Note to Rep. Pete Stauber (MN-8)

Are you for res publica or res donalda?

Res publica is Latin for public things.  I am all for a political party that puts the public before special interests. Sadly, I have seen few examples of Republicans who put the public before special interests.  Since 2016, I have seen few Republicans who put the public before the interests of Donald Trump.

I once was a Republican precinct finance chair.  I even was 3rd in fund raising of 13 precincts.  But Ronald Reagan’s nomination over John Anderson was a disappointment.  The only Republicans I was interested in after that were Bill Frenzel and Arne Carlson.

George Washington in his Farewell Address warned about factions.  I hope you will take the time to read his address.  You can find it on the Senate website (https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf).  You can also find the Constitution on the Senate website (https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Constitution.htm).  Please note that it calls for three equal  branches of government, not a government for the interests of the President.

Sent to Pete Stauber, Amy Klobuchar, Tina Smith 2019-12-04

What happened to "law and order" Republicans?

If Republicans wonder why I vote for Democrats, the recent attack by a group of Republican representatives is one of the reasons.  It amazes me that members of the "Law and Order" party would stoop to vandalism in the House of Representatives.  Their protests were even more ridiculous because several Republicans were in the closed meeting.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/republicans-storm-trump-impeachment-hearing.html.

I would like to vote for Republicans, but only when they live up to their name: res publica (public things). Instead they seem to be working overtime to promote Redonaldcons.  I didn't care for Ronald Reagan, but Donald Trump certainly makes Reagan look like St. Ronnie!

Reagan’s words to today’s “conservatives”

Would Ronald Reagan admonish today’s so-called “conservatives” with “There you go again”?

I supported and voted for John Anderson in 1980 because I saw him as a real Republican who was concerned with “res publica” (public things).  Rather than have a laundry list of “ills of what was wrong” he concerned himself with balancing issues.

Unfortunately the Republican Party has devolved into a blame machine in which Democrats can do no right.

If the Republicans were real conservatives, wouldn’t they be all in favor of considering many ideas rather than be in lockstep on one set of ideas?

If they were real conservatives, wouldn’t they read the Constitution very carefully instead of corrupting it to fit their own ideas?

If they were real conservatives, wouldn’t they heed Washington’s advice in his farewell address to avoid factions?

Once upon a time the Senate was called the “greatest deliberative body in the world.  Now it has a Majority of one who obstructs any legislation that he doesn’t like.

Letter to Rep. Pete Stauber - MN-8

What would Republicans like Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, and even Ronald Reagan think of Donald Trump and how he has taken over the Republican Party?  I can just hear Ronald Reagan saying, “There you go again.”

I would think they would be appalled.  Instead of Res Publica (public things) he has turned the party into Rex Donald.  It’s all about him, the public be damned.

I was a Republican precinct finance chair when Reagan was nominated, I voted for John Anderson.  I kept my party position next year (coming in third again in money collected).  But I haven’t voted for a Republican since except Arne Carlson twice.

I really don’t care to vote for Democrats, but the current Republican Party doesn’t give me much choice.  Staying away is not an option.

Third Party candidates, another false equivalency

A Los Angeles Times article on the death of John Anderson blames his candidacy for Jimmy Carter’s loss in the 1980 Presidential Election.

These articles rarely, if ever, blame the losing major party candidates for the loss.  A more thorough analysis would include the turnout.  How many Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Hilary Clinton lukewarm supporters stayed away?  I think poor turnout has far more to do with a major party candidate’s loss than anything else.

Partisanship: quote of the day

“It’s not a partisan issue.  We are working for our republic, and not for Republicans."
- Charles Fried, solicitor general under Ronald Reagan






See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/politics/prominent-republicans-urge-supreme-court-to-end-gerrymandering.html

Health care, RINO's and rhinos

I posted the following to the New York Times article "Yes, Senator, You Wouldn't Want to Lose Your Mammograms – or Women Voters".  See http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/yes-senator-you-wouldnt-want-to-lose-your-mammograms-or-women-voters.html?comments#permid=21906167

I think we should stop calling "Republicans" Republicans.  They definitely are not the party of Res Publica (public things).  They either are corporatists or stone throwing sinners.

