Sunday, December 28, 2008

The day’s top political news:

Sen. Harry Reid "saw the consequences of being the majority leader or the leader of one of the parties."

Reid will command the biggest party majority of any Senate leader in a quarter century when the new Congress convenes in January.

But Reid is perhaps the most-vulnerable Democrat who will face re-election in a midterm race that is likely to favor his party once again. 

Reid has demonstrated he is hardly the brightest bulb in the lamp and his many fiascos will haunt his upcoming campaign.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123033501646236333.html

The Obama fishbowl: increasingly conscious of the confines of his new position, he bristles at the routine demands of press coverage and chafes at boundaries that will get smaller.

The media glare, the constant security appendage and the sheer production that has become a morning jog or a hankering for an ice cream cone – has been closing in on Barack Obama for some time.

Obama even took the unusual step Friday morning of leaving behind the pool of reporters assigned to follow him, taking his daughters to a nearby water park without them. It was a breach of longstanding protocol between presidents (or presidents-elect) and the media, that a gaggle of reporters representing television, print and wire services is with his motorcade at all times.

All presidents and would-be presidents struggle with “the bubble” – the security detail and the always-there reporters that impose barriers to any spontaneous interaction with the outside world. Obama seems to be struggling particularly hard, particularly early.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16882.html

Laura Bush – Defending her husband’s record

First lady Laura Bush disagrees with critics who say her husband's presidency was a failure.

In an interview aired Sunday on Fox News Sunday, Mrs. Bush says she knows her husband's eight years in office was not a failure, and says she doesn't feel as if she needs to respond to people who view it that way.

She says history will judge the two-term presidency of George W. Bush.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/laura_bush_legacy

Opinion:
Liberals and their corruption of English, concepts, and ideals

I cannot help but bristle when I hear a liberal hiding behind the term “progressive”.  It’s a cop out and a deliberate effort to lie about reality.  There is nothing legitimately progression about left wing ideology.  Quite the contrary.

Educational liberals today are high on many myths – none more pervasive than their fascination with “diversity”.  Not because liberal “educators” want the minds of our youth to be broadened by other perspectives, but because these liberals in education seek to use such tactics to undermine our basic values and continue their corruption of language and reality – the sort of reality that blames America and its freedoms for all the ills that beset the world.

Noted columnist Thomas Sowell points to another case of educational hubris gone wild as he examines the madness of “community service” obsessions by educational institutions.  Of course, sadly, from our public schools throughout academia, liberal corruption has taken firm hold and its seams run throughout the curriculum.

Sowell handles it quite well.  As my good friend Harry Becker sagely notes:

“many on the left would be shocked to learn that others consider them opposed to freedom, and yet, that is often the focus of the problem others have with accepting them as intelligent and occasionally learned people.” 
 

SOWELL: A case against community service 
 
COMMENTARY:

“Most people on the left do not oppose freedom. They are just in favor of all sorts of things that are incompatible with freedom.

Freedom ultimately means the right of other people to do things you do not approve of. Nazis were free to be Nazis under Adolf Hitler. Only when you can do things other people don't approve of are you free.

One of the most innocent-sounding examples of the left's many impositions of its vision on others is the widespread requirement by schools and by college admissions committees that students do "community service."

There are high schools across the country from which you cannot graduate, and colleges where your application for admission will not be accepted, unless you have engaged in activities arbitrarily defined as "community service."

The arrogance of commandeering young people's time, instead of leaving them and their parents free to decide for themselves how to use that time, is exceeded only by the arrogance of imposing your own notions as to what is or is not a service to the community.

Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as "community service" - as if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a disservice, to the community.

Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play?

This is just one of the ways in which handing out various kinds of benefits to people who have not worked for them breaks the connection between productivity and reward, as far as they are concerned.
But that connection remains as unbreakable as ever for society as a whole. You can make anything an "entitlement" for individuals and groups but nothing is an entitlement for society as a whole, not even food or shelter, both of which have to be produced by somebody's work or they will not exist.

