Specifically, some have abruptly realized that a government proposal designed to give millions of people free health care while removing all cost accountability might be pricey (h/t Ericka Andersen).  President Obama can deliver yet another lecture about how it will be cheaper than our present setup to insure everyone with no competition, but we haven’t fallen, aren’t falling, and won’t ever fall for it.

He may in fact be reading the same speech every time.  It’s become such a chore to follow his incessant campaign that his staff may have realized they can get away with slothfully feeding the same words into the teleprompter every morning.  Regardless, the counterargument remains consistent: no federal program has ever saved money, and the first to do so won’t be one that commandeers an entire industry.

Still, they’ll try to pull magical quarters out of our ears until they have enough to pay for the charade.  Their most recent stab at cunningness is to not say how much Democraticare would actually cost.  That strategy explains why, whoops, they forgot to mention the plot’s real expenses.  Like Jerry Lundegaard-style car dealers who announce the cost of sealant only as the deal’s being closed, they’ve been caught trying to sneak through yet one more cripplingly brutal cost.  It’s all for the right to buy a junky late 80s GM car.  Nobody wants to pay loads extra for a Cutlass Ciera.

Unsurprisingly, national health backers frame the issue incorrectly.  For one, they think offering exemplary care levels at rock bottom prices is possible by passing a 2,300-plus page bill with the shiftiest of tactics.  If proponents maintain reams of legislation will simultaneously improve costs and care, it has to happen that way here in reality, right?  They shouldn’t but will be astonished to learn that passing a law doesn’t turn intentions into results.

Further, they’re offering something that’s not theirs to offer.  We and not the Steny Hoyers of the world are supposed to take care of life’s details, including our well-being.  The White House and a portion of legislators can ignore it all they want, but they’re only trying to revoke our freedom to be accountable.

Health care is a commodity.  It’s not a right, and we’re certainly not entitled to it.  To clarify for our misguidedly persnickety liberal friends, we have the right to acquire insurance but not be handed it.  The product in question might be important and necessary, but it’s still our responsibility to obtain it.  Actually, rumor holds that the bill makes the word “responsibility” illegal, but nobody’s read that far without suffering boredom-related trauma.  In the meantime, there’s still presently hope for those reactionaries who think humans ought to take care of themselves.

It’s not as if any Democratic bill would leave us destitute but healthy.  The government, in their governmental way, will figure how to reduce the quality of care but not expenses.  Some states have already pulled off this perverse miracle: for one, Tennessee failed to improve its citizens’ bank accounts or selves with their take on collective care (h/t Jay Riemersma, MI-2’s next congressman).  Such a racket won’t work any better if imposed upon both the Volunteer State and their 49 neighbors.  Ask Mitt Romney for another example, and he’ll reflexively cringe.

When they’re not relying on financial sorcery, Obamacare enthusiasts will merely neglect to mention any possible downside of their machinations.  For one, they’ll fail to admit how taxes to fuel their monster will be collected immediately even though the plan itself will be immediately mothballed for a couple years.  On a related note, you can reduce your food budget if you only eat four days per week.  While Michelle Obama might consider the strategy to be a useful obesity-fighting measure, it’s fair to classify it as an unhealthy approach to fitness.

But we’ve come to expect such crooked legerdemain from everyone attempting to Cubafy our health care.  Their most absurdly shameless fraud so far has been trying to pass the bill through the House without passing it.  Don’t worry: they’ll find a way to sink lower within a week or two.

Perfectly appropriately, the House and Senate face a prisoner’s dilemma.  It’s an applicable term not just because many of them are under investigation and/or act like felons: more specifically, each side is currently pondering what the other will do and accordingly acting in a manner conducive to their own goals.  With that in mind, representatives could pass the bill and hope the upper chamber twits then pass the promised modifications.  Should they fall for it?  Do you trust Chuck Schumer?

All the confusion, nonsense, and subterfuge stems from a preposterous effort to turn an item we should buy on our own into a free handout.  The genuine competition that would emerge as a byproduct of allowing insurance purchases across state lines would do more to lower costs than Washington ever will on anything.  But Democrats will eschew allowing more people to buy a plan in favor of attempting to get more people on medical welfare.  There’s nothing cynical about noticing that every one of their initiatives expands federal control over everyone but Guantanamo inmates.

Of course, they’re also simultaneously ruining the word “insurance,” as the service is supposed to be obtained voluntarily to protect against possible future calamity.  Instead, people will wait until becoming sick to enroll, then sign up and suck up all the rationed care available.  While it’s an infinitely safer bet, the house will inevitably go bankrupt.

And Obama won’t stop moaning about health insurers denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions.  Next, he’ll complain that home insurers won’t sell policies to those whose dwellings are presently aflame.  They’re so greedy, and probably connected to Wall Street fat cats somehow.

If the present Congress passes any health bill, the only way to limit costs will be spreading out care evenly.  I’m sure someone has broached the inevitability of rationing panels.  It will cost so much to get much less, but at least we’ll suffer together.  Turning America into South Quebec will make our lives resemble the situation on The Office: we’re essentially stuck in a lousy job where the only coping mechanism is being unified by contempt for the ludicrously misguided boss.  Whether Steve Carrell or Ricky Gervais comes to mind, we’re not suffering alone.

It’s too bad morale had to sink this low in order for us to bond.  But at least we’re making new friends.  Best, we share common interests: the new crew is entirely composed of folks wise to the philosophical and financial catastrophe that congressional and executive Democrats wish to inflict upon us.

