President Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

This chart is a graphic representation of that quote.

Click here to download the full-size. It’s even scarier. (PDF)

This is an official update of the chart from last summer from Rep. Kevin Brady from Texas.

Keep in mind, this program hasn’t been implemented yet. What happens when Congress goes back to “fix” some of the issues? This chart is doomed to get worse. Far worse.

Until this week, I had lost faith in my home state of Tennessee to match Alabama and South Carolina in political absurdity. Sure, the TN-03 race could be a case study in the art of mudslinging and the gubernatorial race is heading toward a multi-generational blood feud, but it’s nothing compared to legendary YouTube ads or astounding dark horse candidates. Even the George Washington Chrysler ad had more political pandering than anything coming out of the Volunteer State.

Hamilton County, the part of Southeast Tennessee where I spent most of my life, you restored my faith.

First of all, you made the rest of the country aware of the amazing platform that could only belong to Basil Marceaux. Prior to his viral video, the only people who knew about him were the unfortunate drivers who saw his enormous sign at the intersection of Hamill Road and 153 during the 2008 election, Tea Party attendees, the editors at Chattarati and me. His uniqueness was just too much to keep within the Scenic City.

Yes, America. You can thank us. The anti-stop light lobby has a spokesman…finally.

Now, prominent members of the Hamilton County Republican Party have taken the bold step of endorsing…a Democrat!?! That’s right, a number of influential people behind the county party — with the largest Pachyderm Club in the country — endorsed Bill Knowles, Democratic incumbent, for county clerk.

Their statement, published at Chattanoogan.com, is priceless:

As concerned Republican leaders and citizens, we do not wish to watch a travesty take place in Hamilton County such as the one that occurred recently in the South Carolina primaries.

Dude. If you’re going to endorse a member of the opposing party, there really isn’t a reason to mince words. At least they are honest with their intentions.

However, we as Republicans ‘cannot’ support Mr. Heathington for county clerk due to his numerous criminal convictions which are a matter of public record.

Since this is a county position, no one really pays attention. It’s a shame, and I confess to ignoring county races. Unless I happened to read Joe Lance’s excellent voter guides to Chattanooga-area politics, I honestly voted for the candidate with the best yard sign. (This evolved after someone put the Disney type on their yard sign. Anyone willing to use that typeface should not hold public office regardless of party.)

The office of county clerk doesn’t seem that contentious, and Bill Knowles has been there for 36 years. Renewing your license plate is actually one of the easiest things to do in Hamilton County, and the folks in the County Courthouse are always incredibly friendly. If this was the Assessor of Property, the office that raised nearly everyone’s property assessment in a year when the housing market took a national nosedive, I could understand a race that’s closer than normal.

What has scared Republicans enough to endorse a Democrat in the section of Tennessee that has voted mostly GOP since before the Civil War? (Watch Senator Alexander give an excellent explanation of the political makeup of Tennessee if curious.)

Mr. Heathington, the Republican, appears to have a bit of a criminal background. Apparently he:

-Pled guilty in Federal Court to failure to comply with federal officials and directives, 1982. Sentenced to 30 days in jail, suspended and placed on probation.
-Pled guilty to assault in 1983 and received six months suspended sentence.
-While on federal probation, pled guilty to DUI in 1990 and received 11 months/29 days, suspended after 45 days in jail and $500 fine paid.
-Pled guilty 1990 to driving on a revoked license and was given 30 days in the workhouse as well as fined $200.
-Pled guilty August 2008 to possession of gambling devices or records and was fined $50.

While I’m willing to give people second chances, especially for crimes committed twenty years ago, he really has HamCo insiders frightened. What triggered this? According to an opinion piece from Roy Exum, who publishes almost weekly opinion pieces at Chattanoogan, an online poll has them concerned.

As of 5 a.m. this morning with 1,528 responses, a poll asking, “For county clerk of Hamilton County, do you favor?” the poll showed Bill has a comfortable 66-34 margin over his Republican rival, Chester Heathington. What everyone with any knowledge of Hamilton County knows is, that last number is insane

Facepalm? Online polls are hardly accurate, and Chattanoogan polls can stay open for weeks at at time. You can even vote more than once. I’m frankly surprised that 1,500 people took the time to click a response on an issue regarding the county clerk.