What "entitlements" for some people mean is forcing other people to work for their benefit. As a bumper sticker put it: "Work harder. Millions of people on welfare are depending on you."

The most fundamental problem, however, is not which particular activities students are required to engage in under the title of "community service." The most fundamental question is: What in the world qualifies teachers and members of college admissions committees to define what is good for society as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary notions?
What expertise do they have that justifies overriding other people's freedom? What do their arbitrary impositions show, except that fools rush in where angels fear to tread?

What lessons do students get from this, except submission to arbitrary power?

Supposedly students are to get a sense of compassion or noblesse oblige from serving others. But this all depends on who defines compassion. In practice, it means forcing students to undergo a propaganda experience to make them receptive to the left's vision of the world.

I am sure those who favor "community service" requirements would understand the principle behind the objections to this if high school military exercises were required.

Indeed, many who promote compulsory "community service" activities bitterly oppose even voluntary military training in high schools or colleges, though many other people regard military training as more of a contribution to society than feeding people who refuse to work.

In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of what is good for society on others - a right that they vehemently deny to those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own.

The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights you demand for yourself. Such bigotry is inherently incompatible with freedom, even though many on the left would be shocked to be considered opposed to freedom.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/07/fringes-of-freedom/

Sowell hits the mark.  We should do all we can to make sure others recognize the liberal hypocrisy about which he writes.  That hypocrisy is another major battle field on which we must struggle.

Buddy

The Overview – the top blogs in brief:

1.  The Obama-Blago Senate seat auction: the bizarre earmark of "Senate Candidate 3"

Remember hearing about "Senate Candidate 3" in the complaint filed by the U.S. District Attorney against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich?

That would appear to be none other than Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL, what else? Schakowsky's sordid unique background would be shocking, appalling, perhaps even the lead story on the national news -- were she anything but an Illinois politician.

The Schakowsky family's troubling history with non-profits

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-blago-senate-seat-auction-another.html

2. Bush Has Built Foundation for Improved Health Care 
 
Although the number of uninsured and the cost of coverage have ballooned under his watch, President Bush leaves office with a health care legacy in bricks and mortar: he has doubled federal financing for community health centers, enabling the creation or expansion of 1,297 clinics in medically underserved areas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/health/policy/26clinics.html?_r=1&hp

3. Why Christians should be troubled by the election of President-elect Obama

Many blacks who have passed on would love to have seen the day that this country would experience the opportunity to vote for a person of color to hold the highest office in the land.

I will be praying for our newly elected president but unfortunately, as a minister of the Gospel, I am very much troubled by what President-elect Obama stands for.

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2264&dept_id=581907&newsid=20228828&PAG=461&rfi=9
 
4. The Conservative Elevator Story

…Chicago politicians are still as venal and corrupt as they always were, and it is thoughtful of Gov. Blagojevich (D-IL) to remind us. It is also salutary to read that people had been tipping off the Securities and Exchange Commission for years about accused Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff (D-contributor) but they never did anything about it. What's the point, you might ask, of regulators if they don't regulate?
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/the_conservative_elevator_stor.html

Now the blogs in full:

1.

The Obama-Blago Senate seat auction: the bizarre earmark of "Senate Candidate 3"

Remember hearing about "Senate Candidate 3" in the complaint filed by the U.S. District Attorney against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich?

You may recall that "Senate Candidate 1" was Barack Obama's choice: his friend, the ultra-qualified Valerie Jarrett. And "Senate Candidate 5" was Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., a man with a better sense of "fundraising" than Carolyn-esque entitlement. But who was "Senate Candidate 3"?

That would appear to be none other than Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL, what else?). An anonymous tipster pointed me to a fascinating post at Red County. It describes Schakowsky's sordid unique background. Her story would be shocking, appalling, perhaps even the lead story on the national news -- were she anything but an Illinois politician.

