Politics, et Cetera

A publication from The Political Forum, LLC

[print-me target=”body”]

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

They Said It:

Gentlemen, Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. In such a country as this, they are of all bad things the worst, worse by far than anywhere else ; and they derive a particular malignity even from the wisdom and soundness of the rest of our institutions.

Edmund Burke, “Speech at Bristol,” 1780.



If you’ve paid very, very close attention to American political history, then it’s possible that you are familiar with Judson Welliver.  If not, then we’ll be happy to tell you of him.  He was, we believe, the man whose appearance on the public stage marked the beginning of the end for the last great hope of mankind, these here United States.

An exaggeration, you say?  Well . . . maybe.  Certainly it’s a little unfair to blame Welliver himself.  He was just doing his job, after all.  Unfortunately, that job was “literary clerk,” which is to say “speechwriter,” for Warren Harding, whom he served from 1921-1923.  Welliver was, as it turns out, the first man hired full-time by an American administration to help in the writing of presidential speeches.  And it’s been all downhill from there.

As you may or may not have noticed, we’ve spent some time over the last several months deriding some famous presidential orations, largely because of the policies to which these speeches committed the American polity, and by extension, the American people.  Two weeks ago, for example, we railed against JFK’s memorable and historically significant inaugural address, in which he promised that “we” – which is to say John and Jane Q. Public and their children – would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

That speech was, of course, largely written by Ted Sorenson, who made both his name and his career writing for the Kennedy family; first as Jack’s speechwriter, then as a campaign adviser to Bobby, and lastly as the guy who strung together the words that helped save Teddy’s career after the Chappaquiddick incident.  (As the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto might add:  Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.)  Kennedy reportedly had Sorenson study Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in preparation for penning the speech, just so he’d have an idea about the kind of lofty rhetoric that would be appropriate for the occasion, never mind that the occasions were, in no way, similar.

Another speech about which we’ve kvetched these last few months was Harry Truman’s “special message” on Greece and Turkey to Congress on March 12, 1947.  As we noted back in June, this speech not only committed the United States irrevocably to what would become known as the Cold War, but also committed American liberalism to the pursuit of global governance under the beneficent (Gnostic) leadership of the Western powers, namely the United States.

The interesting thing about Truman’s speech is that it wasn’t really supposed to be anywhere near as far-reaching as it turned out to be.  The address was crafted over several days, written first by the State Department and then revised EIGHT times by various parties throughout the administration.  Finally, the text was “Trumanized” – which is to say punched up a little bit – by White House Counsel and speechwriter Clark Clifford, a veritable superman of post-war liberalism.  Unfortunately, the version settled upon by Clifford and Truman was a little too enthusiastic for many who had worked so carefully on the policy it was supposed to introduce.  George Kennan, for example, the man who penned the “Long Telegram” and who is therefore credited with inspiring the Truman Doctrine, was “extremely unhappy” about the speech and about the breadth of the promises made therein.  He put it this way in his Memoirs:

Why, then . . . did I take exception to the language of the President’s message?  I took exception to it primarily because of the sweeping nature of the commitments which it implied.  The heart of the message and the passage that has subsequently been most frequently quoted was this:

“I believe it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.  I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.”

This passage, and others as well, placed our aid to Greece in the framework of a universal policy rather than in that of a specific decision addressed to a specific set of circumstances.  It implied that what we had decided to do in the case of Greece was something we would be prepared to do in the case of any other country, provided only that it was faced with the threat of “subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”

It seemed to me highly uncertain that we would invariably find it in our interests or within our means to extend assistance to countries that found themselves in this extremity.  The mere fact of their being in such a plight was only one of the criteria that had to be taken into account in determining our action . . .

Since almost no country was without a Communist minority, this assumption carried very far.  And as time went on, the firmness of understanding for these distinctions on the part of our own public and governmental establishment appeared to grow weaker rather than stronger.  In the 1960s so absolute would be the value attached, even by people within the government, to the mere existence of a Communist threat, that such a threat would be viewed as calling, in the case of Southeast Asia, for an American response on a tremendous scale, without serious regard even to those main criteria that most of us in 1947 would have thought it natural and essential to apply.

