You're old enough to remember the Carter administration. While I'm sure that conservatives back then wanted Jimmy's policies to fail, I don't think that even the most rabid Republicans wanted stagflation & the hostage crisis to happen. They happened anyway, because Carter himself was a failure. If Obama turns out to be a black Jimmy Carter, then no amount of positive brain-waves sent his way from Patterico & company will help. And this time around, the world is perched on the precipice of the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression, & the ayatollahs will have nukes.

Good will towards Obama shouldn't blind you to the fact that the relentless downward spiral of the stock market since he took office represents a massive vote of non-confidence in him & his administration by over a 100 million investors, big & small. No wonder he wants to talk about Rush Limbaugh all the time. On it's present trajectory, the Dow will be 0 in about 5 months. And yet he remains absolutely hell-bent on raising taxes, and giving away billions of $ he doesn't have to Democrat interest groups.

Can you point to even one thing he's done since he took office that genuinely filled you with confidence?

The best thing that I see coming out of the failed policies of the recent Republican administrations and the doomed policies of the current Democratic leadership is the possible rise of a VIABLE third party.

The Democrats have moved farther left of center as the Republicans moved right of it. With each of the major parties occupying the extremes, we in the middle lack representation and yearn for a "Party of the People". A party that cares little about the lunatic fringe and truly cares about what we care about.

I hope that BOTH parties fail. I hope that Barack Obama's failure does not mean the failure of our nation. I hope that we are given an alternative to the status quo...

Finally some wise words in this whole mess. I second that, Ari.

What we have is two horrible extremes these days and it's time to get back to the damned middle of the road. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are going to get us there precisely, as Ari points out, because they're both too extreme.

Oh, and blaming this whole mess on Obama, who inherited it, is as ridiculous as blaming it all on that moron Bush.

And how about we do speak ill of the dead and point some fingers at Reagan. God, I am so sick of him being painted as something great since his death. He sucked! Plain and simple. Before Reagan, we did not have children starving on the street. After him, we did.

Oh, God, and, Amy, please no more Gingrich please. However savy he may be fiscally; he undoes socially. He'd want to lock you and me both up. He hasn't exactly made any bones about wanting a Christian nation, after all. And I doubt he thinks much of women who refuse to marry and produce babies.

But, to fail as president? That has dire consequences for us all.

It's going to whether Rush Limbaugh says so or not. My only problem with Limbaugh's statement is the element of doubt.

Oh, and he's not the head of the Republican Party, nor does he want to be. He's arguably the de facto head of the conservative movement, which unfortunately is not the same thing.

Martin, it's not that I disagree with you in any respect.

But jeezus, are you ever troubled with feelings of something that my be kind of distantly related to, you know, shame? Do passersby (wives, girlfriends, co-workers) ever comment on your detailed fascination with the contemporary politics of a nation not your own? Do you critique the marriage of your next-door-neighbor with such alacrity?

When I was a very young man, I was fascinated by rock stars. I wasn't cute or talented and didn't grow up to be a rock star, but on a good day, I can make an electric guitar howl and roar over a two-chord vamps, and scare the piss out of your immortal soul. Some dreams can be fufilled, even by small hearts.

Why don't you move here?

> But, to fail as president? That
> has dire consequences for us
> all.

Presidents have failed before, it's not the end of the world. They're servants, not masters, and so when one of them doesn't work out we can always get another one. (At least, we can if the nation hasn't turned socialist, or granted too much power to the governement, or invested to heavily in Washington or something like that.....)

> But, not helpful

Hey, Amy! That's two in a row. Since when do you have problems with commas? I think you're being distracted.

To those of us who believe that spending a trillion dollars of money that we don't have for things that we don't need (or even want) in a time of poverty is a bad idea, Limbaugh's rhetoric is very helpful indeed. The people who spent this money took it from us (and our children) because they know we can't stop them; the IRS has a gun to our heads. It's as naked a power grab as I've seen in fifty years o' livin' on this planet.

> Yeah, just words.

I understand wanting to give a young president a honeymoon. But part of the problem with liberals is their fascination with words and dialogue and communication and chatter (see also Obama's comments on Iran a couple weeks ago.)

Part of the problem is that a couple of generations of voters have been hearing for the last 70 years that Roosevelt ending the Depression with fire side chats and similar inspiration. (It's not true of course; any casual study of the times will show he had no idea what to do, never pretended to, and was ready to try anything. But it was the change in world circumstances and the passage of time that ended the Depression more than it was any policy from the District of Columbia.)