The Schakowsky family's troubling history with non-profits

• In 2006 Anne Leary reported that Schakowsky's husband -- Robert Creamer -- was sentenced to five months in prison and eleven months of house arrest for bank fraud and tax violations involving a non-profit called the "Illinois Public Action Council" (IPAC). The indictment charged Creamer with floating "check and wire transfer deposits between bank accounts to... hide their deficiencies... [and used] the inflated balances to pay expenses of his organization, as well as his own salary and discretionary expenses." Creamer resigned his longtime leadership positions after "the FBI questioned him about a $1 million overdraft... [he was also charged] with failing to pay more than $300,000 in federal income taxes for employees of the group and for himself between 1996 and 2000. Four other counts allege he filed false income tax returns between 1996 and 1999... Each count of bank fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and $1 million fine. Each count of failing to collect and pay withholding taxes carries a penalty of five years, and each count of filing a false tax return carries a penalty of 3 years."

 
Hubby's ties to other sleazy pols

• After IPAC folded, Creamer advised a wide variety of Democratic luminaries including staunch members of the community like Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Congressman Lane Evans, Chicago Alderman Joe Moore and others.

Schakowsky's background

• By any measure, Schakowsky is one of the most liberal (if not the most liberal) members of Congress. She belonged to, for instance, the "Progressive Caucus," where she joined the likes of Cynthia McKinney, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Jim ("Baghdad Jim") McDermott, Bernie Sanders and Lynn Woolsey.

• Schakowsky served on the board of IPAC while her husband was committing various felonies. But we're betting she was completely unaware of her hubby's scams. Hubby was "swindling nine financial institutions of at least $2.3 million while he ran a public interest group in the 1990s." And Schakowsky "co-signed the fraudulent tax returns".

Another BDS-sufferer

• After her husband's conviction, Schakowsky implied that her husband's prosecution was politically motivated: "Schakowsky referred to herself as one of the major critics of President Bush and Ashcroft and said: 'I do think the timing is somewhat curious.'"

Schakowsky's curious earmark: SALF

• Rep. Schakowsky authored a 2009 earmark for another Chicago-area nonprofit called The Save A Life Foundation (SALF), which is described on her website as a "Community Response Systems Initiative". What the... ?

 • A 2006 ABC investigation revealed that while Save a Life received millions of dollars in government funds and corporate donations, it made a series of "misleading claims [including] deceptive credentials that raise doubts about [its] integrity, funding and training." According to ABC, founder Carol Spizzirri represented herself as a registered nurse specializing in kidney transplants. But ABC claims she never received a degree of any kind nor was she ever registered as a nurse.

The president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a watchdog organization of medical professionals, says that federal and state funding agencies have been defrauded by Spizzirri's claims that she has a nursing degree and license... Save-A-Life charged [Chicago schools] $50,000 the past two years.

...Spizzirri pays herself an annual salary of $120,000, according to Save-A-Life records on file with the Illinois attorney general. She travels on a generous expense account while working to obtain additional government funding for expansion of her organization nationally.

ABC also reported that Spizzirri fabricated circumstances of her daughter's death when lobbying lawmakers.

 • A subsequent ABC investigation in 2007 revealed more problematic activities linked to Save-a-Life and possible misuse of public funds. These include allegations by a temp worker that state funds were used to reproduce a copyrighted 600-page instruction manual that Save-a-Life would then edit and claim as its own.

• ABC also noted that the American Red Cross "recommends the opposite of what Save-a-Life teaches school children for emergency response."

• In light of the two ABC investigations, most public funding sources for Save-a-Life appeared to dry up.

That is, until Jan Schakowsky got involved.

• Schakowsky's committee roles include service as a "Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and as a member of the Subcommittee on Health and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations."

Shouldn't she be investigating SALF, not funding them?

• Red County asks the salient question: given her investigatory committee roles and her own problematic history with non-profits, "why is Rep. Schankowsky carrying an earmark for The Save A Life Foundation rather than investigating them?"

What is it with Illinois? Something in the water? In any event, pass the popcorn, Nahanni.