Like a Greek organization or sports team initiation, the misery has bonded us together, and not in an Eric Massa’s Naval career way, either.  We’re united with our honorary brothers and sisters by the belief that the only thing worse than surrendering freedoms to the state is getting a thoroughly lousy, woefully overpriced service in return.  Other than that, we’d get a good deal.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Being a reactionary at times and a pinko at others sort of equals out, in a twisted way.  But true moderation would mean reliably backing a watered-down version of one party’s platform.  What we instead most often see in the Capitol are legislators who oscillate wildly to please please please get what they want.  Yes, bigmouth strikes again, and the only thing worse than cramming a “Panic”-related Smiths reference into this paragraph are unpredictable Republicans who can’t adhere to a logical platform most of the time.

The warped press isn’t helping, as when they ponder the fate of oh so poor “middle of the road lawmakers.”  Similarly, other journalists ponder whether “GOP moderates” (h/t Ericka Andersen) will dominate the party, an odd thought for anyone who’s seen the nation lurch rightward after coping with the alternative in practice for over a year.

Maybe the present anti-statist climate will actually force the officeholders to pick a direction and follow it.  As evidence, even John McCain is playing conservative in order to trick voters into thinking he’s more appealing than primary opponent J.D. Hayworth.  It’s true that the man frequently not elected president occasionally veers into Sarah Palin territory on particular budget matters.  But he remains a Republican beloved by the press whenever he doesn’t act like a Republican.  That’s the case when it comes to campaign finance, bailouts, amnesty, and a couple dozen other issues where he disproves the value of inconsistency.

Likewise, ex-sorta-Republican Arlen Specter has been classified as a “moderate,” which is true except for virtually every vote he’s ever cast.  If not for his admirable support for gun rights, Specter might have been a candidate for Joe Biden’s present occupation.  And it’d be much less fun to giggle at such an astounding bore.  But Specter has still occasionally scattered himself across the ideological map: he’s somewhat unpredictable, which is wholly different than being lukewarm.

On the other hand, Democrats could use a little moderation in the sense that they should water down their beliefs.  It would be better for the country, and I suppose for them, too.  The approach will be a tough sell, as Obama didn’t campaign as a centrist: he ran as a messianic figure who superseded politics.  After taking office, he stuck with the let’s serve the people blah etc. routine for about a day and a half. 

Unfortunately, it turns out the people don’t care for his particular idea of service, but he’s still imposing it as best as he can.  He’s not going to let something as trifling as our lack of money keep him from spending nonexistent dollars while meddling in our destitute existences.

He and his congressional teammates could have scaled back the plot to their advantage.  Moving closer to the center than the left may have kept his happy cult largely intact.  But Obama has already abandoned the chance to be Bill Clinton without the wantonly scummy lifestyle.  Set aside his occasional foray into practical decisions such as on letting Predator drones act like predators: Obama is an example of why ideological purity is conversely only good to a point.  Said point involves being too much of a leftist twit.

For example, Democraticare might be an awful law as opposed to a rotten idea if party leaders had just been willing to let people pay for their own abortions (h/t Teri Christoph).  But they couldn’t be content with guaranteeing virtually unfettered access to ghastliness: they had to ensure taxpayers would be on the hook for the morally revolting procedure, too.

Mercifully, it didn’t help them.  The failure to soften, or perhaps a word like “moderate,” their social engineering/socialistic spending policies has doomed their agenda.  There’s something to be said for unyielding arrogance, at least from their foes’ view.

By contrast, Republicans are classified as moderates when they occasionally or frequently stray from conservatism.  But that’s inaccurate usage.  The term should be reserved for someone who supports, say, milder tax cuts than Jim DeMint or is slightly less Darth Vadery on anti-terror issues than Dick Cheney.  Alternately, someone like, oh, Scott Brown should be addressed as a semi-conservative, Republican temp, or such when he strays.  We’ll modify his classification once he makes himself easier to classify.

It’s tricky pinning down meaning these days.  As with “stimulus,” “moderate” seems to be a word whose definition is misunderstood by certain media members and Presidents of the United States of America.  The left are actually the ones who should tone down their domestic efforts, as that would help them avoid having to conspire about how to pass a nation-altering bill in the most temperate-averse method conceivable.

As for those affiliated with the right, frequent swaying makes little sense.  Conservative principles are based upon steady ideals: the government shouldn’t be responsible or pay for much aside from catching and imprisoning criminals or catching and imprisoning and/or eliminating war enemies.

The feds should let us build houses and only approach our property if barbarians besiege us; we and not our congresspersons can call a private contractor about getting new kitchen fixtures or killing termites.  Letting the Al Frankens and Louise Slaughters of the world crash on the couch is antithetical to conservative doctrine.  But some Republicans still need to learn the value of kicking out unwelcome guests.

GOP politicians shouldn’t only be more conservative in general; additionally, they need to be conservative on more specific measures.  Tea Partiers should harangue the leaders in question so that they tilt toward reducing the state’s role as a default setting.  The goal is maintaining both reasonability and stability in one’s beliefs.  That means we may have to write off Lindsey Graham.  So, it works out all around.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

February 27, 2009 was a very cold and rainy day in Atlanta as nearly one thousand gathered at the Georgia State Capitol to protest government bailouts and spending spiraling out of control.  Americans from all walks of life, socio-economic levels, races, and political backgrounds gathered together that day all around the country, inspired by a economic news analyst who’s rant on CNBC lit the fires of a movement that has grown to over 15 million in just one year.

Rick Santelli was reporting from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19th of last year.  In response to his frustration with the stimulus, government bailouts, and the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Santelli suggested everyone join him for a Tea Party in Chicago.

