Axelrod gets it right!

A few weeks back I asked the question - What is the proper size of Government? Those that had challenged me to answer that question have been remarkably silent - Why might that be? On May 15th of this year David Axelrod, while on Morning Joe, is talking about the IRS scandal stated, "When you are President of the United States...part of being President there is so much beneath you that you cannot know because the government is so vast..."

Really! The President of the United States is the leader of our country. The one that is suppose to set the tone. Now I could go down the path that President Obama is the "smartest" President ever and all the rhetoric the Progressives have thrown out there about President Obama but I won't because it isn't germane to the topic at hand.

The fact that a Progressive finally admitted that the size of the Government is "so vast" that no one President cannot fully understand or be in the know of every detail of government is astounding. The IRS Scandal, which now appears to have over 60 agents involved, the AP/Fox New spying allegations, and the Benghazi cover up are just symptoms of a bigger problem. Soon we will have Obamacare that will be enforced by the IRS and is driving up insurance premiums.

Government is far too big! That mantra is not a battle cry for no government; rather it is the mantra for dialogue on the proper size and scope of government. In reading the Federalist Papers, again, it amazes me to the grasps of meaningful dialogue that our Founding Fathers painstakingly undertook to ensure that a repeat of the Continental Congress didn't take place while understanding that not all ills were able to be rectified to retain the Union. Since that point of the ratification of the United States Constitution, the concept of a limited Federal Government as eroding into the mammoth that David Axelrod is referring to when speaking on Morning Joe.

The downfall of any great society is the bureaucracy choke hold and the paranoia of the populous to curry favor with said bureaucracy. We approach that abyss. Recent scandal of the Obama administration are just a microcosm of the nature of the beast. Larger issues remain  - an example of that is the untamed animal known as the Federal Reserve. The Fed, as it is commonly referred to, is an un-elected body in charge of maintaining a secure and vibrant money supply that works inside of a star chamber. Soon we will have another un-elected board created out of the 7,000 plus page mega-bill known as Obamacare that will decide our future in regards to health care directives, procedures, coverage and, yes, penalties.

We have time to reverse this course and the river runs swift in the other direction, but it takes a collective voice unafraid of an IRS audit or retribution by the Government. Time is here for American's to reclaim the ideals of the Founding Fathers of a limited government, the opportunity to live free, and retain the government of the people for the people in tact. Attempt to think outside one's comfort zone and assess the scope and size of our current government. Our Founding Fathers risked far worse than being labeled a Tea Party, a Conservative, a Progressive, a Liberal, a Socialist to ensure that United States, as imperfect the start, would be a place that freedom reigned and Government played second fiddle.

New Jersey deficit fight may become Americans deficit fight

While sipping on some Chai Tea this morning and watching Morning Joe, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey was on explaining the cuts being made to balance the budget. An ad was also shown that is being run by the teachers union in New Jersey stating that cuts being proposed by Governor Christie will hurt the children in the state. Currently New Jersey is facing a $10.7 billion deficit and teachers are outraged with the proposed cuts to education. On Morning Joe, Governor Christie mentioned that part of his plan is to ask the teachers of New Jersey to freeze their pay for a year and contribute 1.5% of their salary toward health care. Currently the teachers in New Jersey pay nothing toward their health care benefits. Earlier in the year Governor Christie successfully implemented a similar 1.5% contribution from all state workers so why are the teachers balking?

Madeline Avery of Absegami High School said, "He could fix this problem by reinstating the millionaire's tax and restore the money Trenton has promised New Jersey schools" (http://www.nbc40.net/view_story.php?id=12844). David Rosen, legislative budget and finance officer, does not believe that reinstating the "millionaire's tax" will result in wealthy residents leaving the state and points to Maryland's 2008 tax increase on millionaires as proof (http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/04/new_jersey_analyst_says_rich_s.html). Can one make that assumption from state to state?

Many of you may be asking yourself why I am talking about budget deficits in New Jersey when I live in Minnesota. The reason for bringing this to light is that New Jersey has a Governor that is making tough decisions and is not looking for a Federal government handout. With other states, like California, teetering on the brink of Greece like trouble and looking for the Federal Government to intervene is alarming. Taxes are not the answer in every case. Residents of these states and Americans in general need to demand more accountability from our elected officials. Just as each of us understand that we cannot run our households with maxed out credit cards. When I was laid off last year, I didn't turn to the government to pay my bills or ask my neighbors to chip in extra to make my house payment. Instead, along with my wife, I sat down and looked at my savings, checking and budget to determine what changes were required.

Why do we not expect and demand the same from our government? Why do some feel the answer is just to tax the rich? States, to not fall like Greece, need their residents to buck up and demand more from their elected officials to be fiscally responsible. No longer can our States rely on the Federal Government for a bailout. That form of a bailout will impact every America as it will be States that are responsible to pay the bill. Or are we giving up on State Soverienty?