Update: Creamer, Schackowsky's husband, is routinely given a column of honor at Puff Ho, though -- for some reason -- his felony conviction is omitted from his bio.
Labels: Crime, Democrats, Obama

posted by directorblue

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-blago-senate-seat-auction-another.html

2.

Bush Has Built Foundation for Improved Health Care 
 
By KEVIN SACK

NASHVILLE — Although the number of uninsured and the cost of coverage have ballooned under his watch, President Bush leaves office with a health care legacy in bricks and mortar: he has doubled federal financing for community health centers, enabling the creation or expansion of 1,297 clinics in medically underserved areas.

For those in inner-city neighborhoods and isolated rural areas, including Indian reservations, the clinics are often the only dependable providers of basic services like prenatal care, childhood immunizations, asthma treatments, cancer screenings and tests for sexually transmitted diseases. As a crucial component of the health safety net, they are lauded as a cost-effective alternative to hospital emergency rooms, where the uninsured and underinsured often seek care.

Despite the clinics’ unprecedented growth, wide swaths of the country remain without access to affordable primary care. The recession has only magnified the need as hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance along with their jobs. In response, Democrats on Capitol Hill are proposing even more significant increases, making the centers a likely feature of any health care deal struck by Congress and the Obama administration.

In Nashville, United Neighborhood Health Services, a 32-year-old community health center, has seen its federal funding rise to $4.2 million, from $1.8 million in 2001. That has allowed the organization to add eight clinics to its base of six, and to increase its pool of patients to nearly 25,000 from 10,000. Still, says Mary Bufwack, the center’s chief executive, the clinics satisfy only a third of the demand in Nashville’s pockets of urban poverty and immigrant need.

One of the group’s recent grants helped open the Southside Family Clinic, which moved last year from a pair of public housing apartments to a gleaming new building on a once derelict corner.

As she completed a breathing treatment one recent afternoon, Willie Mai Ridley, a 68-year-old beautician, said she would have sought care for her bronchitis in a hospital emergency room were it not for the new clinic. Instead, she took a short drive, waited 15 minutes without an appointment and left without paying a dime; the clinic would bill her later for her Medicare co-payment of $18.88.

Ms. Ridley said she appreciated both the dignity and the affordability of her care. “This place is really very, very important to me,” she said, “because you can go and feel like you’re being treated like a person and get the same medical care you would get somewhere else and have to pay $200 to $300.”

As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush came to admire the missionary zeal and cost-efficiency of the not-for-profit community health centers, which qualify for federal operating grants by being located in designated underserved areas and treating patients regardless of their ability to pay. He pledged support for the program while campaigning for president in 2000 on a platform of “compassionate conservatism.”

In Mr. Bush’s first year in office, he proposed to open or expand 1,200 clinics over five years (mission accomplished) and to double the number of patients served (the increase has ended up closer to 60 percent). With the health centers now serving more than 16 million patients at 7,354 sites, the expansion has been the largest since the program’s origins in President Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty, federal officials said.

“They’re an integral part of a health care system because they provide care for the low-income, for the newly arrived, and they take the pressure off of our hospital emergency rooms,” Mr. Bush said last year while touring a clinic in Omaha.

With federal encouragement, the centers have made a major push this decade to expand dental and mental health services, open on-site pharmacies, extend hours to nights and weekends and accommodate recent immigrants — documented and otherwise — by employing bilingual staff. More than a third of patients are now Hispanic, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

The centers now serve one of every three people who live in poverty and one of every eight without insurance. But a study released in August by the Government Accountability Office found that 43 percent of the country’s medically underserved areas lack a health center site. The National Association of Community Health Centers and the American Academy of Family Physicians estimated last year that 56 million people were “medically disenfranchised” because they lived in areas with inadequate primary care.

President-elect Barack Obama has said little about how the centers might fit into his plans to remake American health care. But he co-sponsored a Senate bill in August that would quadruple federal spending on the program — to $8 billion from $2.1 billion — and boost incentives for medical students to choose primary care. His wife, Michelle, worked closely with health centers in Chicago as vice president of community and external relations at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

And Mr. Obama’s choice to become secretary of health and human services, former Senator Tom Daschle, argues in his recent book on health care that financing should be increased, describing the health centers as “a godsend.”

The federal program, which was first championed in Congress by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has earned considerable bipartisan support. Leading advocates, like Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, and Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, the House majority whip, argue that any success Mr. Obama has in reducing the number of uninsured will be meaningless if the newly insured cannot find medical homes. In Massachusetts, health centers have seen increased demand since the state began mandating health coverage two years ago.

At $8 billion, the Senate measure may be considered a relative bargain compared with the more than $100 billion needed for Mr. Obama’s proposal to subsidize coverage for the uninsured. If his plan runs into fiscal obstacles, a vast expansion of community health centers might again serve as a stopgap while universal coverage waits for flusher times.

Recent job losses, meanwhile, are stoking demand for the clinics’ services, often from first-time users. The United Neighborhood Health Services clinics in Nashville have seen a 35 percent increase in patients this year, with much of the growth from the newly jobless.

I’m seeing a lot of professionals that no longer have their insurance or they’re laid off from their jobs,” said Dr. Marshelya D. Wilson, a physician at the center’s Cayce clinic. “So they come here and get their health care.”

Studies have generally shown that the health centers — which must be governed by patient-dominated boards — are effective at reducing racial and ethnic disparities in medical treatment and save substantial sums by keeping patients out of hospitals. Their trade association estimates that they save the health care system $17.6 billion a year, and that an equivalent amount could be saved if avoidable emergency room visits were diverted to clinics. Some centers, including here in Nashville, have brokered agreements with hospitals to do exactly that.

Many centers are finding that federal support is not keeping pace with the growing cost of treating the uninsured. Government grants now account for 19 percent of community health center revenues, compared to 22 percent in 2001, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration, which oversees the program. The largest revenue sources are public insurance plans like Medicaid, Medicare and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, making the centers vulnerable to government belt-tightening.

The centers are known for their efficiency. Though United Neighborhood Health Services has more than doubled in size this decade, Ms. Bufwack, its chief executive, manages to run five neighborhood clinics, five school clinics, a homeless clinic, two mobile clinics and a rural clinic, with 24,391 patients, on a budget of $8.1 million. Starting pay for her doctors is $120,000. Patients are charged on an income-based sliding scale, and the uninsured are expected to pay at least $20 for an office visit. One clinic is housed in a double-wide trailer.

Because of a nationwide shortage of primary care physicians, the clinics rely on federal programs like the National Health Service Corps that entice medical students with grants and loan write-offs in exchange for agreements to practice as generalists in underserved areas. Of the 16 doctors working for United Neighborhood, seven are current or former participants.

Dr. LaTonya D. Knott, 37, who treated Ms. Ridley for her bronchitis, is among them. Born to a 15-year-old mother in south Nashville, she herself had been a regular childhood patient at one of the center’s clinics. After graduating as her high school’s valedictorian, she went to college on scholarships and then to medical school on government grants, with an obligation to serve for two years.

She said she now felt a responsibility to be a role model. “I do a whole lot of social work,” she said, noting that it was not uncommon for children to drop by the clinic for help with homework, or for a peanut butter sandwich. “It’s not just that we provide the medical care. I’m trying to provide you with a future.”

Despite such commitment, national staffing shortages have reinforced concerns about the quality of care at health centers, notably the management of chronic diseases. This year, the government started collecting data at the centers on performance measures like cervical cancer screening and diabetes control.

“The question is not just, ‘Are you going to have more community health centers?’“ said Dr. H. Jack Geiger, founder of the health centers movement and a professor emeritus at the City University of New York. “It’s, ‘Are you going to have adequate services?’“

A deeper frustration for health centers concerns their difficulty in securing follow-up appointments with specialists for patients who are uninsured or have Medicaid. All too often, said Ms. Bufwack, medical care ends at the clinic door, reinforcing the need to expand both primary care and health insurance coverage.

