99 Red Trial Balloons

The remarks the other day by North Carolina’s Governor Bev Perdue about postponing Congressional elections as a “money-saving measure” are getting the appropriate scorn and derision and vitriol (not enough, in my opinion, but some), but is merely the latest in a series of such remarks that has me wondering if there’s something brewing under the surface.

 

So we have a Democratic governor saying we need to cut back on our democratic processes a wee bit. Who else has been saying similar things?

Well, how about Peter Orszag, President Obama’s former Director of the Office of Management and Budget, writes that we have too much democracy, and need more plutocracy, governance by our “betters.”

 

Or Tom Friedman, who thinks that we would be a hell of a lot better if, every now and then, the government could just suspend all the rules, become an absolute dictatorship, and simply rule by fiat?

 

Or all those left-leaning pundits that, whenever the left finds it can’t just steamroll the right into getting its way, starts talking about how the US is “ungovernable?”

 

(That last one is based on a seriously flawed assumption — that if President Obama, obviously the smartest and most noble and most wonderful human being ever, can’t govern this nation, no one can. But I digress…)

 

These all could be just frustration bubbling over, leading people who really ought to know better saying what they shouldn’t. Or they could be trial balloons.

 

And if they are, we need to go all Balloon Busters on them.

 

Almost 100 years ago, during World War I, balloons, airships, blimps, and zeppelins were weapons of war — and quite effective ones. So much so, both sides actually developed aircraft and tactics just to go after them — the “Balloon Busters.”

 

That’s what we need to do today. Any time someone floats one of these balloons, that balloon needs to be destroyed so quickly and so thoroughly that it serves as a stark warning that certain lines can not be crossed. Governor Perdue needs to face calls for her resignation and — if possible — a recall petition or impeachment hearings. Peter Orszag should never be considered for any sort of public office. Tom Friedman needs to be shut away some place where he will never be seen or heard from again. (Oh, he writes for the New York Times — mission accomplished.)

 

We need to send a message every time one of these balloons floats up: this shit won’t fly. And if we happen to rough up the balloon-launchers a little in the process… oh, well.

Shortlink:

Posted by on September 29, 2011.
Filed under Asshats, Big government, Politics.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://leatherpenguin.com/wordpress/ TC_LeatherPenguin

    Great, now I got that song stuck in my head….

  • Anonymous

    I agree, but the trend toward oligarchy is strong.  They won’t abolish elections, though, we’re already in a “managed democracy” where Romney is just another version of Obama who is just another version of Bush, etc. 

    • Anonymous

      So if i vote for Barry, I’m really voting for Boosh? I agree! We need no I.D..

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

      Then there is no point in you voting at all, is there?

  • jim_m

    There have been a number of instances where this admin has appeared to have been floating trial balloons by having proxies come out with ideas that drew a lot of fire and were quickly forgotten. 

    The concern with this one is that the left has departed from floating stupid policy ideas to floating dispensing with democracy.  The only reason to propose suspending elections is because they know they are going to lose. They will lose in the House, they will lose the Senate and they will almost certainly lose the WH.  Notice how Dunbar talks about not holding elections in 2012 and focuses on the Congress and doesn’t mention that, Oh BTW, that would mean skipping the Presidential election too.

    I have watched the dems the past couple of decades become more and more willing to dispense with democracy and the sanctity of the ballot box in order to hold on to power at all costs.  Just like with Rathergate, there is no lie they will not propagate in order to gain even the slightest advantage.

    I have to think that they are serious about wanting to suspend elections.  I think if they are given the proper pretext they will jump at the chance.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

      A moment of inadvertent honesty, showing exactly what they were thinking…

      More and more I think all the stuff about the Bush dictatorship, his supposed suspension of elections, screaming about civili rights violations… it was all just projection.  What we were seeing from them was an example of what they’d support if they got the power to do so.

      • jim_m

        I thought that at the time.  The racism the left constantly accuses others of is mostly in their own hearts.  We hear Biden making comments about how unusual obama is because he is “Clean and articulate”, And was it Clinton or Reid who commented about how the only blacks in the room would be the wait staff if it were a republican meeting.  Is it surprising that the lefty response to he Affirmative Action Bake Sale at UC Berkeley is to accuse as racist those who point out the disparity in treatment of people based on race?

        These kinds of comments just don’t come out of conservatives.  Nor do Ideas like suspending elections or creating unaccountable panels to run the government and create laws that can only be stopped if congress intervenes and the president signs a bill they pass.

  • Anonymous

    “These all could be just frustration bubbling over, leading people who
    really ought to know better saying what they shouldn’t. Or they could be
    trial balloons.”

    JT, don’t you realize that “they’re just JOKING!”?

    Don’t know about the ‘trail balloons’, but it’s rather obvious the left is letting it’s mask slip.  2012 is going to be a very nasty election cycle.  The extreme left is not going to give up power willingly.  It’s going to be scorched earth time.  Moderate Democrats, who refuse to speak up now, will be left wondering what happened to their party.

    • Anonymous

      Scorched Earth? More like ‘The Martial Plan!’