I always wonder where the party I once was a precinct officer of would have become if John Anderson had won the nomination in 1980.

- End of NYT submission

Around the time Ronald Reagan became President the term RINO started being used heavily: Republican in Name Only.  It was used to cast out those who believed in the "big tent" that both parties claimed to be.

But I often wonder if the term shouldn't be "RHINO", a big, lumbering mammal with poor eyesight and a willingness to attack anything it sees as a threat.  Which is just about anything that moves.

Whatever happened to real Republicans?

Once upon a time we were active Republican Party members at the precinct level. Then Reagan won the nomination instead of John Anderson, and Republicans became more rigid in their beliefs. It was about this time that the term RINO was coined: Republican In Name Only. And the Republicans stopped being a big tent party. This rigidity should not be mistaken for conservatism, a thoughtful consideration of change.

There have been a few bright spots like Bill Frenzel, Representative of 3rd Minnesota district, and Arne Carlson, Gov. of Minnesota after the Republican candidate imploded because of inappropriate behavior with teen-age girls. So much for the "moral" party. BTW Carlson still writes a blog: http://govarnecarlson.blogspot.com/

Since then, there have been more and more rigid stances, including eight years of obstruction of a Democratic President. Bi-partisan legislation happens too infrequently.

I would say the only thing "conservative" is to "conserve our world view" despite plentiful evidence to the contrary.

Comment to New York Times article "On Where the Republican Party Went Wrong", Charlie Sykes, 2016-12-15

Be Counted! We the People Are Counting on You!

Election day is next Tuesday.  Are you registered?  Have you made your picks?  Please remember to show up.  Without your vote, the candidates you favor least have a better chance of winning.

I’m serious.  Time and time again, candidates have won in a “landslide” because far too many people didn’t show up.  In 1980 many media outlets reported that Ronald Reagan won over Jimmy Carter in a “landslide”.  The “real’ winner was “none of the above”!  Ronald Reagan came in a distant second with 27% of the eligible voters; 47% didn’t bother to show up.

In many ways 2000 was a ridiculous election.  Because of the electoral college system, George Bush won with 47.9% of the votes compared to Al Gore’s 48%.  Some people claim that Ralph Nader gave the election to Bush.  Would those who voted for Nader have voted at all?  Bush had 537 votes over Gore; 2,912,790 to 2,912,253.  Nader had over 90,000 votes, a tiny count compared to the no-shows.

Drat!  For years I’ve depended on the Election Project at George Mason University for turnout figures.  It is no longer available, and even many of the cached pages are no longer available.

According to the Florida Secretary of State’s office, turnout in 1980 was 70.1%.  That is, over 2.6 million registered voters didn’t bother to show up.  The de facto “none of the above” certainly swamped Nader votes.  We really don’t know if the Nader voters would have voted for Bush or Gore or stayed home.

Ah! I just dug deeper and Prof. Michael McDonald has taken his Election Project to the University of Florida.  See www.electproject.org.  McDonald claims that over four million eligible Florida voters didn’t show up (he’s counting eligible rather than registered).  Both Bush and Gore came in a distant second to “I don’t give a damn.”  That’s a helluva way to run a country.

Are you following the polls?  I say don’t bother because polls don’t determine elections.  You showing up can turn polls on their head.  Think about the 1948 post-election headline: “Dewey wins!”  The papers rushed to publish based on a telephone poll showing Dewey ahead.  However, the pollsters didn’t compensate for many Democratic voters not having telephones.

Even polls that claim to call people on landlines and cellphones may be missing an important clue.  Many people have caller ID; if they don’t know the caller, they don’t answer.  Have you seen any polls that mention the no response rate?

Another classic example of polls really missing the mark was the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election.  The polls had Skip Humphrey in the lead, Norm Coleman second, and Jesse Ventura last.  The results were Jesse Ventura winning, Norm Coleman second, and Skip Humphrey last.  I think that Jesse Ventura’s complaint about the auto-emission testing stations and the high taxes on his fancy cars resonated with a lot of drivers.  You can rest assured that somebody didn’t design their poll well.

Many rightfully complain about all the money in politics.  But the high spenders don’t always win.  Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, former CEOs of major tech companies, spent oodles of their own money to run for office in California,  Neither was elected.

