My morning routine was more interesting than usual the other day.  It began during the commute when my seven year-old came up with an idea.
“Dad, you know what”?  Where this irrepressibility comes from I’ll never know.
"What honey”? Says I, still only partially caffeinated.
“You know all those water parks”? 
“Yeah, what about ‘em”? 
“I think if they didn’t charge so much, more people would come.”

Ah, from the mouths of babes.  Presented the opportunity to explain the economic theory of price elasticity as it relates to household discretionary entertainment budgets, in terms that seven year-old can understand, I just knew it was going to be a great day.  Feh, I don’t need no stinkin’ caffeine!  Thing is, when all was said and done she actually got it.  This one scares me.  Did I mention she was seven?  I woke her brother and sister up when we got to school, noting it odd in that they don’t normally fall asleep on the short drive. 

So I’m at the health club working the elliptical, listening to music on the mp3, and yet another political ad infects one of the flat screen televisions, no sound, just images.  The script for the hearing impaired was scrolling across the bottom of the screen and I catch this: “Russ Feingold will preserve jobs in Wisconsin” or somesuch.  Whatever.  But, I think about it a bit and, being the curious sort, I ask myself, being there alone in my little mp3 world I am my only company after all, and I say, “hey self, wouldn’t you think if Feingold could do that he actually might have in the last eighteen years?”  Self didn’t respond, recognizing this as more of a rhetorical question. Old self can be a taciturn cuss at times.    
 
My point here is not to beat up on Feingold (but if you like that sort of thing you will probably enjoy this). Fact is, I feel bad for Feingold because he was rendered a horrible disservice in the form of some lame-ass verbiage masquerading as a message.  It is strictly coincidence that the poster boy for political careerism happened across my visual landscape during the formulation of my thesis, which is this: the information explosion spawned by the internet is changing politics to a degree unprecedented in U.S. history, even more, way more, than when the introduction of TV catapulted JFK into the White House. 

But, to quote domestic goddess and felon Martha Stewart, it’s a good thing. We are still in the early stages of the transition. Considering the nominal growth in this young century so far, and how it has already precipitated a tectonic shift in the political debate, one can only imagine what it will look like when it reaches critical mass.  I recommend seat belts, and ear plugs may be a good idea too, because the screech of stuck pigs is sure to be deafening.   

Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, watching a 30 second or one minute TV ad to learn about a candidate is about as instructive as watching a Christmas tree to learn about religion, and not nearly as pretty.  So you have to ask, if a seven year old can grasp a basic economic concept in a couple of minutes, why do political media mavens insist on spewing such nonsensical drivel?  Though we try to ignore the obvious sometimes, it just might be that they really do think voters are dumber than a second grader. I am open to other possibilities, but bear me out.  

I sincerely hope this is not wishful thinking but I sense a growing flippancy toward political ads in general.  The written word has already eclipsd traditional media on the internet, and as video becomes more prevalent, the usefulness of broadcast television will continue to erode.  Some big dots in the larger political debate are becoming more apparent, and their connection inevitable.  The only people who find this frightening are the political consultants compensated by a percentage of airtime purchased. Oh well. If these are the same people responsible for ad copy like the Feingold ad, that’s a good thing too. Cue the pigsticker.   

Dots?  First, new media is unencumbered by prepackaged time segments, schedules, writing style constraints, and political correctness.  The flexibility of expression lends itself better to the presentation of complex ideas. The second is that news consumers have more control of their news consumption, due not only to the increase in supply, but also the previously unavailable control of when to consume.  The third is they are now equipped to be their own quality control monitors.  Now, when a consumer’s inner BS alarm goes off, they are only a few keystrokes away from verification.  The fourth, and probably the most debilitating, and fatal if we are lucky, to old media, is that traditional media offers none of these features.

Connection? The more the dots above are recognized the more folks will realize that the overly simplified political messages we’ve been force - fed for years represents a truly remarkable trifecta of inferiority; it contorts the issues, belies its purported seriousness, and insults its intended audience. No wonder media stocks are plummeting and media employment is at a 15 year low.  

