up front.

John Boehner or some other Republican spokesman needs to do an opening statement that goes something like this: “Mr. President, we are here tonight to discuss health care reform. We asked that the slate be wiped clean, and that we start over.  You have not agreed to that. But it is important the American people understand why Republicans are unwilling to work within the current framework.

Mr. President, you have a very different view of how medical services should be delivered. You believe that government should be allowed to compete with private business; that politicians and bureaucrats should make critical decisions about who gets what kind and quantity of health care services.  Republicans disagree.

People come to America from all over the world to obtain medical care.  That, sir, is not an accident.  It is the result of having the best health care delivery system in the world.  And that system was built by making the doctor patient / relationship paramount, and allowing free markets to foster unparalleled innovation and efficiently allocate resources.  And then there is our dedication to the sanctity of life, regardless of the age of the individual.  Republicans have offered plenty of ideas, all of which have been ignored by Democrats and special interest groups meeting in private.  Should you choose continue down the path that has destroyed the health care systems of many other nations, we will gladly be the party of “no.”  And rest assured, Mr. President, the public will reward us in November 2010 and beyond.”

Now, put yourself in Mr. Obama’s position.  What do you say next?

After over two decades of work with large wireless companies, you can bet that I’ve been exposed to nearly every main stream theory or philosophy on change management that has existed. Do this, don’t do that. Encourage these people, use a stick on those people etc. etc. While I don’t buy all of the theories, I have to admit that I did learn a few things from the training and put that knowledge to work in some of my current engagements.

One theory that was not precisely a change management technique but has application there is call a BHAG. A BHAG is a Big Hairy Audacious Goal. The BHAG was popularized by James Collins in his book “Good to Great.” Collins used a BHAG as a goal that an organization could focus on. While they may have been so large that they weren’t always attained, they provided a focal point for everyone in the organization to measure against and see if the work they were doing or the plan they were looking to implement, moved them closer to or further away from the BHAG.

The translation of a BHAG for use in change management worked like this. Let’s say you had a company that typically saw sales growth of 5% annually. Let’s also say that you needed to improve on that and get to 10%. In many institutions, a change like that will be met by numerous people who tell you how and why that growth can’t be achieved. Knowing that that would occur, on a few occasions, instead of saying we wanted to grow by 10%, we’d say that we wanted to grow by 20%. Upon saying that, we would get the same group of folks telling us how and why we couldn’t achieve that growth. We’d then sit down and put a plan together with our teams for achieving 20% growth. At the end of the plan, the same people who were complaining at the start were typically still complaining. Once we completed the detailed plan we’d come back and tell folks that after taking the input, 10% is a more attainable goal. In nearly every instance, once we let them back to 10%, people would let out a collective “Whew,” and move forward executing on the 10% plan which is what we wanted all along.

By using the BHAG approach, we went through the same caterwauling and planning that we would have gone through had we originally set a 10% target. But, by using the BHAG, we allowed people to expand the belief in their own abilities beyond that what they otherwise thought they could do. If we had started at 10%, it would have been very likely that we ended up with a plan that had 6% or 7% growth.

What’s this got to do with anything?

President Obama has invited Senate and House leadership to a televised meeting to discuss Placebocare. Ostensibly, President Obama wants to find a way for the Republicans and Democrats to “come together” and pass a plan.

Folks, there is nothing about this plan to like. Short of starting all over, there should be no negotiation of any kind.

I’m afraid that the Republican leadership will not have the spine or knowledge of their own principles to stand up to this takeover of health care. I’m afraid that what could happen is that Obama views the current plan as a BHAG, that he might come back and offer a couple of Republican carrots; say something like, “we’ll look at tort reform,” or “we’ll look at more competition across state lines,” without any commitment to actual legislation. The problem with this is that if the Republicans allow this line of discussion, they will get caught in the BHAG trap and end up looking like the losers of this event.

I was discussing this concern with Birdman today and he had the perfect approach to avoiding the BHAG trap. Read the next post to see if you don’t agree with his approach.

According to Merriam-Webster, a populist is someone who is, “a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.”  Historically, populist movements have gone beyond elevating the common man, and have condemned the institutions that make up the status quo. Today’s populists call themselves the Tea Party movement, and my gut tells me they are a different breed of populist.