Big spenders who lose are not confined to either party.  I had the pages up the other day which gave the spending by each party in the Presidential elections.  Surprise, the bigger spender wasn’t always the Republican candidate.  And when the bigger spender was a Democrat, he didn’t always win the general election, hanging chads or not.

A practice that has really gotten worse in recent years is the attack ads.  Candidate Joe will raise your taxes even mo’.  Candidate Tom doesn’t beat the drum for the military enough.  Candidate Bill didn’t spend enough on infra-structure (never mind that he did vote for a ten percent increase).  The silliest I’ve seen is that Al Franken voted with the President 85% of the time.  Duh!  When Bush was President, how often did Republican members of Congress vote with the President?  I would hope it was not 100% but definitely between 75% and 90%.

We can avoid many attack ads by not watching TV but they appear on billboards, in the newspapers and even on web pages.  I was surprised to see a silly attack ad on a web page against Stewart Mills who is running for Rick Nolan’s Congressional seat.  It was on a web site of a Wisconsin company!  The web knows whether you have been naughty or nice.

The purpose of attack ads is not to get you to vote for the attacker but to not show up at all.  Gosh!  I thought Sen. Foghorn was a great guy, but I guess I won’t bother showing up to vote for him this year.

So, what’s a poor confused citizen to do with all this obfuscation.

First, find all the neutral sources you can for information.  I know, there aren’t many of those.  About the best we can do is to read the candidates’ own statements in newspapers or on the web.

Second, show up and vote.  The only votes that don’t count are the votes not cast.

If you believe in democracy, you must be part of the demos, that is the people.

Mel hopes that he has to wait in line to vote.

This also appears in the Reader Weekly of Duluth at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/10/30/4267_be_counted_we_the_people_are_counting_on_you

I am a Democratic Party leader?

Way back in 2008 I donated ten or twenty bucks to the Obama campaign.  Ever since then I receive pleas for money and for filling out a “survey” from the Democratic National Party.

“OFFICIAL PARTY BUSINESS - OPEN IMMEDIATELY”

The letter, this time “from” Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, includes:

Melvyn, you are one of a select group of party leaders…

I am a Democratic Party leader?  The last time I was an official party leader was in the 70s when I was a Republican precinct financial chair.  Then came Reagan.  I’ve been wandering in the political desert ever since with a couple of forays to support one or another independent candidate.

Now Reagan looks like a liberal and my only choice is pretty much to vote Democratic.  The Democrats are several steps closer to reality and practical governance than the Republicans.  Where are the likes of John Anderson, Arne Carlson, and Bill Frenzel?

I scribbled on a plea for the 2012 Presidential campaign that Obama should depend on his big donors rather than small donors he courted so well in 2008.  I haven’t sent any money since.

Still the pleas come.

The return envelope is labeled:

SURVEY RESPONSE ENCLOSED – PLEASE RUSH

As with all political surveys, the questions and answer selections are biased toward the bias of the party printing the survey.  They are meant to affirm the party’s beliefs rather than shape them.

Well, I will vote in November.  That is a lot more than I can say about many who call themselves Democrats.

Check date, suspend belief

Chartreuse plan for Duluth’s Civic Center

Johnson Controls, Inc. has been selected by the Civic Center Commission to design and build a new Civic Center for Duluth.  Lee Nixon, chair of the commission, pointed out that these three buildings, at 78 and more years old, are outmoded, energy inefficient, and inaccessible.  Mr. Nixon estimated the cost would be about one billion dollars.

Johnson Controls (JCI) had been serving as advisor to the Civic Center Commission on the status of the Center.  JCI had two meetings with a focus group of thirteen and a half people.  After a marathon 24-hour second session, the focus group agreed that the Chartreuse Plan proposed by JCI should be adopted.

Rep. James Oberstar praised the Chartreuse Plan for creating thousands of jobs.  Mayor Don Ness was not so enthusiastic about this budget buster, but he admitted the demolition and construction would permit him to work from home and spend more time with his family.  Harry Welty held a press conference asking why there was no vote to determine who was on the Civic Center Commission, and he estimated the true cost would be two billion dollars.