Ambassador Chip Bohlen, who was with Secretary of State George Marshall in Paris when he received the text of the message, described the Marshall’s reaction as follows:  “We were somewhat startled to see the extent to which the anti-communist element of the speech was stressed.  Marshall sent back a message to President Truman questioning the wisdom of his presentation, saying he thought that Truman was overstating it a bit.”

Oh well.  A speech here . . . and Americans are committed to the Cold War.  A speech there . . . and some 50,000 Americans are marching off to their deaths in Southeast Asia.  No big deal.  At least that’s all in past, right?

Well, no.  A little over a week ago, we got to thinking about presidential speechwriters again after we saw an article in Politico, the inside-the-Beltway must-read collection of conventional wisdom.  The piece, penned by Carrie Budoff Brown and Glenn Thrush, is truly fascinating reading.  It is also exceptionally exhausting and disheartening.  To wit:

The most important red line of Barack Obama’s presidency was scrawled hastily in January 2007, a few weeks before he even announced he was running for president.

Soon-to-be-candidate Obama, then an Illinois senator, was thinking about turning down an invitation to speak at a big health care conference sponsored by the progressive group Families USA, when two aides, Robert Gibbs and Jon Favreau, hit on an idea that would make him appear more prepared and committed than he actually was at the moment.  Why not just announce his intention to pass universal health care by the end of his first term?

Thus was born Obamacare, a check-the-box, news-cycle expedient that would ultimately define a president.

“We needed something to say,” recalled one of the advisers involved in the discussion.  “I can’t tell you how little thought was given to that thought other than it sounded good.  So they just kind of hatched it on their own.  It just happened.  It wasn’t like a deep strategic conversation.” . . .

The consequences of that offhand promise are still reverberating . . .

[Jon] Favreau, who would go on to become the chief White House speechwriter, said Obama wanted “to say something bold and ambitious about health care.”

“He had previously talked about how every year and every election we keep talking about health care and nothing ever happens,” Favreau said.  “So we came up with that promise, really one of the first.”  The candidate jumped at it.  He probably wasn’t going to get elected anyway, the team concluded.  Why not go big?

So there you have it, gentle readers.  Americans are now committed to this major overhaul of 1/6th of the national economy; this pending disaster of bureaucratic chaos; this complete reorganization of American life; this reordering of the relationship between freeborn men and women and their government, and all because a few smart-mouthed kids – Favreau was 26 years-old at the time – decided that the cool Senator from Illinois needed something equally cool to say about health care.  That’s a little . . . discomfiting, dontcha think?

Of course, it’s not just the Democrats who have speechwriters who help the boss wax eloquent and end up committing the United States to one disaster after another.

If you’ve never heard of David Frum, it’s not his fault.  Indeed, it is to your credit.  He is, after all, one of the most tiresome self-promoters in contemporary Washington.  For the record, Frum is an erstwhile Canadian journalist who became involved in conservative politics, first in his homeland and then here in the States.  He is a consummate Washington insider who, at the present, spends most of his time railing against the Tea Party, its candidates, and its political views, insisting that the silly yahoos out in flyover country don’t know anywhere near as much about the things that really matter as he and his sophisticated comrades do.

Back in 2002, Frum also just happened to be a speechwriter for George W. Bush.  And after that year’s State of the Union address, his wife, the writer Danielle Crittendon, reportedly sent out the following email:

I realize this is very “Washington” of me to mention but my husband is responsible for the “Axis of Evil” segment of Tuesday’s State of the Union address.  It’s not often a phrase one writes gains national notice—unless you’re in advertising of course (“The Pause that refreshes”) — so I’ll hope you’ll indulge my wifely pride in seeing this one repeated in headlines everywhere!!

Of course, that particular phrase – which tied Iran to Iraq to North Korea – became the foundation for the “Bush Doctrine,” which, as we’re sure you recall, focused on preemption and fighting the enemies of freedom on their soil, before they could get to ours.

There is, we should note, some confusion about the phrase “axis of evil” and its authorship.  The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg claims that Frum proposed the idea but that chief speechwriter Michael Gerson changed it, adding the bit about “evil.”  Not that it matters.  Gerson too is an archetypical contemporary presidential speechwriter, a man who revels in lofty rhetoric and clever turns of phrase, without ever really contemplating the effects that those words might have on policy.