The vast majority of Tea Party types are disaffected conservatives and libertarians.  I know the Sarah Palins of the world want us all to believe there are as many frustrated Democrats and independents in the Tea Party crowd as there are angry Republicans and libertarian leaners.  Nonsense.  The Tea Party folks are for limited, constitutionally constrained government, minimal regulation, low taxes, and a minimum of bureaucracy.  People who believe in that kind of stuff most likely have never met a Democrat.

But here is where it gets interesting.  I don’t believe these people are anti-establishment, or anti-Ivy League education, or anti-bank, or anti-business.  But they are against establishment types, Ivy League school graduates, bankers and businessmen who are able to stack the deck.  Big businesses, big banks, and well-educated people are all fine and even virtuous, so long as they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.  Let the big bank, the big car company or the big brokerage house go down if it fails.  Don’t allow Goldman Sachs to be a feeder system for the executive branch.

The 21st Century populist is not a Kansas farmer protecting agrarian interests, or a union member trying to “get his” from a Pittsburgh steel company.  Today’s populist is simply saying that he/she wants a fair shot, and does not want to be taxed to pay off the moron who drove Bank of America into the ground.  Seems reasonable to me.

I’ve periodically translated different phrases that President Obama uses on a recurring basis.  As an aside, can anyone think of a prior President who was so dependent on a small, recurring set of phrases?  Anyway, it’s been a while since I’ve published these in a coherent fashion.  As Obama and the Democrats become more vocal as they try to figure out which direction is up, I thought it would be helpful to publish these so that you can have them in the back of your mind as you hear published statements.

If you have any phrases that you’re aware of and that I haven’t captured, drop them to me at Shoebox@norunnyeggs.com.  I’ll provide a proper translation and include them in future updates.

I don’t want to run – should always be followed by “but I will take over.”

As I have repeatedly said – the fact that you haven’t agreed with me in the past on this issue is not a reason that I should reconsider my position. Rather, it is a reflection of your lack of intelligence and reverence for my omnipotence.

Shovel Ready – any project that rational taxpayers would vote you out of office for if you had voted to fund it.

Stimulus – a spending bill that contains “Shovel Ready” projects that is passed only with Democrat support

Uniquely Qualified – an individual who is either a tax cheat or has other ethical issues such that they wouldn’t be hired for and can only get a role through appointment to a Democrat legislator or Democrat Administration role.

Czar – An unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat, whose purpose is to expand government programs, imposes regulation, hire more conscripts for SEIU and reduce freedom for ordinary Americans.

Let me be clear – A phrase preceding a statement that certainly won’t be clear and is probably a lie.

Unprecedented – Does not mean “unprecedented” in the context of American history. Rather, it is unprecedented in the experience of Obama. Thus, he has no reference point from which to view or address the specific issue.

Inherited from the previous administration – I know this has nothing to do with other administrations. If I couldn’t blame those guys, how else could I get you to agree to the suicidal proposal that now follows?

I will not rest – I really don’t care what you or anyone else says about this matter. I will push this issue no matter how unpopular or how damaging it is to America. In fact, the louder you complain, the more sure I am that I am right!

Many on the left are now complaining that the Senate Republicans’ willingness to filibuster any major legislation has somehow tainted the process of legislating.  Or, as Jacob Weisberg writes in slate.com, the filibuster rule, ” . . . has devolved into a super-majority threshold for any important legislation.”  And to that charge I make two points: 1) Yes; and 2) that is the way it is supposed to be.

As hard as it is for liberals and progressives to accept, this country was founded on the notion that government action (especially action by the central government) should be viewed with suspicion.  Large scale changes dictated from Washington should not easily pass.  When one political party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress, the only protection against an over zealous government is the requirement that the controlling party must obtain at least some support from the minority party.

I hope some day we can actually turn this ship around and start moving back toward a constitutionally constrained government.  In the meantime, the only hope is to slow the ship down, which gives us a better chance to turn back before hitting the iceberg known as socialism.

Doublespeak is one of the hallmarks of corrupt government. That highly relied upon source, Wikipedia, defines doublespeak as follows: “Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) is language constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning.” I will grant you that all politicians engage in this behavior to some degree. But just like a salesman’s “puffing” of a product can cross over into fraud, there is a point at which doublespeak crosses over into the realm of dangerous. Our President has crossed that line.