In JCI’s first revision of the Chartreuse Plan, they stated that far more parking would be needed than in the original.  In order to provide adequate parking, the city and county would have to take by eminent domain the Radisson Hotel, the old KDLH building, and the News Tribune Building.  For some reason, A&L Development’s Phoenix building was not mentioned.  Senate hopeful Al Franken quipped that the parking was probably needed for all the plaintiffs in the suits against the Civic Center Commission and JCI.  Harry Welty held a press conference asking why there was no vote on this project, and he estimated the true cost would be three billion dollars.

Northern Lights Express renamed

Because of a major design change in the Duluth-Twin Cities passenger rail service, it has been renamed and scheduled for earlier availability.  It is now to be called the Big Bertha Express.

The Passenger Rail Alliance learned of the availability of two previously unknown Big Bertha howitzers used by Imperial Germany in World War I.  They were able to purchase them for $5,000 each plus shipping and handling.

The Alliance commissioned ordnance manufacturer Alliant Techsystems Inc. to provide special long shells that can be inserted on the specially armored back of railroad passenger cars.  When the passenger car is ready for departure, a technician pulls the lanyard on Big Bertha and off goes the car at an initial speed of 500 mph.  By the time it reaches the other end, it has averaged 150 mph, thus arriving in one hour.  Of course, the intermediate stops of Anoka, Hinckley, and Carlton had to be dropped.  Initial service will begin on April 1, 2009.

Passengers must have medical exams before boarding.

Barack Obama seals nomination with historic Veep pick

Barack Obama, to show that he is a uniter not a divider, made an unprecedented early vice-president choice.  He reached across race, gender, and party to select Christie Todd Whitman as his running mate.  Ms. Whitman was the Republican governor of New Jersey and later George W. Bush’s first head of the Environmental Protcction Agency.  She was forced out of that position because she took her job seriously and performed it well.

Pollsters are predicting a landslide for Obama in the remaining state primaries.  They say an unprecedented number of Republicans will cross over, that independents who wouldn’t have voted will show up in the thousands, and that Democrats who have tired of the long battle between Obama and Clinton will unite behind a team they think will move the country forward.

I submitted these to the Reader Weekly for the 2008 April Fool’s edition.  My title was “If you believe these, I have a Minnesota bridge I would like you to cross”.  All but one of these were intended for Minnesota readers.

I also submitted the following two items which are of more general interest.

Global warming skeptics rescued from Antarctic iceberg

A large group of global warming skeptics held a conference on the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica to underscore their contention that the “cooling of Antarctica disproves global warming theory”.  They were surprised when the shelf broke off into many pieces.  Many of the conferees were stranded and could not reach the ship that brought them.  They were eventually rescued by planes of the British Antarctic Survey.  Ironically, some of the conferees had called the BAS “leftist dupes” because the BAS had been warning of the eventual collapse of the some of the ice around the edge of Antarctica.

Chinese government forecloses on White House

In a surprise move, the Chinese government has foreclosed on the White House.  A minor official in the Chinese Department of Finance discovered that the U.S. Government had issued bonds to make extensive renovations to the White House, some of them dating back to the Time when Ronald Reagan had the solar panels removed.

The bonds were part of a large package of bonds that the Chinese government had bought from Bear Stearns several years ago.  The official discovered that the bonds were due in 2006 and no interest had been paid since 2000.

After long negotiations with the Bush Administration, the Chinese administration decided to foreclose.  They gave President Bush thirty days to vacate the White House.  The Chinese government hasn’t said what they will do with the property, but many speculate that the Chinese will make it their embassy.

Are you still writing for the Reader?

I am often asked this by long-time acquaintances.  Because I’ve been writing the “Party of One” almost regularly since early October 2013, I’m tempted to ask in return, “When did you stop reading the Reader?”  But I don’t.

I appreciate those acquaintances that tell me that they like a column, but please tell me which one.  I am thinking about three columns at the same time – the one that is already in print, the one I have submitted for the next issue, and the next one that I have sketched out.  I may have forgotten the column published two weeks ago.

How do I decide what to write about?  My stock answer is “Writing what I damn well please since 1999.”  I have this on my “business” card.  What damn well pleases me can be on almost anything: current politics, news stories, computers and other gadgets, every day mundane observations, or just whimsy.