The next day, 22 people from around the country joined together on a confernece call to discuss having nationwide Tea Parties later that week on February 27th. “People had become frustrated, and very angry as they watched their government destroy their children’s futures,” said Debbie Dooley, a Tea Party activist from Georgia, and participant on the original conference call of 22. She added, “They did not want to watch it on their television anymore. They wanted to become active.”  With one week to plan, this group of 22 organized tea parties across the country, and tens of thousands gathered that first February 27th. 

Based on three core issues, fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets, the Tea Party movement was born, and took America by storm.

A month and a half later, 20,000 people gathered on the steps of the Georgia State Capitol for the Atlanta Tax Day Tea Party.  Similar sized gatherings occured at the same time in cities across the country.

Over the summer, ordinary citizens gathered at Town Halls to protest the attempted government takeover of our private healthcare industry.  In an obvious attempt by some in the media tried to characterize them as fringe, people continued to show-up at these Town meetings with members of Congress, no longer intimidated by the attempted smear campaigns of the left.  The sleeping giant had awakened, and ordinary Americans would no longer be silent.

Then, on September 12, 2009, over one million gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. and asked Congress with one loud voice “Can you hear us now?”

(Over 1 million gather on the mall in Washington on 9-12-09. Above – Revolutionary Rider at The Atlanta Tea Party on 4-15-09. Below, Lenny McCalister addresses Georgians celebrating Tea Party Anniversary.  All photos courtesy of Julianne Thompson)

Fast forward to February 27, 2010 at the Georgia State Capitol.  It was still very cold, but the sun was shining as brightly as the faces that turned out to celebrate the one year anniversary of the Tea Party movement.  After a long morning at the Tea Party Georgia Leadership Summit for grassroots  training, they gathered in the afternoon for a celebration rally. “This is only the beginning.  After victories for strong fiscal conservatives in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachussetts, we have seen what ordinary people can do when they are willing to stand-up to preserve the America they love,” said Jason Thompson, an activist who attended all of the Atlanta-area Tea Parties over the past year.  He continued, “We will take back our Congress at the ballot box in 2010.”

Today, with over 15 million activists nationwide, and growing everyday, the Tea Party movement is the largest, fastest growing, and most powerful movement in politics today. Despite the political term ”Tea Party” being fundemantally American due to it’s historical significance and comparison with the Boston Tea party, Tea Parties are being held across the world, including Europe and Asia.  Freedom is contagious, so let freedom continue to ring!

Smart Girl Politics is pleased to announce that we will be partnering with American Majority, RedState.com, and the John Hancock Committee to provide intensive, high-quality training for conservative activists who are interested in equipping themselves with the tools necessary to defend freedom. Taking place in several locations during April and May, the training sessions will encompass a variety of topics, including:

• Creative Leadership
• Micro-targeting and Hardwiring Precincts
• Building Effective Coalitions
• Implementing Freedom: Running for Office 1 & 2
• Online Image Management
• Blogs and Wikis
• Patriots 2.0
• Creative Messaging
• Understanding the System We are Confronted With
• Fundraising 101
• Media Coaching for TV and Radio
• Media Training
• Voter Registration
• Women in Politcs

Smart Girl Politics will be sending trainers to these events to show activists the ins-and-outs of voter registration; we’ll also be giving a unique perspective on women in politics. If you are interested in attending one of these training weekends, please sign up at http://americanmajority.org/post-party-summits/.

Still, society often collectively tries to portray all lovely individuals are inherently empty shells while assuming that practical geniuses can only  be particularly unpleasant gargoyles.  But there are more exceptions to the rule than there are to global warming theory. Not to ever doubt your mom’s wisdom, but her theory that you can’t judge books by covers is somewhat uncorroborated: appealing people can’t help it if they’re bright, too.

The notion that a nice casing reflects the contents applies not only to physical facades: more importantly, charm and an impeccable delivery are useful characteristics for sharp thinkers.  Such positive personality qualities shouldn’t be seen as drawbacks as long as the individual is using them to advance the cause of good and not merely to extricate oneself from trouble.  As for me, my winning smile and pale blue eyes have long kept me in good graces and out of prison, I keep telling myself.

For a more universal example, take someone who every American finds either wonderfully or frustratingly enthralling.  Sarah Palin is admired because of her philosophy, not merely because she naturally connects with those who own rattlesnake flags that note an aversion to being tread upon.  The infectious magnetism she exudes while espousing her conservative agenda is of secondary importance to the plan itself.  I can confide in unaware female readers that many gentlemen find her comely.  But, to bring up book packaging again, the ideas she shares for 432 pages are more important than the nice photo adorning the front.

Charisma is only a secondary part of the package.  That’s seen in fellow rising star Marco Rubio, who innately draws audiences before keeping them captivated with his archconservative message. He doesn’t trade in reassuring yet bland platitudes, as he’s promoting more than himself.  Notably, conservatives can get excited just by reading a concise description of one of his speeches; he’s good even without his delivery.

Conversely, a likeable salesman is limited if the product being sold is a boom box manufactured in North Korea or a Chrysler car.  For one, Mike Huckabee is pleasant enough that conservatives are willing to hear him out.  But an alluring personality only goes so far, specifically in his case until he spells out his principles. As for a more perfect example, there’s Barack Obama.  Listen to anything he’s ever said at any time for examples.

But the media disagrees when it comes to Palin: they only see a pretty lady whom they think seduces modern knuckle-draggers into supporting domestic drilling and tax cuts.  Journalists primarily pay attention to her because they think of her as a source of easy quotes they can use to emphasize how polarizing she is (h/t Teri Christoph).  Ripping into a political figure after devoting countless newspaper inches and broadcast hours to cheap caricatures of her shows why the only profession less trustworthy than politics is covering politics.