President Obama has responded to fear of excessive government spending by discussing his desire to get our federal deficits under control. He then rolls out a $3.83 trillion budget proposal. The assertion that such a budget proposal indicates any concern whatsoever for deficit spending is beyond comprehension. Doublespeak.

But it gets worse. Obama then goes on to repeat is mantra that it is all Bush’s fault. Believe me, I am no defender of Bush’s domestic policy or spending habits. But Bush’s last budget was $3.1 trillion. Obama has increased that number by 25%. But get this. The largest deficit under Bush was $407 billion. The current fiscal year deficit (Obama’s first) is about $1.5 trillion (the actual final number has not yet been determined).  That is nearly four times Bush’s final deficit. And under Obama’s current proposal, next year’s deficit will be about $1.8 trillion. Using that standard, one could argue that Bush was down right frugal.

Obama’s next doublespeak comes in the form of a promise to fix our profligate spending habits by imposing a freeze on discretionary spending. Let me make it really simple. Let’s say I told my family that we really need to get our living expenses down, and here is my plan. This year we are going to increase overall household spending by about 25%. We’ll do the same in 2011. And during that time we are going to increase spending on shirts by 24%. Then, starting in 2012 we will freeze shirt spending for three years. Voila!! Birdman household budget fixed!!

I literally pray to God that people see through this nonsense and understand the peril we face if we continue down this path. This president literally frightens me.

You’ve probably heard about the arrest of James O’Keefe of ACORN scandal fame.  He and several associates were arrested at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office.  Several of the original reports suggested that O’Keefe and his companions were attempting to bug or wire tap Landrieu’s phones.  It turns out that reporting wasn’t exactly accurate.

According to Patterico, the affidavit filed said nothing about bugging, intercepting or wire tapping.  It did talk about an allegation that they attempted to access the phone equipment closet.

Patterico guesses:

I believe they pretended to try to access the telephone closet, to tape the reaction of officials: “Why? It’s not like there’s a problem with the phones in Sen. Landrieu’s office!”

I think Patterico is on to something. 

With Landrieu getting the “Louisiana Purchase” and the heat of the placebocare debate, there is no doubt that Landrieu’s office was being swamped with phone calls.  My personal experience with Senators that didn’t have the profile of Landrieu is that for the several weeks prior to Scott Brown’s election, your odds of getting someone to answer your call were slimmer than getting to talk to Rush Limbaugh. 

Thinking about O’Keefe’s warped sense of humor I think they had been working to see how many times they could get through to Landrieu’s office.  Finding that the number was only fractionally above zero, they set up the scenario in Landrieu’s office where they would feign working on the phone system under the guise of numerous reports from constituents that the phone system was broken.  I’m sure they would have gotten responses on tape denying any malfunction of the phone system and O’Keefe would have his “gotcha” moment.

Hey, I didn’t claimed it was great theatre but I think I’m on the right track.  I’m hoping for O’Keefe’s sake that it is that simple.  It would be good to have a quick end to this for O’Keefe.

Update:  I’m so damn smart!  From Hotair.com

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false. …
I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

Today’s Washington Post reports that Congressional leadership no longer views “health care reform” as something that should be rushed. Boy, it is amazing how Obama’s mere presence in office has taken something that was an absolute crisis one week ago and turned it in to no big deal.

The Democrats are in full blown implosion mode. I offer just a few bits of anecdotal evidence, some circumstantial and some brought on by the Party itself.

1. Unemployment still 10%, and unlikely to change much by November.

2. People are really upset about spending, and the next 7 months will be a parade of more and more red ink.

3. The people are really upset about the attempted government takeover of health care.

4. Democratic candidates are choosing not to run for re-election.

5. Joe Biden’s son decided not to run for his old man’s Senate seat.

6. Polling indicates people are running from the Democratic Party.

7. Obama is screwing up our fight against terrorists.

8. Nancy Pelosi’s approval rating is right in line with Charles Manson’s.

9.  The “Louisiana Purchase”, “Cornhusker Kickback,” and last minute sweetheart deal for unions demonstrated a level of corruption that would make Nixon blush.

10. History.  The first midterm election for a first term president is generally abysmal, even in the absence of the above factors.

The Democrats have thrown the Republicans a “hanging curve.” It will be interesting to see if the Republicans know how to swing a bat. History is not encouraging.