Because it is the only way it fits the format, marketing and packaging candidates like breakfast cereal in 30 second or one-minute sound bites has to be oversimplified. Unfortunately, name-calling, negative innuendo, and character attacks is about as simple as it gets.  Subsequently we are deluged with attack ads made up of selectively dissected, dissembled, out of context, and rearranged message bits,mostly because the mix is more format friendly.  Both sides produce this garbage, so neither is innocent. I am sure my liberal friends have noticed the same thing from their angle.

With contents like that why should voters give any more thought to a candidate than they would their breakfast cereal, especially when they know the messenger could have provided much more intellectually nourishing contents, had they only chosen a better package?  As more news consumers become accustomed to the vastly superior alternative medium, more will cast a skeptical eye on campaigns that decides to use a medium that treats them like idiots. So, to a point, the media really is the message. Somewhere Marshall McLuhan nods .   

The growing and unstoppable avalanche of alternative information unleashed by the internet has enabled countless keyboard activists to be their own bullshit detectors and town criers.  This phenomena was cleverly coined an Army of Davids by the author of the same-named book, uber-blogger Glen Reynolds at Instapundit . Not subject to agenda driven editors this rabble is free to spout and shout whatever they want, the only editing being their own.  But, it is buttressed by the knowledge that their own bullshit can be just as easily detected and called out by their readers, and each other. The cleansing action of open competition comes into play.  The old, commercial driven, content-controlling news institution is getting it's ass kicked by a new, vibrant, organic, small d democratic, multi-tentacled upstart. It's a good thing. 

No one is claiming it’s pretty, or that it might become so.  Remember, at least part of the demise of the old school is a suspicion of its neat and tidy packaging.  To hell with the package, it’s the contents that matter. We should all welcome the expansion of free speech, brought about by the grass roots expansion of free press, brought about by the expansion of information delivery, brought about by the Internet. These are all good things. 

We are in an exciting, but in many ways unsettling, time.  As a tool for shining the light of transparency into the dark corners of our power structure, this one has a cajillion candlepower capacity.  Just imagine the possibilities when dialed up to full brightness.  The lack of precedence, to be sure, can be unnerving, scary even, but I submit a good portion of that discomfort is bourn of our conditioned reliance on a previously trustworthy media monolith.

The information explosion is prying the heretofore-monopolized narrative from the hands of that monolith, resulting in a commensurate decrease of its influence.  That is almost as gratifying as the increase in freedom itself.  But hey, what’s the fun in picking sides if you can't indulge in a little schadenfruede ? Seeing the light intensity scamper corrupt cockroaches in the process is just bonus.
     
I blame Gore, internet inventor.
 

This Guy...



From my vantage point Scott Walker has few peers in terms of walking the talk when it comes to campaign promises versus actual governing.  But he has an excellent mentor, trailblazer, and advocate in the person of Chris Christie who is cut of the same cloth.  The idea that he can pull it off in deep deep blue New Jersey makes the prospect of a Governor Walker getting it done in purple Wisconsin all the brighter.  He had 37 invitations from various campaigns around the country, and hand-picked Wisconsin to help Walker. The thank you letter below was hand delivered earlier today.  


HT/Photos courtesy Kevin Hanley, CHD photo.com


To: The Honorable Chris Christie
55th Governor of the State of New Jersey

Dear Governor Christie,

On behalf of myself, many readers, fellow cheeseheads, and countless denizens of flyover country, I cannot describe how it so gladdens this conservative heart to witness the Governor of one our founding colonies leading the charge in our battle to restore the first principles on which this awesome country was founded.   Thank you good sir.

Though a much younger state, we in Wisconsin have a rightful pride in our history of innovation, our impressive “first” list includes:  gas outboard boat motor, hydroelectric damn, typewriter, gas-powered tractor, four-wheel-drive automobile, kindergarten, electric garbage disposal, and oh yeah …

…the Republican party.