Professional chatterers often cite her present high disapproval rate without adding the disclaimer that they’re partly responsible.  They’re reporting a self-fulfilling prophecy: by portraying her as a dim victim of her own inexperience, her positive percentages are bound to dip a bit.  They perversely enjoy seeing Palin connect with people who patronize Target and waffle houses, as they can pretend that she’s adored by Red State rabble despite her naïve ideas.  In reality, people love what she says even more than how she says it.

The media should know better than to point fingers while looking down upon others.  The same people who patronizingly refer to her and Tea Partiers as anti-intellectual are the ones who could only get into communications school.  Take me: I majored in journalism during my university days, and I’m barely able to spell “Mensa.”  On a related note, I wouldn’t trust most fellow j-school slackers to water houseplants, much less lecture the public on why Palin is so dim.  They think they’re smarter than people such as Thomas Sowell, which is akin to taking on the Marines while armed with a slingshot.  Former Marine Sowell isn’t a wise target on any level.

Palin and Rubio both demonstrate how personal captivation can enhance a case for solid beliefs.  The inverse is true, too: big personalities with little ideas get nowhere.  Take the man who’s terminated California’s credit rating.  Arnold Schwarzenegger epitomizes the futileness experienced by many conservatives who hoped that an outsized celebrity would be able to impose a promising agenda through force of will. His lone achievement has been making every single California resident despise him.

The prototypical RINO’s unstoppable desire to tax a lot and spend even more wholly negated his outsized influence.  Worse, the Kindergarten Cop/Junior Oscar winner’s new tactic of insulting voters who have noticed how rotten his record is won’t help his legacy.  The most famous bodybuilder ever and one of the biggest cinematic draws in history failed at his third career because his only platform was being him.

Of course, the media will always focus upon Governor Predator Killer’s party affiliation, not his utterly leftward philosophical one.  On a related note, they’ll continue to portray Palin as the latest in a string of diabolical conservative imbeciles.  They want to frame her as they did George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater.  Diabolical GOP scientists are growing the next generation’s liberal archenemy in a tube located within a torch-lit bunker laboratory deep below the Reagan Library.  It has just the nicest gift shop.

By doing so, journalists disregard inopportune facts about their favorite right-wing bogeymen, namely how some of them notoriously strayed across the center line.  The CNNs and New York Timeses will conveniently ignore that alleged conservative superhero Nixon was reaching out to China when he wasn’t fixing wages and prices.

Meanwhile, leftist commentators often utter “Bush did it, too” while referring to any of Obama’s forays into unwieldy government, as if thick-browed Republicans aren’t allow to consider Bush’s checkered legacy on an issue-by-issue basis. Still, the media haughtily thinks they’re demonizing conservative ideas and conservatives themselves when they assail any famous Republican.

But the mainstream press doesn’t monopolize coverage anymore thanks to our fancy computers and Fox News Channels.  Accordingly, Palin has both the time and place to shore up her credentials and establish her beliefs.  Meanwhile, her supporters know that her amiability and her symmetrical face both mean nothing without her causes.  Chiefly, Tea Partiers are attracted to her guiding belief that favoring a miniscule government doesn’t equal American weakness.

As for Rubio, winning a Washington job comes first.  But he’s so far demonstrating that conservatism is a congregation of strong ideas, not a cult of personality.  Rubio differs from our similarly enchanting president in that people like Florida’s next senator the more they learn about him.

By contrast, our contempt for Obama isn’t personal, especially considering how many foes at least sometimes kind of think he’s personally okay.   It’s just that he’s all leftist.  But at least he has a second career lined up for when he’s forced to secure private-sector work after people decide they prefer a leader who pairs style with wise ideas. Namely, he can co-star in buddy cop movies with aforementioned empty shell Schwarzenegger.

The mismatched yet similarly-motivated pair can both deploy their personalities in a setting where they won’t be able to harm the economy despite employing bad ideas or none at all.  In fact, the co-stars will for once actually help create profits, even if it’s just for a movie studio.  So, who gets top billing?

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Similarly, many on the right are reflexively defensive when outsiders disparage Palin.  Some are at the point where they snap at anyone who looks askew at her.  That’s an understandable overreaction based upon how spitefully liberals and their media pals have treated her.  Still, gently pointing out her flawed decisions is constructive.  Righties just have to remember to offer helpful pointers.   Refraining from wallowing in negativity will keep conservatives from devolving into the sort of dysfunctional family that keeps a shrink on retainer.

Her most debated recent decision involved not what she said but where and when she said it.  Namely, Palin’s decision to participate in last week’s Tea Party Convention resulted in a fantastic speech  (h/t Tammy Bruce).  And she can rightly claim that she attended to address the true Tea Partiers regardless of the organizers’ motivations (h/t Teri Christoph).  But she still should put one more date on her itinerary, especially considering the questions swirling around the structure of the last party she attended.

She shouldn’t neglect the other party.  Despite the organizer’s different kind of noted troubles, CPAC remains an ideal site for walking among the grassroots.  Instead, co-worker Glenn Beck gets to talk to the folks while Palin abstains.  Still, her guardians would point out that her intentions were true even if she’s mistaken by not meeting and greeting both sets of conventioneers.

She’s also picked a horse that most conservatives would prefer to see lose.  The best hope for Rand Paul is that it turns out he’s not as crazy as Dad Ron.  Don’t raise your hopes.  Palin’s outsider-siding ways make her appealing,  But she should take care next time to back someone who’s not so, say, enthusiastically anti-Patriot Act if she wants to appeal to non-Dale Gribble-style conservatives.