I do not believe Sarah Palin is presidential material at this time. I do, however, believe Sarah Palin is a person who has a combination of characteristics that equip her well to be the charismatic leader of a movement. But the movement I want here to lead is the anti-John McCain movement. I want her to stand for conservative principles.  John McCain has never worried about conservative principles.

That raises the question, why on earth is Palin spending time supporting the candidacy of John McCain against a real conservative like J.D. Hayworth, who is challenging McCain for the Republican nomination for Senate in Arizona.  For the record, Hayworth is a real conservative.

It might be as simple as loyalty.  McCain, after all, did make Sarah Palin a vice presidential candidate. But I think it goes beyond that.  You may recall that during the presidential campaign Palin pressed the “maverick” label to the point of absurdity.  Merriam-Webster defines a maverick as, “an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party.”  So when you think about it, being a maverick is not in and of itself a virtue.  People who engage in deviant behavior are “mavericks” to the extent they don’t go along with the group.

There are many times when going along with the group or party is the right thing to do.  I hope Ms. Palin understands that her popularity among her followers is the result of going along with the group when the group is right, and being a maverick when the group is wrong.  Her friend Senator McCain does not do a very good job of that.  If Sarah Palin wants to maintain her influence with the followers she currently has, she would do well to distance herself from the good Senator.

Earlier today President Obama gave a speech in Ohio, reasserting his claim that he took office during an economic collapse of such magnitude that we should all be happy about the current economic conditions. He then went on to point out (for approximately the 3,459th time) that the banking system was saved, which prevented the recession from becoming a depression.

Then something interesting occurred to me. The only piece of legislation passed specifically to address the banking problem was the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”).  (For the record, I opposed TARP).  So it is worth noting that TARP was signed into law on October 3, 2008, long before Barack Obama became President. So, Mr. President, if TARP actually saved us from a depression on your watch, you better thank Mr. Bush.  Fat chance.

The Brits have always had a difficult time separating reality from fiction.  Watching shows like “Dallas” or later, “90210,” shaped much of the British view of what America, and in turn Americans, was and were.

I think in some similar ways, Americans pick up on stereotypes of the the Brits.  Fawlty Towers was a long running british farce about a hotel manager played by John Cleese, and his hapless staff running a hotel.  If you haven’t seen the show, please do.  John Cleese is incredibly funny and as a hotelier getting into odd situations with his staff, was years ahead of Bob Newhart.

While at the time, Fawlty Towers may have given us the false impression of the Brits as hospitality idiots, it now looks like it was just ahead of its time.

A Holiday Inn in London is now “offering a human bed warming service!”   Yup, you read that right!  You can get somebody on their staff to put on an all-in-0ne “sleeper suit” and have them crawl into your bed to warm it before you hop in!

Apparently, there are benefits to a warm bed.  According to some scientist who knows about this stuff, a warm bed helps us fall asleep.

Dr Chris Idzikowski, director of the Edinburgh Sleep Centre, said the idea could help people get off to sleep.

I was thinking that if the right person crawled in to some beds, you could drop the last two words of the Dr. Idzikowski’s statement!

Listen, I live in Minnesota and know all about the desire for a warm bed.  From late November until as long as I can get Mrs. Shoe to leave them on, I like my flannel sheets!  I hate crawling in on cold percale sheets!  Better yet, at least in my world, is to get both of our dogs to lay on my side of the bed while I’m getting ready for bed.  About five minutes of the two hounds laying where I’m about to crawl in and the temperature of the sheets is just right for my winter’s nap!

Now, I’m not suggesting that Holiday Inn should go to putting dogs in each of their rooms.  However, I suspect that with some of the dental problems that the Brits still have, it’s entirely possible that that would inadvertently happen, if you catch my drift!

No, no need for dogs but before they went down the path of human bed warmers, did anyone consider the possibility of an electric blanket?  I suppose they might have, unless the “bed warmer” is just code for something else?  Hmmmmmmm?

“The Work of the House of Lords”, the UK’s official Parliament document that outlines the functions of that august body states, “The House of Lords does not have a general power of veto over the Commons, but its strength lies in the careful examination and expert input of its Members, asking the Government to ‘think again’.”

