Saturday, March 2, 2013

FOXNews.com: The future of wine?

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
The future of wine?
Mar 2nd 2013, 10:00

It's hard to talk about wine without evoking the tokens of tradition: ancient terroir, age-old techniques of production, vineyards held by single families for successive generations. 

The world of wine characteristically embraces permanence over progress, a sense of aristocratic reverence over a democratic spirit of reform. 

Nevertheless, the way wine is bought and sold, and even appreciated, is necessarily changing as more and more commerce predictably moves online.

While Americans lack the storied heritage of wine appreciation their European counterparts rightfully lay claim to, they have much more expansive palettes as a result of more cosmopolitan offerings.

I had the opportunity to chat recently with one of the pioneers of Internet wine retail, Gary Vaynerchuk, the creator of Wine Library TV, a daily webcast devoted to all things vinicultural. Vaynerchuk was one of the prime movers behind not only selling wine online but also harnessing the potential of social media to promote more esoteric varietals to new customers.

According to Vaynerchuk, the tectonic shift in the wine industry has been brought about by a "democracy of information" that shifts the balance of power "away from the gatekeepers and towards the masses." 

While this consumer-centric revolution poses new challenges for wine retailers to remain competitive in an increasingly open market, it encourages wine drinkers to "stretch their own palettes," discover new wines, and mine their Twitter and Facebook accounts for clues on what to try next. 

Information about wine is no longer rationed out by "Parker and the Wine Spectator crowd" whose reviews once essentially predetermined what sold and what sunk. One consequence of this is that wine appreciation has become more hip, magnetizing a much younger generation to connoisseurship.

These shifts generate new opportunities for wine retailers to aggressively expand but also pose unique challenges as well: " I don't think people realize how hard it is to be good at having a relationship with the end-consumer. It's very, very hard to be good at that.... They're going to have to figure out how to tell a story, they're going to have to figure out how to deliver a truly unique experience..."

Does this portend the end of the traditional wine shop? No, but they will have to learn quickly how to adapt to a rapidly evolving business environment: 

"Physical stores are going to go away eventually in the way that we know them now. They're going to have to deliver other experiences and other things. And so, you know, I don't think superstores like Wine Library or Zachys or things of that nature are going out of business anytime soon." 

And as the consumer embraces a spirit of experimentation, the market will splinter into distinctive concentrations of interest: "I see more and more niche wine stores popping up...I think there's a lot more specialization to come. I think there's going to be a Gary V. of Napa. I think there's going to be a Robert Parker of Rhone Valley. I think there's going to be a Wine Spectator of Central Tobago. I think niche expertise has still not flourished the way that it can, and I think people are missing the opportunity."

And no wine drinking community is better positioned to reap the benefits of this sea change than the American one. While Americans lack the storied heritage of wine appreciation their European counterparts rightfully lay claim to, they have much more expansive palettes as a result of more cosmopolitan offerings. "I actually think that if you are an American wine drinker, that you have a dramatically more interesting view of the wine world, a more expanded and challenged palette. I am appalled at going to Barossa Valley or to Rioja and asking what they think of Gigondas, or Corvina, or Chateauneuf, or Chenin Blanc from South Africa, and getting answers from ten-year wine makers that say, "Oh, I've never had one."

And so the average American wine drinker is simply superior to the average European one? On this score, Vaynerchuk pulls no punches: "I actually don't even think it's close. I think the US wine consumer specifically is the best wine consumer in the world.' In fact, the greater exposure to a much broader selection of international wines means "that a serious wine person in France has a more limited palette, in my opinion, than a casual one in the US."

In general, Americans have become much more savvy about the way they eat and drink, both more discerning and demanding."We are definitely eating and drinking better as a culture in the US, and it's become more European that way, and I think we will continue to." 

Vaynerchuk has seen the blossoming maturity of American consumption with respect to beer as well: "Microbrew's been happening in a big way in the early '90s too. I mean I remember thinking, "Should I learn about microbrews instead of wine?"

Given the historical preference in the US for beer, a turn towards the market dominance of wine would be a powerful sign, both economic and cultural, of the seismic transformation cyber-retail has wrought. 

Is the overtaking of beer by wine a real possibility in a country that has always chosen hops over grapes? Vaynerchuk delivers his prediction with all the precision of a tweet: 'Yes, absolutely. I'm sure I will see it. I feel very good about that."