More understandable is an act of campaigning kindness she offered to her liberal-leaning former partner.  John McCain put her on the map, after all, although of course she repaid him by serving as the only exciting aspect of his supremely crummy effort.  Her decision to appear alongside the man who sucks the fun out of the word “maverick” is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan endorsing the Brady Bill as a favor to his friend: at certain moments, the personal trumps the political.

On top of that, some don’t like her new job.  Critics have speculated that her stint as a Fox News commenter will slow her down if she’s serious about eventually running for higher office.  But she gets to make fun of the president on television, which qualifies it as the most fun job in America.  In more mature terms, she has yet one more platform she can use to establish her views while establishing how well she can articulate same views.

Still, the Hunter Governor should start taking better advice, or at least hire better advice-giver-outers.  She’s committed a handful of what we can generously classify as gaffes.  But this is a good time for her to learn from curious decisions, especially since the actions in question at least seem to have been made with good intentions.

Plus, there’s one important thing to remember while she endorses odd candidates or attends for-profit Tea Parties: she maintains an undeniably solid philosophy.  Palin remains a plainspoken defender of a nation whose strength descends from its limited national government.  That tendency is most evident in her succinctly cogent Facebook posts, which counteract all the damage inflicted upon civilization by FarmVille.

Set the minor slip-ups aside: she recognizes more than any other public figure that America is great not because of what its government does but rather because of what it allows Americans to do. 

Learning by doing is fine as long as the emphasis is on the “learning” part.  This is a particularly important time for her if she plans the aforementioned career change, namely from media commentator to America-runner.  With, understandably, no clear Republican frontrunner yet for 2012, (h/t Clayton Morris) she can goof up a little now as she strives to polish her image.

The lead is hers to grasp if she’s ready to go.  While Mike Huckabee might presently be able to boast of more individual campaign donors, that tally doesn’t count the 17 trillion books or so sold by the right’s favorite author.  Now, she just has to work toward ensuring the second volume can be shorter on account of it containing fewer pages devoted to bloopers.

In any case, her miscalculations will never approach those of the current officeholder even if she ends up holding the same responsibilities.  Of all the disreputable aspects of Barack Obama’s first presidential year, the worst may be how he’s trying, and failing, to learn on the job.  While he’d be a sad leftist even 20 years from now, he could still use seasoning to learn how to react properly under duress.

By contrast, Palin wouldn’t spend her time in the White House sucking up to Iran’s hoodlum regime while provoking our Honduran, Colombian, British, Israeli, Polish, Czech, South Korean, Indian, Canadian, Georgian, or other friends.  She’d trust us to stimulate the economy instead of assuming she can micromanage our finances from the Oval Office, too.  Most of all, there’s little fear that she would get into the habit of bowing to foreign leaders, including Her Royal Highness, the Queen of Tampa Bay.

Conservatives should keep her natural abilities in mind and afford her ample leeway.  If nothing else, small-government aficionados should overlook her occasional missteps simply because of the attributes we see in her enemies. Namely, they’re consistently the insufferably vitriolic types who slapped “CHRISTIAN FASCIST” bumper stickers upon their Volkswagens in January 2001.  That’s when her antagonists aren’t simply nasty, troubled, sad humans.

Palin provokes the same reaction among the stammering left that the previous president did, namely the W. Twitch.  We should petition doctors to update the syndrome’s name, as those infected now robotically spew venom at their new favorite adversary.  Most notoriously, her enemies shriek about how the underwhelming litany of colleges she attended speaks to her dimness, although that fails to simultaneously account for how Yale and Harvard man Bush can be such a dunce.

Her wholly conservative values are the best reason to offer her support.  But Palin is worth cheering for just to irritate the people who think she’s a mere simpleton.  Their hilariously apoplectic reaction to everything she says and does is fantastic in itself.  The level and pitch of hatred tells us that the Rogue Queen must be doing something correctly.

Our favorite Alaskan will sharpen her approach and tactics with time.  Meanwhile, before they give her further grief about how she’s nowhere near as brilliant as they are, Palin’s archenemies ought to ensure that the dumb things they accuse her of saying weren’t actually uttered by that 30 Rock woman.         

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Of course, most of the 70-minute harangue was masochistically dedicated to whining about either why the public just doesn’t get their misunderstood genius-in-chief or how he’s been forced to clean up after George W. Bush created all the world’s evil.  Oddities such as anti-earmark stand were stirred among his usual bland optimism about the benefits of a limitlessly expanding federal behemoth that’s currently running a 14-figure debt.  His miniature spending cut serves as the equivalent of an alcoholic vowing to no longer buy vermouth.

The wholly insincere attempt to get deficit hawks and ticked-off moderates to accept him with a slight bit of small-government blather was transparently pathetic.  He spent even less time working to placate Tea Partiers than he did on national security, if that’s possible, which signifies how unwilling he is to budge from his socialist-leaning social democratic worldview. 

He’s dooming himself by not following the tack of the last Democratic administration.  Obama may be enough of an incurable narcissist to think that his venerable presence can single-handedly procure a victory for widely-despised progressive beliefs.  But the delusional golden child has, as usual, framed things precisely backward: having Bill Clinton in 1994 actually gave Democrats a greater advantage than Obama provides today.  Pursuing leftist policies ultimately results in lost elections either way.  But Clinton won in 1996 because he was a shifty cad who was willing to betray his principles.

