Almost Classical

Members of the press should read this report: Family Feud: Democratic Activists v. Democratic Voters - The Ideological Gulf that Thwarts a Sustained Majority The GOP voters and activists aren't very far apart, ideologically. However, there is a statistically significant gap separating Democratic Party Activists from mainstream voters. I believe the press and chattering class are closer to the activists than the voters — which is why they can't believe Rick Santorum might run a close national campaign against Pres. Obama. Santorum is like an "alien" to Democratic activists. Ruth Marcus writes at the Washington Post: In the 10 presidential elections since 1972, Democratic activists — those who attended a campaign event and donated money — rated themselves an average of 3.06 on a 7-point liberal-to-conservative ideological scale, with 4 being “moderate.” By contrast, those who merely identify as Democrats or lean that way were significantly closer to ...

Party activists do not trust our election system. This is true on the left and the right. The left worries about voting machines, the right worries about voter fraud. Both have valid concerns — so why can't the extremes agree on solutions? Because in today's political climate "the other party" is pure evil, driven by party over country if you believe the loudest voices. And in this era of deep distrust and division among the party activists (the general public is nowhere near as divided), facts don't seem to matter. The Democratic party base claims photo identification requirements for voting are an attempt to limit minority access to the polls. This is nonsense, because these same voters use photo ID to buy alcohol, drive cars, attend school, rent movies, and much more. The voter ID laws won't change much of anything, and would probably only limit a handful of instances of fraudulent voting. Still, I do support voter ID laws as a way to increase faith i...

Paul Krugman, unfortunately, is the dominant voice among left-leaning economists. His columns are too often a sad example of what passes for great intellectual insight from the Coastal Elites in today's United States. Consider this series of logical leaps: Moochers Against Welfare   By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: February 16, 2012  [The] regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasn't Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don't eat Thai food and don't rely on handouts? Krugman is a master of misleading arguments, resorting to a mix of straw man arguments and ad hominem insults that are meant to belittle conservative voters. Why the use of the word "moochers" for people on aid? If the goal is to make a point that people on aid are not  moochers, Krugman fails. Instead, his use comes across as insulting. A moocher...

On February 2, 2012, President Obama spoke at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. This event dates back to Eisenhower, and is generally used to talk about unity and shared values. Not this year. Instead, Obama used the opportunity to promote his tax policies. I do not mind a politician being guided by his or her ethical foundation, including religious beliefs, as long as those beliefs do not infringe upon my freedom. However, politicians of all types tend to misquote scriptures and misrepresent them. I'd rather politicians not attempt to be theologians. Keep religion out of politics. Period. (I also dislike ending every speech with "God Bless America!" If there is a Creator, the entire world needs some blessings about now.) I wrote this blog entry less than a year ago: http://roguerhet.blogspot.com/2011/05/wwjd-rhetoric-scripture-and-taxes.html The president's speech is filled with misrepresentations of the Bible, selective readings that do not reflect the ...