“That’s when our doctors feel they’re practicing third world medicine,” she said. “You will die if you have cancer or a heart condition or bad asthma or horrible diabetes. If you need a specialist and specialty tests and specialty meds and specialty surgery, those things are totally out of your reach.”
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/health/policy/26clinics.html?_r=1&hp

3.

Why Christians should be troubled by the election of President-elect Obama
By: Joseph L. Green , Special to The Independent

As an African American, I would love to be overjoyed by the recent election of a black man to become the president of the United States of America. This has been a long time coming. Many blacks who have passed on would love to have seen the day that this country would experience the opportunity to vote for a person of color to hold the highest office in the land.

I will be praying for our newly elected president but unfortunately, as a minister of the Gospel, I am very much troubled by what President-elect Obama stands for.

I've read Barack Obama's books, writings and watched videos of many of his speeches. The implications of Barack Obama's beliefs should concern any Bible-believing Christian, and I sincerely believe we are about to face some very trying times in the near future. As Christians living by the standards of the Word of God, we will be facing a serious uphill battle, and if we do not stand up for Christian values, we will be silenced forever.

President-elect Obama ran on a campaign of change. On the surface, we are led to believe that this change is simply referring to a political and economic change. I believe the change he is looking to implement goes much deeper than politics and economics.

I have examined Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate. Obama voted against giving human rights to born-alive infants who have survived the attempt to abort them. Obama also made a point by mentioning homosexuals, not only in his acceptance speech at the Democratic nomination but also again when he won the presidential election. It is quite clear that he is looking to change the moral direction of this country in a way that I do not believe most Christians want to go.

I am making a couple of predictions. You do not have to agree with me, but I encourage you to keep this article and within the first year of the Obama's presidency, I believe you will see the following occurrences take place:

First, President Obama will look to remove any limitations on abortions. Just as he did in the Illinois State Senate, he will look to allow a baby's life to be terminated even in the latter stages of a pregnancy. He will push to allow second and third trimester abortions, as well as, allowing for the death of infants who are born alive after surviving an abortion attempt.

Second, President Obama will look to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, under law. He will also be a proponent of giving transgender and transsexual people special rights and protections under the law of the land.

President Obama will look to limit the free speech of Christians who speak out against homosexuality and any other lifestyles that Christians believe are wrong according to God's Word, the Holy Bible.

We will begin to see more and more hatred towards people who stand up for Biblical ethics. Barack Obama is the most liberal president this country has had in recent times and he will be very persistent in pushing the liberal, far left agenda onto our country. When we stand up for Biblical ethics, the pushback will become more intense as time goes on.

California is a prime example of the type of attacks that will be perpetrated against Bible-believing Christians. Just a couple of weeks ago a kindergarten teacher took a group of 4- and 5-year-olds to witness a same-sex marriage, which was legal at the time in California. The teacher even had the students sign a pledge not to speak against homosexuality. I, personally, would not want my kindergartner being taught to accept something I morally disagree with.

After Proposition 8 was passed in California, gay and lesbian activists vowed to punish the Mormon Church and anyone that supported this law. They even called for a boycott of the state of Utah because the state is the main headquarters of the Mormon Church.

I thank God that the citizens of California voted to protect marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It is important that we stand up for our morals and values. It is clear that we, as Christians, are in for a strong push from the liberal left and, unfortunately, the new Obama administration will be their strongest proponent.

We, as Christians, must stand strong in this fight for our morals and values. The ironic point is that these laws are supported by, and pushed through by, the same people that tell us that we do not have the right to "legislate morality." Isn't this what gays, abortionists and the proponents of the overall liberal agenda are trying to do?

