John Boehner Concedes Ideological Dissonance

You've got to hand it to the minority house leader, John Boehner, who yesterday made an interesting concession on Meet The Press even though I don't think he meant to. In essence he conceded the U.S. electorate in 2008 wanted a liberal agenda so they chose the "most liberal Senator" in the United States Senate:

"The president is -- well, he was the most liberal member of the United States Senate. You don't get there by accident. And if you look at the policies that we've seen over the course of this year from the administration and his Democratic colleagues in Congress, they're all these leftist proposals."

These "leftist" proposals he's refering to is exactly what Mr. Obama ran on: health care reform, job initiative legislation, reinvestment in our infrasctructure, and etc. These programs requires government spending. Then he goes on with yet another point undercutting his own position:

"Leadership is about standing on your principle and, and opposing those policies that, that we believe are bad for the country. But leadership is also standing up and offering what we think is a better solution."

Exactly. That's what Barack Obama did: he ran on principle and opposed policies he thought were bad for the country in 2008 and the country chose his ideas. As for President Obama being the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate I think Al Franken, Russ Feingold, and the late Ted Kennedy (who was alive when the President was running) would out flank the President on that matter.

The point here is that Boehner in a typical talking head Sunday whine wanted to claim that the opposition is trying to implement a "liberal agenda." Well if he believes his own rhetoric then the voting public wanted just that over what he and his colleagues were offering. That debate is over Mr. Minority leader. Continuing to say "no" to every initiative from the opposing party only makes you look even further out of touch with the country.

A Decade With Few Intact Dignities

Is it me or isn't it fairly obvious that the only three American politicians to emerge from the first decade of the millennium with their dignities intact happen to be Democrats? In order they form a formidable trio: Al Gore, Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy. As for what the next decade holds in store for the Nobel laureate Al Gore, President Obama, and the legacy of Edward Kennedy that's to be seen. In the next decade their work is cut out for them as it follows what has to be one of the most disappointing decades in American history since the 1850's where convulsive and extremist political actions and a civil war nearly led us to our demise as a country.

When the mainstream media decided in the first Presidential debate of 2000 that Al Gore's sigh(s) determined the suitability of who would make a better President it turned out the joke was on the voters. Its as if Bush was representative of all the intrusive advertising practices of the last fifty years that Madison Ave. could dream up was forced upon us with an election result that wasn't quite what it seemed. Even though most of us didn't buy the bill of goods that was being marketed to us we still wound up with the lemon. Buyer's remorse for those who bought into the product's promises got the true meaning of what a lemon tastes like. Especially the families of the military who's loved ones were either killed or maimed. As for the Nobel Laureate Al Gore it turns out that he was as advertised: a deliberate intellectual who wasn't the guy you wanted to have a beer with but the guy you wanted running the country. Though the MSM kept pushing the "who would you rather have a brew with" meme as a criteria selection for the leader of the free world I thought it was an odd theme to run with since the guys I do have beers with on occasion would be the very individuals I wouldn't want anywhere near running a government. I'm still looking forward to his contributions for the next decade.

President Obama, who rolled into office with a wagon load of promise still has a long road to travel. Though he was not my first candidate of choice for 2008 I still felt I was casting a vote for the things I was hoping he would do, not for things I was certain he wouldn't do. I am very disappointed so far with his handling of health care reform and his, to date, awkward and lumbering governing abilities. Hopefully, he will regain the graceful stride he showed during the campaign and give me a promising reason to vote for him again instead of casting a vote for for the things I'm sure he won't do.

The legacy of Edward Kennedy is something that will seemingly take care of itself despite the failure of Democrats to enact the reforms Ted Kennedy envisioned. He was the last of a dynasty that literally gave their lives for what they believed.

We need more to hope for than intact dignities. Let's hope the next decade brings it to us.