Recent Polling finds more than Neo-Con’s within the Tea Party Movement

For the past year I have heard to mantra of racism, bigotry, and right-wing extremist tied to the Tea Party movement. When I have asked those espousing the mantra about the source of their conclusions very few are from firsthand accounts of the Tea Party events. I witnessed one such Tea Party event last year in St. Paul and even blogged about it. While I agree with many points the Tea Party movement was pushing that day, I did not enlist as my independent spirit still struggles with party affiliation. This morning as the kids were reading themselves for school and while watching Morning Joe I came across and interesting article in the Los Angeles Times about the a recent poll conducted.

The LA Times reported that Tea Party members "are average Americans, 41% are Democrats, independents" (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/tea-party-obama.html). The ironic part of the poll results is that it runs contrary to the mantra being drummed up by the mass media and Progressives as to who "belongs" to the Tea Party. It was a series of three national phone surveys done yesterday that resulted in 17% of those polled identified themselves "part of the Tea Party movement."

Could it be true that the Tea Party is actually comprised of average Americans just fed up with the growing size of government, rising debt, the absence of fiscal responsibility in Washington, and the threat of increasing taxes? According to the LA Times article the breakdown was "28% independent, 17% Democrat and only 57% Republican." Gallup's Lydia Sadd wrote, "[Tea Party members] age, educational background, employment status, and race – Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large." What I am curious about is how many people polled on Sunday identified themselves as Coffee Party members. The fact that 41% of those identifying themselves part of the Tea Party movement raised concern for both major parties as the mid-term elections draw near. Could a third party emerge in November? Will the Tea Party folks be the swing group? Or will the demonizing of the Tea Party continue? Will they continue to be painted by the mantra even though more and more independent and Democrat minded folks are joining?

Fox News vs. White House: Sound Strategy?

Has the White House lost it? I mean, what do they hope to gain with their attack and continual denial of granting an interview with Fox News. This past Sunday White House Communications Director Anita Dunn commented about the rift between the White House and Fox News by saying, "What I think is fair to say about Fox – and certainly it's the way we view it – is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." Now I have been laid off since January and it has given me ample time to watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CSPAN, and other channels that make the claim to be reporting the news. What I have learned is that not one of these channels, with the exception of CSPAN, is unbiased in the programming. I have watched conservative pundits, with the exception of The Morning Joe, removed from MSNBC in favor for more White House friendly pundits.

Regardless of the White House view of the Fox News network the numbers do not lie. According to http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news the numbers of viewers for October 12, 2009 were for the major news channels:

Total Day
FNC – 1,385,000 viewers
CNN – 458,000 viewers
MSNBC –335,000 viewers
CNBC – 182,000 viewers
HLN –314,000 viewers

Prime Time
FNC – 2,453,000viewers
CNN— 563,000 viewers
MSNBC –683,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/112,000 viewers
HLN – 566,000 viewers

A few weeks back President Obama appeared on 5 Sunday morning shows and on David Letterman on Monday night. Not one appearance was on Fox News Channel. The goal of President Obama for his media blitz was to get his message out and debunk the myths and rumors being spread on his health care reform plans. One has to question the logic of the Obama Administration. Nielsen Rating data for the week ending October 11, 2009 for cable shows had The O'Reilly Factor Thursday show ranked 25^th. No other political talk show cracked the top 25.

With the ratings game going to Fox News and seemingly garnering the lion share of viewers, does it not make sense for Obama to appear on a channel that reaches the most number of people? Instead of granting the request of Fox News for interviews, the White House has starting using the daily blog to create a "Truth-O-Meter" to monitor lies said on Fox. Here is the statement on www.whitehouse.gov website: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest "Truth-O-Meter" feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network."

Really, the White House is wasting their with pundits on Fox News Channel!! Wolf Blitzer last Sunday asked David Gergen on CNN about the White House's use of the blog strategy. David Gergen warned, "It's a risky strategy and it's not one that I would advcate. If you are going to get personal against the media you're going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen, and you're going to find that you are almost going to draw viewers to people you are attacking. You build them up is some ways, you give them stature." Bingo!!! Gergen hits the nail on the head with his assessment.

By singling out one media outlet as the White House is doing they are driving up their ratings and giving them legitimacy. Now the entire channel is not filled with pundits like Glenn Beck just as MSNBC is not riddled with pundits like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow. Anita Dunn while on CNN's "Reliabe Sources" complained the coverage Fox News had during the Presidential compaign ignored stories like the "financial collapse" instead featured stories that focused on "a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN."

Granted Bill Ayers has not blown anything up or killed any cops lately; however he still contends that he wished they, Weatherman Underground, had done more. ACORN has seen their funding stripped, Census activities revoked, and is in the middle of a video scandal involving giving advise to a pimp and prostitute on housing. The Pew Research Center (an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization) tracked campaign stories during the 2008 Presidentail election. It found that Fox News showed 40% negative stories on Obama as well as 40% on Republican candidate Sen. McCain. Over at CNN the contrast was a 22-point difference with 39% negative stories on Obama and 61% negative stories on McCain. Then we have MSNBC that ran only 14% negative stories on Obama while running 73% negatiave stories on McCain.

Back to my original question: Has the White House lost it?

