THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

Of all the people running for President in 2012, Tim Pawlenty is the one that is the most difficult to put into any category. Yet his lack of a natural niche constituency may work to his advantage.

He is not the frontrunner. If anybody is, that would be Mitt Romney.

He is not the dominant policy wonk. That would be Newt Gingrich.

He is not known primarily as a social conservative, although he is one. That is Rick Santorum.

He is not the Tea Party favorite. That would be Michele Bachmann.

He is not known as the best fundraiser in the GOP. That would be Haley Barbour.

So given that in virtually every category, is Tim Pawlenty even a legitimate candidate?

Absolutely.

Tim Pawlenty is likable. In fact, he is very likable.

Yes, he has good looks and a slight resemblance to John Cusack. He is tall with good hair, and is inoffensive.

Yet despite being a white Midwestern governor, he is not boring. He may come across as calm and quiet compared to his more bombastic colleagues, but I have met him and heard him speak. He knows how to charm a crowd.

When he spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition several years ago in Florida, the older grandmothers loved him. They showed him pictures of their daughters and granddaughters and offered to set Pawlenty up on dates. He politely explained that he was not Jewish and happily married. The ladies did not care.  They liked him that much.

Tim Pawlenty is willing to talk about “Sam’s Club Republicans.” He lost one of his parents when he was very young, and knows what it is like to struggle financially. He was not born with the proverbial spoon.

He has a playful side, although that has been toned down since he began being talked about as a presidential contender. He once got a reporter in a headlock and jokingly gave him a “noogie.” He used to have a mullet. The mullet was cut off.

Yet Tim Pawlenty has leadership experience. As Governor of Minnesota, he had to deal with the Minnesota bridge crisis. When the bridge collapsed, he shined during those dark moments. It was not 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, but it was a serious crisis that devastated his state, and he was a sober, clear, and yes, compassionate, leader.

Because he got along well with Democrats, there is a tendency to see him as a moderate. His governing record was fairly conservative. He was able to govern as a conservative in a fairly liberal state without being combative or acrimonious. He simply gets along with people.

If you ask liberals, they will tell you that some of the candidates running for the 2012 GOP nomination scare the daylights out of them. Pawlenty does not.

So what should Tim Pawlenty do?

While John Edwards is a horrendous role model, the Edwards strategy of political advancement is actually a good model for Pawlenty to follow.

The 2008 Pawlenty was very similar to Edwards in 2000. Pawlenty was seen as likable and friendly, and got his name tossed into the rumor mill for vice presidential contenders. He encouraged the rumors by not discouraging them, and actually was seen as one of the favorites if not the favorite. In the same way Edwards was passed over for the bolder choice of Joe Lieberman, Palwnety lost out to the stunning choice of Sarah Palin.

Yet just being in the conversation sets up the next step. For Edwards in 2004, it was running for President while everybody whispered that he was really running for Vice President.

Edwards ran a positive campaign, was nice to everybody, and offended nobody. He was so liked that when he came in second, he was able to basically force himself onto the John Kerry ticket. Kerry may not have wanted him, but the entire rest of the party did.

If Pawlenty runs a positive campaign and is very complimentary of his opponents, he does not have to win the nomination. If he comes in second, or drops out very early and supports the frontrunner, he may be too likable not to put on the ticket. If the ticket wins, he is Vice President. If the ticket loses, he is the frontrunner for 2016 in a GOP that is still very hierarchical.

Going back to Edwards, forget the scandal that destroyed him. Under normal circumstances, his strategy would have positioned him perfectly to be the 2008 nominee. He had the misfortune of running against two unprecedented candidates that made history. He could not have expected both of them, especially the man who won. Yet in terms of a strategy, it was sound.

Yet Pawlenty will insist that he is actually trying to win the nomination now. He has to say that. So given this, what are his pluses and minuses?

His main negative is not his fault. The GOP is very structured and orderly. Despite the media insisting the race is “wide open,” it really is not. It will be Mitt Romney unless somebody can become a credible alternative.

That is how Pawlent benefits. He is credible. He may not be the first choice of many people, but he is a very plausible “consensus” candidate. He is not going to light up a room, but he is “acceptable.” Every wing of the party can look at him and say “I can live with this guy.”