On the other hand, our famous zeal for innovation has also yielded some real turkeys, Progressivism foremost among them.  Sorry about that, but hey, no one bats a thousand, and we’re working on it.  And again, we appreciate your help.

In spite of that that historical stain, we can take some solace in the fact that one of it’s co-founders, former Wisconsin Governor and U.S. Senator, Robert Lafollette, after finally realizing the Progressive party could never work, returned to his original political home, the Republican party.

So in that respect, the case could be made, that Wisconsin, even if only by accident, is the also birthplace of the Big Tent theory.  Think about it, could a tent get any bigger than to accommodate the diversity ranging from “Fightin” Bob to “Tailgunner” Joe?  Well even if it could, you won’t find it by looking leftward.

So keep up the good fight Governor Christie, and never mind, and maybe even take some motivation from, the inevitable smears that will continue to come your way. After all, the repeated display of your opponent’s inability to offer a cogent rebuttal only makes your argument stronger.

Keep at it Governor Christie, and you just may end up with the nickname guaranteed to further inspire your supporters and instill even more fear into the hearts of your detractors. 

Keep winning the good fight and come 2012 your nickname might well be The BIG Answer    

All the best and continued success,

Frank Byrne

a.k.a. the Murmrur
editor and Publisher, heartlandmurmurs.com    

I whine because I care!  Good one.  Sounds like a bumper sticker in the making.

My abortion stance: My point, essentially, is that, adhering to the conservative principle of minimal government intrusion, someone else's lifestyle choices are none of my business, so I shouldn't be forced to pay for their mistakes, especially in view of the multiple options for preventability. Conversely then, using my money to pay for them makes it my business. 

Let's remember after all, the whole Roe/Wade decision hinged mostly on privacy.  How can that possibly be consistent with using public funds?  Coherency! where are you? 

Then there's the religious angle.  This conservative believes the Government  is constitutionally required to be neutral on religion, which would, applied logically, mean it is also required not to be anti-religion.  Pardon the double negative.  It doesn't apply to me personally because I am not religious and, technically, as a pro-choicer, I am on the same side as much, if not all, of the left on the abortion issue at the most basic level,legal/illegal.  But, could you not see how people who are religious are justified in feeling tax funded abortions violates that neutrality? - - or at the very least, holding this view does not make them a wild-eyed theocratic extremist? 

On the Euro thing, Bueller, anyone? fair but cogent question; do you think the socialist welfare states in Europe would have been nearly as well off, which is actuarially arguable, for so long had we not covered their defense expenses for the last 60 years?

Not seeking to convert, only to understand....

BEFORE










AFTER

Dear Readers,
Today marks the 9th anniversary of the worst violence ever visited on U.S. soil. The event had me so blown away that as a form of self therapy I attempted to organize my thoughts and put my feelings into words. My children were very young at the time, one as yet unborn in fact, and knowing this would most likely be the historic catastrophe of their lifetimes, if they were lucky, I wanted to capture my sentiments contemporaneously during this historic tumult. 

The event was the event.  It happened and there was/is no going back.  Though it most certainly caught everyone off guard, I think today most of us recognize this was not the beginning, but more a continuation, of a war in which we hadn't bothered to engage.  We went immediately from whether, to how, and the debate hasn't stopped since. 

I pondered about how I would describe the response to this event to my grand children someday, and about what their reaction would be, a sincere thank you, or an incredulous what the hell were you thinking?  The master mind of the attack is still at large, internal politics are as nasty as ever, and the response so prolonged it has become institutionalized unto itself.  Hence, the answer to the above question is in progress.      

The following essay was a letter sent to all my e-mail friends at the time.  The reaction varied widely from a big booyah to being accused of warmongering, though in less pleasant terms.   The bold italics are updated reflections. 