©WMICentral 2008
 
http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2264&dept_id=581907&newsid=20228828&PAG=461&rfi=9
 
 
 
The Conservative Elevator Story
Christopher Chantrill

Sometimes you have to admit it. There is nothing new under the sun. Chicago politicians are still as venal and corrupt as they always were, and it is thoughtful of Gov. Blagojevich (D-IL) to remind us. It is also salutary to read that people had been tipping off the Securities and Exchange Commission for years about accused Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff (D-contributor) but they never did anything about it. What's the point, you might ask, of regulators if they don't regulate?
 
So much for hope and change.

But we conservatives must not be distracted by these ephemera. We must continue to build our winter quarters at Valley Forge, and get to work thinking and training for the next campaign cycle.  Nothing has changed in our national politics. Our Democratic friends still just want to grow the government.

Let us return to our conservative off-site vision statement, complete with expensive consultant to facilitate our discussions.  We have already come up with a brilliant Vision Statement and a punchy Mission Statement.  Now it is time to come up with an Elevator Story.

You all know what an elevator story is. It's the answer you give to someone when they ask what you do. You don't just say: Oh, I work for Microsoft.  You tell them a story about what you are doing and why it is important, and you do it all in 30 seconds, the time that you might find yourself in an elevator with Mr. Big.

But how?  Here's a good approach, developed by Brian Freeman and Sean Mcdonnell.  You structure your elevator story like a screenplay:

• l Stage setting: What's the situation at the start?
• l Conflict: What problems do the characters face?
• l Resolution: How is the conflict or problem resolved?
• l Outcome: How is life different as a result?
So let's get started.  Let's say my liberal friend asks me: "Why are you a conservative, Chris?"

The first thing to do is to set the stage.

Good question, Bob. In America today, conservatives believe, government is cruel, corrupt, unjust; and it just costs too much. And we conservatives just can't stand there and do nothing.

Isn't this just about how conservatives feel? The current welfare state for which, www.usgovernmentspending.com tells us, the American people cough up  $900 billion a year for government pensions, $950 billion for government health care, $875 billion for government education, and $470 billion for government welfare, every year, is an abomination. Never mind the corrupt patronage system so brazenly operated by Gov. Blagojevich and pals; let us think about the cruelty of a system that has destroyed the family in the underclass, the injustice of screwing the working poor and rewarding the non-working poor.

Now let us set up the Conflict:

Liberals created this monster, Bob. Liberals believe that compulsory government programs are the way to help the poor and comfort the afflicted. But they are wrong. Government is not compassion. Government is force. You cannot solve social problems by force.

This is the basic conflict between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe you can solve social problems with government programs. Conservatives believe that you must solve them person-to-person, face-to-face. Compassion means, literally, "suffering with." Getting paid to run a government program to help the poor with tax dollars isn't "suffering with."

The conflict sets up the conservative-based Resolution of the problem:

Conservatives believe in society not as social force but as social cooperation. That's why we must reform the welfare state into the welfare society. In the welfare society the American people, not liberal experts, will be in charge of their health care, their children's education, the comfort of the afflicted, and the decent provision of pensions.

Liberals believe in the welfare state; conservatives believe in the welfare society. That issues out of the basic conservative belief, initially voiced by Edmund Burke, that "To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of publick affections."

Conservatives want to appeal, wherever possible, to our better angels rather than fight with inner demons. Conservatives believe that "social problems" must be solved by people in their little platoons--family, neighbors, friends, associations, and charities--people influencing other people for good. That means no more of Mark Steyn's adult adolescents. We can't just pay our taxes and complain about the government. We have to get involved and help people, from the inside out.  First you help family, then neighbors, and then your co-workers, fellow union members, fellow church members.

If conservatives don't stand for reform the welfare state, then who will?

The result, of course, is the happy Outcome:

With conservative reforms America will truly become that shining city on a hill, "still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom."

So there is our Elevator Story. The current situation is intolerable. Liberals are to blame. The solution is to get government out of our lives and put people back in. And the future is glorious, just as Ronald Reagan promised. What's not to like?

Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his roadtothemiddleclass.com and usgovernmentspending.com.  His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/the_conservative_elevator_stor.html