This might not be an inspirational approach, especially since in the battle of competence vs ideology, ideology usually wins. Yet after years of very ideological and often ineffective government, people might be willing to look at somebody who can just run things effectively.

In a football expression, Pawlenty does not have to be a superstar quarterback. He just has to “manage the game.” This means do not make big mistakes.

The social, economic, and foreign policy conservatives all have their rock star candidates. The Tea Party people, the libertarians, and the moderates all have different agendas.

Yet Tim Pawlenty will not have any of these groups in a state of open revolt. Democrats and independents will not find him to be crazy. He has crossover appeal.

Like many Republicans, he seems better suited to a general election than a primary campaign.

Many of the die hards will see their candidate drop out early. They will need to find a second choice, somebody they can settle on.

Tim Pawlenty can unite the party. He can work with people.

He may not be everybody’s favorite rock star, but he is likable, smart, and effective.

In 2012, that very well may be enough to propel him onto the ticket. If the hierarchy finally breaks, he may not have to settle for the second slot.

eric

Of all the candidates running for President in 2012, the biggest wild card might be Haley Barbour.

Haley is interesting in the sense that on one level he may actually be seen as an outsider. After all, he has never been a United States senator.

Yet this description is impossible since he is the ultimate Washington insider. He ran the Republican National Committee and the Republican Governors Association.

So while he was not directly responsible in any way for those who have hurt our country domestically and from a  foreign policy standpoint, he most certainly will be tied to Washington nonetheless. His ability to create distance will make for a fantastic dynamic.

Of all of the “all but declared” candidates, Haley Barbour is the one I like the most. This is why I have all but endorsed him (waiting on Rudy Giuliani to decide).

Haley Barbour has one very big positive that cannot be overstated. He is by far the best money raiser in the Republican Party. There is no close second.

Barack Obama will have one billion dollars at his disposal. Unless somebody feels comfortable engaging in a financial arms race with him, they will have no choice. Barbour is a born glad-hander.

Beyond his ability to raise money is the fact that he is qualified for the job. He has executive experience as Governor of Mississippi. He was phenomenal in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina belted his state. While Kathleen Blanco was busy crying her eyes out saying how overwhelmed she was in Louisiana, Barbour simply turned into the Giuliani of Mississippi. He rolled up his sleeves, gave everybody their marching orders, and got the job done. Comparing Mississippi with Louisiana is proof that one should never send a liberal to do an adult’s job.

Yet as important as raising money and governing are, one cannot be an island unto oneself. Jack Kemp used to say that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Haley has rescued the GOP more than once and taken everybody higher with him.

In 1994, many Republicans were willing to accept their status as a permanent minority in the house. Three men made sure that the 40 year reign of Democrats in the house would come crashing down. Those three men were Rush Limbaugh, fellow 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, and Haley Barbour.

Limbaugh did spread the media message, but he did not create the message. He brilliantly spread conservatism and used his program to lacerate President Clinton and the Democrats in congress every day.

Yet Gingrich and Barbour understood that being anti-Clinton was not enough. The GOP had to come up with a positive agenda. Gingrich gets the bulk of the credit because he created the Contract With America. He was clearly the policy wonk and the strategist.

Yet while it might be unfair to say that Gingrich’s role was overstated, Barbour’s role was definitely understated.

Gingrich had great ideas, but he was not the salesperson. Barbour is a salesman to the core.

Barbour provided the money and the bourbon. The bourbon was used at an all night drinking session with Gingrich, which resulted in over one hundred races being funded that were previously thought to be out of reach.

Barbour understands recruitment of candidates better than anybody. He has always been about inclusiveness. While he is ardently pro-life, he will absolutely support pro-choice candidates in districts where that is the only option for winning.

Barbour is a winner. He is conservative, but he is not interested in ideological purity. He wants conservatives to build a winning governing majority. He is constantly preaching tolerance. He frequently cites former New York Senator Al D’Amato in 1992 winning 40% of the Jewish vote against a Jewish liberal in a race D’Amato won 51-49 overall as the perfect example of a conservative victory in a tough district. The Italian D’Amato stuck to his conservative beliefs without scaring off or demonizing the moderates needed to build a razor thin coalition in an area not friendly to the GOP.

Haley Barbour has spent his entire career recruiting and fielding top talent. Now he is that top talent, and has the leadership and management style necessary to be effective.