Ivan Kenneally is the Editor in Chief of Dailywitness.com. His essays have appeared in numerous periodicals including The Christian Science Monitor, Washington Times, National Review, Weekly Standard, and The Jerusalem Post, as well as many academic journals. He has taught philosophy and political science at SUNY Geneseo, the Eastman School of Music, and the Rochester Institute of Technology.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Friday, March 1, 2013

FOXNews.com: Andrew Breitbart -- one year later

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Andrew Breitbart -- one year later
Mar 1st 2013, 20:10

Editor's note: Andrew Breitbart died one year ago on March 1. The following piece originally appeared on Breitbart.com. It is used with permission.

"The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long." - Lao Tzu

The funny thing is, Andrew would give me an endless hard time for quoting Lao Tzu--pretentious, he'd say.

But Andrew did live larger than life--which made his sudden passing so truly hard to believe and accept. He was a flame that burned twice as bright. It was in his DNA. I know. I knew him since he was less than one year old.

But if Andrew's flame burned half as long, his legacy will never burn out. To the contrary, it will only burn brighter and brighter. It is one of love and laughter, of an amazing family consisting of his widow Susie and their four extraordinary young children, and of a friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

Andrew was a man who did extraordinary things that guarantee him a place in the history books of this great country, but still a man.

It burns in my heart and the heart of all those who loved him and whom he so deeply affected.

It also burns as his mission continues and expands at Breitbart News Network.

In his book, "Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save The World" (which was largely written at my kitchen table while I hovered over Andrew forcing him to focus) he wrote some words I find particularly pertinent about that mission.

First:

The left does not win its battles in debate. It doesn't have to. In the twenty-first century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media. Narrative is everything. I call it the Democrat-Media Complex--and I am at war to gain back control of the American narrative.

Second:

Walk toward the fire. Don't worry about being called a racist, a homophobe, a sociopath, a violent heteronormative xenophobe with fascistic impulses. They say all those things about you because they're keeping you inside the Complex, forcing you to respond to their playbook. They want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, if you tell them you can stop their verbal bullets and keep walking, you'll send messages to people who are rooting for you, who agree with you. That's how you build an invincible movement willing to play by its own rules.

As CEO and President of Breitbart News Network, and as Breitbart.com attests over the last year, let me assure you that Andrew's mission and vision only grows brighter with every day that passes.

Now, as promised, let me show you a few pictures. Why? Because for all of us who knew Andrew personally, and especially for those who did not--supporters and detractors alike--at the end of the day, I think it is important on this anniversary, to humanize Andrew. He was a man who did extraordinary things that guarantee him a place in the history books of this great country, but still a man.

We should all take personal inspiration from that. No matter who we are. No matter where we came from. No matter which side of the aisle we are on. There is nothing we cannot do if we live with passion and are willing to sacrifice and fight for what we believe in. Andrew embodied that very premise.

I love Andrew, my brother. And I miss him more than words can express. Thank you to everyone who over the last year has provided his loved ones comfort and support, and who today remember him and his family in their thoughts and prayers.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Rachel Maddow calls Scalia a 'troll,' like blogger 'using N-word'

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Rachel Maddow calls Scalia a 'troll,' like blogger 'using N-word'
Mar 1st 2013, 21:28

Editor's note: A version of this opinion piece appeared on the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog.

Imagine for a moment a Fox News host calling one of the liberal Supreme Court justices such as Sonia Sotomayor a "troll."

Liberal heads would explode across the fruited plain including in newsrooms from sea to shining sea.

With that as pretext, check out what MSNBC's Rachel Maddow said about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Comedy Central's Daily Show Thursday:

RACHEL MADDOW: It's weird to see Antonin Scalia in person. It's weird.

JON STEWART, HOST: Does he, you know, I only read some of the transcripts of what he was saying. And he was saying certain thing like, "We've got to get rid of this because it's one of the last vestiges of racial preferences," the Voting Rights Act I guess.

MADDOW: He said that, he said when Congress re-upped the Voting Rights Act, they looked into whether or not it was still necessary. Ten months of debate, 21 hearings, 15,000 pages of evidence, and in the Senate they voted 98-0 yeah we still need that. But he said, "That vote really, what does that vote mean?"

STEWART: Didn't he say something like, "We told them to fix this in 2006 but clearly they won't or can't, so we have to do it for them?"

MADDOW: Because it's not, it's not a real vote. It's a racial entitlement now. Voting is a racial entitlement, something that you are entitled to on the basis of your race. 

Wait a second. Do you know how that sounds? 

But I think he does know how that sounds, and that's the neat thing about being there in person because you can see oh, actually, he's a troll. He's saying this for effect.

STEWART: I see.

MADDOW: He knows it's offensive and he knows he's going to get a gasp from the court room which he got. And he loves it. He's like the guy in your blog comment threads using the N-word. "Ahh! Oh, made you mad? How about if I say this? Did it make you mad? Did it make you mad?"

STEWART: Does he do anything like this, did he go, "Oh, and by the way, I have something for you?" Ba-boom. [Raises middle finger] Was he like, he's just that guy?

MADDOW: He's that kind of guy.

STEWART: Wow!

MADDOW: So, when we're all shocked that he said something so blatantly racially offensive – we're talking about the cornerstone of the Civil Rights Act -- he's thinking, "Oh, yeah, I did. That's right."

STEWART: Ba-boom.

MADDOW: Yeah, so that's, that's neat to see. It's also neat to see Sonia Sotomayor from way down at that "I'm new here" end of the bench sort of lean around the bench and give him what for. All of her questions are technically to the lawyers, but she is talking to Antonin Scalia every time, and it's like a brawl between them. It's just so great.

STEWART: Are the people that have been there a long time and know Scalia when he says it do they do one of these, but the new kid is a little shaken by that or just angered by that at least?

MADDOW: Ready for it and has a rejoinder that's going to, that would make him feel embarrassed if he wasn't a troll who loves to make people mad.

Let's rewind the tape here, so to speak: "He's a troll… He's like the guy in your blog comment threads using the N-word."

I guess that despite the outrage that would happen if a Fox News host said this about a liberal jurist, Scalia is fair game because he's conservative.

So, here's an exit question: Are these media double standards starting to make you sick?

Noel Sheppard is associate editor of the Media Research Center's NewsBusters.org. He welcomes feedback at NewsBustersNoel@gmail.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: How Pope Benedict's courage changed my life

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
How Pope Benedict's courage changed my life
Mar 1st 2013, 18:59

Editor's note: Roman Catholic priest and Fox News contributor Father Jonathan Morris will contributing reporting and analysis of the events in Rome for the next few weeks. He will also be providing updates on Facebook at Facebook.com/Father-Jonathan Morris and on Twitter@FatherJonathan.

Today the Vatican is without a pope. At 8 o'clock on February 28th, Pope Benedict XVI officially abdicated the office of supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. He is now living, temporarily, in a small town about 15 miles outside of Rome. As he has chosen to live a secluded, monastic life of prayer and study, it is unlikely we will hear him speak publicly again.

The ordinary management of the Church is now in the hands of the college of Cardinals. On Monday, March 4 they will gather officially for the first time. Their first priority will be to set a date for the beginning of the papal conclave where 115 electors will choose the next pope.

Then the Cardinals will begin to discuss the business facing the Church. That is expected to take several days. Once the conclave begins they will vote 4 times a day until they reach a two-thirds plus one majority decision. In my estimation the conclave is likely to begin on or near March 10.

Benedict was unafraid to say that he is old and weak.

If the conclaves of the last 100 years are indicative of what will happen now, this conclave will last between 2 and 5 days. The installation of the new pope will then take place on or around March 17.

In the coming days, I will write more specifically about the upcoming conclave and what the most likely candidates for pope would bring to the table. For now, however, I wish to reflect on the reasons and significance informing Benedict's choice to leave the office -- something that no pope has done in the last 600 years.

On February 11, Pope Benedict surprised the world by announcing he will abdicate his office at the end of the month. He explained, very simply, that he believed, at this time, the church would be better served by someone of greater strength and body. He was unafraid to say that he is old and weak. 

While there has since been wild, and often irresponsible speculation, about an ulterior motive for his decision, we need only look back at an interview he did with his official biographer Peter Seewald a few years ago, in which he said he believed a pope could, and in some cases even should, resign if he is no longer able to carry out his duties. Pope Emeritus Benedict took his own advice seriously.

To understand how Benedict came to his decision, we should recall that during the long sickness and eventual passing of John Paul II then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict, headed the Vatican department that oversaw cases of clerical sexual abuse. 

