My recollection is Hutchinson
supported W, and joins her party
in rejecting every Obama idea.

That makes it sound more like
rejection of Republican leadership
and a victory for the Tea Partiers,

and gives Democrats an easier
target. Those people have political
ADHD and there are pills for that.

He says leasing the state’s toll roads “reaped
$3.8 billion,” but doesn’t explain how selling
future income differs from borrowing money.

He says Daniels’ Healthy Indiana plan, “aspires
to eventually cover 130,000 people, about a third
of the state’s long-term uninsured,” but doesn’t
explain why the aspiration doesn’t cover everyone.

I thought Douthat was foolish, but if Romney’s the
competition. Maybe he’s right, the best Republicans
can do might be “a balding, wonky Midwesterner
who reminds voters of their accountant.”

“There is a clear distinction between the
tea party movement and the Republican party,”
he asserts, “and we ignore it at our peril.”
Yes, but there’s no danger for Democrats.

It seems to me Democrats are best served
by conflating “tea baggers” and the GOP
and letting Republicans try to explain how
the two are different to independent voters.

Republican voters may not agree the party’s
a cult, but they should see that it’s dangerous.
Its uncanny ability to enforce loyalty lets it get
most anything it wants, stop anything it doesn’t.

Voting for Democrats is much safer. Since they
don’t vote alike, use identical words, unite behind
anything, or accomplish much, they meet a dictum
for government and medicine: first do no harm.

Anytime conservatives pass a bill that
isn’t exactly what the president requested
he should veto it, then offer nothing but
typical right-wing-style explanations.

Forget nuance, truth, or making sense,
parrot simplistic slogans– “it’s too long”
(or “too short”), “it’s really socialism,” or
“the American people already rejected that.”

If Obama feels the intellectual need he can
add, “I hate to pervert veracity this way.”
That will assuage his conscience, and the
tea partiers will think he’s against sin.

Otherwise atomic energy is less
risky than bursting dams, oil spills,
collapsing coal mines, or CT scans.

While worrisome, radioactive waste
poses less danger than acid rain,
leaky gas lines, or rising ocean levels.

So Obama’s controversial foray
isn’t scary, just disappointing –
a futile attempt at bipartisanship.

The loans won’t create green energy or
reduce climate change, but they will
increase employment — so they’re ok.

History says the construction jobs are
secure, the need for operators will be iffy,
and many lawyers will have new careers.

Reuters suggests company management
thinks the problem might be workers
who haven’t bought into the Toyota way —
new ones “sporting piercings and dyed hair.”

Them trying to blame youth culture
leads investigators to believe the trouble
isn’t floor mats or sticky gas pedals,
it’s more likely with computer software.

Cable news thought it was great theater.
It was much better that opposing pundits,
but it was show business not governance –
an expensive version of The Biggest Loser.

Democrats demanded equal time
so Obama went to visit their senators.
As theater it was no where near as good –
it was more like a low budget Big Brother.

Sometimes we can press “0” for a person
instead of answering endless questions
from a recording, and we should do it.

Unless we want to scan and bag
our own purchases, we’d better refuse.
Just play dumb and they’ll take over.

American business learned that when
they say, “technology saves money,”
we respond by doing more work.

We can make our lives easier, and take
a big step toward reducing unemployment,
if we stop behaving like Pavlov’s dogs.

Undaunted, he’s taking another tack.
He’ll create a bond between the parties
by freezing spending, recession or not,
so Democrats will hate him too.

Pundits will debate what issue caused the anger,
but it really doesn’t matter. Not many of us know
enough about any problem to be justly mad.
It’s hard to say what’s right when most information
comes from biased extremists.

Conventional wisdom says “get more facts,”
but that won’t happen. We should just pick a bias.
Issues come and go, but philosophies stay.
It’s easier to change a representative’s mind
than it is to find a better politician, but

candidates won’t become truly responsive
until primary elections are primary.
Political parties won’t moderate
until moderates become members. Until then,
independents will keep the extremists in charge.

I remember the act clearly, but not how it ended.
Did the china fall, fly away, disappear or what?
It might be the same way Obama will finally finish
healthcare, global warming, Afghanistan, et al.

He did exactly what he said he would,
but we didn’t elect him to be consistent.
We did it because he promised change.

While he’s rebuilding his economic team,
the president should dump Larry Summers,
another advisor who’s advice seems
to evolve with Wall Street’s shifting moods.

They both gave some liberals fits when they
were first appointed, and now that they’ve
incurred the wrath of many Republicans,
Barack can have a bipartisan win — again.

Since the promise is reduced risk in the future,
while the cost starts now, the congressional
battle is typical: hypothetical vs. hyperbole.

Paul Krugman said we needed a bigger
stimulus for the economy from the beginning.
Now, he admits it is probably too late.

Unlike parents who warned their children,
“You could break an arm doing that,”
these guys can’t even drive us to a hospital.

As the country grew, the privileged
learned plain voters were often easier
to sway than those in elective office,
so they created the referendum.

This innovation works well. When
money can’t buy representatives’
support directly, wealth plus clever
distortion can sell their supporters.

Do they see the government
as a giant monster that will devour
members of the health care cartel?

Probably not, they’re more likely
concerned that competition will attract
the industry-terrifying green gecko.