The major criticism of Barbour is that he is “too Southern.” With his thick drawl, he is seen as a “Bubba.” This was not an issue for Bill Clinton, but Clinton was a Democrat. This gave him cover on civil rights, while any white conservative Southerner is automatically seen as a racist. George W. Bush overcame this, but he was “Southern lite.” Haley Barbour is Deep Southern.

Barbour does wax nostalgic about his childhood in Mississippi, and many other people  including blacks have memories that are far less pleasant. Yet Barbour has every right to claim his own childhood was happy. Pretending he suffered or was exposed to the awful aspects of segregation would be phony if he did not. Saying he could relate would be insincere if that was not his experience.

Barbour is as inclusive as it gets. His frequent appearances before the Republican Jewish Coalition have resulted in warm ties. It is not just that Barbour supports Israel. He supports tough stands on taxes and terrorists, which is why the Republican Jewish Coalition identifies with him.

Many candidates are running for President in 2012. Only one of them currently leaning very far in favor of running has the right combination of likability, successful leadership, big tent preaching, and financial acumen to be the candidate Republicans should gravitate toward.

Haley Barbour has spent his political career backing winners. It is time for those people across the country to return the loyalty and seriously consider backing him.

eric

Self-loathing liberal Jew (tired of that phrase being redundant, but it is) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has just been selected to head the Downright Nasty Committee, formerly known as the Democratic National Committee.

She was not elected to the post. She was appointed by President Obama. It is vital to understand why.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has two characteristics that make her a perfect fit for the job.

Her main criteria is that she is a nasty, hateful woman. She is the epitome of an ideological bigot. She does not merely disagree with conservatives. She despises them.

Her first vile comment came only moments after getting the DNC job. She said that if the GOP budget were to pass, 70,000 seniors would die.

That’s right, supporting Republicans means murdering seniors. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is another one of those “enlightened” and “tolerant” liberals who savages Republicans and conservatives in the way conservatives go after Al Qaeda. After all, until Islamofascists publicly threaten to overturn Roe vs Wade, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is not bothered by them.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is hate speech personified. Picture what would happen if former Florida Congressman Robert Wexler mated with former DNC Chair Howard Dean. The result would be an angry, hysterical screaming leftist. Better yet, picture Barney Frank wedding Joy Behar and reproducing.

(Forget sexual orientation. This union would explain the hair. Liberals love to attack conservative women for their fashion sense, so the shaggy mane that is Miss Lassie Man-Schultz or Mane-Schultz is fair game.)

When Howard Dean left, Tim Kaine took over the DNC. Kaine is a “normal” Democrat. He is not a raving lunatic. He decided to run for the open Virginia Senate seat vacated when Jim Webb was too gutless and cowardly to face George Allen in a rematch.

The Democratic Party winning in 2006 had nothing to do with Howard Dean. He was banished from television after numerous gaffes. Rahm Emanuel was the brains behind the victory, recruiting sane (non-liberal) moderate to conservative Democrats. The Democratic Party losses in 2010 had nothing to do with Tim Kaine. Obama and the Pelosiraptor ruined Emanuel’s attempt to move the left to the center. Yet the message the Democrats received based on 2006 and 2010 was that blind irrational hatred works. Civility does not.

Ms. Lassie Mane Schultz is a dog of an individual cut from the cloth of the hateful wing of the Democratic Party. This is what the left wants.

Yet there is one other element to Ms. Schultz that makes her a perfect choice for Barack Obama.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is a left-wing self-hating Jew.

She is the equivalent of a human shield. By having a Jewish last name, she gives Obama cover to bash Jews and Israel with reckless abandon. With Rahm Emanuel now the dictator for life in Chicago, Mr. Obama needs a token Jew to spout the Palesimian point of view.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is a staunch support of J-Street, a hard left Arab funded organization that pretends to be Pro-Israel. Non-Arab funding comes from George Soros, the most powerful Jewish Nazi romanticizer on Earth.

With the Palesimians about to send a flotilla on May 15th (the anniversary of the “Nakbah,” which means “mistake” in referring to the creation of Israel) to provoke Israel, Barack Obama will be able to attack Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for defending his own nation. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz will immediately fall into line behind him to give the party a phony pro-Israel blanket in time for the election.