We have become so enamored of the image of the avuncular "leader" in the White House, especially us Democrats, that Obama's automatic response was to spend a trillion and pat us on the head and say "There there, little child." (And he's surprised that the markets continue to tank.)

This is essentially magical thinking (and you of all people should know better.) If Obama really knew what he was doing, he'd succeed whether we believed in him or not. "Consumer confidence" cowers before the powerful of a reliable price... And this man has done as much to confuse the value of American assets as anyone in our history.

I believe that Rush Limbaugh is [A] just an entertainer and [B] much more principled than about four-fifths of the Republican party. As Sullivan once noted, Democrats are so inanely focused on words and appearances that genuine meaning is lost on them. (As is, tragically, humor: The ability to be playful with context is an important skill in every field.)

Meanwhile, I admire you for not aligning with either side wholly. But don't feel obligated to let either team express their worst nature and tell you it can't be helped.

"Power of a reliable price..."

Shit, that was gonna be a good blog comment, too.

Man, I need a proofreader. Preferably a sophomore coed (English major), with a sturdy build, glowy skin and an eagerness to please. Weird hours, coffee chores, light housework....

Only a power-mad monster... A monster... could describe horror like this as a great opportunity.

"Why don't you move here?" Because your economy is in worse shape & you have a more statist leader, among other things. About 40% of my customers are American. Since September 08, my Canadian business actually went up 3%, while American orders dropped like a stone. The state of your economy is costing me money, so I figure I can yap about it on my favorite redheads' blog. And people all over the planet have been puzzling over why The Leader Of The Free World has chosen to get into a mud-wrestling match with some fat guy in Florida who babbles on the radio.

Just saying.

I'm with Ari and T'sGranny. I look around at the political landscape (California's disfunctional, so-called legislature, for instance) and can only say, WTF!?

I am a life-long Democrat who gave generously to Obama's campaign. I think Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld should be put on trial as lying war-mongers (they'd probably get off, but hey!). Then I ended up voting Republican for the first time to protest Obama's selection of that sanctimonious asshat, "Josephine" Biden, as VP, and his promises basically to do whatever NOW instructs him to do to "empower" and "protect" women -- and screw men and children.

Before the next election, I'm going to register Independent. Both "majors" can go F themselves.

> The state of your economy is costing
> me money, so I figure I can yap
> about it

The state of your economy, and all the wealth of the Canadian modern era, is dependent on the wealth and military protection of the United States anyway. You're living over our garage, and not exposed to the worst of what's going on in the kitchen. But don't pretend you're being cleverly removed when you are in fact so indisputably dependent.

Do ever feel any embarrassment at all? Ever? Is there any little voice in there that tells you you're probably ignoring something in your own house as you stare across the street?

"military protection of the United States" It's not Stephen Harper's fault that previous generations starved the Canadian Armed Forces & coasted under the American umbrella. 111 Canadians have been killed in Afghanistan. If it wasn't for Canucks holding the fort in Kandahar province, those 111 would have been added to your casualty lists.

"indisputably dependent" That's not a one-way street, as Canada is your largest trading partner & the supplier of the lion's share of your imported oil. At least for the time being, until Obama caves in to Big Labor & the green lobby, implements Buy American protectionism, and tells Canadians to keep their dirty oil.

"ignoring something in your house" Don't worry that I'm not keeping up on Canadian affairs. The letters "www" stand for world wide web. If Amy doesn't want the whole world commenting on her posts on American affairs, she shouldn't post them where the whole world can see them. Even Osama can weigh in, if he has internet access in his cave in Waziristan.

The only thing I'm truly fascinated about on this blog is Amy herself. There's only one Amy Alkon, she lives in LA, and she blogs about American stuff a lot.

> It's not Stephen Harper's fault
> that previous generations starved
> the Canadian Armed Forces

Did anyone say it was? Who's Steven Harper? Is he one of those adorable little 'politicians' you have up there? I always liked that blond one who inherited all that money... Don't know her politics, but she's cute!

> & coasted under the American
> umbrella.

Watch your tense, mister: The coasting continues.

> If it wasn't for Canucks holding
> the fort in Kandahar province,
> those 111 would have been added
> to your casualty lists.

Exactly. That's where your head's at: You expect American defense of civilization to be provided without sacrifice on your part. Shame it hasn't worked out that way in this particular instance, right? But understand that even when it does (as a practical matter), and your people are perfectly protected, the moral equation plays out differently. OK?