Sometimes the ideas almost flow from my fingertips.  Last week’s “Free market in telecommunications?” was one.  I think I wrote it in two sittings.  Sometimes I have to do quite a bit of research.  “How folks change rivers” was one.  Sometimes I have to pull ideas out of my head; ideas can be like teeth, loose but not coming out.  This column is one of those.

Writing about politics is rather easy.  Sometimes the political class has some good ideas; sometimes it has some really, really bad ideas.  Unfortunately, the bad ideas get more coverage than the good ideas.  Good ideas do get coverage, but too often good ideas get attacked more often than explained because the good ideas don’t fit somebody’s idea of a “perfect world”.

Once upon a time, I was active in the Minnesota Republican Party.  Then there was Ronald Reagan.  Fortunately, there were still the likes of Rep. Bill Frenzel and to-be Gov. Arne Carlson, politicians who were more concerned with resolving problems than promoting an ideology.  I have yet to see a Congressional newsletter like Bill Frenzel’s.  He wrote critically about what Congress did, not what he did.  Almost without exception, Congressional newsletters and websites are photo-ops showing how “hard” the representative is “working” for his or her “hard-working” constituents.

Promoting ideology now seems to be the only politics that is acceptable, no matter the party.

This situation does make it easier to write a column.  As the adage states, ”It’s easier to criticize than offer solutions.”

I do try to offer solutions now and then, but few people seem to take them seriously.  I should have a bit of humility though, if they were such great solutions shouldn’t my blog get more attention from American readers and less from Russian reverse spammers and shouldn’t my writings spread wider than a weekly newspaper in a small city?

One aspect of our lives that is easier to criticize than offer solutions is technology; whether it is all the glitches in the rollout of the government health insurance or it is all the problems we have trying to have our computers and other gadgets perform consistently.

I use my computer and gadgets for a large variety of tasks – from writing this column to preparing taxes.  Certain software also allows me to have the same data on my computer as well as on my gadgets.  For example, I can use email on my laptop, my iPad, and my iPhone.  A copy of every received and sent email will be on all three.

Almost every program I use does far more than the programs I wrote for the Macintosh over 25 years ago.  I consider my programs of then almost as toys.  Because modern programs are far more complex than mine of yesteryear, that complexity leads to a longer problem list than my nine-page problem list when I folded my company.

Sometimes I write a bit of wordplay.  “You can write haiku” was one of these.  Writing that column was almost a word torrent.  One thing led to another.  The only hard part was making sure I had the 5-7-5 syllable form.  I think I missed on one or two.

Since then I came up with a Japanese haiku from my very small Japanese vocabulary.

Wakarimasen!
Zero, ichi, ni, san, shi!
Wakarimasu!

I don’t understand!
Zero, uh-one, two, three, four!
I do understand.

Both versions are a stretch.  Technically the “masu” at the end is two syllables, but most Westerners only hear “mas”.  I had to use “uh-one” to follow the same number pattern.

Every so often an acquaintance asks me to write about some topic; generally he or she is asking me to report on the topic.  Sorry, I don’t do reporting.  I’ll leave that to those who want to interview lots of people and sift through the various views.

The closest that I came to that was “Does ‘environmentally friendly’ copper mining exist?”  I found more sources about this topic than I would ever read.  Some of the sources gave reasons that it does; some gave reasons that it doesn’t.  Every “pro” source I found was countered by a source, neutral or “anti”, that showed otherwise.

Will I keep writing for the Reader?  You betcha!  I have a long list of notes in my computer and on scraps of paper that can provide material for several years to come.

Now I ask, are you still reading the Reader?

Shale Oil - Bad then, good now?

When I read "U.S. Energy Independence Could Be Here Before We Know It", Tim Sprinkle, The Exchange, Yahoo! Finance, 2013-03-20, I thought of Jimmy Carter being slammed for his efforts to promote shale oil.  I did a search on "Jimmy Carter" and "shale oil" and found "The Great Shale Oil Swindle, What Happens When the Boom Goes Bust", Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, 2013-03-18.

His points are that companies are overstating the amount of oil and gas available, shale and oil production drops quickly, the "glut" of oil is depressing prices, and global oil demand may be dropping.  Adam Smith warned of capitalists deceiving the public; often they deceive themselves!