Put Code Pink and their anti-Semitism in the room with executives from the Republican Jewish Coalition. Would Ms. Wasserman-Schultz even consider the anti-Semite Code Pinkos as the bad guys?

Not a chance.

Between attacking Republicans and Israel, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is everything Barack Obama could possibly want in a party spokesperson.

Congratulations Democrats. The Downright Nasty Committee has their Jew shrew.

Just don’t tell ever preach to a single conservative Republican about civility.

Civility is now officially dead in the Democratic Party. They chose anger and rage over dialogue and reasonable behavior.

They found the perfect spokesperson who represents them accurately.

That does not say much for Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, but it says much worse about what has become of the party she now represents.

eric

Today is Saturday. The government would be shut down anyway. So until Monday morning, any claim of any effect of a government closure for the weekend is nonsense. With that, here are some questions.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2011/apr/8/if-government-shuts-down-forest/

Just because a deal got done does not mean the questions go away. If we really come together, we can accomplish less than nothing and claim it was worthwhile.

eric

The left tried to steal another election, but this time they will have to work much harder to do it.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/08/the-wisconsin-judicial-race-this-is-what-democracy-looks-like/

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/08/turnabout-in-wisconsin

eric

Breaking news: A pipe bomb has just exploded outside of a Synagogue in Santa Monica in Los Angeles.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/04/reported-pipe-bomb-explodes-at-jewish-temple-in-santa-monica.html

The Synagogue is the Chabad House.

I am in South Florida today, but Santa Monica is blocks from my home.

I am friends with the family who run this Synagogue.

This is personal.

Right now I am doing what everybody else is doing…waiting…and praying.

eric

Update II:

Statement by Rabbi Boruch Shlomo Cunin on the Chabad House in S. Monica, CA

“This morning at approximately 8:30 a.m. we received a call from the S. Monica Police Dept. who stated that there may have been a leak or minor incident of some kind near the Chabad House in S. Monica, and that as a precaution, the Chabad House was to be evacuated and the surrounding area sealed off.  At 11:00 a.m. this morning we were informed by the Police that the cause of the evacuation was in fact some hazardous waste that was illegally dumped, and subsequently caused a minor incident in a nearby alley.  The Chabad House is not suspected at this time to have been targeted in any way or manner.  We thank the Police for their security and diligence and are deeply grateful to the thousands of calls and emails from the community, who has been calling us with their concern and support.”

This is why it is very important to wait for facts to come out. This was not an act of terrorism and does not appear to be connected in any way with Judaism.

Thank God for this.

eric

Another close election has seen a conservative with a slight lead, only to have the liberal pull ahead at the eleventh hour.

Conservatives have seen this before. The future of our country will determine whether conservatives will grow a pair and join their leftist opponents in the gutter.

It is time for trench warfare. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Liberals win these close elections because they have mastered bloodlust. They are willing to win at all costs. Until conservatives finally grasp that the billy club liberals have in their hands is not for peaceful purposes, the left will win every close election.

JFK stole the 1960 presidential election from Richard Nixon.

Christine Gregoire stole the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election from Dino Rossi.

Coincidentally, in 2010 in Washington Rossi lost again by less than a 51-49 margin. The loss was to Patty Murray in the senate race, and as always, shenanigans in King County made the difference. This is where Seattle is located. Surprise, surprise. Liberals got away with it again.

Al Franken stole the Minnesota senate seat from Norm Coleman. Coleman was ahead but that never mattered. “Minnesota nice” only existed for the GOP. Franken got downright Minnesota nasty. He got Minnesota mad dog mean. GOP Governor Tim Pawlenty properly recused himself. The Democrat Attorney General naturally did not. Once again, the left won.

The left tried to steal the 2000 election for Democrat Al Gore despite every single count showing that Republican George W. Bush won. Republican Governor Jeb Bush stayed out of it, putting integrity above his own brother. The Democrat Attorney General had no such qualms.

So why did the left fail to overturn that race? What was the difference between Election 2000 and every other race where a photo finish automatically means a Democratic victory?

Republicans saved George W. Bush and stopped Gore’s attempt to hijack the White House by doing the one thing they are normally terrified of doing.

Conservatives acted like liberals. The right gave the left a dose of their own medicine.

When Al Gore tried to have a selective recount only in four counties that were heavily Democratic, Republicans made sure that the process slowed to a crawl. We challenged every single ballot.

In 2011, Republicans hold a slim 4-3 lead in the Wisconsin judiciary. Yet if liberal Democrat Kloppenburg is able to topple conservative Republican Prosser, the rule of law in Wisconsin will cease to exist. Governor Scott Walker will see his completely legal attempt to restrict collective bargaining rights for public sector union thugs turn to ashes. Faster than a 2000 Florida Supreme Court Justice, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will become led by 4 kangaroos with no agenda other than savaging Governor Walker’s agenda for sport.

Kloppenburg has 50.01% of the vote to Prosser’s 49.99%. She leads by 204 votes out of over one million cast. If Prosser had been ahead, we know what the left would do. The only solution is to give the leftist union bullies a taste of their own medicine. They decided to attack the non-controversial Prosser to take down Governor Walker. Well it is time to let Ms. Kloppenburg be the only collateral damage in this fight.

It is time to join liberals in the gutter.

Every single ballot should be looked at. Every single Kloppenburg vote should be challenged. If Kloppenburg’s relatives voted for her, challenge it.

Republicans should drag this out deep into 2012. That way the unions will be forced to spend money in Wisconsin that they could be spending trying to subvert the rule of law nationwide.

Think of it as Ronald Reagan taking on Gorbachev and the Soviet Union. The only solution was to outspend them, bankrupt them, and break them.

Today’s leftists are just as determined and just as destructive. If the right truly cares, they will force the left to use every last dime on this race. Then we pass laws restricting union corruption in as many states as possible simultaneously. To paraphrase screaming Howard Dean, we will see them in Washington…and Michigan…and everywhere else.

If the left wants to see what their animalistic version of democracy looks like, let’s show them.

If Kloppenburg is going to take this seat, it has to be after so much emotional pain for her supporters that they are unable to focus on another election as long as they live and breathe.

At this point some will ask “but what if she won fair and square?”

There is nothing fair about decades of leftist abuse of the electoral system. If they can’t handle taking it, then stop dishing it out.

If she won, let her prove it after recounts, court battles, and recall elections. If she gets seated, let’s target the other 3 liberals on the court for recall. File petitions demanding that the liberals on the court recuse themselves from hearing any cases related to the collective bargaining law. Kloppenburg would have a conflict of interest since her very election would be related to the law.

Maybe the 3 conservative justices can simply flee to Chicago to prevent any cases from being heard ever again.

No, this is not what Democracy looks like. It is what the left has done to destroy democracy.

Now they have to pay.

If this is more about vengeance than justice, just remember that the entire existence of the left is based on revenge. They lose an election, so they flee and refuse to serve. They lose the vote, so they attack an innocent judge for sport.

No matter how the Wisconsin Supreme Court rules on the collective bargaining law, the Supreme Court will support Governor Walker by a 5-4 margin.

This is because Republicans a decade ago for once in their lives fought liberals tooth and nail and beat them at their own game. We saved the presidency and the judiciary.

It is time to preserve a conservative judicial seat and the rule of law itself. If the means to get to those ends happen to worry people, well this is what liberalism has wrought.

Conservatives must win this judicial recount at any and all costs.

Otherwise, when a liberal president appoints Kloppenburg to the United States Supreme Court with a new liberal majority, conservatives will not be able to prevent the left from stealing every presidential election from now on.

The left wants to get bloody. It is time to join them in the gutter.

The liberal union bullies have thrown their last sucker punch. It is time to hit back hard.

eric

The Democrats of 2011 want to party like it’s 1995.

Howard Dean could barely contain his glee as he honestly admitted that from a  strategy standpoint, Democrats benefit from another government shutdown.

Chuck Schumer unwittingly admitted that his plan was to follow orders and just use the word “extreme” in every sentence to describe Republican activities from budgeting to eating to breathing.

So as continuing resolutions keep our government temporarily open, an honest assessment of how the budget situation got to this point must be repeated.

This situation exists because the Democrats led by the Pelosiraptor in 2010 were a bunch of lazy slobs unwilling and unable to pass a budget.

This has nothing to do with Republicans. The Democrats controlled all the levers of power. Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi had time to pass a budget. They deliberately chose not to do it. The reason for their inaction was because the 2010 election was approaching, and hard choices before an election often lead to electoral defeat.

The Democrats won congress in 2006 by standing for absolutely nothing. The Pelosiraptor offered nothing. The Democrats won as the anti-party to a war weary nation.

From 2006 to 2008 they did nothing, claiming a Republican president was blocking them. Then they got their dream leftist in the White House. They tried to do “something,” but that something proved to be an unpopular healthcare bill that a majority of Americans want repealed. Faced with an already troubling political landscape, the government went into unofficial shutdown mode in mid-2010.

So when the Democrats complain about a government shutdown, it should be pointed out that they are an entire political party of people who do nothing. Watching Democrats shut the government down is like watching French people go on strike. How can you tell?

The last thing Republicans want is a shutdown. Republicans know that while Democrats lack governing skills, the left has mastered public relations. The left is brilliant at doing nothing and blaming others for their failures.

Some would say that a government shutdown is harmless. After all, only non-essential services would be effected. If the services are non-essential, why are they even offered?

This is about public relations. The left will win public relations fights every single time.

This is because the traditional labels of the Democrats as the mommy party and the Republicans as the daddy party still ring true. Liberals give free stuff to everyone while conservatives have to be the bad guys and say no.

Republicans want to cut spending. Democrats want to spend even more. This is who they are. It is what they believe. The very essence of being a liberal means embracing increased government spending to make changes in people’s lives. This is the heart of their ideology. Tax the rich, and spend it on social programs. The fact that this approach repeatedly fails does not deter them.

Democrats want Republicans to make all the hard choices. Then the Democrats portray Republicans as “mean,” “mean-spirited,” “extremist,” “draconian,” “cruel,” “heartless,” and other adjectives that force Republicans to cave.

In 1995 Democrats claimed that Republicans were “cutting” and “gutting” Medicare. This was a total lie. Republicans were slowing the rate of growth. Bill Clinton demagogued the issue and got reelection as the situation got worse. Had we slowed the rate of growth back then, we would not need real actual cuts now.

Democrats say they want cuts provided that those cuts do not affect American values. This is as nonsensical as it is subjective. Every program is important to somebody. What they really mean is maybe we can reduce the military budget by 100% and then spend the rest of the money on more failed social welfare programs.

Republicans have adults in their party, and the lead adult is clearly Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. He has put forward a budget that offers cuts that are wide, deep, and substantive. His plan reduces the national debt by 4 to 6 trillion dollars.

Democrats dislike the Ryan plan but at least he has one. If the Democrats successfully shut the government down and benefit from it, they will then continue to spend into the stratosphere. They simply don’t care that America is going broke. They truly believe we can spend endlessly and devalue our currency and somehow eventually reach prosperity. They get away with this because prosperity is the only thing Americans of the last 30 years have known. The stagflation of the 1970s when they controlled everything is a blip on their radar.

Cutting programs including entitlements is unfortunate, but it is not cruel. Letting America get destroyed because the selfish beggars comprising the Democratic electorate refuses to accept that austerity is needed for this nation to survive.

Republicans are trying to make things better for the next generation. The Democrats are looking only to 2012 so they can retain their grip on power and use it to continue to do absolutely nothing.

Democrats have no governing skills, but claiming that Republicans want to starve children, kill seniors, and harm everybody in between has riled up their core voters. The Democratic Party now primarily consists of uneducated poor people, dopey college kids, angry minorities claiming oppression, mentally deranged homeless drug addicts, and wealthy white uberleftists who secretly loathe all of these people but romanticize them publicly for their own political power.

That is why the left needs the government to shut down. When it was open, they failed to use it to do anything. Making things worse and blaming the GOP is the only weapon of mass distraction left in their arsenal of failed leadership, empty rhetoric, and fiscal and moral bankruptcy.

eric

The Arab Spring may be slow in the making, but the American Spring is shaping up beautifully. Another failed liberal has liberally failed. Another despot is finally running away before they can be pushed out.

First Bob Herbert has left the Jayson Blair Times. Now Katie Couric is trying to leave CBS News before she can be shoved out the window. The once rock solid model of integrity that was CBS News was started by Edward R. Murrow, maintained by Walter Cronkite, destroyed by Gunga Dan Rather, and finally collapsed under Ms. Couric.