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger would have witnessed -- first hand -- the consequences of a long-suffering pope without the full use of his faculties. He would have witnessed the dysfunctional handling of sensitive and urgent issues with far-reaching effects on the life of the church and on its members. 

In many cases these issues were left in the hands of his personal secretaries and other Vatican officials without the power or the courage to act.

One of the sensitive and urgent matters he saw tragically mishandled was the case of Fr. Marcial Maciel, the founder of the once powerful and fast-growing religious order, the Legion of Christ.

When Ratzinger became pope he immediately removed Maciel from public ministry and sentenced him to a private life of prayer and penance for misbehavior that included the abuse of minors, drug abuse, misappropriation of funds, and the fathering of multiple children. 

This case is especially present to me, since at the time I was a member of this religious order.

Four years ago, after Pope Benedict acted, and then when I eventually found out the truth about Fr. Maciel, I left the order and applied to join the Archdiocese of New York, where, thank God, I am very happy.

For many years, I had heard accusations against Fr. Marciel, but in great part because Vatican officials continued to praise Fr. Maciel, publicly, I assumed these accusations were patently false. 

I now know that during the prolonged sickness of John Paul II the Vatican already had sufficient evidence against Fr. Maciel. But John Paul II's handlers, and other Vatican officials, who were running the shop as John Paul II grew increasingly weak, succeeded in keeping the case quiet. 

In practice, this meant many young men and women, who thought they were devoting their lives to a religious order led by saint, were in fact continuing to live in ignorance of the reality that their leader was in fact a sociopath.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has made a humble decision to step away from an office of great authority and responsibility. He has done so, fully aware, that the Church will be best served by a man capable of making tough choices.

Thank you, Benedict.

Father Jonathan Morris is Program Director of "The Catholic Channel" on SiriusXM radio, Channel 129 and a Fox News contributor. He is the author of "God Wants You Happy: From Self-Help to God's Help" and "The Promise: God's Purpose and Plan for When Life Hurts." For more visit www.FatherJonathan.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Why Paul Ryan believes Democrats have won a battle but not the war

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Why Paul Ryan believes Democrats have won a battle but not the war
Mar 1st 2013, 16:11

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is looking beyond Friday and the beginning of the sequestration.

In an interview I conducted with him on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Ryan told me he believes a majority of Americans will come to understand how bad the debt is after the rhetoric gives way to reality.

"Mitt [Romney] and I shadowboxed against the theory of big government," he says, "while [President] Obama made all the great promises of what it delivered and used soaring rhetoric to sell it, but that will be different in a second term (when) the results start materializing."

Ryan believes a majority of Americans will come to understand how bad the debt is after the rhetoric gives way to reality.

As one example, Ryan mentions the impact of the Affordable Care Act aka ObamaCare on seniors. He believes that when seniors begin to experience ObamaCare's negative effects it will "put us in a much better position not just to say, 'I told you so,' but to show there's a far better way than 15 people on a board appointed by the president making all these decisions that will ration your health care on top of all these ... price controls to providers that will restrict your access."

By the end of next year, Ryan believes, "...you'll see a lot of anxiety in the health care provider community that will damage access to health care for seniors and I think the bloom will come off the ObamaCare rose, such as it exists today (with) every additional year of implementation."

Ryan says health care providers are already telling some members of Congress about their "negative margins with ObamaCare kicking in" and how the law will either force them to close, or "they're going to stop taking people, or overcharge the private payers who increasingly will dump their employees into the ObamaCare program."

"The president said, 'if you like your plan you can keep it,'" Ryan said. "Not true. The president said this was going to improve Medicare. He said health care costs would go down. They've gone up.

Given all this, what will Ryan and the Republicans do when across-the-board spending cuts begin?

"Our job is to buy the country time," he tells me. "That means we need a down payment on the debt and deficits. We need to buy time for the bond markets to push off a debt crisis outside of the four-year window. We then go to the country with a real agenda of specific alternatives to this progressive experiment that's unfolding to win 2016 so we can actually fix this thing before it's too late."

He says he's not worried about polls that show a majority of the country will blame Republicans for the sequester: "Getting actual accomplishments by getting debt and deficits under control, stabilizing our debt to buy the country time so we don't have a debt crisis" will allow Republicans to "go to the country with a crystal clear choice that more clearly juxtapose(s) against the reality of big government under Obama is what we have to shoot for."

Ryan says the House next week will give the president "...some reprogramming authority to be able to direct cuts to lower priority areas from higher priority areas."