His sources include some credible newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times of London!!

Jimmy Carter was lambasted for looking at shale oil and now Republicans think we have energy dependence because of shale oil.

"Well, the truth is, no one in America did more for oil shale development and other alternative fuels development than Jimmy Carter and his Synfuels initiaitives. If you want some of the history, and why Carter's investment and tax incentive strategy failed, read here.  Basically, Reagan gutted energy research Carter started, including how to economically convert shale into oil. When the Iranian crisis ended and Saudis flooded the market with cheap oil, Exxon shut down its $5 billion Colony Oil Shale project in western Colorado, and the industry lost interest in oil shale. "
- Oil Shale and the ANWR: Stretching the truth, Charlie Quimby, "Across the Great Divide", 2008-07.

How often does politics boil down to "If we think of it, it is a good idea; if you think of it, it is a bad idea."

Never, ever use never and ever - a note to Mitt Romney

I noticed that an ad at the top of "Citizens or soldiers, which do we want" is for Mitt Romney, probably because I quote from The American Conservative".  (You may see a different ad.)

The ad boldly repeats Romney's assertion, "I will never apologize for America."  I am afraid of leaders who assert, "My country, always right!"  I'm sorry, Mr. Romney, but history is full of aggressive acts by American governments where others were pushed aside for American "interests".

I guess Romney would not apologize for the atrocities against Native Americans that have been admitted by other presidents.  Note: the measure was introduced into the U.S. Senate by Sam Brownback, R-KS with the words: “to officially apologize for the past ill-conceived policies by the US Government toward the Native Peoples of this land and re-affirm our commitment toward healing our nation’s wounds and working toward establishing better relationships rooted in reconciliation.”  See http://nativevotewa.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/president-obama-signs-native-american-apology-resolution/.

I guess he would not apologize for the internment of Japanese-Americans as did his hero, Ronald Reagan.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment.

I guess he would not apologize for an American sniper using the Qu'ran for target practice as did his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.  See "Real conservatives can say they're sorry", Nicholaus Mills, CNN, 2012-09-20.

I guess he would not apologize for the atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in the Philipines (see "Revolt in the Ranks" written by a conservative).

I guess he would not apologize for all the meddling in other countries' affairs that we would not tolerate if done by other countries to us.

Is Hugo Chavez more popular than U.S. presidents?

Hugo Chavez, president of Venezeula, won a fourth term.  Compared with his previous elections, he had a tighter race.  However, like U.S. presidents should do and never do, Chavez should consider that he did not receive the support of the majority of voters.

The turnout was about 80%, far higher than any one state in the U.S. ever got recently and Chavez received about 55% of that.  In other words, only 44% of the voters turned out to support Chavez and 56% of the voters either supported someone else or didn't care.

Consider that the turnout in U.S. elections has not been over 60% since 1972.  For Reagan's "landslide" in 1984 the turnout was 53.11%.  Reagan had 58.77% of the votes cast, which means that he had the support of only 31.2% of the voting age population.  In percent of votes cast, Reagan did better than Chavez, but in the support of all the people Reagan didn't fare as well.

The lesson for every election is that those who show up determine the results.  Too often elections are given away by those who aren't completely satisfied with the losing candidate.

Have Republican defections gotten a big boost?

Former Florida Republican Governor Charlie Christ has come out in support of Barack Obama.  See
"Here's why I'm backing Obama", Tampa Bay Times, 2012-08-26.

Once upon a time I was active in the Republican Party, and then it nominated Ronald Reagan over John Anderson.  I did keep voting for Bill Frenzel, Rep., 3rd District, MN, until he retired.  And I voted for Arne Carlson for governor when he replaced the Republican candidate who behaved inappropriately in a swimming pool with teen-age girls.

And the Republicans have gotten even worse.  If they really looked at Ronald Reagan's ability to compromise, they would consider him a "Marxist".

I keep hoping the current Republicans will self-destruct and be replaced by a common-sense party based on facts rather than ideology.  Meanwhile, I feel compelled to vote for Democrats even though they try to cater to too many narrow interests.

A "real" Republican stands up

David Stockman was director of the Office of Management and Budget during Ronald Reagan's first term.  He wrote a sharp criticism of current Republican thinking in "Paul Ryan's Fairy-Tale Budget Plan", New York Times, 2012-08-13.

