In November of 2010, the depth and breadth of the Tea Party’s seriousness and power of influence was fully understood by the Republican Party Establishment (RPE) for the first time. The Democrats’ attempts to dismiss and belittle this grassroots movement could easily be taken as evidence of their fear of a middle-American backlash against Obama’s neo-socialism, and would account for their desire to nip the new threat in the bud with ridicule. The RPE, however, which, if victory were the name of the game, ought to have embraced the Tea Party as their unforeseen salvation, was uncomfortable with it from the get-go.

They complained about the Tea Party’s unrestrained naïveté supplanting ‘proven’ candidates in favor of Christine O’Donnell, Joe Miller, and so on, as though the Republican victory in the midterms would have been remotely close to the shellacking it was, had the Tea Party played the safety-first game the RPE invariably recommends.

They also encouraged cooler (more moderate) heads in the formation of a party hierarchy in the newly-won congress, practically hiding their faces in shame at the shrill voices of the rookies, and leaving the Tea Party, which footed the bill for this massive majority, with an equally massive case of buyer’s remorse. Throughout the debt ceiling fight, for example, the House leadership peppered their rhetoric with Tea Party-flattering remarks, only to settle in the end for a deal that was not so much a compromise in the realpolitik sense as a compromise of basic principles, particularly with regard to the much-ballyhooed spending cuts. As Mark Steyn pointed out at the time:

“‘Cutting federal spending by $900 billion over 10 years’ is Washington-speak for increasing federal spending by $7 trillion over 10 years. And, as they’d originally planned to increase it by $8 trillion, that counts as a cut.” (ocregister.com, Aug. 5, 2011)

The net return for all this post-election ‘reserve’ shown by the Republican congress is plainly symbolized in the RPE’s chosen presidential candidate’s blithe critique of Michele Bachmann’s record during a recent debate. In particular, Governor Romney distinguished himself from the congresswoman on the grounds that he has a record of getting things done, whereas, for all her sound rhetoric, Bachmann rarely accomplishes her legislative objectives. Aside from the obvious fact that their respective jobs—chief executive of a state vs. single member of a 435-seat legislative body (and one in which Bachmann has, for most of her tenure, been in the minority party)—make the comparison unfair, we must also recall that a “record of results” can often be the calling card of a professional compromiser, a person always prepared to do something far from ideal merely in order to have ‘done something.’

The formats of this year’s debates, which have actively discouraged substantive argument between candidates, and have absolutely forbidden extended discussion of any topic, prevented Bachmann from offering the proper answer to Romney’s charge. Allow me to offer it on the congresswoman’s behalf:

How dare he accuse Bachmann of failing to get things done, when he embodies the very spirit of the RPE that caused her, and others like her, to fail! Some politicians fail to “get things done” because they do not intend to get things done. President Obama, the erstwhile Senator Present, ‘failed’ to get things done for this reason. Some politicians, on the other hand, fail to get things done because their best efforts and intentions are simply insufficient to overcome the refusal of others—particularly among their putative allies—to follow them in taking a difficult stand against the interests of short-term popularity (as the heel-draggers perceive it), and in favor of long-term necessities. Michele Bachmann falls into this latter category. Her popularity among Tea Partiers—similar to that of Senator DeMint—has always been rooted in the Tea Party’s knowledge that she was trying to do what they believed had to be done, and to persuade others to join her. That the others didn’t join her can no more be blamed on her ineffectiveness than can an avalanche be blamed on the rocks that didn’t fall.

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Read More at Canada Free Press By Daren Jonescu, Canada Free Press

In another win for the famously blind meritocracy that rules American life, rewarding the ultra-talented and pushing the less brilliant and skilled into the outer darkness, Chelsea Clinton has landed a coveted position at NBC News. This was almost as much a surprise as her admission to Stanford; one can only marvel at the sheer guts and talent that have enabled her to overcome our society’s fixed aversion to giving a chance to the relatives of the rich and the prominent.

On a more serious note, I know of no reason why the younger Ms Clinton should not have this or any job. But the increasing sense that this country is run by a hereditary celebrity class is one of the most corrosive and dangerous forces eating away at our common life.

The children of famous politicians could do our country an immense service if they sought out ways to serve that were more low profile. This would be particularly true for the children of extremely rich politicians.