Bush’s second inaugural address, about which we wrote rather contemptuously back when it was given, was reportedly heavily influenced by Gerson.  His handiwork was patently evident when Bush declared, for example, that “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors.  When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

What all of this suggests, we think, is that this country has a serious problem.  It’s bad enough that it is cursed with politicians – and presidential politicians in particular – whose outsized egos give evidence of a dangerous disconnect from all semblance of reality.  It’s infinitely worse that we also have this bizarre claque of presidential cheerleaders who are not merely sycophantic but flagrantly haughty in their own right; a small group of men and women on both sides of the aisle who compete with one another and with their predecessors to see who can write the most soaring rhetoric or the most clever applause lines.

Their job, to borrow an allusion from the great French satirist Celine, is to put caramel on a turd.  Incapable of embarrassment or self-reflection, and unfamiliar with prudence, they push their “craft” ever further toward chaos and old night.  And they do so in part out of competitive spirit and in part with their eyes on the history books, hoping desperately that they’ll be remembered for all ages as the “bard” who penned the phrase that changed the world.

Unfortunately, they really are changing the world.  But not for the better.

This week, as enrollment for the Affordable Care Act begins, and as a government shutdown and a debt-ceiling standoff are threatened because of conflicts of vision over that law, better known as Obamacare, it is, we think, worth remembering that this fight has nothing whatsoever to do with deeply held beliefs or values.  Or at least it has nothing to do with “the One’s” deeply held beliefs and values.  He would like Americans to believe that, of course.  But it’s just not true.  The Affordable Care Act is fluke, an accident, the brainchild of a barely post-pubescent, bumptious hotshot who wanted his boss to have something “cool” to say at a candidates’ forum.

It is also worth remembering, we think, even as the mainstream media and the Republican establishment join the Democrats in Washington in denouncing Senator Ted Cruz for his Obamacare filibuster, that the Gentleman from Texas fought his twenty-one hour fight essentially by himself.  He had a modicum of help, of course, from a handful of other Senators who granted him brief moments of respite while they asked purposefully long-winded questions.  And Dr. Seuss added a wisp of innocent intellectualism designed to put Democrats, to whom non-political tomes are anathema, on their guard.  But he made his arguments – all of them coherent, intellectually rigorous, and comprehensible – without the aid of a teleprompter or the words put there by a speechwriter.

That’s not to say that Cruz eschews speechwriters.  It is, however, to say that the man clearly understands the nuances of the issue in which is engaged and believes deeply enough in his position on this issue that he does not need assistance in lending passion to his fight.  He is, of course, mindful of his personal stake in the fight.  But unlike, say, Barack Obama, his interest in the subject reflects a sincere concern about the effect it would have on the people that he represents.  And this is worth something in today’s political environment, where intellectually shallow politicians routinely engage hacks to write sales pitches of the sort that are used by pots and pans salesmen at county fairs.  We can’t say how much, exactly, it’s worth.  But it’s something.

Over the next several years, American politics is going to change dramatically.  It must.  As Herb Stein famously said, “If something cannot go on forever, it will end.”  In this case, either power will be wrested from the old guard and returned to the people by the “wacko birds,” as Republican Senator John McCain called Cruz and others like him who fear that the “culture rustles in the sere and yellow leaf,” to borrow a phrase from Russell Kirk; or the ruling class will crush the rebellion and take the country into the uncharted territory of bankruptcy, class warfare, and social nihilism to which their ideology naturally and inevitably leads.

We’re hoping for the former, of course; an outcome in which those who actually believe in something other than personal power win the day.  Still, we would be fools if we did not prepare for the latter.  After all, some frustrated wordsmith somewhere may decide again that he and his candidate should “go big.”  In which case, we’ll all be screwed.



As the government shuts down, both the mainstream media and the Democrats in Washington seem confident that their side will benefit from the resulting chaos.  They have their story down:  Republicans are bad.  The Tea Party is crazy.  Ergo, Democrats win.  What could be better?

In a way, they have good cause for thinking thusly.  In 1996, recall, Newt Gingrich and the Republican revolutionaries shut down the government, and they did, indeed, take the fall for it.  In fact, they helped Bill Clinton win reelection.  Of course, in the process, they set the stage for that Abelard and Heloise moment when Bill and Monica began the ill-fated romance that tugged at the heartstrings of America.  But that’s another story for another day.  In the meantime, Barack Obama is still a popular guy.  He won his own reelection less than a year ago and he still has some of that old mojo.  Certainly, he is more popular than the Republicans in Congress.