Y'know, we like Canadians, at least on paper. You're friendlies, and you speak convenient languages! Any time you wanna get serious in terms of defending your own borders, just let us know! There are certainly other coastlines requiring our attention.

> the supplier of the lion's
> share of your imported oil

The preferred term is "seller".

> The only thing I'm truly
> fascinated about on this blog
> is Amy herself

Don't kid a kidder. Your attention to events in the United States is obsessively, pathetically complete.

Besides, the miracle of Alkon isn't the red hair, the advice or even the blog. This woman tracks down car thieves for fun. No other LA blogger wears that ribbon.

"Before Reagan, we did not have children starving on the street. After him, we did."

You're kidding, right? Because even you can't be that thick. Our current child-in-poverty rate is 17%, which has held pretty steady since the late 90's. In the early 90's it was 22%. All these are post reagan.

In the late 1940's it was 50%. In 1964, it was 25%. (These, you will notice, are pre-Reagan. They aren't exactly numbers for children starving in streets, but one can safely assume that a child must be living in poverty to starve.

Which means we had fewer than half as many children starving in the streets after Reagan as we had had in periods before him.

www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/4Poverty.cfm

futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol3no2ART11.PDF

especially us Democrats

Who's a Democrat? Not you, certainly. Nor many of the other posters here it would seem.

Lifelong registered Democrat here. (This is not the same thing as being a lifelong contributing Democrat, or even a Democrat-voting Democrat.)

Thanks for your attention to these details. Your new clarity will assist you as dialog here progresses.

Amy is right on about this not helping anyone but Rush. The man's job is not to think and offer serious ideas or to help people, it's to earn lots of money from advertisers. He's great at it. He's an entertainer, but people from the left and the right should know better to take what he says seriously. Serious thinking doesn't make for good talk radio or talk TV, because they require too much background and too long of an attention span. You can't simply pop in for 5 minutes and be enlightened. Talk radio has to work on the 10 minute trip to the grocery store, or between deliveries, or etc. Rush is the master of his domain but he's not in the business of smart policy ideas - when he offers them, they are entirely incidental to the operation.

Better you should quote Rush in his entirety rather than pretend he has a personal wish for any President to fail.

Ages ago, he stated outright that his success does not depend on any particular administration.

But you've - and this is the plural, "you've" - been successfully distracted into fixating on what a private citizen has to say, while government carries on inventing boogeymen to justify its existence, as Mencken pointed out long ago.

Look, it's very simple. If Obama succeeds - meaning he gets to implement his agenda, America loses. There is nothing that Obama wants to do that will result in a good outcome for America. His plans CANNOT save the economy.

So you're damn right I want Obama to fail.

And I'd prefer he do it in such a fashion that Pelosi and Reid give up any hope of turning this place into a Social Democracy like so many failing economies in Europe.

If Obama fails utterly and ends up a lame duck until 2012, America wins.

Not even two months in, and he's already the worst president ever. I figured it would take him at least two years to out-do Jimmuh. He's exceeded even my low expectations.

Ari:

The Democrats have moved farther left of center as the Republicans moved right of it.

Ari - how many right arms do you have on your left side?

The Republican party lost in 2006 and 2008 precisely because they WENT LEFT under Bush. There are no viable right of center parties in the United States.

"Compassionate Conservative" is just another way of saying "big-government liberal".

Bush 43 was more liberal than Clinton was.

> You can't simply pop in for 5
> minutes and be enlightened

He's ruled the medium for twenty years. 15 hours a week (probably 38 minutes per), probably 46 weeks per year: 34960 hours, or 208 weeks of continuous rhetoric on current events.

A lot of people think he's entertaining as hell, but it's a safe bet that there are some principles that have sustained him across such a huge swath of time. If you think one of those principles is "I'll piss off Cheezy," you're probably right.

He doesn't piss me off. I find him predictable and dull. I like Derbyshire's formulation of his thinking as "fast food conservatism". It's easy, it's simple, and is neither challenging nor especially nourishing, but people like it.

Before Reagan, we did not have children starving on the street. After him, we did

Really? Why have I never before heard about children starving in the streets of America? Can you supply a bit more information, please? Names? Photos? Links? Anything?

Brian:

I have but two arms (for the record; one on each side).

I was oversimplifying the MESSAGES from both parties. I am aware of the gap between what the GOP espouses and what they do and the damage that gap has caused the party.