Among other things Stockman points out that for all the budget cutting in "entitlements", Ryan wants to fund the "warfare state" with a budget twice what Eisenhower thought was sufficient to contain the Soviet threat, adjusted for inflation.  Stockman writes that we have no real credible threat from any "advanced industrial state" and that Iran is benighted but irrelevant.

You might not agree with everything Stockman wrote, but you'll find his thinking is more in tune with reality than what currently passes for conservatism, that is, conserve the entitlements of large corporations and their "right" to raid the Treasury and the pockets of savers.

Is the Republican Party following its predecessor?

In 1852-1856, the Whig Party began disintegrating because of various factions within it.  Some went with the new Republican Party, some went with the Democrats, and some formed various new parties.  See Wikipedia's article on the Whig Party (United States).

Now the Republican Party has morphed from a party of general principals to a party of rigid orthodoxy.  If you are for issues A and B but not C, you are considered a RINO (Republican in name only).  Some like Olympia Snowe resisted but have given up seeking office any longer.  Some like John Posner, a federal appellate judge have spoken out strongly – "Top Reagan-Appointed Judge Slams 'Goofy' Republican Party", Ian Miller, Think Progress, 2012-07-06.  Some like former Utah governor and Presidential primary candidate Jon Huntsman have withdrawn from party activities – "Huntsman scolds GOP for losing focus, will skip convention", Thomas Burr, Salt Lake Tribune, 2012-07-06.

I'm seeing more and more people write that they were once Republican but have dropped out or even become Democrats.  We saw the future when Ronald Reagan was nominated over John Anderson.  Now even Ronald Reagan is to "the left" of many Republicans.

Will many of these dissatisfied Republican politicians work to form a "deliberative" party that looks for long-range solutions?  It could happen, especially if a few well-known journalists start promoting the idea.  There might not have been a Republican Party without Horace Greeley and his New York Tribune.

"[W]e think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery." - Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, June 1854.  Change "propagandist of slavery" to "propagandist of large corporations and rigid dogma" and we have the makings of a new party.  See "The Origins of the Republican Party".

Maybe a new party could adopt the 1856 Republican Party platform with suitable contemporary modifications

State secret: Ronald Reagan changed his mind

Ronald Reagan had a heart attack at his California ranch.  Nancy called 911 and within five minutes the local Fire Dept. EMTs arrived.  They said, "We are from the government and we're here to help."  Both Reagans replied, "Thank goodness!"

Gloom and doom or bloom and boom?

Even among well-off people one hears talk of the bad economy.  Yes, there are too many people without jobs or too many people that are earning far less than they would like.  This is not good.  But not all people are without jobs and not all people are earning less than they would like.  These are not only the one percent.

As I read about manufacturing increasing, about companies not finding enough skilled employees, about all the new brew pubs being opened, seeing so many apps for iPhones being produced, and so, so many people with cell phones, lap tops, and tablets, the economy can't be that bad.

Of course it's bad if you've been kicked out of your house and lost all your equity.  But there are many others still in their houses.

Daniel Gross wrote "Good News for Jobs: Rising Demand", Yahoo Finance, 2012-03-28, giving numbers for increased housing starts, increased remodeling permits, and increased sit-down restaurant business.

As more people are working, more people are spending money, which puts more people to work.

Did Bush's or Obama's stimulus packages lead to this improvement?  Probably not.  Well, stabilization of a bad situation helped, and once things are stable they can improve.  Did high taxes hinder this improvement or low taxes encourage this improvement?  Probably not.  Many economic ups and downs happen independently of the tax situation.

I've often said that the government shouldn't be providing tax breaks for certain industries or subsidizing others.  These often have limited impact and often backfire.  What it should do is increase and target its buying.  Replace vehicles and computers more frequently.  Want higher gas mileage nationally, increase the fuel economy requirement for government cars.  Want to promote alternative energy; put alternative energy sources on government property, even if they are only supplements.  Alternative energy was set way back when Reagan took Carter's solar panels from the White House.

I think the problem is that we expect Presidents to micro-manage, not govern.  That is, favor this group or that group instead of providing a broad, stable framework for people to make decisions.