That last bit is, of course, what they’re all expecting to be the clincher.  Obama may be intransigent.  He may be negligent.  He may appear at times to be living in a different dimension.  But, say what you will, at his very worst, he is less loathsome than the Republicans.

There’s only one little flaw in this Democratic-Media complex logic:  it’s immaterial.  Because in the final analysis, this battle over Obamacare, the debt ceiling, and the CR/government shutdown is, quite simply, NOT a battle between the parties, as the conventional wisdom insists.  It is, rather, a battle between Washington and the rest of the country, between the ruling class and the country class.  And on this field, the Democrats are on far less solid ground.  Here, they are not the favorites.  Indeed, here, they are the majority portion of the faction against which public opinion has turned, and turned sharply.

Last week, when Texas Senator Ted Cruz took to the Senate floor to filibuster the Democratic continuing resolution that would prevent a shutdown, he did so not so much as a Republican, but as a Tea Partier, an outsider, a man who is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

Just over fifteen years ago, we penned a piece in which we discussed a scandalous “scoop” that we had stumbled upon, or rather had been given.  The set up for this scoop read as follows:

Last week, a friend gave me a top secret document.  I don’t know how he got it and I didn’t ask questions.  All I know is that he told me that very recently the Clinton crowd ran short of money and, having sold the Chinese all of the nation’s nuclear secrets, pawned off on them a box of old FBI files on former, high-ranking Bush White House staff members; some of Hillary’s old Rose Law firm billing records; and some stuff that Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott’s sister found in the trash of various congressmen while working for the White House private eye, Terry Lenzner.

My friend ended up with some of it, and he gave me a copy of a transcript of a secret meeting of the congressional leadership of both parties, discussing the upcoming, annual budget negotiations.  The following is a brief excerpt from that memo….

We then proceeded to quote from the “memo.”  To wit:

Senate Majority Leaders Trent Lott (R., Miss.) – Okay, we all have things to do, golf games, girlfriends, fund raisers, and a . . . a . . . “business deals,” heh! heh! [laughter all around] to attend to, so let’s get this over with.  For starters, can we all agree that there will be no arguments over how to spend 95% of next year’s budget, that we will give everyone who got anything last year at least as much as they got last year, plus an inflation factor?  Can we all agree that no program, office, division, branch, bureau, project or individual bureaucrat will be cut?  If we can we agree on something as simple as that, we can get out of here in a hurry?  Okay?  Can we have a show of hands?

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) – Hey, wait a minute.  Can’t we cut something?  Anything?  [Groans all around]  Come on.  I can’t see any reason why you Democrats can’t agree to let us cut something, for crying out loud.  There has to be some program in the Labor Department, or Education, or somewhere.  We’re supposed to be conservatives.  People are starting to get suspicious.

House Minority Whip David Bonior (D., Mich.) – Look, dammit, I’ve had about enough . . . .

Senate Majority Leaders Trent Lott (R., Miss.) – Okay, okay!  David, that’s enough.  I’ll handle this.  Look Tom, we all know where you’re coming from.  There isn’t a Republican in this room who wouldn’t like to cut a little something just for show.  But it’s just not practical.  If we start cutting programs or stuff like that, then it just all falls apart and the next thing you know we’re cutting pork and then all hell breaks loose.  The guys who pay my bills are mad.  The guys that pay yours are mad.  You know how it goes.  We’ve tried it, Tom.  It just doesn’t work.

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) – But . . .

Senate Majority Leaders Trent Lott (R., Miss.) –  Just can it, Tom.  You’re being a baby.  All right.  So, can we all agree.  Nothing gets cut.  Everyone gets a little more than last year?  Tom?  Good.  It’s unanimous then.  That’s settled.

Now, we all know that there has to be some money we don’t spend, the so-called “surplus.”  Right?  [Groans all around the room.]  Okay, knock it off.  It can’t be helped.  We can’t spend all the money we got and that’s that.  [Groans all around the room.]