                                                                      Oh That it Could Be So Simple 
                                                                                       Sept. 18, 2001

Recent poles show a groundswell of support for a military response to the recent atrocities in New York and Washington DC. Oh that it could be so simple. If only this could be handled like swatting an annoying bug. Unfortunately, this particular bug is viral and if there is a cure it will be eventual rather than swift. I am afraid my four-year old son will reach recruitment age before this is over.

The unity demonstrated in the immediate aftermath though sweet, unfortunately, was very short-lived.  Within days, and still today, those who questioned Bush's legitimacy as President because of the Florida recount fiasco changed their attacks to his competency, many even accusing him of engineering the entire event.  The terror virus, though initially weakened perhaps, thrives to this day, the most recent and dangerous incarnation being American born and raised jihadists roaming freely among us. My son is now 13, 5 years away from service eligibility.

In Madison and other liberal strongholds they're organizing peace rallies. We can’t blame the students. Society has traditionally afforded them this time for enlightenment and to ponder various ideologies to form their worldview. If the events of September 11 didn't do it, perhaps the body bags of their non-student contemporaries will help them see the difference between the world we have and the world we want. Rally to your bleeding hearts content but ignoring reality will not help. Our soft underbelly is those without the stomach to respond with force. If that mentality prevails we might as well replace Old Glory with a white flag.
 
Perhaps the bleeding hearts reference was a bit gratuitous but he point here is that grown-ups were obligated to respond in proportion to the event and not be distracted or swayed by inexperienced dissidents.  I think my opinion that to not respond forcefully would be tantamount to surrender was wide spread.

They are in school to learn so let’s urge them to study the lessons of contemporary history. The original World Trade Center bombing was our wake up call and the attack on the USS Cole was a shot across the bow, though deliberately low. The tepid responses to those events brought us the events of September 11. The painfully clear lesson is that our unwillingness to render harsh consequences escalates terrorism. Given this lesson it is easy to see why this enemy considers us a paper tiger.
 
This speaks to the notion above, a recognition that the war we were about to begin already started without us, and that past responses were not only inadequate but perpetuated the continuation.  

If, like many believe, this is an attack on our national psyche, it is not paranoid but practical to believe that this enemy is relying on the pacifist movement as an unwitting collaborator. It is also prudent to note that both targets may well have been chosen because they were icons of conservatism, capitalism and military might.

This was a plea to the left to consider the possibility they were being baited into complicity, and that particularly divisive targets were chosen to validate their inherent distrust in militarism and capitalism.   

 At the very least, a deepened political chasm works to their advantage because divisive rhetoric compromises our unity and diffuses our focus. Right wing nut Jerry Falwell’s claim that we deserved this because of God’s displeasure is no less damaging than left wing nut Michael Moore’s open question, “why bomb the blue states, they didn’t vote for Bush”? For the good of the country this brand of rhetorical rubbish should be shelved until we regain the luxury of debating relatively petty concerns like social security.

For the time being we have bigger fish to fry. Liberals should note that their fear of reckless retaliation decreases with each passing day and new coalition ally. Conservatives should not confuse patience with a lack of resolve.

Bush was still pretty new on the job.  No one knew what his response would be and there were justifiable fears his stereotype as a cowboy would be proven.  In retrospect I don't think anything was done either recklessly or in haste.  Nor do I believe a President Gore would have done much differently.  

 We have no quarrel with the majority of Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, but at what point do we hold the citizenry of a country accountable for the actions of their government? Oh that it could be so simple to carpet bomb terrorism out of existence.

We need the maturity to accept that difficult problems do not have easy solutions and keep our obsession with instant gratification from justifying excessive force. It was the killing of innocent people that awakened this country from the dreamy slumber of complacency and to respond in kind would make matters worse. More of the same would help the recruitment of brainwashed zealots and alienate more countries.
 
The first sentence stands, but whether this advice was followed is open to debate. As for the use of force it seems we are damned by friend and foe alike regardless our specific tactics, and to some any force is excessive.  The admonishment was to urge caution and precision to minimize political backlash, and most importantly, not be like them.

