Morning Joe 1/14/2013 -- No Labels Revolution

On Twitter yesterday, some enthusiastic No Label types, like Ron Fournier, were calling the No Labels movement a revolution. Fournier said it's about holding politicians and parties accountable, and he downplayed the Centrist aspect that characterized the No Labels creators a couple of years ago.

Scarborough, Sam McKinnon and Jon Huntsman also downplayed the Centrist aspect this morning on Morning Joe -- Scarborough said that they are the real conservatives, that they want to cut spending and such. Joe Manchin represented the Democratic side. They talked about getting politicans and political actors together to problem solve. Huntsman talked about problem solving a lot on Morning Joe this morning. Huntsman was ignored when he ran for President. Huntsman obviously believes the American people made a mistake, that they really want Republicans and Democrats to compromise and solve problems from a centralized location.

I don't want to dismiss No Labels out of hand, but I think they're missing the point. If many of them really are the true limited government conservatives, then they'll have the same problem that the Tea Party limited government conservatives have when dealing with Democrats. Democrats are into Big Government solutions. Honestly, when Huntsman and Manchin and the rest talk about problem solving, they seem to be talking about the same Big Government approach to problem solving only with a bipartisan approach. How will this work? Why not say that the movement is about how to get government out of the way, if they are the true limited government conservatives and not just run-of-mill Centrists who compromise on statist solutions?

I don't think we need better government problem solving regarding the economy -- we need free market solutions which arise when central planning/problem solving is prevented and the free economic choices of market players are allowed to take place without interventions from DC. Why doesn't No Labels say strict limits have to be placed on government power? Why doesn't No Labels question the Federal Reserve? From what I can tell, No Labels is a movement to save the Two Party status quo that has maintained State power for decades in the US. Scarborough and the others talked about how the Republican Party is destroying itself by going to the Right. They didn't really say anything about Obama, Reid and Pelosi going to the Left. The No Labels players talk about the Right as if it's made up of extremists like you would see in a movie who are armed to the teeth and threatening to overthrow the "guvmint". There have been a handful of GOP representatives who've made stupid statements because now politicians think they have to pontificate on everything under the sun whether they know anything about the subject or not. Democrat representatives have said similarly stupid things, but they are played up in the media. No Labels spokespeople have built a strawman on the Right and they've denigrated the Right to represent extremism.

The No Labels representatives on Morning Joe did not make a distinction between Rand Paul, Mike Lee and these types of new Republicans who are really the ones threatening the Democratic Party and the moderates in the Republican Party. Until I hear the No Labels crowd cheer on Rand Paul and his limited government ideas, and not leave it all hanging as if they're associating Paul and Lee and this faction of limited government conservatives with "rightwing extremists" then I'll be appropriately sceptical.

Morning Joe 2/24/2012 -- Phony political class

Morning Joe is a great representation of the political class. This political show offers players from the Right, Left and Center in the political class -- mostly Left and Center. Joe and Mika are players in the political class as are all their regulars and semi-regulars, like this morning's guests, John Meacham, David Gregory, Steve Rattner and so forth.

You can make your living in politics and political commentary without being a member of the political class, like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson as politicians who think outside the political class mindset, and perhaps Marco Rubio and a few of the New Republicans, and John Stossell or Judge Napolitano, and perhaps Glenn Greenwald, as pundits/journalists who don't think in terms of political means. What makes a person a member of the political class is whether they view the world through political lens.

This morning on Morning Joe was a perfect example of the phony nature of the political class. Scarborough, each morning, attempts to frame the Republican candidates in the primary as incompetents, as he portrays Obama as someone with whom he disagrees but has a good chance of winning, because Obama is winning the perception battle. Rarely do Scarborough and crew talk about economic reality, because to Scarborough and those in the political class reality has secondary importance to the importance of political perception. Scarborough made a passionate argument this morning about the "math" of the deficit and debt, but he was going off charts manufactured by Steve Rattner which show Obama's "plan" cutting more money in the next 10 years than the Republican candidates. Rattner admitted that he wasn't taking into account what Romney, for example, said he would cut once he was in office and could study what needs to go, because Romney hasn't done it already. What? Scarborough is definitely not an intellectual, but he's smart enough to know that Rattner's charts are bullshit. 

When you have a discussion about "math" that's this convoluted and deceptive, you've exited reality and entered the political realm where the political class has their own logic and math. Who knows what games Scarborough and his guests are playing -- they all have their political agenda. They can't be believed, and they will change positions at the drop of a hat. Scarborough and the No Labels crowd, the Centrists, have criticized the faction of the Republican Party which has worked outside the political realm to address real economic problems because these fiscal conservatives and free marketers are too rigid and not willing to compromise, according to Centrists. But then Scarborough will criticize Romney or Santorum for working with the other side to accomplish certain legislation when Scarborough thinks it will make him look like a strong conservative. So which is it?

If Republicans should work with Democrats to get things done, as the Centrists like Scarborough have claimed in the past, what will they compromise on and what will they get done. I don't know of anyone on the Left who wants serious cuts like Scarborough pretended to support this morning -- the Left wants higher taxes. The Left has been offered tax hikes if they'll help reform entitlements, but Pelosi and Reid and Obama have made it clear that Medicare and SS and Medicaid will not be cut. The entitlements are where the more is, and in big gov. programs. Are Republicans and Democrats willing to work together to decrease the size of the welfare state, cut programs like Dept of Education and cut all unnecessary spending from the military budget?

The political class talks in circles, says anything and does anything to please everyone they can while obscuring reality and blocking any real changes to our statist system. The political class live off a powerful State, and once the power of our interventionist government is limited, the State will shrink to its right size and importance, and over half the political class will scramble to find new employment. The political class needs statism -- they need a powerful State -- they are afraid to face economic reality, and afraid for the people to understand economic reality.

Morning Joe 2/3/2012 -- Divided Republicans

On Morning Joe today the guests were John Meacham, Steve Rattner, Sam McKinnon, Eugene Robinson, David Gregory, Bill Press and Chuck Todd. The topic for the first hour and a half I watched was the state of the Republican primary. Who better to give an objective, insightful analysis of the Republican Party than Leftists and Centrists. I suppose McKinnon and Scarborough were the voice of the Republican Party -- they are both part of the no-labels faction of Republicans who are very disappointed in the choices they have in the primary. McKinnon put afloat again the idea of Scarborugh being drafted to run for President. That was the comedy part of the show.

The Republican Party appears divided in 4 or 5 parts:  Country Club Republicans, no labels Republicans, limited government conservatives, social conservatives and neo-conservatives. Romney is being framed by media and conservatives as a Country Club conservative. Scarborough and Mckinnon sounded like liberals from Politico as they accused Romney of not caring for the poor. They first twisted Romney's words yesterday, and now they are carrying it a step further to accuse Romney of not caring about the plight of the poor, of being disconnected from the pain of poverty. But Scarborough put another phony twist on this to distinguish his angle from the average liberal. Scarborough said that he and other "small government" conservatives reacted to Romney's statement about the poor and the safety net because they believe the poor are hurt by the welfare state and that free market principles will pull the poor out of poverty -- that they want to get government out of the way. Scarborough can not be more disingenuous.

Scarborough implied that he would run on eliminating the welfare state -- he would fight to do away with the government safety net. The Leftists on the Morning Joe panel didn't challenge Scarborough, although they would challenge anyone else who wants to eliminate the welfare state -- they knew Scarborough was being disingenuous, but he was attacking Romney, so that was cool. Morning Joe this morning was about political deceit. The implied criticism of Romney from Scarborough and crew is that he's not politically deceitful -- he doesn't know how to pretend to care about the poor in the proper conservative fashion. The whole conversation, because it was not based on honesty, was so convoluted it became absurd to anyone listening closely.

McKinnon remained silent when Joe said he was for removing the government safety net, because McKinnon is not for removing the government safety net, and neither is Scarborough. McKinnon and Scarborough are not in search of a limited government/free market conservative candidate. They would support Ron Paul if they were. Scarborough, McKinnon, David Brooks, David Frum and that whole faction of Republicans want a Mitch Daniels type candidate -- a moderate who runs in the Center and plays both sides, but leans toward the slow progressive movement to "smart", "compassionate", government. They believe the strict constitutionalists and free market fanatics are too extreme, but they will use the rhetoric and play with liberty in order to get broad support.

The purpose of the Leftists on Morning Joe, with Scarborough as their useful idiot, is to stoke the divisions and avoid any focus placed on Obama's performance. Steve Rattner said that although unemployment will probably be 9% at the end of 2012, Obama is doing a good job and his policies are working because without his policies unemployment could be higher. This is like supporting a CEO of a company that lost 50 billion dollars because without this CEO the company could have lost 100 billion. Only in the political realm does Rattner's support of Obama make sense. The Right and the Left in the political realm right now are joined in the Center where statist power resides. All the political babble is just for show. Each little faction wants to find a seat at the table of power, and hopefully a seat at the head of the table, but none want any real limits on power.

Morning Joe 9/22/2011 -- Independents or No Label losers?

On Morning Joe today, the first segment guests were Katty Kay, Sam McKinnon, Donnie Deutsche and Dick Durbin. It's amazing how 99.9% of the guests on Morning Joe are Centrists or Leftists, but that's a topic for another day. The Morning Joe crew got their Rick Perry bashing out of the way early. Scarborough believes Perry has done himself irreparable damage by writing in his book that Social Security is unconstitutional -- Scarborough believes that Romney can attack Perry on this point and that Perry has no defense. One defense is that our government does a lot of things that are unconstitutional, so what's new -- and now that SS is ingrained but terribly flawed, it must be reformed. But, Scarborough suggests that Romney should scream like a Democrat on meth, like Scarborough did on his show this morning, that Perry is an extremist rightwinger out to destroy SS. If Romney is the best the Republicans can do, then we're in for big trouble for a while longer. I'm not sure Perry is the answer, but he's better than Romney, and neither are as good as Ron Paul.

One thing is clear, the Center/Left coalition is not the answer, but this is what a large part of the conversation was about this morning. Sam McKinnion is a No Labels founder. You aren't sure what No Labels is? Don't feel alone, hardly anyone knows what it is, but they have started a movement to back "independent" candidates and possibly create an independent run for President. Katty Kay said she doesn't think the nation is ready for an independent ticket and asked McKinnon who would be on the ticket. McKinnon had already rattled off some of his suggestions, Erskine Bowles, Bloomberg and a few other mixtures of what appear Left and Right, but are just Center/Center -- in other words Left-lite and Left-lite. McKinnon and companay are offshoots of the neo-conservative/neo-liberal alliance of Irving Kristol and Milton Friedman decades ago, status quo protectors of a certain version of American ideals. This version of America is based on a mixed economy, smart government, compromise, American leadership in the world based on Democracy, equality and openmindedness, a vague America which slowly progresses through statism and a relatively open market which is regulated smartly but allowed to achieve some innovation but that doesn't create market chaos. It's about reasonable, strong leaders who will work together in a bipartisan fashion to prevent extremes and maintain a steady course, maintaining basic civil liberties but sacrificing as much economic liberty as necessary to promote the greater good -- a greater good determined, of course, by the wise, benevolent technocrats.

On the face of it, the Center approach appears pragmatic and reasonable, but as McKinnon unintentionally showed during one part of the show, it raises some serious questions. When talking about Obama's Jobs "bill", it was agreed that Obama's playing politics and is really blocking efforts that could lead to jobs, but they all agreed it's politically smart because the polls say it's smart, so McKinnon said Republicans should vote for the bill and move on so they can "get things done". Here is the problem. If the jobs bill is not good policy, then why pass it, and what are the things to get done? The Center approach has no convictions regarding the conflict between those who believe more government intervention is necessary and those who believe government should be limited and that a free market approach is necessary. The Center says it likes a little of both, but what happens is that they continue to compromise with State power, and as long as State power is not resisted, it will grow -- it's the nature of the beast, and history bears this out -- our own experience in America bears this out.

At this point, Katty Kay is right -- both sides in DC will reject a Center approach. McKinnon might be right, and I think he is, that there's a growing number of independents, but he has misread independents as Center/No Label/Squishes. I don't think independents are looking for a Bloomberg/Bowles ticket, or something similar. If congress agreed today to raise taxes significantly while at the same addressing entitlements, they might be able to get public support, but only if taxes were raised on the rich and the entitlement reform didn't significantly change benefits or age requirements. What would happen is that such a bill would simply confiscate more money from wealth producers to keep our statist system afloat. Independents are not a monolithic group, and they are probably diverse individuals who when asked say they're disgusted with the two party system in Washington. I'm sure they want our government to function properly, but do they want watered down solutions which only increase State power and cost Americans more money? If I had to guess, I would say most independents who have a good understanding of political issues want government to intervene less in the economy, and if they are younger people, they realize that entitlements are broken and expect major changes during their lifetime.

But regardless of what  "independents" want, they, and everyone else, ought to have a clear choice this year between a statist/iprogressive/interventionist approach and a limited government/free market, and if an independent ticket wants to run, then good, but I don't buy the narrative that Americans are craving a Center approach of incremental increases in State power. I also don't buy, yet, that the choice of Republicans will mean a limited government/free market direction -- so you can see why a lot of Americans might be concerned about the 2012 election and our limited choices -- fast expansion of State power or slow expansion of State power. If an independent does run, it shouldn't be from the Center -- it should be as a limited government/free market ticket -- then we'd have a real choice.

The faux-elite Republican faction

http://www.frumforum.com/why-is-pawlenty-on-stage-with-these-crazy-people

This faction has practically destroyed the Republican Party -- the David Brooks, David Frums, Bruce Bartletts, Joe Scarboroughs, Mark Mckinnons and the No Labels crowd. These Frum minions in the link above dismiss Gary Johnson, Ron Paul and Herman Cain with no reasons but that they are out of step with the Republican Party. If they haven't noticed, the Republican Party, with Frum as a speech writer for Bush, didn't step too well when they had power -- they stepped in a pile of something that stinks, so perhaps being out of step with a failed party is the right direction.

In the title of their post, they call the Republicans crazy, except Pawlenty, who were in the SC debate. They simply state Paul's position of ending the war in Afghanistan as proof he's crazy -- they give no reasons why staying in Afghanistan is not just crazy, but insane. They call Johnson crazy for wanting to end the War on Drugs, but give no evidence that the War on Drugs has done anything but overload our prison system, create a warzone on our border, and waste billions of needed dollars. They call Cain crazy because he can pithily get a point across and cut through the bullshit of which they are obviously full.

This group of faux-elitist pretenders is a joke -- Frum's campaign to inspire young people to be spineless compromisers and collectivist, status quo Republicans has flopped, and these twits dismissing the libertarian viewpoints on the Right have no idea what's happening to our government -- they are just spewing back the mind-barf poured into their empty skulls in college and now from Professor Frum.