    • herddog505

      I completely agree: this isn’t a case of “gee, we’d like to do this THIS TIME” but rather the dems letting their real selves and real desires slip out.  The left that initially feted Lenin and Stalin, that wears Che t-shirts, that pines for the US to be more like Red China, has never been interested in democracy.  Look at their love affair with the courts: nobody gets to vote on whether this law or that is unconstitutional, or if there’s a penumbra of an emanation of an unwritten right in the Constitution.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Lond/100000950693221 Don Lond

        Yep, so someday, if we don’t lose it all right here in 2012, the right needs to decide how it will deal with a judicial system that is de facto making law and running the nation. If the left can refuse to prosecute -maybe allowing a state to ignore unlawful legislating by these unconstitutionally based judges, will send them the signal that their judicial weapon has been countered.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Lond/100000950693221 Don Lond

      The problem is that the GOP sits silent on this stuff when they need to be building a case against all of the left -not just the Marxist in chief. They too need to be using crisis (because the loss of our freedom is near and that is the biggest of all crisis)

      After the manner in which McCain deliberately ran as a mute and the entire DC GOP punditry just  attacked -not Obama, but Sarah Palin, I am convinced that they don’t really want to change things in DC. Their lifestyles, fat pensions, and royality level -health care, don’t change a bit when they lose, so life to them means staus quo. The pundits write their $million plus books pretending conservativism and then push leftists like Christie to stop Palin or anyone who threatens real change.

      For gosh sakes (for freedom’s sake) call them aggressively on this as their real intent -and demand they retract and apologize to the American people. Make them explain why they hate the constitution (Newsweek -is it relevent anymore? – Obama- civilian army -constitution limits government) How much more do you need to attack this enemy of freedom?

  • Anonymous

    I love the comment every now and then we need to suspend the rules, I guess that would be only when democrats are in control. Cause these same folks sure as hell love them some democracy when the republicans are in control so much so they float trial balloons about doing away with the electroal college.

    • herddog505

      And the fillibuster.  Don’t forget that.  Signing statements.  Recess appointments.  “Czars”…

      • jim_m

        Remember the GOP considered dropping the filibuster a couple of years ago and Bush used signing statements too.

        But no one has used czars like obama and no one ever considered something like “deem and pass” and no one has thought or tried to pass significant parts of their platform by acts f the bureaucracy rather than acts of Congress like this admin has done.Add to that the blatant way the obama admin has gone after supports of their political opponents, like Gibson, and paid favors to their allies, like Solyndra and the UAW in the auto bailout, and you get a government that is not interested in democracy but in the raw use of power to get what they want.

        • Anonymous

          Remember though that the republican attempt at the filibuster was fairly narrow and specific around judicial appointments not a broad attack on the filisbuster for legislation. But your point is well taken.

        • herddog505

          Oh, yes: I didn’t mean to imply that the GOP’s hands are totally clean in this regard.  What I recall is the dems’ b*tching and moaning when Bush / the GOP did it… only to embrace it and give it their blessing when Barry / they do it.

          Otherwise, I entirely agree: the government under Barry has really degenerated in “gangster government”.

  • jim_m

    You know if the dems don’t like the rules they should go and start their own country.

    Oh wait.  They already tried that and it didn’t work out so well.

    • Anonymous

      If you mean Mexico, yes! But you can’t really blame them for arming the revolutionary’s. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

      • http://2011.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

        North Korea.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

          California.  Or the USSR.

    • Anonymous

      I think he means the Confederate States Of America, folks.

      J.

      • PBunyan

        ?

        Sorry, couldn’t help myself…

  • Anonymous

    This kind of thinking has been circulating in the “elitist” circles since at least the late 19th-early 20th century when Woodrow Wilson gave public voice to much of modern Progressive principles.  He commented that “the present condition of parties in this country is such as to make the wish to be rid of them a very natural one…  The spirit of faction seems to be running maddest riot.  There is daily justification… that parties are organized merely to carry elections, not to carry measures of policy.”  So who really should conduct the business of government?  Well, that’s the job of the “leader,”  who are “men of strenuous minds and high ideals” who convert public opinion by “blows” until the “stubborn minds” have yielded and the “masses come over to the side of reform.  Resistance is left to the minority, and such as will not be convinced are crushed.”

    In a very real sense, what he is saying is that politics must become not the mechanism for assessing, collating and acting upon the opinions of a free and independent people but a means to transmit a message and implement acts of reform on an unwilling electorate!  Thus government in Wilson’s vision becomes a Congressional debating society, a strong and decisive national leader in the president, and a pure “science” of public administration conducted by a body of highly educated bureaucrats who would establish the rules and policies of national government.  Is any of this reflected in the attitudes expressed above 100 years later?  In essence our 21st century Progressives are saying that the Congresspersons and President have failed at their Wilsonian duties and that what is needed is a “time out” for politics to let the university graduates in the bureaucracy get on with the business of setting the rules and making the policies with reference to their superior brain power.

    So as a French novelist once sagely wrote “The more things change the more they stay the same.”