America’s House of Lords, otherwise known as the U.S. Senate, performed this function perfectly in the context of the health care debate. It took a long time to craft a bill that was grudgingly signed on to by the 60 senators necessary to break a filibuster. America, via a Massachusetts Senate election, forced government to “think again.” Thank God.

You will soon hear calls for elimination of the filibuster rule.  In addition, you will hear about how silly it is for North Dakota and California to have the same representation in the Senate, despite the fact that California has 57 times the population of North Dakota.

But this is precisely how a representative republic is designed. Whims of the majority are tempered by geographical representation and procedural intricacies in the Senate.

Delay allowed the public to register its will. Procedure will prevent the Senate from thwarting that will with a simple majority. That is exactly how it is supposed to work.

Catch this headline from USAToday:

Soldiers told to stop handing out food

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti – Food handouts were shut off Tuesday to thousands of people at a tent city here when the main U.S. aid agency said the Army should not be distributing the packages.

It was no known whether the action reflected a high-level policy decision at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) or confusion in a city where dozens of entities are involved in aid efforts.

“We are not supposed to get rations unless approved by AID,” Maj. Larry Jordan said.

Jordan said that approval was revoked; water was not included in the USAID decision, so the troops continued to hand out bottles of water.

It’s hard to put into words just what I want to say about this situation.

Catastrophe, human suffering, starvation, death from dehydration, all of these are realities in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.  I’ve been involved in natural disasters of a far smaller scale (Florida hurricanes) and I can tell you that even there, the attitude is “help the people!”

We didn’t care about who got recognition for what was being done.  We didn’t care about “following chain of command.”  We didn’t care stop to ask permission when someone needed food.  We didn’t stop to ask for IDs.  We also didn’t stop to fight over “who’s going to pay for this.”

When it comes to a tragedy the scope of which has happened in Haiti, the last thing that will help any of those people is to fight over “who’s in charge!” 

I will echo Rush Limbaugh’s sentiment, for which he was roundly skewered by the left, do NOT send donations to any federal agency to assist Haiti.  They are to focused on covering their butts and using this event as an opportunity to justify their existence and expand their scope and power.

Please do help the Haitians by contributing through Samaritans Purse or and organization which I have done a fair amount of volunteer work with, Feed My Starving Children.

Help the Haitians but do it through groups that are more focused on helping the Haitians than they are in helping their own careers!

I usually don’t pass along these types of e-mails, but I know a few of my readers (Asian Badger chief among them) will appreciate this one picked up from the Harpoon Users League List –

This tale came from a retired jet-jock who runs a 2000 acre corn farm up around Barron, WI , not far from Oshkosh.

He used to fly F-4Es and F-16s for the Air National Guard and participated in the first Gulf War.

It is submitted for your enjoyment, and as a reminder that there are other great, magnificent flyers around besides us.

————————————————-

I went out to plant corn for a bit, to finish a field before tomorrow morning; and witnessed The Great Battle.

A golden eagle – big bastard, with about a six foot wingspan – flew right in front of the tractor. It was being chased by three crows that were continually dive bombing it and pecking at it. The crows do this because the eagles rob their nests when they find them.

At any rate, the eagle banked hard right in one evasive maneuver, then landed in the field about 100 feet from the tractor. This eagle stood about 3 feet tall. The crows all landed too, and took up positions around the eagle at 120 degrees apart, but kept their distance at about 20 feet from the big bird. The eagle would take a couple steps towards one of the crows and they’d hop backwards and forward to keep their distance. Then the reinforcement showed up.

I happened to spot the eagle’s mate hurtling down out of the sky at what appeared to be approximately Mach 1.5. Just before impact the eagle on the ground took flight, (obviously a coordinated tactic; probably pre-briefed) and the three crows which were watching the grounded eagle, also took flight thinking they were going to get in some more pecking on the big bird. The first crow being targeted by the diving eagle never stood a snowball’s chance in hell. There was a mid-air explosion of black feathers and that crow was done. The diving eagle then banked hard left in what had to be a 9G climbing turn, using the energy it had accumulated in the dive, and hit crow #2 less than two seconds later. Another crow dead.

The grounded eagle, which was now airborne and had an altitude advantage on the remaining crow, which was streaking eastward in full burner, made a short dive then banked hard right when the escaping crow tried to evade the hit. It didn’t work – crow #3 bit the dust at about 20 feet AGL.