Conversely, we cannot let the fear of a tarnished reputation compromise our resolve. Our response must be fierce but measured, lethal but precise. Anything less would be tantamount to surrender and an invitation for more. Terrorism unanswered makes it perpetual and allowing it to continue is equally immoral.
 
The last conclusion; no response was not an option, and our moral obligation was, and is, to take the threat seriously and try to vanquish it as quickly and humanely as possible, regardless the potential damage to our world standing. The war we joined late had elevated to a kill-or-be-killed scenario on a large scale.  Our failure to acknowledge it as such and proceed accordingly is not only what let it get out of hand in the first place but would also guarantee its continuation.  


(Emphasis mine September 11, 2010)


Ground zero in the foreground, and the USS New York, motto "Never Forget" constructed largely from scrap salvaged from the twin towers in the background.

The Case Against Senator Feingold
Frank Byrne – citizen, www.heartlandmurmurs.com

The people must remain ever vigilant against tyrants masquerading as public servants.
-George Washington

In his entire 18-year Senate career the only substantive legislation to his name, McCain - Feingold campaign finance reform, did not pass constitutional muster.  This assault on the first amendment was based on the ridiculous idea that limiting campaign donations would not limit speech.  For the most part Wisconsinites like the free speech part of the first amendment.  Feingold should be replaced for betraying of his oath to protect and defend the constitution.

                                                                                         

Fundamentals:
A U.S. Representative represents a portion of the population geographically.  A Senator represents the entire State.  One measurement of a Senator‘s effectiveness is the ratio of how many federal dollars sent to Washington are returned to their state. Currently Wisconsin ranks 47th of the 50 states in federal dollars returned.  According to taxfoundation.org the highest rank Wisconsin ever reached under Feingold’s watch is 37th back in 2000.  In all but 3 of his 18 years Wisconsin has been among the top ten biggest saps.  One would have no choice but to conclude this measure is of little priority to our Senator Feingold, or if it is he is painfully ineffective at correcting the trend. 

Education:
As the birthplace of both Kindergarten and Head Start, Wisconsin has a well earned reputation for making education a top priority.  You could never tell that by looking at the Milwaukee Public School system where for years the achievement gap between the 4th and 8th grade minorities has lagged behind the rest of the country and for the last two years ranking 50th of all states.  The high school graduation percentage is somewhere in the 30’s year after year after year.  When a consistently devoted and generous donor sector*, education, is so heavily invested in maintaining the status quo, we learned what to expect from a political careerist Democrat Senator in terms of genuine education reform  - - absolutely nothing - - and we got it.  (*source: opensecrets.org)
   

Credentials:
His Ivy League and Rhodes education is certainly respectable, even though the phrase “shall not be infringed” was apparently beyond his grasp on that campaign finance thing, casting a tinge of doubt on the quality of those degrees.  Seems to me your average Wisconsin native coming out of one our fine state schools could have managed that.  Much of Wisconsin, after all, is still a place where you are just as likely to be judged favorably by the calluses on your hands as by the letters after your name.
 

The company one keeps:



The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.
-Thomas Jefferson

If you were to put Feingold’s resume’, or voting record for that matter, anonymously, in front of a typical Wisconsin voter and ask them to guess whether he was from the Midwest or the Northeast, 10 of 10 would guess the latter.

When it really matters he is a solid lefty voter right along the party line.  Liberal interest group Common Cause, along with more left, self-proclaimed “radical” even, progressive netrootsalliance.org, both gave Feingold a 100% ranking. 

Judging someone by the company they keep, as grandmas the world over are correct to remind us, is fair, and in this case very telling; among other nitrite 100%ers are such liberal luminaries as Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Emanuel Cleaver of Georgia. Also of note is that by their standards at least, Feingold is further left than Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Charles Schumer.

All well and good, and believe me, I have many friends who see this as a positive, but as a reality test, compare the company he keeps legislatively to your version of a typical Wisconsinite. Unless you are a union leader, college professor, or trial lawyer, you get my point.  There is a lot more to being from Wisconsin than maintaining a local address, and being from here doesn’t necessarily make you one of us.