It is no secret that both parties have catered to the extremist voters. Pro-abortion nuts balanced by the Religious Right, ACLU and the NRA etc. My point was that I believe by mining the farthest reaches of the political spectrum, the major parties have lost many of us that are not single issue voters or extremist whack jobs.

The Bell curve of voters straddles the center. For both the Democrats and the Republicans to ignore that fact (even if just in the rhetoric) leaves me searching for representation that reflects my values.

ACLU and the NRA

Since when are NRAers extremists? I'm not a gun owner, but I don't consider the right to bear arms any kind of extreme.

The NRA holds some pretty extreme views including NO regulation for gun ownership, NO regulation of fully auto assault style weapons etc.

So I repeat; Whack jobs fill BOTH aisles including:

Religious NUTS, GUN nuts, Anti-abortion nuts, pro-abortion nuts, and so on!

Maybe I'm an extremist, but I'm sympathetic to those NRA views. What would actually happen if there was no regulation of gun ownership, including ownership of automatic rifles and machine guns? Criminals already have access to those weapons, and fully automatic spray-and-pray shooting is actually less effective than aimed fire.

Sales tax revenues would increase and organized crime revenues would decrease. Sounds good to me.

I'm referring to the "wonderful" '80's when suddenly the word homeless brought images of families instead of hobos. Duh. Reagan did that.

And no, poverty and starving on the street are not the same thing.

God, stats can be played with and manipulated and are but you take the cake in being obvious with it.

Hearing what you want to hear and disregarding the rest? Much?

Ignore Crid, Martin. I can only speak for myself, but I'm glad you comment on our politics. You're often insightful.

And it's not like countries don't interact with each other. After all, we all play on the same playground.

How about this, Crid. Martin stops commenting on US politics when you stop commenting on Iraq's? Or Canada's.

Actually, Reagan did no such thing.

The media created an image of homelessness that was completely unrealistic for the purposes of attacking Reagan and Republicans. You'll note the sudden dearth of homelessness starting around inauguration day in 1993, and the sudden realization that homelessness was worse than ever just about eight years later.

The severity of homelessness as a problem seems to track directly with the party of the person that presently occupies the Oval Office.

Call me crazy, but I find it hard to believe that people get turned out of their homes in a coordinated fashion timed to presidential politics.

"I'm referring to the "wonderful" '80's when suddenly the word homeless brought images of families instead of hobos"

I've no doubt it did suddenly bring up that image, conveniently enough. However, the stats I quoted which I'm sure you didn't bother to go read, were on CHILDREN in poverty. Children pretty much requires families(back then), not hobos. Families, 50% of which lived in poverty in the '40's. And yes, you do have to be poor to starve to death, don't you think? Or, are people dropping like flies from famine in Westchester and we just don't hear about it?

Ari:
You said "The NRA holds some pretty extreme views including NO regulation for gun ownership, NO regulation of fully auto assault style weapons etc."

Please be informed and check to make sure your assertions are factual and correct.
The NRA is not extreme in its views. The NRA holds that there should not be any laws against law abiding sane US citizens to own any gun. Please read the second ammendment of the constitution that says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Ari do you consider this an extreme view? I don't.

I have never seen where the NRA wants to legalize the ownership of fully automatic weapons because they are already legal but very rare. Full auto machine guns of any type are already heavily regulated by the ATF and require a lot of paperwork and red tape to purchase one.

That being the case you will find only a few collectors that own any type of fully automatic rifle. Why? Do you have any clue how much a fully automatic rifle or machine gun would cost? Most of the guns on one website were over $5,000.00 each with many being over $10,000.00, so even if the NRA wants to eliminate ATF regulations of owning fully automatic weapons, the cost of owning one would eliminate a very large number of people.

The NRA does strongly advocate the ownership of SEMI automatic weapons that look like military style assault rifles. Although they look similar they are not the same weapon. A semi auto: 1 trigger pull one shot...vs. Fully automatic: 1 trigger pull 3 shots (M16) on 3 round burst or on full auto a trigger pull will unload the clip. There is nothing wrong with owning a semi automatic rifle. The only reason Obama and co. want to ban them is that they look menacing to liberal assed pussies.

There should not be any ban on semi auto rifles or on any kind of guns. Read history..

Russia- banned guns, millions killed
Germany banned guns, millions killed
China, banned guns, millions killed
Cambodia banned guns, millions killed
U.S. Obama banned guns, ???????

Do you wish to repeat history? Read this quote by Thomas Jefferson:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson