And People Wonder Why I Don't Think the Government Has Our Best Interests

According to this article Billings is rushing to pass red-light cameras before the Legislature outlaws them. What is really interesting is the notion proposed by the Chief of Police to reduce the amount of time that the light stays yellow. From the article:

"Changes in the yellow times after red light camera systems are in place and operational will affect the number of photographed violations, increasing the number of violations...," said St. John in a recent memo. While cutting one second from the yellow light may boost ticket income by 110 percent (according to a 2004 Texas Transportation Institute study), it may also increase crashes by up to 225 percent, according to the same study.

Let's cut down on those people running red lights by having more accidents!

TANSTAAFL

Dave Budge is now posting on Electric City Weblog, (what is it with all the guest posters Greg? Taking a break?) and has a piece about Tea Parties and herding cats that is well worth the read. Dave calls for a new Jefferson or Adams to define what the purposes of the movement should be.
While I am no Jefferson, I might be an Adams, simply because he was such an obnoxious sort, but I think that the first things that we need to do is to try and get a grip on what it is that the Tea Parties are protesting, and where to go from there. The interesting thing about the protests are not the numbers, which compared to other protests are not that impressive, but that the people protesting don’t usually protest. To rouse this group that is not part of the usual rent-a-mob, indicates that there is something unsettling about the direction that the country is headed that has inspired them. As I said below, there is a general consensus that the Tea Party movement is more an action against things, rather than for anything in particular. The contradictions among the various members are ignored for the moment, but this won’t last if the Tea Party is to be more than a one off. At the least, there is a certain unease with the dramatic increase in usurpation of power and authority by the federal government.
The frequent questions by the Left of why now there is a protest, ignores the outrageous growth of interference by the government in all aspects of what had previously been private activities, especially in the last ninety days. And it is not limited to just being against Obama. The problems obviously started with Bush and the bank bailouts. Whether it was necessary or not won’t be determined for quite a while. I am tempted to give Paulson the benefit of the doubt for the moment that some action was necessary. However, the way he went about it, starting with a three page document and using the number of $750 billion simply because he wanted an amount that would make people take the situation seriously does not inspire confidence.
Then General Motors and Chrysler came to Congress for bailouts. The reason that their requests were even listened to had more to do with the electoral counts of Michigan and Ohio than any real economic issues. While much is made of the 250,000 jobs that would be lost if GM or Chrysler were to go under, that ignores the inherent value of the plants, facilities and people that would remain after a bankruptcy. Bankrupting GM would not mean an end to domestic auto production, it would simply change the company in the same way that United Airlines was changed when it went bankrupt. In fact, the cheapest way to save the auto companies is to give the bailout money to the Pension Resolution Trust fund and separate the retirees from the manufacturer’s obligation. It would result in lower costs to the car manufacturers and constrain the growth of the retiree benefits. Instead, the government gave money to a losing proposition that only has delayed the inevitable, while at the same time giving Obama authority over the management decisions of a somewhat private company. No matter how many times I read my copy of the Constitution, I can’t figure any approach that can justify the actions that have been taken.
From there, we had a $787 Billion dollar “stimulus” package, which really was nothing but a spending list that would never have been passed if Congress had exercised due diligence. In fact, there was no diligence at all, with panic being used to force the bill through both houses without debate, or for that matter even comprehension of what was in the bill. Our Congress at work! Sheesh.
Many on the Left seem confused about the idea of protesting what they see as individual benefits from the actions that the government is taking. For instance, the CNN infobabe who wanted to know why the Chicago Tea Party protests ignored the $8 per week in tax cuts that the Obama administration had handed out. Never mind that they weren’t real tax cuts, but reductions in withholding, she along with the Left and most of the major media outlets ignored the latent effects of those actions. The acceleration of debt that has to be repaid by someone is not something to be ignored. Sure, Obama promised tax cuts for 95% of the population while raising it on the top earners. Of course, for about half the country, these are not tax cuts, but tax credits which are not a reduction of taxes paid, but a transfer of wealth. Even assuming you tax the top 5% at 100% of their earnings, there is not enough money there to pay for the debt that he has decided to burden the country with.
Which brings me to the title of this piece. TANSTAAFL is an acronym for There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Every action that the government takes, even if it is a perceived individual benefit, comes with strings. Take money from the wealthiest and transfer it to the poorest sounds noble. Unfortunately, it ignores what would have been done with the money if it hadn’t been transferred. Short of hiding money in a mattress, wealth has a worth beyond its immediate face value. What do rich people do with their money? They buy things, build things and invest it to make even more wealth. When they do any of these actions, they create demand, which creates jobs, which spreads the wealth around. Couple this with innovation and initiative and the potential for growth increases as someone makes a better, cheaper whatever. I know that this concept has been rejected as “trickle down economics” but if the separation of the differing economic classes was as total as some claimed, the poor and middle class would have been completely immune to this recession. Instead, the fact that everyone is losing money or jobs show that the economy is so intertwined that trickle down does work. But when the government takes the money, there is less wealth created.
For instance, take $100 held in the possession of a wealthy person. Let’s have that person spend it on a widget. That means that there has to be a salesperson, a business and a manufacturing capability for widgets. The purchase stimulates the need for a replacement widget on the shelf for future sales keeping everyone in the system engaged in business.
Take the same $100 and give it to the government. The government cannot just hand it to some deserving poor person. Instead, it has to be logged, accounted for, rules have to be made and enforced to make sure only the right person gets the money. Regulations have to be promulgated, compliance officers will have to ensure that the rules are followed, and the net result is not $100 but more like $80 (and even this might be a best case scenario). So, the difference is a $100 paycheck versus an $80 welfare check for the same amount.
Everything that the government does comes with a cost. Many times, these costs are reasonable, such as the construction of the Interstate Highway system. The costs are spread about fairly and evenly through the gas tax which incurs a heavier burden on high users than it does on those whose only means of transportation is a bicycle, even if they are using the same roads paid for by cars.
With every action that the government does for us or to us, it comes with a cost. Whether increased debt, or reduction in personal liberties. Think that universal health care is a great idea? Sure it is, but what happens when you get it? Do you trade the greedy corporate HMO for the parsimonious accountant from the government that determines that your life is not cost effective enough to save? Why is that better? The almost childlike belief that the government can do a better job of allocating resources has never been shown to work. But just like children waiting for Santa Claus, they know that if they truly believe, that Santa will bring them just what they want.
It’s time for the adults to take control of the government. To assume responsibility needs to be more than a meaningless slogan and a call to action.
Aux Armes Citoyens!

Hiding the Truth

Remember when John Ashcroft had the statue of Lady Justice draped with a cloth because it showed her bare (stone) breast? The hue and cry from across the land was addressed to the fanatical Christianists who had taken over the administration. Personally, I thought it was a dumb thing for Ashcroft to get involved in, but he did. The resultant media maelstorm helped to reduce his credibility even more.
Now, we have an amazingly similar circumstance but because it was done at the request of "The One" I doubt that it will get the wide play like the Ashcroft kerfluffle.
Not that this sort of double standard makes me angry anymore. Nope, the Left has sold their soul, and have no credibility at all. As a result, they just provide many hours of comedic entertainment.
Even if they don't mean to.

Tea Party Review

I left work at 5:30 and thought that I would swing by the Polson Tea Party that was scheduled from 4-6. As I neared the intersection, I saw three people holding signs supporting the Tea Party, and I was disappointed, thinking that they were all that cared. I honked and waved, and started to drive by, when I looked down on the park and saw close to 200 people there. In Polson. On a Wednesday afternoon. With the wind howling off the lake. So I parked when I found a spot and went to join in. Old, young, middle aged, and the future inheritors of our unbelievable debt were there.
Rick Jore was speaking when I got there, and I have to hand it to him, that he knows his Constitutional history. His comments about what is happening to our country were very inspiring, and right in line with my own musings on the subject.
I know that many on the Left are working overtime to try and lessen the significance of the Tea Parties. This is both disappointing, and predictable. The Left, (yes, I know this is a generalization, but it has enough anecdotal evidence to make some hard data) are quite pleased with themselves and their government. The Right is of course in opposition, although it could be argued that the politicians are Johnny Come Latelys to the idea of fiscal responsibility. What is interesting, and important, are the uncommitted middle. This middle is starting to realize that there is going to be a cost to the outrageous spending/borrowing/taxing binge that our "leaders" have embarked upon.
So, why now, why this issue especially after George Bush ran up the debt with Medicare Part D and the TARP I bailouts and their effect on the debt? I was thinking about what the source is and I think that it started last Spring, with the stimulus rebate checks, which may have alleviated the recession somewhat, but only delayed what was coming. Combining the downturn with the unexplained jump in oil prices which triggered the housing finance crisis (a house of cards that was waiting on the puff of wind to destroy it) which was tied to the Credit Default Swaps and the economy was doomed.
Then came Hank Paulson with his emergency that required the TARP funds, with no plan or idea except to throw the equivalent of the deficit at the banks. There still is no real accounting of where the money went to for those funds, and if I remember right, they haven't even spent it all. Then TARP II came along, and the 1000 page pork laden, municipal park buillding, and a mag lev train to take Harry Reid to LA "stimulus" that none of the people who voted for it had even read. Banks were sued under the aegis of community organizers to force them to loan to unqualified borrowers, and then the banks got greedy because some smart people figured out a formula that said they could never lose money. Throw in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, with their incestuous relationship with the Democrat Party and Bernie Madoff, and what little trust in our institutions has evaporated.
The cure, according to our friends on the Left, is more of the same. Banks were regulated when they failed, so we need more regulations. Bernie Madoff was supervised by the SEC, but we need more regulations. Medicare loses approximately 15-20% to fraud, and we will solve it by creating a single payer system. And let us not forget about wealth disparity. The Left relies on the mythology that the richest people all unjustly inherited their wealth or stole it from the hard working people below them. Sure, they may find an example or two, just look at where Bill Gates jr. would be if his dad hadn't given him all of his wealth. Or all those people who worked 80-100 hours a week instead of the minimum amounts. They must have been stealing the wealth of those who only put in 40 hours a week when they were off.
What the Tea Party represents more than taxes or spending, is the complete loss of faith in the institutions of this country. What the cure is, I am not sure, but I do know that the government is not going to be the source of the solution. The only thing that is going to restore trust is to remove those who have violated that trust.
We need to return to shaming people when they need it. And there are a whole lot of people who need it right now.

Are You Now, or Have You Ever Been . . .

A Right Wing Extremist? According to Obama's Department of Homeland Security report you might be if you

reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

So, those of us who believe in limited government, and the sovereignty of the People over the government are probably included in this number. Throw in the fact that you might be a veteran, and you rise even higher on the threat charts.
Of course, the poor research by DHS means that they probably couldn't find out where we live anyway. One good thing, the Obama administration has finally got up the cajones to call someone a terrorist.
Fear this woman!

What's Next?

With less than 24 hours to the Tea Party protests, the question has to be raised, "what's next for the Tea Party movement?" In order to figure out where you are going, you have to know where you are coming from. Otherwise, you are stuck in the banality of making really good time, but that you are lost.
In spite of the silly accusations of the Left, the Tea Party movement is not controlled or directed by any group. It is instead, the natural outgrowth of anger at what is happening to our country by an out of control government, using the equivalent of the Reichstag fire in the form of an economic crisis to take extraconstitutional control over an ever growing portion of the economy. As noted at Left in the West, there is actual confusion among the Left of why people would be protesting the sudden rise in the deficit when they said nothing during Bush's profligacy. But, maybe this graphic would help:
The astounding and careless manner in which the budget is being increased should not be ignored. And that, more than anything is driving the Tea Party movement.
There is also the general buyer's remorse of those who thought that Obama would bring change, which he did. Just not the change that they had anticipated. I myself was hoping that last September when Obama was complaining about the deficits that Bush had created he would do something after he was elected. I just didn't realize that his complaint was that Bush didn't go far enough.
Getting back to the point of the post, the disadvantages for the Tea Party movement are multiple. First, the basis of the movement is that people are united against greater debt. Being against something has only limited utility, and can certainly collapse as more and more individuals start to feel that what the other guy is against isn't what concerns them.
My suggestion would be to keep people focused on the spending side of the equation. There are plenty of useful examples out there, which make you scratch your head and ask the question "Why, if we are in an economic crisis, are we spending money on that?" When we have a "stimulus" bill that is spending money on frisbee parks, dog parks, walking paths etc., you have to wonder why we are going so deeply into debt for such items. By keeping the Tea Party movement focused on government spending at all levels, whether for bailing out automakers or banks, or any other entity, the rage that will be shown on the 15th will carry on for a lot longer than just one day.

Where Conrad Burns Went Wrong

He didn't brag about corruption like this guy. What's that eerie silence that I hear?
Oh yeah, that's the outrage that was directed against Burns, but has no problem with Murtha.
Next time, don't give them more credibility than they deserve. Which by the way, is exactly zero.

RIP Bob Shea

Dr. Shea was a friend of mine. I first met him when I was looking for help for a client. He was always so interesting and fun to talk to, and his insight into the human condition was always so valuable. I will miss him very much.
His obituary can be found here.

Losing Their Religion?

I am always bemused by the supposed confusion of those on the Left toward religion. Chris Matthews spent time on his show Hardball complaining about how religious Republicans are. This is always a problem when you have competing true believers of what is the correct faith. And Chris Matthews and much of the Left have a faith in the government that leaves no room for any other version of belief.
Analyzing their approach to life, reveals how they have substituted their faith for their ideology. First, they have belief in an amorphous being called the "Government" which exists at all levels of their life. This superior being is able to bring all that they desire should they simply proffer the appropriate offerings, usually in the form of taxes and submission to regulatory bodies. This belief is not necessarily based on facts. In truth, it is often that they feel betrayed by their deity in such things as Katrina or failure to promptly implement universal health care and prevent global warming. These failures are more due to their own and their fellow citizen's lack of true belief in the deity. Failure of the deity to deliver can only be cured by more striving for perfection in what is offered to the deity to secure the desired results.
And like all great religions, they have to deal with those apostates who refuse to acknowledge the deity. These are usually called Republicans or conservatives. These apostates must be silenced, lest they contaminate the weaker members of the true believers. This is accomplished by their acolytes through attempts to bring back the oxymoronic "Fairness Doctrine" and the labeling of all non believer communications as "hate speech."
The one serious advantage that their religion has over others, is the ability to coerce tithings from non-believers. Just imagine how jealous other religions must be of the government's ability to bring guns, courts and jails to their ability to extract offerings from even non-believers to the higher power.
The deity has a system of a priestly class that helps to interpret what the deity wants from the believers, and acts as an intermediary in their pleas for beneficience from the same. These are called bureaucrats. Armed with the arcane knowledge of how to communicate with the deity, they are different from other believers because they have the inside track on what it is that the deity wants. Their decisions can only be appealed through the ecclesiastical courts of higher bureaucracy. This priestly class is assisted by the High Priests and Priestesses of the deity, known as politicians. Armed with certainty and campaign donations, but not necessarily knowledge, they interact with the lower class bureaucrats in providing the miracles that only the deity can deliver. The High Priest class will always assume the credit should the deity deliver, but will transfer the blame for failure onto the non-believers and occasionally the bureaucrats. But the deity is never to be questioned, for to do so would be heresy.
We are just now entering the modern equivalent of the 30 Years War, with the division of territory according to the Prince's of each of those territories designating whether their territory is to be of the One True Faith, or the apostasy of small government.
Personally, I think that we need another modern day Martin Luther and a new Reformation.

Ain't that the truth

From the trivia widget on the left:

The female knot-tying weaverbird will refuse to mate with a male who has built a shoddy nest. If spurned, the male must take the nest apart and completely rebuild it in order to win the affections of the female.

Seems to apply with humans as well. At least to keep my wife (The Good Democrat) happy.

Your Puny Weapons Have No Effect on Me.

On NRO, they are talking about Barney Frank (D-Gays) calling Scalia a "homophobe." This is just another continuation in the efforts to suppress differing opinions, by making false charges that force the accused to defend themselves. So many on the Left are adept at it these days, whether it was Cynthia McKinney, Rep. Clyburn of South Carolina (who said that his governor's refusal to accept the porkulus bill was racist), any criticism of Obama's policies are considered racist as well as way too many others. The problem is that it is starting to lose its effect.
Take Frank's scurillous name calling. Why is Scalia a homophobe? Apparently because he hasn't reversed the Defense of Marriage Act. Of course it hasn't come before the SCOTUS yet, but that is just a technicality.
The allegations are nothing more than the old rhetorical trick of "When did you stop beating your wife." It serves no useful purpose in a discussion, but is wonderfully amusing.
It's time to stop laughing at this nonsense and call it out for what it is: Wrong.

Tea Parties and the Media

Tea Parties are not receiving the kind of attention as that of the professional protesters like ACORN. But these are hard working citizens who are frustrated with the way the government is so indiscriminately throwing money around. The same sort of folks who actually, you know, pay taxes. We need to do more to help get the word out about the upcoming Montana Tea Parties. One site to start with is here My problem is that they post all of their information on Facebook, something that I have absolutely nothing to do with. But all of you smart people can find them there.
As for me, I may be alone, but I will be at the Polson Post Office at noon on the 15th, and if anyone wants to join me, you are more than welcome.

Why are we spending money on these?

From the PowerLine which cites to a London Times article, some of the items in the recently passed omnibus bill:
- Removing tattoos from gang members (California): $200,000

- Polynesian Voyaging Society (Hawaii): $238,000

- Swine odour and manure management (Iowa): $2m

- Preserving Lahontan cut-throat trout (Nevada): $250,000

- Stable fly control (Nebraska): $866,000

- Blackbird management (North Dakota): $265,000

- Encouraging teenagers to abstain from sex (Pennsylvania): $24,000

When we are going to be running an almost $2 Trillon dollar deficit, why are we spending money on these items? Sure they are small, but in the aggregate, it still adds up to $2 Trillion dollars. Used to be that 2 Billion was incomprehensible. Now we bandy about a number one thousand times greater but without one thousand times greater concern.

The Tax Song

With Tax Day coming up in just three and a half weeks, this song seems appropriate:



And just think, if you made enough, and paid off Dodd, Baucus, Rangel and others, you could get special exemptions. After all, taxes are just for the little people.

My Secret Plan is Working!!

Bwahahahaha, Democrats and the Left have fallen completely into my trap, just as I planned. Being in charge of both Congress and the White House, they have reverted to their true nature and become the tax and spend liberals that we always knew that they were, thereby removing the anomaly of Bill Clinton. Sure, Bill did balance the budget and start a surplus, but that was an accident of timing coupled with a Republican Congress.
Having relied on the Clinton example for the last eight years as a proof that Democrats could be fiscally prudent, they have instead resumed their true colors. Now they are planning the outrageous deficits that are set to destroy the country more surely than any enemy could ever accomplish.
Part of the plan was to instill the belief that Conservatism has been obliterated after the last election. The fools! They did not realize that it was all part of the plan. I knew that they would be unable to restrain themselves and to act responsibly. Their internal contradictions necessitated that they overreach and alienate the moderate middle that went for Obama last November. New numbers just out show that the generic Congressional ballot has Democrats and Republicans tied at the moment. And in 2010, without Obama on the ballot, Democrats who are less likely to vote will stay at home while Republicans and independents will turn out in droves to turn out the corrupt likes of Dodd and Ried. In the other congressional elections, what Democrat is going to avoid being coupled with Rangel or Barney Frank? Not to mention the federal earmarks in the "stimulus" bill that have nothing to do with creating or saving jobs. Republicans will need to point out that Congress was not spending our hard earned dollars. Instead, they were spending our future hard earned dollars at a rate that would make payday loan operators blush.
The next step in my plan calls for the removal of Bonior and McConnell as head of the Republicans and replace them with Jeff Flake and Sen. Coburn. These deficit hawks need to propose that if they come into the majority that they will completely curb federal spending except that which is legally mandated, and just keep that at the rate of inflation. Next absolutely no federal spending on anything that does not have a broad based national interest. No new parks or bike paths in Missoula or sewage plants in Akron, Ohio until we get spending under control. Republicans should also run on a promise that they will pass a Constitutional amendment authorizing a line item veto. This will probably be vetoed by Obama, but it will have quite a bit of resonance with the general public, and could be a launching platform for the next Republican candidate for President in 2012.
While the groundwork has been set, Republicans need to remember that they cannot follow the model of the Democrats and try to buy the voting public's love. Instead, they need to act like adults and point out that we need to act responsibly, even if it is going to be painful. The American public is willing to accept pain if they think that the pain is equally shared. We are just looking for someone who is willing to spread the discomfort around, rather than just targeting the "rich."
The best part of the plan though, is going to see the look on the Left's faces as they realize that while they thought that they had destroyed Conservatism, they have simply put in place the conditions which will ensure its validity for the next thirty years.
And we couldn't have done it without them.

Justice Prevails Again!

Thanks to the Professional Liar/Confidential Informant's inability to appear, and that part of the Constitution about the right to confront and cross examine, the marijuana case has been dismissed, thereby saving the people of the State of Montana $40,000 per year for his incarceration.
Almost enough to ease some of my cynicism about the American Justice system.

Nah.

I'll be Back

Last week, I had a deliberate homicide trial, that luckily was resolved in favor of what really happened. Next week, I have a Distribution of Dangerous Drugs trial (marijuana). Why in the hell we are looking to send someone to prison for up to life for the sale of less than 5 grams of what is probably ragweed has me stumped. But until that trial is over, I will only be able to catch a few of the Dextra posts.

My apologies.

Budge Nails It

Not that he needs the extra attention, but this about Obama had me rolling on the floor, laughing my a** off:

Personally I blame Obama. That should be no surprise though. I learned long ago never to underestimate the distruction a politician can cause. And so far Obama is nothing more than two-faced, double-speaking politician.

I don’t have to hope he fails. At this rate he’s doing fine all by himself.

Time for a Montana Tea Party?

The Montana Misanthrope points out the hypocrisy of Tester specifically and Baucus in general. Before we raise taxes on anyone, let's only spend our money on what he have to have. For instance, and just a beginning:

Included in Prime Cuts 2009 is the elimination of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program (MAP). The program aims to help agricultural producers promote U.S. products overseas; however, MAP funnels millions of dollars to large corporations. If eliminated, it would save taxpayers $231 million over five years.

Also recommended for elimination is the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). Created in 1992, the NDIC is Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) expensive pet project. The NDIC is an ineffective and wasteful program that costs millions each year. Taxpayers would save $115 million over five years if the NDIC was eliminated.

One of the more expensive projects on this year’s list of recommendations for elimination is the New Moon/Mars initiative. The initiative is a Bush Administration plan to continue NASA’s exploration of Mars and to return to the Moon by 2020. In just one year the elimination of the New Moon/Mars initiative would save taxpayers $1.5 billion, and $11.5 billion over five years.

Thanks to Citizens Against Government Waste. And that is just the beginning.
Until you can tell me that the above listed items are more important than health care for the masses, I am never going to support raising taxes. You can't seriously say that the government needs more money when it is spending it on junk.
Well Jon? Where do you stand on these items for the moment?

Sometimes,You can be just too clever

I never understood why Obama brought Rush Limbaugh into the forefront of who the Republicans should not listen to. Then, when Rush announced that he hoped that Obama fails, the media ran wild with it. Never mind, that if you listen to what he actually said, he wanted Obama's policies to fail, not the country. But for many on the Left, politics is the personal, which is probably why they don't see their own hypocrisy during the Bush years when they labeled him a failure and his policies disastrous. And that was just because he was a Republican, not even a conservative.
But the Obama administration's efforts to keep bringing up Limbaugh puzzled me somewhat. If you don't agree with him, ignore him. But then, I came to find out that there is actually a concerted strategy to paint Limbaugh as the face of Republicans. Apparently,polling shows that Limbaugh is unfavorably received by younger voters. Okay, that seems reasonably smart. Except for one thing. Rush is not a passive person who is willing to be the foil that the Democrats lack. In fact, he is challenging Obama to a one on one debate. No cue cards, teleprompters,aides whispering from behind, absolutely nothing but Obama's powerful intellect. A part of what is on his website:

But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn’t President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it’s on the record. They’re claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let’s have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program — without staffers, without a TelePrompTer, without note cards — to debate me on the issues. Let’s talk about free markets versus government control. Let’s talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.

Let’s talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let’s talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let’s talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let’s talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let’s talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let’s talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let’s talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let’s talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let’s talk about your stock market. By the way, Mr. President, I want to help. Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.

There’s no “up and down” here. We have a plunge. The president yesterday suggested “we’re getting to the point where profits and earnings ratios are approaching that point where you want to invest.” Uh, Mr. President? There is no “profits and earnings” ratio. It’s “price and earnings” ratio. He’s the president of the United States. He doesn’t know anything about the stock market. He’s admitted it before. Let’s talk about it anyway. You want to maintain it’s a tracking poll? I’d love to talk to you about that. Let’s talk about all of these things, Mr. President. Let’s go ahead and have a debate on this show. No limits. Now that your handlers are praising themselves for promoting me as the head of a political party — they think that’s a great thing — then it should be a no-brainer for you to further advance this strategy by debating me on the issues and on the merits, and wipe me out once and for all!

Just come on this program. Let’s have a little debate. You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the American that don’t agree with you how wrong we all are. You’re a smart guy, Mr. President. You don’t need these hacks to front for you. You’ve debated the best! You’ve debated Hillary Clinton. You’ve debated John Edwards. You’ve debated Joe Biden. You’ve debated Dennis Kucinich. You’ve debated the best out there. You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age. I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity. Don’t send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding — and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel. He’s got things to do in his office. These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chum.

By elevating Rush to be the face of Republicans, how can Obama not accept? If he refuses to debate the man that he helped to elevate to public enemy number one, then is it because he's afraid? He can't pretend that Limbaugh is just a commentator, since he took him on first.
Sometimes, all of these smart people sure do seem dumb.

UPDATE From Scrappleface:

Obama to Drop Shield if Russia Helps with Limbaugh
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · 17 Comments

(2009-03-05) — President Barack Obama has reportedly written another private note to his Russian counterpart offering to halt deployment of a defensive nuclear missile shield in Europe, this time in exchange for Russia’s help in dealing with U.S. talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh.

The White House immediately denied the existence of the letter to President Dmitry Medvedev, but acknowledged “ongoing internal deliberations over a measured response using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy.”

Dealing with Mr. Limbaugh has taken the Obama administration’s focus off of other global trouble spots like North Korea, Iran and Chicago.

The rift between President Obama and Mr. Limbaugh started in October when the radio kingpin said of Mr. Obama “I hope he fails.” Tension escalated when Democrat pollsters discovered that Rush Limbaugh is the only remaining divisive Republican with name recognition higher than 10 percent.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, during his daily review of cable TV and radio personalities, said that President Obama won election, in part, “on a promise to be more inclusive, to talk with enemies, and to present an American face to the world that is more about dialogue and multilateral solutions than confrontation.”

“If President Obama intends to find common ground with the Mullahs in Iran,” said Mr. Gibbs, “He can certainly find a way to appease Rush Limbaugh.”

An unnamed State Department source said that when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returns from the Middle East, the president will “dispatch her to Florida to engage Limbaugh in high-level talks to keep this situation from mushrooming.”

The State Department also released its standard diplomatic response statement, which covers everything from nuclear weapons deployment by hostile regimes, to Israeli destruction of houses in Palestinian ’settlements’, calling Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks “unhelpful.”