But I’ve got some good news.  I just got off the phone with the White House and Bill has agreed to take the lead in breaking those pesky “budget caps.”  {Cheers around the room.]  But this is only if Republicans agree not to complain about it.  So can we all agree that we’ll “follow Bill’s lead,” [chuckles around the room] and break the budget caps as quietly as possible?  Can we?  Show of hands.  Can we?

House Minority Leader Dick Gephard (D., Mo.) – How much do we have to leave unspent.  Jeepers.  I don’t mind telling you I think this is a crock.  My constituents have needs.  I have needs.  I’ve made promises.  Whose money is this anyway if it’s not the government’s?  What do you mean we can’t spend it all.  Who says we can’t?

Senate Majority Leaders Trent Lott (R., Miss.) – Look Dick, we’re all on the same page.  No one disagrees with you.  Every one of us would like to spend all the money too.  Hell, there isn’t a person in this room that wouldn’t spend it all and then some, if we could get away with it.  But it can’t be done, all right?  We just can’t do it.  The surplus became a big deal because your president kept blowing around about it.  Now the public thinks is a big deal.  The polls show it.  You’re people as well as mine.  We don’t have to argue today about how much “surplus” we have to leave unspent.  We’ll try to make it as small as possible.  Okay?  But we should agree that we have to leave some.  Okay?  Okay?  [Groans around the room]  Okay, let’s have a show of hands.  Come on, get your hands up.  Tom, you’re on board right?  And Armey’s on board, aren’t you Dick?  There.  It’s unanimous.  We all agree we can’t spend it all.

Now, regarding the remaining 5% of the budget.  We don’t know how much this will be.  A lot depends on how much we can’t spend because we need a surplus [groans all around the room.]  But can we agree that half of that remaining 5% will be spent on larger allocations for the same list of programs that got above average allocations last year?  Does anyone have a problem with that?  You know, housing, education, defense, the high profile kind of stuff.  We’ll just follow last year’s blueprint.  Show of hands, please.  Unanimous.  Good.

Okay, that leaves what looks like $50 billion to $60 billion or so out of $1.9 or $2 trillion to fight over.  Two or three percent.  Right Dick?

House Majority Whip Dick Armey (R., Tex.) – Yeah, that’s about right.

Senate Majority Leaders Trent Lott (R., Miss.) –  Now that’s not much, so we’ve got to make this look good, okay?  We’ve got to have some real mudslinging over this $50 or so billion.  Big fights, okay.  Lots of name calling.  We’ll call for tax cuts, you Democrats call for more spending on a bunch of liberal stuff . . .

The point of this “memo” and of our fictitious little “scoop,” obviously, was to mock the ruling class in Washington – although we didn’t yet call them the “ruling class.”  We knew then that the old political paradigm had collapsed, but we didn’t yet know what would replace it.  As we have written several times over the last couple of years, we now know.  The clash between the ruling class and the country class is the political paradigm that will dominate the next several years in American politics.  And last week, Ted Cruz made that obvious to anyone who was paying even the slightest bit of attention.

To continue with and to update our memo metaphor, the “shutdown” and the current debate over the funding of Obamacare are largely staged.  President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are all on the same page.  And they are all on the same page that Lott, Daschle, Hastert, Gephardt, and Clinton were on fifteen years ago.  The only difference is that this time, there’s a proverbial fly in the ointment.  This time, there’s this thing called the Tea Party, which controls a majority of Boehner’s conference in the House.  This time, there are three charismatic and intelligent Republican Senators – Cruz, Mike Lee (UT), and Rand Paul (KY) – who don’t have any desire to see business as usual continue any longer.  This time, there’s real and palpable anger extant in the country.  And this time, the end result will be different.

The collective political commentariat – Left, Right, and in between – has been exceptionally critical of Cruz for his “phony” crusade to accomplish the un-accomplishable, the defunding of Obamcare.  What these political savants fail to realize is that Obamacare wasn’t Cruz’s real target.  The Republican establishment – people like Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Karl Rove – was Cruz’s target.  He gave notice last week that here will be no more closed-door collusion between Republicans and Democrats to preserve their power, to preserve their status, and to do so at the expense of the rest of the country.  The complaint from the establishment is that Cruz and the Tea Party are bound and determined to destroy the Republican Party as it currently exists.  The promise from Cruz and the Tea Party is that they are, in fact, so determined.  They will take down the party establishment first and the rest of the establishment after that.