The different styles aren’t based upon fundamental ideological disparity: the thoroughly liberal Clinton basically shares Obama’s beliefs.  The difference is that the second president to be impeached would sell his grandparents’ souls if it meant gaining votes.  His calculating pragmatism always trumped his leftist tendencies, which is why he had to both check that day’s polls and listen to a Dick Morris lecture before he could tell you where he stood.  On the other hand, the incumbent is steadfast about what he believes, which is proof that the courage of maintaining one’s convictions isn’t necessarily a point of pride.

Obama can’t even negotiate correctly.  He’s only willing to suggest compromise as a first step toward getting his hyper-liberal ideals put into practice.  Most obviously, he only dropped the public option from health proposals as a means of eventually slinking us toward single-payer anguish.  He reasoned that, once we realized how wonderful it was to be hooked on federal meddling, we’d be begging for IRS-style health insurance.  Based on the state of the Democrats’ sundry proposals, we can go ahead and gleefully announce that he miscalculated.  Still, importing Canadacare remains the only instance where he’d favor free trade.

On the other hand, Clinton gave in to his opponents as a means of retaining power.  He notoriously abandoned his beliefs when faced with a similar situation to the Yes We Can Man.  Namely, Clinton gave up on his wife’s health care socializing scheme.  In lieu of remaining loyal to Hillary for the first time in their marriage, he chose an entirely different course and signed the Republican-backed welfare reform.  As a result, he actually did something that benefited the nation, not to mention that he subsequently got to be president until early 2001.

Obama won’t do the same, as he’s too much of a partisan to accept that his approaches are unpopular for a reason.  Nobody should be shocked by the failure of professed liberal presidents to create a benevolent government that generates both full employment and international goodwill.  But a small cluster of followers keeps falling for both the dreadfully counterproductive domestic policies and Hallmark-style sentimental approach to international relations.  As with disillusioned Clinton supporters, the most baffling thing about Obama’s deflated cheerleaders remains how they fell for the cheap optimism in the first place.

The counterfeit magic no longer fools anyone.  He’s alienating more former cult members everyday.  Meanwhile, critics don’t even bother with Obamessiah jokes anymore; there’s no need to, as the HOPE picture has officially become ironic.  His stubbornly liberal nature means he’s trapped, too: Obama won’t trick conservatives or right-leaning independents into turning and backing him.  Meanwhile, the left is going to level their most tired accusation at him, namely that he’s a sellout because he wants to cut a couple of bucks out of an unfathomable budget.  He was much more effective at uniting people when all he had to do was yap in a generically inspiring manner.

Obama’s meek attempt to promote hawkish budgetary ideas comes across like retooling a sitcom.  Roseanne, Dan, and everyone else can call the new girl “Becky” all they want, but we all know it’s not really the eldest daughter.  Similarly, the imperceptible cuts feel like an utterly phony ploy even by State of the Union standards.

The Secretary of State’s husband shifted eagerly along with public opinion.  By contrast, Obama only does so reluctantly, and with the aforementioned pretend concessions.  He’s obviously not interested in trying hard: triangulation doesn’t work if one is staking out a position midway between the David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel wings.

That unwillingness to discard big-government nonsense should lead to another difference between him and Clinton, namely the number of terms each serves.  Obama has famously announced he’s fine with returning to his sheltered version of private sector life after four years if it means being a good president as opposed to being mediocre for eight years.  Every conservative wag has pointed out that he’ll likely be the worst of both worlds as a one-term mediocrity.  His blind allegiance to policies that don’t work and are nearly universally disliked means the damage he inflicts will at least be contained to one Olympiad.

Unfortunately for both his prospects and the nation, Obama is enough of a leftist zealot that he’s unlikely to modify his goals or relinquish an inch of territory in the meantime.  As a result, fellow Democrats are retreating as the moderates sprint to join the other side.  He must be getting lonely, although it’s entirely his fault for scaring away most potential cohorts.

He should glean a lesson from the last Democratic president and realize the lone strategy for liberals who want to stay in office revolves around discarding liberalism.  Only Obama could govern so feebly as to make Bill Clinton looks sensible by comparison.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

And they were not all Republicans!

It was that day that I realized how powerfully angry and scared citizens were. They were willing to come together and stand next to some they would never before consider agreeing with about anything political. They didn’t care if they were CEOs of companies, lobbyists, coal workers, or stay-at-home moms. What they cared about was the chance to make their voices heard and their fears realized. And armed with literally a soapbox and a bullhorn, we gave them just that. For me, this was the most powerful truly grassroots event I have ever seen or been a part of. And it was incredible.

History will show that this was the beginning of a revolution. Patriots from all walks of life and all political backgrounds mobilized across the country and created a movement that would bring nearly a million activists together in 800 sites across the country in one day. Working from their homes and offices, using their own money for marketing, and realizing the power of social media, these grassroots organizers (most learning what this meant for the first time) asked local businesses for money, applied for permits, and begged for donated time and resources. Nationally, they were armed with an organizing structure, a database, and a conference call line. We reached out to Republicans, Democrats, Independents, unregistered, registered, poor, rich, employed, self-employed, and those that had lost their jobs.

And still, the intent was clear – oppose wasteful spending and save generations to come from a debt so monstrous it could cripple us.

The response was historic. I saw it for myself, leading a group of volunteer organizers to create an event in front of the White House on April 15, 2009. In freezing rain, over 3,000 people turned out. Like most events throughout the country that day, we did not target elected or public officials as our speakers. We asked those who were making a difference on the ground. Policy experts, media pundits, and grassroots organizers joined our stage to speak their minds and talk to those voters joining us.