While Mr. Exum has a valid point that straight-ticket voters could elect Heathington, local primaries have notoriously low turnouts, particularly ones during peak vacation periods like the beginning of August. Honestly, if Bill Knowles got all of his friends and family turned out to vote, he’d have a greater impact on the election than any other factor.

The real problem here is that it is incredibly easy to run for public office, and the Republicans still couldn’t find anyone to primary Heathington. That shows a far bigger issue than an online poll having a narrow gap of 17 points! There are strong arguments for eliminating national parties since we no longer need their machines to elect a majority party. The only reason to keep local parties around is to recruit and train future candidates.

The Hamilton County GOP is huge. Why aren’t they working to motivate and train potential candidates? That scenario alone exemplifies why so many grassroots Americans are fed up with the GOP. We may be leading on the generic ballot nationally, but Americans are more upset with the Democrats. We’re not the favored party. We’re the lessor of two evils. That’s not a good place to be.

Obviously, this system is failing us. If local insiders can’t recruit a friend to run for office (and apparently lose) or discourage anyone from running against a popular incumbent, there are far bigger issues than a 17 point gap on an online poll. Tennesseans want training, activism and leadership not social functions and good ol’ boy networks.

Update: So Hot Air picked up on the video. Remember where you saw it first though folks. (Well, me and Post Politics).

Also, if you want even more Basil action, follow his Twitter feed.

When South Carolina hasn’t been in the news, Alabama candidates have filled the void of interesting political stories this cycle.

Tennnessee, here’s your chance to share some of that glory. I’ve briefly mentioned Basil Marceaux, a Chattanoogan who appears to run for something every election cycle. For the first time, I present Mr. Marceaux in his own words.

I’ve previously stated that Dale Peterson needed to have a cable news show with Alvin Greene. I take that back. I think Mr. Marceaux here is a better match for the dark horse candidate from South Carolina.

H/T Nathan at Holding Down the Fort via email.

Update: James DeLong at The Enterprise Blog captures my reaction without my snark or underlying dislike of the media. H/T: NRO.

The Journolist quotes today released by The Daily Caller are nothing short of astounding. First of all, they confirm the worst paranoia of conservatives: the media has an outright agenda and has conspired to use their soap boxes to manipulate public opinion. Secondly, respected writers and opinion leaders are more than willing to throw their causes and values under the proverbial bus to advance the interests of the Democratic Party and specific liberal leaders.

And liberals call conservatives mindless lemmings…

I disagree with Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. He writes:

There is something to keep in mind in this particular story, which is that the people involved in the specific conversations regarding the smear are all opinion journalists, and not people filling roles in objective reporting.  The Prospect, the (Washington) Independent, and the Nation are all publications with an explicit point of view, although the Independent offers a little more of a pretense of traditional reporting.  That doesn’t relieve them of responsibility for proposing and/or considering an odious smear campaign, but it does make it difficult to tie this to other journalists filling a different role.

Sure, the individuals quoted in Daily Caller fall under “opinion writers,” but their opinions are hugely influential. Cable news channels, looking to fill hours and hours of airtime with commentary, often quote these specific writers or invite them to be interviewed. Their quotes and TV appearances are copied over and over in the blogosphere, effectively proving the words of Joseph Goebbels. Their words may originate as opinion, but they quickly enter the stream of “hard news.”

There’s no way of knowing how their Journolist comments influenced younger writers on the list or those working in nonprofits and think tanks. For example, if a young AP writer looks up to a well-known columnist spouting off opinions on Journolist, how do we know that coverage wasn’t tweaked? Those stories get filtered to smaller media markets and are often the only story presented on national or international news. Is it possible to fully grasp the amount of manipulation caused by influential writers with a political agenda?

This may be an extreme view, but Journolist shows collusion and conspiracy to promote one particular political agenda. Shouldn’t news outlets with any trace of integrity search their archives for similar phrasing to what was written in Journolist?

Journalism has never been an honorable field, but this really is a black mark on the industry. A group of people actively worked together to kill a story that possibly would have altered the 2008 election. What else have they conspired against? What other news have they manipulated and changed so that the American people only hear it from their perspective?

This also calls the entire racism debate into question. What is the exact state of race relations in America? If this was a convenient sleight-of-hand that liberals attempted to shift the focus of Jeremiah Wright and Obama, they had to know it would work. What other times have they tried it? What other stories have been manipulated, and individuals smeared to protect a particular leftist interest?