What if the Senate doesn't go along? "That's their choice," he says.

Ryan recalls how scare tactics failed in the 1996 debate over welfare reform when liberals lamented cuts to the welfare program that they believed would surely lead to poor children starving in the streets of America. Instead Clinton's welfare-to-work program made it possible for many low-income Americans to get jobs. Ryan calls the current GOP plan "Welfare Reform 2.0" and expects similar positive results by focusing on "improving prosperity, opportunity and individual responsibility."

Democrats have "won a battle, but not the war," Ryan says.

Is he optimistic he will win the war?

"I wouldn't be here if I wasn't."

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Liberal media attacks as Woodward 'threat' seen as political threat to Obama

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Liberal media attacks as Woodward 'threat' seen as political threat to Obama
Mar 1st 2013, 16:33

Former hoops star Dennis Rodman is on a diplomatic mission to North Korea and Watergate legend Bob Woodward is being defended by Republicans for his reporting.

Maybe the Mayans were right after all.

The stranger of the two is Woodward's new-found star status with the right and his persona non grata status with the left. 

Bob Woodward was just the latest example of an Obama administration that has run roughshod over a press that caters to its every whim.

It was all Woodward's fault. He committed apostasy, not once, but twice. 

He called out Obama's lie about the sequester and reminded the world the whole ridiculous plan had been the president's idea. Then, when the White House gave him heat, he told Politico that they had threatened him, though he never used the "T" word.

That "threat" came in email form after a 30-minute yell fest from White House economic adviser Gene Sperling. 

Many in the media have said Woodward overreacted. 

Former Obama adviser David Plouffe set in motion a Woodward is over-the-hill theme: "Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated," he Tweeted. (Yes, only Obama is allowed to be perfect more than once.)

The result was a social media feeding frenzy, followed by enormous coverage on the left and the right with Woodward even appearing on "Hannity." 

The broadcast networks talked about the controversy in their morning shows, but were completely silent the following evening, less than 24 hours later. -- It was hardly the way old style media have treated big news from Woodward in the past.

Even the morning show coverage was less than stellar. 

"Today" gave the story just 16 seconds out of the 14,400 it had available on February 28. 

CBS "This Morning" did a bit better and noted Woodward was "accusing the White House of threatening him." 

At least ABC treated it seriously, with ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl mentioning Woodward's importance. "Woodward isn't just any reporter. He's the one portrayed, along with Carl Bernstein, in the movie 'All the President's Men' as taking down Richard Nixon." Karl also included the White House "threat."

None of this is new – neither the actions of the administration or the media under-reaction.

The Obama administration has intimidated journalists since before it won in 2008. Intimidation, harassment and lack of access have been tools it's used all along. But when the lefty icon of D.C. political journalism is the victim, it sets the gab-osphere aflame.

Liberal talking heads targeted the long-time journalistic celeb as only a betrayed lover could.

MSNBC host Ed Schultz called Woodward's actions "a total failure by a legendary journalist" and Woodward himself "nothing but a drama queen."

MSNBC goofball Internationalist Martin Bashir dug deep for a metaphor. "I'm actually reminded of that British parliamentarian who, when he was attacked by Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe, described it as the equivalent of being ravaged by a dead sheep." (It was vintage MSNBC. There aren't enough viewers for that to have to make sense.)

"Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski made fun of Woodward during the left's favorite morning show, asking: "is he really afraid of a little aide who said that to him? Really?"

The liberal outlet Huffington Post, which operates like a voice of the administration, was quick to dismiss someone the left used to love. "Bob Woodward Emails Show White House 'Threat' Was Not So Threatening," read one headline. After Woodward appeared on "Hannity" on February 28, the site called it "Fox & Friend." (In the lefty world, being friends to Fox is a mortal sin.)

CNN's John Avlon was just as dismissive, he was just on a theoretically neutral network. "This is Bob Woodward who fought with the Nixon White House? I mean Chuck Colson and H.R. Haldeman would be ashamed to see Gene Sperling not come at Bob with anything stronger than that."

Even The Washington Post, which has prospered about four decades on Woodward scoops, made light of the battle, saying, "only in Washington does the back and forth between a legendary journalist and a White House wonk turn into an epic talking-head fest and trending Twitter topic." An Alexandra Petri column on "How to Threaten Bob Woodward" actually included a color-coded graphic of "The General Scale of Threateningness" with the Sperling quote listed under the "Mickey Mouse" category.