To paraphrase the creators of “South Park,” the “stuff” was piled so deep and high at the once proud creepy eye network that it reached 100 Courics.

Katie Couric was perfectly qualified to talk about nonsense in the morning when productive Americans were either on the way to work or preparing the kids for school. She had no business being given the evening news anchor chair. The fact that she was merely proved how little value the once prestigious job now had.

Ms. Couric was the worst of all possible worlds.

For starters, she was liberally biased and refused to admit it. She had a specific hostility and contempt for minority conservatives. Her following Sarah Palin on to her campaign bus was practically stalking. The overall interview was spliced in the typical way liberal journalists cut and paste hatchet jobs.

Governor Palin was caught off guard. Ms. Couric was not so lucky when she tried to attack Denzel Washington for having the nerve to be politically conservative while possessing dark pigmentation. She asked “what is wrong with you people?” Mr. Washington ripped into her “you people” remark until she was flummoxed. Ideological bigots tend to stammer when confronted publicly and eloquently with their own bigotry.

In addition to being biased, Ms. Couric was also nasty. She was frequently described as “perky,” which her supporters insisted meant friendly. This is nonsense. The person who smiles at you while stabbing you is every bit as vile as the person who scowls while doing it. Cheerful nastiness is no better than angry bitter nastiness.

Being biased and nasty were bad enough, but surely Ms. Couric would put together a quality news program.

No. Not at all. Her show decided to let the stupidity train veer off of the track and into living rooms from the very first show. She decided to let Americans decide how Ron Burgundy would cover the news. For the uninitiated, Mr. Burgundy was a fictional character played by Will Ferrell in the movie “Anchorman.”

While Murrow was probably rolling over in his grave, Rather accused Couric of “tarting up” the news. When Rather finds somebody bad at the news, then it is truly time to give up. Rather may be a hypocritical gasbag, but he was still right.

Yet being liberally biased was not enough to hurt Couric with her CBS bosses. Given their tradition, it may have even helped her.

Nastiness was not an issue. Somebody had to get the angry left to defect back from Rachel Maddow.

Quality was job zero. Television executives have never been about promoting quality. They are about making money and earning ratings. The only reason they care about ratings is because it leads to higher advertising dollars. The bottom line is the bottom line. The network honchos may publicly preach leftism, but they are raw animal capitalists at heart.

The issue was not that Katie failed because she was a liberal. The honchos wanted a liberal feminist woman to succeed because political correctness increases demographics.

The problem was that she liberally failed. She failed publicly on a spectacular level. She began in last place, and stayed there. Brian Williams at NBC is a liberal shill, and she could not even surpass him.

Do not cry for Ms. Couric. She is going to make millions either hosting a talk show or being part of a panel discussing issues. The bimbothon known as “The View” could always add her to provide ideological and hormonal balance. After all, it may take ten women to offset the testosterone from Joy Behar.

If Katie Couric can get millions of Americans to watch her spout off in front of the equivalent of the town square village idiots, this is America. P.T. Barnum would praise her.

Yet if the goal is to create a more intelligent and informed community, the evening telecast should be about hard news. People listened to Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. They were taken seriously. Nobody took Ms. Couric seriously. She was not a serious person on any level. The show would not have been worse if Nicole Snooki Polizzi had been added as a coanchor. Snooki likes to get drunk for fun. Couric was merely drunk on her own power.

Lastly, real news anchors would go to hot spots around the globe. Couric refused to go to Iraq because it would have taken her away from her children. Rather had zillions of flaws, but he did go into the eye of hurricanes. After merciless and deserved criticism, Couric went to Libya. She was the first one to make sure she got back home before the sand reached her expensive shoes.

She is qualified to sit in a studio and let interns file her nails and drop grapes into her mouth during commercials. She is not qualified to do any hard work required of a real news anchor.

Thankfully she will be leaving, and like a typical liberal, will claim that her tenure was successful.

Between her and Mr. Herbert, the entire country would be more successful if the very worst of the very worst embodied by them would follow their example and leave now.

Then again, it could be fun to watch her stay and sink further. Love of quality news and intelligently and honestly delivered information should allow people to resist this urge.

Don’t go away mad Katie. Just go away and never return. Do it for your country. The people have spoken. You failed, and must be fired.

eric