    • http://2011.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

      The Left’s disdain for the kind of democracy that actually consults, and listens to, the people, is why I’ve been convinced all along the “Revolution” touted by Marx, et al, was really about turning back the clock to the days when permanent elites ran everything and the masses did as they were told like good little serfs.

      Though they call themselves progressives, nothing has changed with them since 1848.

      • Anonymous

        Why would the left want to listen to the people?
        They don’t trust us enough to make the “correct” choices.
        We’re all too damn stupid in their enlightened opinion.

        Obama himself stated: “”I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me. And I’m not
        interested in isolating myself.”

        Later on explaining: “….And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
        antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
        anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

        Recently we had John Kerry stating that the media should not give equal time to the tea party
        because he disagrees with them.

        You’re right McGehee, it is disdain and it infests the democrat party.

    • herddog505

      I’ve often thought that Bad Luck Barry is nothing more than Wilson v2.0: the same intellectual*, holier-than-thou, I-know-better-than-you-so-shut-up elitism.

      —-

      (*) In Wilson’s case, though, the intellectual seems to have been real and not imagined.

    • PBunyan

      “This kind of thinking has been circulating in the “elitist” circles since at least the late 19th-early 20th century”

      It goes back through the millennia. The leftist “utopia” had pretty much been the natural state of mankind since the dawn of civilization. They claim their goal to be a “classless society”, but in reality there must be 3 classes for it to work: the uber-wealthy ruling class, the enforcer class who live comfortably, and everyone else– the serfs.

      The United States, the Holy Experiment (i.e., Can man rule himself?), was the exception to that rule. Funny thing is, I think one of the countless creations that resulted from the exponential technological leaps that experiment fostered, television, led to our downfall. The political debate was transformed from thoughtful, logical discussion into cute, smiling faces and catchy, 30 second, voting for dummies, sound bites.

  • Jason O’Cannon

    Isn’t it amazing the democRATs in NC want to stop the regularly scheduled elections and the democRATs in Wisconsin want to speed up the process and have an extra one to recall Gov. Walker.

    • Anonymous

      Why don’t they just come out already and vote ‘Present’ for Barry’s Martial Plan? I know, I know, there thinking of whats best for the children. But how about some free Tyco golf clubs for the children? Then they could be just like Barry.

  • Anonymous

    Just wait till after the 2012 elections to see how hard they are clamoring for a suspension of the vote and letting the rulling class decide how to fix the problems with no political repercussions.

    I’m betting the farm the subject will never be brought up for discussion.

  • PBunyan

    A common theme in these leftist ballons is that the politicians just can’t “do what’s right” because if they did, they wouldn’t get re-elected.  Someone needs to ask the obvious follow up question: Just what is the “right thing” that they must, but can’t, do?

    Raise taxes of course, but just on the rich. 

    Hmmmm, interesting.  Then I need to ask: Do you realize that the goverment can only raise tax rates, not tax revenue?  Also, why would raising taxes on a handful of the total population keep you from getting re-elected?   Why the need to suspend elections?

    Federal spending is already north of 25% of GPD.  Add state and local taxes and you’re not much shy of 50%.  The reality is that even if they taxed the “rich” at 100% it wouldn’t even be enough to cover just the amount Obama and the rest of the Dems raised spending since they came to power in 2007.   And here comes Obamacare, stimulous II, a wave of baby boomers hitting social security and medicare, etc.

    They can’t keep fabricating money to cover the difference.  The reality is that they need to massively tax everyone.  That’s why their form of government only works at the point of a gun–in a fascist dictatorship, not in a democratic republic.  And I use the word “works” loosely.  It never really works; well, except for the ruling elite.  They have it pretty nice.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Don’t forget Comrade Barry himself musing about how much easier it would be as President of China without all the dissension . . . wouldn’t he look natural in one of those gray Mao suits?

  • Anonymous

    I am absolutely certain that the dems will try to suspend the upcoming elections for two reasons.

    First and most obvious – Obama has no chance to win and will certainly drag most of the dems down with him when he goes.

    Second, I clearly remember that during George Bush’s re-election campaign the democrats often complained that GB would suspend the constitution in order to hang on to the presidency. If you have paid any attention at all to President Zero’s reign, you will notice that the dems have made a concentrated effort to do everything that they previously warned us Bush would do.

    • Anonymous

      It would be the last act of a failed regime and the dying gasp of a dead political party.

  • Anonymous

    Our Founders, in their maximum wisdom, saw this coming…and thus crafted the 2nd Amendment.

    April 19, 1775…Captain John Parker:
    “Stand your ground.  Don’t fire until fired upon. But if they want to have a war let it begin here.”

    Semper Fi folks!

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.berthiaume3 David Berthiaume

    Hypocrisy, thy name is “The Democratic Party”.

    I can not even count how many times I’ve heard the meme “The Republicans are going to cancels elections, they’re going to seize power and not let it go…”

    Unless I miss my guess, I’d call that projection.

    • Houston Keys

      You nailed it David.  I’m just curious to see what excuse they finally use.