President Obama's 'Stupidly' missed a chance to foster race relations

President Obama said during his nationally televised press conference that “I think it’s fair to say number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately and that’s just a fact.” Okay Mr. President let’s look at the facts.

First, a neighbor called in to Cambridge Police that two men were breaking in to her neighbor’s house.

Second, an officer of Cambridge Police department responded to house of the alleged break in.

Third, the owner of the home was arrested after becoming disruptive and verbally abusive.

Since the story broke, it has become difficult for people to divorce emotion and the facts of the situation that took place at Harvard. No one argues the facts, historically speaking, that racial profile has been more extensive of black than white people. Does that really apply in this situation? Had Mr. Gates not been a scholar at Harvard would anyone really cared?

The fact is that Mr. Gates has a lot of prominent friends, including President Obama, and feels privileged to the point that allows him to verbally assault, according to the police report, an officer of the law. On Morning Joe this morning Mika Brzezinski brought up the question, “Who made it about race first?” The answer may never be known. Mr. Gates has spent his life’s work discussing race relations and Sgt. Crowley teaches fellow officers on how to avoid racial profiling; a perfect storm.

The perfect storm was made more volatile with President Obama calling the actions by Sgt. Crowley “stupidly” when Sgt. Crowley’s training, absence of color, led him to arrest Mr. Gates. After the President Obama’s press conference he admitted that he didn’t have all the facts in the case prior to make the statements he did during the press conference. This raises a lot of questions in regards to other matters with the President but that is a different blog entry. Why then, Mr. President, would you respond in the manner you did if you did not know all the facts?

A takeaway from the fallout of Mr. Gates arrest is that America is not ready for a robust, honest, and respectful conversation of race relations. Emotions, on all sides, run too deep for Americans to hold court on race relations. Regardless, the nature of conversation, education, and potential legislation (although we can all agree that you cannot legislate away racism) takes place going forward lacks sustainability due to a lack of exchange at the grass roots level.

Rev. Jesse Jackson did hit upon it, on Morning Meeting, when saying the “bigger question of racial profiling… is structural inequality”. By structural inequality, Rev. Jackson was eluding to the uneven playing field that exists within the job, housing, and community level. Rev. Jackson went onto suggest that Americans “use this as a teachable movement and go beyond the Gates/Crowley case.” I agree with Rev. Jackson on this point.

To achieve a sustainable teachable movement, Americans need to be on a level playing field. To achieve the level playing field it is time to repeal affirmative action. With affirmative action in place, America re-affirms the concept of second class citizens. In order for America to move forward on race relations, we need to bury the hatchet and embrace our similarities and differences. All of this starts at the grass root level. Politicians, actors, athletes or scholars can debate it but it will have no basis if average citizens do not embrace the notion. As I said a few days back in my blog, had Mr. Gates been more known with his neighbors the entire embarrassing situation could have been avoided. Get out of the house and meet your neighbors.

As one walks, rides, or travels around town, take a moment to say “Hi, how are things?” to your neighbors. For all those that live in my hamlet, and further away, I extend an open invitation to stop by. Nearly every Friday during the warmer months we have a bon fire, weather permitting, where several neighbors come to discuss the week. Swing on by, even if it’s for two minutes, to say “Hi” and enjoy the conversation. Bottom line, no matter where one lives, is to get out and meet your neighbors. The approach will assist in breaking down perceived notions of race, gender, religious, and sexual orientations.

Is real Journalism dead?

What happened to journalism in America? I understand that with our 24/7 news cycle more pressure is on the various news sources to retain viewership. As I sit here looking for a job, I have the television on in the background. A typical day starts with Morning Joe on MSNBC then a switch to CNN around 11 am. After lunch, I turn the channel back to MSNBC to watch Press Secretary Robert Gibbs daily briefings. All the while I am reading about 10 websites – newspaper, blogs, and other – in my attempt to gain a greater understanding of the issues of the day.

These so-called news programs need to be called out. Newspapers need to be called out. They are all yellow journalists. No longer does the Woodward/Bernstein investigative reporting exist in America. Journalists, mainly those on television, are more in the business to expand their own ego. Why cannot the 24/7 news cycle (MSNBC, CNN, and Fox) report the news without the side commentary or slant of those reporting the news.

The late concept in the electronic media is the aligning with political ideologies. We have MSNBC in with liberals while Fox is aligned with conservatives. The news has always had a bias and rarely do they have a columnist or a host that runs the middle ground. This was obvious during the historic Presidential election of 2008.

In some backroom agreement the major hitters in the industry agreed to put in depth reporting of Sen. Obama on the back burner. The Fox channel was one of a few outlets that tried to vet all candidates properly. The trouble is they were vilified as a right-wing extreme channel due to their intense scrutiny of Sen. Obama. I wonder though if the perception of intense scrutiny was a result of other major news outlets were ignoring virtually everything questionable about Sen. Obama’s past.

It was during the 2008 Presidential election process that journalism fell off the cliff. The climb back to reporting the news without bias may never come. It is truly sad that our country has succumbed to the journalist hacks in the blogosphere that pass themselves off as news reporters. When will America demand better unbiased reporting?