I was blown away. I could not believe some of the powerful stories I heard about how people were already being adversely affected by the stimulus and I was amazed by the voices of those who stayed out with us, despite the cold. And this happened all over the country. We merely laughed when the Administration said they didn’t even know we were there. Because we were loud. And our message was clear.

And the movement grew. It grew because people had seen first hand the power of their voices and what gathering together could do. It grew because people really did give a damn and wanted to help others realize that as well. And it grew because people saw that their voice, and their vote mattered. And those voices, together, could change the ruin our government and our country was becoming. The word “patriot” was the best way to describe these people.

We traveled the country, we spoke to thousands more, we emailed and listserved, blogged and vlogged. Facebook groups exploded, Twitter became a gathering point. And all the while, the patriots continued organizing and fighting.

THIS is what the “Tea Party Movement” really is. It isn’t about a leader and it isn’t about making money. It is about a grassroots swell that is changing history. The activists that have come out of those original Tea Parties early last year have helped to put people in office, have changed courses of elections. They have demanded that our candidates advocate for fiscal responsibility and limited government intervention in our lives. They have fought to protect their loved ones – their healthcare, their businesses, their futures. And they have raised public awareness on the lack of transparency in our government. These men and women have taken matters into their own hands when their government isn’t listening – and have WON!

The movement, as intended, has transcended social issues and our differences in policies. Grassroots support helped to put two governors into office, and won an unwinnable Senate seat. These were not all Republicans that voted for these candidates. They were voters who identified with the solid principles that movement activists continue to push. They see that our country cannot survive without being more responsible with its money and that it cannot control every aspect of our lives.

I am proud to be a grassroots activist that supports these principles. I am not a Tea Partier, I am not a right-wing extremist. I am a patriot. I am a voter trying to make a difference. And I am proud to stand by so many like me that are part of this movement.

__________________________
Rebecca Wales is Director of Communications for Smart Girl Politics. She lives in Falls Church, VA and she is expecting her third daughter in the Spring of 2010 with her favorite Smart Guy.

Then again, making Keith Olbermann fume and Rachel Maddow pout is one of the innumerable good things about seeing Scott Brown become Massachusetts’ first Republican senator since the Neolithic Age.  By teaching Brown the conservative secret handshake, his Tea-Partying fans tacitly proved that there’s no purging of those who are only in agreement with the base four-fifths of the time.

The Centerfold Senator confused a few pundits.  In the election’s lead-up, some claimed that it’s tougher to define Brown politically than even, for example, a presidential candidate who deliberately obscured his views in favor of promoting Yes We Canism.  A few commenters even maintained he was more liberal than Dede Scozzafava, the most rhinocerosy of RINOS.  If that dubious notion is true, then his anti-“stimulus,” anti-Democraticare, anti-Obama’s-limp-terror-approach campaign shows that he’s fantastic about controlling his image.

Some on the right may feel uneasy about aspects such as his pro-choice tendencies.  While those concerns are valid, most of his checks are in the preferred column even if he occasionally deviates.  Instead of basing his campaign around, say, defending the Defense of Marriage Act, Brown offered a still-generally strong alternative to Washington’s most miserable current tendencies.

It’s not as if Brown is an Arlen Specter clone in waiting.  And he famously doesn’t drive a glorified golf cart of a hybrid with a plug dragging behind as he putters along the highway’s shoulder.  In addition to absolutely opposing the government simultaneously taking control of health care and one-sixth of the economy, he’s also against ruining the other five-sixths via insane taxation and limitless federal meddling.

Most tellingly, Massachusetts residents realized they were voting on semi-nationalizing the health system.  Um, they voted “no.”   Clearly, Brown’s eagerness to provide the single most important vote against Democraticare was the election’s overriding factor.  He stressed that he alone would be able to scuttle anything the president wants just by shaking his head.

Brown seized momentum in part about being what Obama isn’t.  Despite occasionally diverging from conservative doctrine, the newest senator still advocates most of the same principles  that should guide Republican candidates; his improbable triumph wouldn’t be worth celebrating otherwise.  Conservatives should be pleased by how much their respective circle overlaps with his in a hypothetical Venn diagram.

The tolerance for occasional ideological dissent is especially marked compared to lockstep Democrats.  Consider the preliminary health care vote: while Queen Nancy Pelosi allowed just enough vulnerable members to defect, a majority of Democratic House members got into line.  Blue Dogs are like stimulus projects: we keep hearing about them but never see them in action.

Further, every Democratic senator along with their two independent pals complied on health care.  It’s true even though it meant that the Ben Nelsons of the world had to surrender their integrity and dignity.  The current reigning party tolerates every view between liberal and leftist. 

Blame their executive boss for failing to grasp that his personality won him an election, not his policies.  The one person making conservative victories easy is our president.  Republican hopefuls simply must point out that any Democratic counterpart would vote for what Obama wants.

By doing so, it’s possible to win even in the state where Republican wins happen as rarely as drivers use turn signals.  Americans are seeing what happens when the left gets to run things; consequently, they’re demanding reductions in taxes and regulations.  It’s why conservatives are looking forward to November’s election like it’s a Christmas birthday.

As for our beleaguered leader, Obama gave in and stumped for Martha Coakley.  But he didn’t do so because he thought she was a Democratic rising star who could be the next, well, Obama.  Rather, he knew that she would obey Harry Reid until he is mercifully forced to begin a new career in November.  Thankfully, it was a wasted trip.

Democrats cast off Coakley by pointing out that she was a lousy candidate.  They’re partially right: she was lousy, but mostly because she agrees with the president about everything.  A thoroughly sluggish, reporter-shoving, voter-insulting, outrageous-even-by-campaign-standards-ad-publishing campaign couldn’t hide that she would have been a reliable Democrat for Obamacare and everything else.  Coakley was the Air America of challengers: the only thing more unappealing than the messenger was the message.  As a result, they’re both out of business.