This aerial battle was better than any air show I’ve been to, including the Warbirds Show at Oshkosh. The two eagles ripped the crows apart and ate them on the ground, and as I got closer and closer working my way across the field, I passed within 20 feet of one of them as it ate its catch. It stopped and looked at me as I went by and you could see in the look of that bird that it knew who’s Boss Of The Sky. What a beautiful bird!

I loved it. Not only did they kill their enemy, they ate them.

There are no noble wars– Only noble warriors

At the time of this writing it is not yet known whether Republican Scott Brown will pull out a major upset over Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. But it is a virtual certainty that he will be close enough to send shock waves through President Obama’s administration, congressional leadership and all Democratic members of Congress who are not in safe seats. How can this be happening? The debate has centered around two possible explanations: the inept Democratic candidate and/or rejection of the Democratic agenda.

But one very important moment in this campaign is not being given enough weight. In a recent debate, moderator David Gergen asked Brown a question about blocking health care while sitting in “Teddy Kennedy’s seat.”  In what should be regarded as a classic debate moment, Brown responded, “Well, with all due respect, it’s not the Kennedys’ seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.” That, in my view, was the tipping point in this campaign.  From that moment on Martha Coakley couldn’t do anything right, and Scott Brown gained momentum and a flood of cash.

Americans take their voting rights pretty seriously. Gergen’s implication was that it would really take balls to vote in such a way as to offend the late Teddy Kennedy. How dare he offend the senior aristocrat while the aristocracy still stands? That might sell in England, but not here.

Don’t get me wrong. I agree there are many factors that weigh into the outcome of this race, but don’t underestimate the damage done to Martha Coakley by Gergen, who at that moment demonstrated the degree to which Democrats believe they are entitled to hold power.

I predicted weeks ago that the health care legislation would not pass out of conference committee. I still might end up being wrong. But I am sticking to my original story.

I believe a win by Scott Brown in MA will be the undoing of President Obama’s health care legislation. I know there is talk of various ways in which the House and Senate could come together and send something to the President. But a Brown win makes that politically untenable.

My critics will argue that my forecast turned out to be correct (if it does) because of the Scott Brown win, which nobody could have predicted. But that argument confuses cause and effect. If Brown wins, it will be (at least in large part) because of the voters’ disapproval of Obamacare. My argument all along has been that public disapproval would be the undoing of the health care overhaul. And it just happens that the MA senate race is the venue in which that disapproval will manifest itself.

History tells us that large scale legislative initiatives don’t get passed in this country when the people overwhelmingly disapprove. I still believe this case will be no different.

Will Keith Olbermann say about Danny Glover:

“your life is not worth those of the lowest, meanest, poorest of those victims still lying under that rubble in Haiti tonight. You serve no good. You serve no god. You inspire only stupidity and hatred. And I would wish you to hell but knowing how empty your soul must be, for you to be able to say such things in a time of such pain, I suspect the vacant purposeless life you live now is hell enough already.

Yes, of course I already know the answer!

I’ve been out of it all week, and I’ve still got the remnants of a major overnight sinus headache, but there’s a few items that need to be explored:

• Sen. Russ Slim…er, Feingold has been running into a wee bit of Tea in his recent listening sessions over his support of PlaceboCare.
• Robert Stacy McCain is not letting either a shoestring budget or an ugly knockdown of a credentialed journalist deter him from wearing out the shoe leather to bring reports from the “unexpectedly-hot” special election to fill the Senate seat held for ages by Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy. Related, the shenanigans are beginning, with the Democratic Secretary of State saying that, if Republican Scott Brown completes the upset, he won’t certify the election for 32 days, and the Democratic-controlled Legislature looking to change the certification laws again to delay it even more.
• The White House has doubled tripled down on Porkulus after getting smacked by just about every semi-reputable news organization over its 600K “created/sved” number, now claiming every job at an entity that received so much as a dime of Porkulus money as “saved” to get to the 2 million number touted.
• There will be new TARP fees on banks to make up for what the government spent to save seize AIG, GM and Chrysler (which will be exempt from said fees).

Harry Reid will resign before the election.

Today is Rush’s 59th birthday.

Entertaining and educational. I think it is safe to say there is no other like him and will never be again.

Stay out of the hospital, Rush! Here’s to another 59 years!