Here are some of Feingold’s rankings by various interest groups, courtesy project vote smart:
 
ACORN 100%
ACLU 100%
NARAL 100%
NAACP 90%
National Education Association A
SEIU 100%
ASCFME 100%
AFL CIO 94%
Alliance for Worker Freedom 0%
National Latino Congress 100% 
National Association of Government Contractors 100%
Business - Industry PAC 0%
Consumer Alliance for Energy Security 0%
Chamber of Commerce 24% lifetime
Military Officers Association 0%
National Association of Manufacturers 8%
Citizens Against Government Waste 40% National Taxpayer Union 23%
National Gun Owners Association F-
National Retail Federation 0%
National Restaurant Association 28%
National Right to Life 0%
English First 0%
American Conservative Union 13%  
National Council of LaRaza 100% 

(source www.votesmart.org)

Busting the maverick myth:
Then there’s the “maverick” canard.  American Heritage Dictionary defines maverick as follows:

NOUN:  One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter.
ADJECTIVE:  Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence: maverick politicians; a maverick decision.

This brings to mind another, more accurate, definition:
po·seur:
NOUN:  One who affects a particular attribute, attitude, or identity to impress or influence others.

Wisconsin folks know shinola from that other stuff and, unlike the Oxford preppie; many of us have actually stepped in it once in our lifetime. Feingold’s highly touted maverickocity serves only to bolster his moderate claims, but never, not so amazingly, seem to be of any consequence. Why, it’s almost as if by calculation! 

Feingold never fails to remind us of votes against his party, once the camera time and a TV interviews are lined up, but also never fails to omit the inconvenient fact that his vote had absolutely no bearing on the outcome.  A vote against your caucus takes courage only if it can affect the result, otherwise it’s nothing more than cowardly political posturing, a specialty perfected by Feingold.

The recent Finance law is a perfect case in point.  As soon as there were enough Republican votes to offset his, he voted against it.  Once assured his vote had no bearing on the result he, with Pavlovian predictability, voted to prove himself a maverick, like he always does. It’s the same thing on the Clinton impeachment vote, and last year’s bailout package. 

Seriously, does anyone actually believe Mr. Feingold had the cajones to cast the deciding vote, against his party, on any of these issues?  Please.  They were all free, maverick-imaging votes and utterly devoid of impact. The only time Feingold has the courage to be a maverick is when it’s a done deal. He only does it to placate the gullible when he runs away from the left, pretending to be a moderate, every six years.

Again, as far as it goes, I don’t mind a progressive voting with these folks routinely. It’s what I expect; it’s voting his conscience, and what they do.  What I do mind is insulting his constituency’s intelligence by posing as some kind of moderate come election time.  I only wonder whether his assumption that we are a bunch of rube idiots is more the result of the elite education, or a career in politics.  Either way, it isn’t very Wisconsin like.

The other conundrum is how allegedly brilliant liberals like Feingold who so passionately pursue their leftwing agenda during their term, never formulate a compelling argument to advocate their true governing philosophy to persuade voters.  I guess it’s over our heads, that, or he is smart enough to know it would never sell.    

Abortion:
Sorry, yeah, abortion, this, like all elections since 1973 is about abortion.  As a limited pro-choicer I part company with many conservative allies in this regard. It is, unfortunately, settled law, though questionably established at best, and as such it needs to be dealt with as the political reality it is. Me? Until someone convinces me that government jurisdiction over the collective uteri of the entire female population is not the most egregious example of government intrusion ever I will remain pro-choice, on that conservative principle.

Even though in a strict sense I might side with Russ Feingold on the yes or no part of the abortion issue, we are as far apart on the same side of the spectrum as we can be.  I hold that the first choice in pro-choice should be life, and just as importantly, none of my taxes are used to fund abortion. My gut tells me I am more aligned with the majority of Wisconsin on this issue than Feingold. 