Unlike Coakley, her opponent didn’t seem to be repulsed by the public.  But Brown largely won by highlighting that he’d be a Republican who actually might act like a Republican should.   That’s true even if one must qualify the word “conservative” with “basically” when classifying his politics.  If that’s not perfect, it’s acceptable: being semi-inclusive while still only backing candidates who get the big picture is a winning strategy for red state-minded people who happen to reside in Democratic nests.

For those upset that Brown isn’t a 100 percent Reaganite, please remember that he was just elected senator from freaking Massachusetts.  Complaining that he’s not conservative enough is as reckless as hitting after being dealt an 18.  Anyone from the Bay State to the right of Yuri Andropov would be a plus; Brown’s triumph as a right-leaner is like finding a sack full of recession-proof gold doubloons on the sidewalk.  Further, this win proves that the present Democratic reign’s shelf life approximates that of Jay Leno’s primetime run.

Supporting center-right candidates in traditional liberal bastions is fine as long as the emphasis remains on “right.”  Thanks to Brown, we’ve seen that standing against Obamacare, Obamanonics, and general Obamaism can be an effective strategy anywhere.  That’s true even if potential officeholders may stray on a handful of beliefs.  Best of all, such majority-minded conservatives could help conservatives win a majority.  It was a good day when Brown became number 41 by largely tilting rightward.  It will be a great day when he’s one of at least 51.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

The tone of Earth’s favorite Constitution is straightforward enough that even Harry Reid should be able to understand it; he therefore has no excuse when he ignores it.  Basically, the government is supposed to create situations where we can thrive and not manufacture the actual thriving.  The latter part is up to us.

Most notable is the parchment’s brevity itself.   There’s a reason why the document that lays out the foundation for running the greatest nation ever is shorter than an average term paper or Stephen King chapter.  A Microsoft Word count has it at just under 27,000 characters.  In a modern context, that equals fewer than 200 tweets.  I’ve updated more frequently than that in a month.  While I strive to ensure everything I post is as awesomely profound as it is undeniably hilarious, I concede that I’ve never quite matched, say, the (327-character) Preamble.

The document’s brevity is as remarkable as it is inspiring.  And it was written in such an utterly concise manner for a reason: it details the specific tasks that a severely constricted government is allowed to perform.  For one, there aren’t passages documenting the brutal minutiae of how health care should be inflicted upon us.  And there specifically aren’t extensive paragraphs explaining why our government should be spending a fortune subsidizing abortion or removing wrinkles and filling in bald spots while paying people to get high and change genders in a pleasantly-smelling environment (h/t Ericka Andersen).

Particularly, we can’t blame the document’s General Welfare clause for the actions and thoughts of liberals.  But we can fairly point fingers at people who read the section today and somehow see that it gives Washington the right to dole out insurance policies.  Here’s the text:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

You’d have to squint until your eyes bled and then exploded to interpret the sentence as meaning the feds are entitled to mandate that we’re all covered against illness and accidents.  Of course, progressive thought is based upon the notion that a document that perfectly balances limited government and serves the people is somehow inadequate.  The only thing that would be worse than amending the Constitution regularly is seeing de facto amendments where there are none.

There’s a reason national insurance isn’t already in the Constitution: we’re supposed to furnish that ourselves.  We should strive for self-reliance as opposed to figuratively parking our futons under the Capitol’s rotunda.  The document’s thesis is that we’re free to preside over our own lives.  Promoting the aforementioned general welfare is worlds different than legislating and compelling it.

Republican politicians should in fact swing the pendulum back in the other direction, namely by emphasizing that people and not the government should be helping others.  Instead of focusing as they frequently have on how Democraticare would cut present mandated health spending, they should apply free market approaches to charitable giving, too.

It would beat the lack of benevolence evident in the present strategy’s results.  At their essence, Mediplans are like EBT cards for your well-being; that isn’t good for anyone.  Counting upon Washington or the states to indefinitely deliver insurance to the impoverished and elderly is demeaning to recipients and wasteful to those who actually want to assist.

Changing the approach has worked before.  Despite hysteria that we’d be dooming the impoverished to devastation, welfare reform helped Washington be fiscally responsible for a few moments while performing a contemporary miracle, namely reigning in the government’s role.  What wasn’t to like?

Letting private charities, churches, and individuals help is far more compassionate than relying on the state to mend the infirm.  The liberal counterargument boils down to believing that humans won’t help humans in genuine need.  It’s why they seek to compel the government to provide for the needy: they don’t trust us.

Besides, our citizens have always proven they care.  We don’t merely offer help to those in dire situations: we fan open our wallets and demand the aggrieved take what’s needed.  That overwhelming tendency is displayed by how so many are doing everything possible to help Haitians.  Even broke Americans still reach for their credit cards or cell phones the moment after a natural disaster ends.

The same people will undoubtedly help those who need medical attention.  Americans provide plentiful assistance not because they’re forced to by an utterly expansive interpretation of the Constitution, or because Nancy Pelosi tells them to: it’s because residents do what’s right without governmental coercion.

A careful perusal of America’s rulebook will lead to one noting that citizens are left to do much on their own.  Yes, it’s beyond fantastic, and we should keep pursuing the original standard despite Washington’s nannyesque desires.  The right to be not bothered and take care of ourselves is far more obviously contained within the Constitution than is the idea that doctors and DMV workers should be classified the same way.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.