Once more, the media are choosing to bury a major issue in garbage, rather than address it.

Woodward was just the latest example of an administration that has run roughshod over a press that caters to its every whim. If Obama was the head of a political party whose name began with an R instead of a D, the American media would have declared war on him years ago.

Instead it's the reverse. 

The liberal press adore Obama no matter how poorly he treats them. And anyone in the media – from CNBC stars Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer to Matt Drudge and, yes, Woodward – gets targeted if they dare challenge our thin-skinned overlord.  

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center's Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Happy sequestration day

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Happy sequestration day
Mar 1st 2013, 13:05

Today is Sequestration Day. Americans should be happy.

Last year during the debt ceiling fight, Democrats and Republicans in Congress came up with a novel idea. To satisfy the demands of conservatives who insisted on the whacky idea of paying down the national debt, Congress would create a bipartisan "super committee" consisting of members of both the House and Senate who would come up with a plan to make cuts or increase revenue to pay down the national debt.

President Obama joined in the negotiations and came up with the idea of sequestration.  If the super committee failed, and most everyone privately thought it would, there would be automatic spending cuts in 2013 that would target sacred cows including defense and education — painful for both sides.

The truth is inescapable. Today the sun came up. The Mayans were not right.  

In fact, it is reasonable to believe, the sequestration cuts would be so painful to the sacred cows of both sides that once the super committee — stacked with congressmen and Senators who could never get the job done — failed, Congress could punt on sequestration and come up with new ideas to pay down the debt or find new shiny initiatives to distract Americans from a lack of debt reduction.

Barack Obama came up with sequestration. He negotiated it. Conservatives opposed it knowing that Republicans would ultimately cave and there would actually be no spending cuts.  Then a funny thing happened. Republicans and their conservative base fell into a lovers quarrel over the direction of the party. The party establishment in Washington wanted to collaborate with the President, ignored the base's demands to keep up the fight against ObamaCare, and started acting arrogantly against conservatives.

The base fought back.  Republican leaders knew they had to do something to keep up appearances with the base.  They decided they could not backtrack on sequestration.  The cuts had to happen.

President Obama has long shown a propensity to be good at only one thing: the self-promotion of Barack Obama. He has not been good at governance. He has not been good at getting other Democrats elected. He has been a terrible negotiator.  He failed to see what was happening in the party opposite. He structured a deal that made sequestration the law of the land without a literal act of congress to stop it.

Now we have arrived at the day most thought would never come.  

In the run up to today, President Obama resorted to a campaign of fear mongering.  He decided to make sequestration a blunt instrument. Instead of using his executive discretion to make careful cuts, he found ways to make the cuts appear disastrous, spooky, and painful for the American people. In the last week it would have come as no surprise to hear the president, given his increasing hyperbole about sequestration, to claim it would cause both erectile dysfunction and hospitals to finish off the infirm and elderly without so much as a visit to a death panel.

But the hyperbole did not work. Sequestration has arrived.

In all the talk, chatter, punditry, and hyperbole, one thing has been forgotten. This fight has never been about where to make cuts, but whether to make cuts at all. House Republicans offered several plans to alter the cuts.  The Democrats would never consider them.  The Democrats, instead, preferred raising taxes and, in sequestration, got one of their long held wishes of defense cuts.

The Democrats were never serious about real spending cuts, which is why the president could be so unserious at his campaign style rallies claiming sequestration would cause furloughs for teachers, policemen, and fire fighters, none of whom are even employed by the federal government.

The game now is predictable. Democrats will try to make the sequestration cuts as painful as possible on the American people.  They will stop spending in areas that will do maximum harm and inconvenience to the lifestyle of the American citizen.  They want Americans to think any cuts in spending at all are too disruptive.

The president and Democrats do not have to do this. They could make reasonable cuts. But if they do they will show spending cuts are possible without major disruption, pain, and inconvenience.  That would give away the game.

The truth is, though, inescapable. Today the sun came up. Americans went about their daily lives.  The federal government was open for business. The mail ran. The Mayans were not right.  

Americans are reminded that Washington can, in fact, cut its budget and the world will not end.  The only better reminder of this would be a government shutdown.  We can only hope.

Erick Erickson is a Fox News contributor and editor of RedState.com.  Follow him on Twitter @EWErickson.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

 
Great HTML Templates from easytemplates.com.