What none of the big shots in the media or in the political establishment seem to understand is that the partisan divide is a side-show.  The main event is the divide between Washington and the rest of the country.  Last February, our old friend Angelo Codevilla, the man who first identified and described the ruling-class/country-class divide, followed up on his initial thoughts, noting the following:

A new party is likely to arise because the public holds both Republicans and Democrats responsible for the nation’s unsustainable course.  Indebtedness cannot increase endlessly.  Nor can regulations pile on top of regulations while the officials who promulgate them – and their pensions – continue to grow, without crushing those beneath.  Nor can the population’s rush to disability status and other forms of public assistance, or the no-win wars that have resulted in “open season” on Americans around the world, continue without catharsis.  One half of the population cannot continue passively to absorb insults without pushing back.  When – sooner rather than later – events collapse this house of cards, it will be hard to credibly advocate a better future while bearing a label that advertises responsibility for the present.  Why trust any Republican qua Republican?

Cruz – along with Lee, Paul, and the Tea Party caucus in the House – is the harbinger of this new party.  And he and his party are on far more solid ground than most of the ruling class seems to understand.  Last week, Gallup released a new poll that should send shivers up the spines of the members of the ruling class.  Among the findings were the following:

A record-high 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed, adding to negativity that has been building over the past 10 years . . .

Majorities of Democrats (65%) and Republicans (92%) are dissatisfied with the nation’s governance.  This perhaps reflects the shared political power arrangement in the nation’s capital, with Democrats controlling the White House and U.S. Senate, and Republicans controlling the House of Representatives.  Partisans on both sides can thus find fault with government without necessarily blaming their own party.

The findings are from Gallup’s annual Governance survey, updated Sept. 8-11, 2011.  The same poll shows record or near-record criticism of Congress, elected officials, government handling of domestic problems, the scope of government power, and government waste of tax dollars.

Yesterday, Larry Bartels, a blogger for the Washington Post, wrote a brief update which, in combination with the Gallup findings, should send shivers up the spines of the overconfident Democrats in particular:

James Stimson knows as much about public opinion as anyone in America.  He has been tracking the nation’s policy preferences for more than 20 years using a “policy mood” index derived from responses to a wide variety of opinion surveys involving hundreds of specific policy questions on topics ranging from taxes and spending to environmental regulation to gun control.

The latest update of Stimson’s policy mood series suggests that the American public in 2012 was more conservative than at any point since 1952.  (Actually, since mood in each year is estimated with some error, it seems safer to say that the current level of conservatism roughly equals the previous highs recorded in 1980 and 1952.)  While the slight increase in conservatism from 2011 to 2012 is too small to be significant, it continues a marked trend that began as soon as Barack Obama moved into the White House.

All of this is confirmation of the trends that we have seen over the last four-plus years.  Barack Obama, despite his landslide election and his impressive re-election, has done little but expose the frailties of contemporary liberalism, just as George W. Bush did little but expose the failures of contemporary “Big-Government Conservatism.”  Washington, for all its smug self-satisfaction, has done little to convince the average American over the last two presidencies that it can handle the challenges of the twenty-first century.  For those of us who agree with Thoreau and believe that “That government is best which governs least,” this is good news.  For people like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul, who are trying to wrest power from a corrupt and reckless political elite, this is good news.  For the Democrats, the Republican establishment, and the media elites who support both, this is not such good news.

It strikes us that the political dynamics at work in the government shutdown – and in the debt-ceiling battle that will inevitably follow – are not exactly what the Democrats and their media allies think.  This time, it’s different.  How different, only time will tell.  At the present, the only thing we can know for certain is that the ruling class will be losers.  Their cause is simply unsustainable.  They are dead men walking.  We can only hope that they won’t take their adversaries down with them.


Copyright 2013. The Political Forum. 8563 Senedo Road, Mt. Jackson, Virginia 22842, tel. 402-261-3175, fax 402-261-3175. All rights reserved. Information contained herein is based on data obtained from recognized services, issuer reports or communications, or other sources believed to be reliable. However, such information has not been verified by us, and we do not make any representations as to its accuracy or completeness, and we are not responsible for typographical errors. Any statements nonfactual in nature constitute only current opinions which are subject to change without notice.