Tea Party Debate, Taking on the Evil Empire

"You Came in That!, You're Braver than I Thought!"


My own photo of Michele Bachmann from last year's rally.

"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." -- Unknown.

Watching last night's CNN Tea Party Debate [1], I was not so much looking for a winner and a loser, but wanting to see how the candidates might work "in ensemble." Visible was a lot of talent that rightly combined might just propel us to the point of retaking the high ground necessary to save this country.

Erick Erickson [click to read] is calling Perry the winner. Still, he points to how Rick Perry fumbled the immigration and HPV issues. Bachmann drilled into Perry, who stumbled into an awkward defense of his decisions on those two points. Perry would have been light years ahead had he stopped after admitting that his decision was wrong. Experienced leaders, you see, have had to have opportunity to gain experience.

Bachmann sounded a bit like Princess Leah in Star Wars, Grilling the reckless Han Solo. That banter is some of the greatest dialogue in movies. Filmmaker George Lucas put together his initial cast by working the actors "in ensemble." That means he wanted to see how they worked together before he cast them. Lacking the number of "Han Solos" he needed to do this, he grabbed Harrison Ford, who was an unemployed actor doing carpentry in his office. He put him in the dialogue tryout with Carrie Fisher and the rest is history! The two of them had what it takes to defeat the evil empire! Not only that, the chemistry was amazing to watch...

Back to last night's debate, Bachmann and Perry just seemed to have what it takes to sharpen a great attack on Obama's Evil Empire. Make Ron Paul the new Fed chairman and replace all the Czars with the wisdom of Gingrich and Cain, but give us Han and Leah to fight Emperor Obama and Darth Biden. I see the chemistry there.

Is Social Security a 'Ponzi Scheme,' as Rick Perry Says?

Merriam Webster Definition of PONZI SCHEME: "an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks (Origin): Charles Ponzi,1949 American (Itaian-born) swindler."

Early 'investors' in the Social Security System pay into an 'account' that does not exist. Monies go into the general fund and are spent by the government. Early investors are actually paid off with money put up by later ones. How is this NOT a Ponzi scheme?