Anyone examining Russ Feingold’s track record on the abortion issue could only conclude his stance is not pro-choice but pro-abortion.  It is so extreme that to call it infanticide light would be fair and accurate.  He has been an ardent supporter of late term abortions, arguably the most heinous and gruesome medical procedure ever devised by mankind, voting against its prohibition 7 times. (source: www.votesmart.org)

But nothing I can describe about Feingold’s extreme position on abortion could be more powerful than his own words from a Senate floor debate on late term abortion.  Read it for yourself:

Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Sen. Feingold: I will.

Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out -- that the baby was completely delivered -- would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you've stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

So there you have it.  Given the opportunity to stand for life and protect a newborn Feingold opted to dodge the question.  That, or in the view of Senator Feingold even a full term human being, for the crime of having accidentally survived a late term abortion, should be denied government protection, or life.  One wonders, does the Senator envision any circumstance in which the government is obligated to protect its citizens, even if it is only a newborn baby, or does it all depend on whatever the biggest campaign donors decide?

I have endeavored here to build case against keeping Senator Feingold as our Senator.  Admittedly I have a right of center point of view.  Even so, I think if you consider the track record honestly you will find ample reasons to show him the door and let someone else go to work on our behalf. Perhaps even more importantly though, I also hope to have shown that while there is no denying Feingold represents Wisconsin, he is a whole world away from being a representative sample of Wisconsin.

Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents, as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens.
-George Mason

Amen

                                                            IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
 
— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

It seems so much of what was assumed to be obvious, that free enterprize and success based on merit is a morally superior economic system for example, no longer gets the institutional reinforcement it once enjoyed, and has been replaced by the counter argument.  Commenters here tend to substantiate that observation in mentioning the gaps in their public education.   Doc Zero's dedication to repopularizing first principles helps fill that gap and I applaud and share it.  The filling of those gaps is the role being filled by the alternative media and it is having a positive affect.  Notice I didn't say it was pretty, quite the contrary.

The success of the left came from a heretofore prolonged monopolistic control of the narrative.  Corporate taxes, aren't on the average voters radar precisely because the left has successfully posited, incorrectly, that corporate taxes do not affect the average consumer. (How they can justify taxing corporations to kingdom come while trying to limit their freedom of expression via political donations is one of myriad left/liberal incoherencies that somehow remain largely unchallenged in the public debate. But that is a whole different issue)  To me, because I think, the incoherency is obvious with a capital O.   

The debate therefore, should not be about getting liberals to think, as that labyrinth of aforementioned incoherencies has metastasized into a groupthink impenetrable by logic.  So I agree attempts at said penetration are indeed a waste of time and effort.  That said, a strong consistent effort should be aimed at self proclaimed moderates, focusing primarily at getting them to think, period.   The effort spent there, I believe, would be much more fruitful than preaching to the hopelessly nonconvertible.  That effort will facilitate an open debate where truth and logic are allowed as opposed to the fringy lib/left screed where those elements, though never really explained, are foregone conclusions.  Instapunk's final "obviousness" captures it perfectly.   

I've tried reasoning with a liberal.  I've tried reasoning with a brick wall.  The latter makes more sense every time.  You are on the right track Doc, no pun intended, arguing to assuage an attitude is very different than arguing against a set of attitudes.   The open re-examination of first principles, debateable on their own merits, has been an untapped product in the marketplace of ideas for far too long.  I'm not sure Al Gore was counting on this when he invented the internets, but bless his carbon trading billionaire heart for accidently providing the forum.

Keep up the good work.

Looks like it's on me to come up with a list of left/lib incoherencies to throw into the mix.  Could use some reader input on this.....

UPDATE:  No sooner do I make the point that arguing with liberals is pointless than something like this proves it. Liberals Accuse Tea Partiers of Role in Failed Times Square Car Bomb Attack   How can you argue with someone who thinks like this, or more to the previous point, why bother?