It might be argued that it is unfair to expect a wealthy, smart and well connected young person to sacrifice natural ambition for the common good. But surely the poor and obscurely born also have to eat their share of the world’s injustice. Maybe the rich and famous could also have a small taste?

This is not a point that will often be made in our celebrity crazed, wealth obsessed culture. It should be, and it is a sign of the deep trouble we are in that it isn’t common wisdom. Meritocracy is not the same as nepotism and the mix of media, money, celebrity and politics, while to some degree inevitable, is also toxic and should be taken in the smallest possible dose.

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

 Read More at The American Interest

One of the best questions in the GOP debate was offered by Jim Cramer, the hyper CNBC host, near the end of the event. Interestingly, it came from a viewer. Unfortunately, the Republicans with a chance to answer it had no answer.

“I’m going to be quoting Joanne Kornbly (ph),” Cramer said. “She e-mails us. She says, ‘Our stock market has turned into a casino with high- frequency computerized trading comprising 70 percent of all transactions and hedge fund speculation resulting in market swings. Before privatizing Social Security, how would you make the stock market safer for individual investors?’”

This is a question that is on the minds of millions of Americans who want to see the American system of capitalism succeed and have investments in stocks. Last year, in the famous flash crash of May 6, the stock Accenture dropped from $44 dollars to one cent per share within 15 minutes, and recovered back to $41. Apple computer dropped 60 points in 15 minutes. It went from $258 down to $199 and then recovered to $248 within a 15-minute period.

Cramer introduced the question by saying that he was directing it to Herman Cain and that “This does not lend itself to 9-9-9 or any other number.” He asked the question and then said, “…how do we restore faith in the markets for the little guy?”

After Cain responded with another statement about improving the economy, Cramer followed up: “When the economy was going great, sir, there was no trust. When the economy was going great, people were getting ripped off and there was insider trading. When the economy was going great, people were getting hurt in the stock market. Forget the economy. Talk about the way the market is regulated.”

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Read More at aim.org By Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media

There’s really only one way to end Washington corruption – and Jack Abramoff, without question the most notorious lobbyist in American history, offers the solution in his post-prison memoir, “Capitol Punishment.”

The solution is simple – so simple, so obvious and so profound – you can be certain it will never be implemented without a ground-up political revolution.

What does Abramoff say?

First clean up government by returning it to the law and its constitutional limitations – and the rest will take care of itself.

Maybe it takes nearly four years in prison for Washington insiders to see clearly.

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

 Read More at WND By Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily

If we dispense with all the fancy stuff, we end up with a simple see-saw with the euro and global equities on one end and the much-hated U.S. dollar on the other.

If we scrape away the ever-hopeful headlines predicting a new figurehead lackey or another vote will magically fix Greece, Italy, the euro, Europe’s crumbling banks, etc., the global stock markets can be distilled down to one chart. And here it is: a see-saw with the U.S. dollar on one end and the euro and equities on the other.

I know the mind rebels at such simplicity, and so does the entire buy-side Wall Street edifice: if it all boils down to this, then there really isn’t much value added by the endless reams of fancy reports and analysis, is there?
But let’s presume for a moment that it really is this simple. Where does that leave global stock markets? The answer can be had by glancing at two other charts: one of the euro and one of the dollar.

Now that the cargo-cult chiefs are openly talking about the euro splintering into euro 1 and euro 2 (i.e. business class and steerage), something I proposed as a possible “face-saving” step in the devolution of the euro 18 months ago ( Why the Euro Might Devolve into Euro 1 and Euro 2 March 2, 2010), then the common-sense question is: why is the euro worth 36% more than the dollar? The answer is that it isn’t worth 36% more, of course, and for a bit of technical support of that we turn to a simple chart.

There’s not much to support Bulls’ claims of euro strength here and much to suggest the euro is in a leaky barrel floating helplessly toward Niagara Falls.Classic wedge broken decisively to the downside, check. Uptrend decisively broken, check. RSI declining but not oversold, check. MACD declining and below the neutral line, check. Price below the critical 200-week moving average (MA), check. Price below the equally critical 50-week MA, check.

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Read More at charleshughsmith.blogspot.com  By Charles Hugh Smith