It’s pretty bad when journalism looks dirtier than public relations. At least folks in my industry are open about their biases.

Charges of racism in Tea Parties are hardly a new. Whenever the left doesn’t like something, they generally resort to name calling. Since alleging racism is only one step above the worst societal insult of all–being called a Nazi!–is it surprising that liberals have tried to brand the masses calling for fiscal restraint as bigoted rednecks?

I’ve been to Tea Parties in DC and my hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee. I’ve shared the freaks, and I’ve been upfront about some of the crazies that attend events (including this guy in Chattanooga), but I’ve honestly never encountered racism.

While racist people probably have attended a Tea Rally somewhere in the country, I’ve encountered thousands and thousands of people at these rallies. The most racist ones are the LaRouche supporters that cling like barnacles to any organized events. They happen to provide convenient cover for video cameras and clever editing. The overwhelming majority are too concerned about fiscal issues to give a damn about something like race.

Why then would the NAACP formalize a charge of racism towards Tea Parties?

Could they possibly want attention? Had the NAACP not made an issue of this, would anyone have noticed that they had their annual conference this week?

What news is going on right now? The BP leak, Old Spice guy, high unemployment, Bristol & Levi, FEC filings for the 2nd quarter, iPhone 4 issues, Lindsay Lohan…

In this environment, social issues struggle. While the abortion debate was renewed because of Obamacare, and the media’s obsession with Sarah Palin has reinvigorated feminism debates for the first time since the Reagan Administration, most social issues struggle during times of financial turbulence.

Unemployment is high, the housing market has crashed, the stock market fluctuating, and taxes are about to hit historically high increases. Frankly, debating social issues feel like a luxury. If we look at issues in the public debate, they match Maslow’s Pyramid. When you’re hungry and jobless, do you care about PETA? Folks who work in philanthropy for social causes only understand this too well.

How do social issue groups make money? Get in the news. How do you get in the news? Somehow peg your group to a current news story. What always makes the news? Charges of racism.

This was a win-win for the NAACP. They got everyone talking about them. Since being a liberal is more important than actually advancing the causes of your race or gender, they don’t care if they tick off Tea Party folks. The media, who are already biased against this grassroots movement since it interrupted Obama love, always enjoys controversy. The NAACP had more to lose by not taking this strategy and playing fair than striking out at Tea Parties.

Adrienne Ross wrote an excellent post about alleged racism and Tea Parties.

The notion that the Tea Party movement is racist is one that has no proof to support it. I have attended tea parties in both Wasilla, AK and Kingston, NY. (See pictures.) And from the Last Frontier to New York’s first capital, I can say that the participants treated one another like family. I was neither mistreated nor ignored. I was not made to feel I did not belong. There was not one racist sign. No one spit on me. No one called me the ‘N’ word. Rather, we had one purpose in mind: to boldly declare that we want to restore sanity to our nation. People protested President Obama’s policies, not because of his race, but because of the dangerous path on which he is steering America. I certainly didn’t attend these tea parties because I have a problem with our president being a black man. However, I was also not going to refrain from attending simply because I share the same skin color as our president. While this is what many on the Left expect of me, I am nobody’s puppet. I think for myself. And I refuse to reside on anyone’s plantation, including any political plantation.

Ross picks up on issues that I wrote about earlier this week. Any deviation from some liberal-approved path is wrong. Empowering individuals, regardless of sex, race, income level or religion, to make their up their own minds and creating a society that allows them to act on those opinions is apparently not the meaning of “equality.”

Anyone who has legitimately given the Tea Party movement a chance will agree with Ross’ assertion:

I wish the Left could just be honest: the Tea Party movement isn’t about race, and they ought to know it. It’s about America. It’s about doing what’s best for the future of a country God blessed us with. And if the President can’t handle the heat of being criticized, then he shouldn’t have signed up to take on an adult job when he only had a child’s experience. It’s that simple; I don’t care what color he is.

Right now, liberals can’t respond to the fiscal debate, so they change the topic. 18 months into Obama’s presidency, everything he touches fails miserably. The American people can only be viewed as an ATM for so long. Liberals know they’ll have to answer for this eventually, so they’re desperate to change the conversation. There’s no better issue than the one that has dogged our society for fifty years now.

As a woman, I get sick of how my uterus is constantly used to win political points with certain factions of our political system. Aren’t black people sick of that happening with their skin color? We won’t be able to enter our post-racial world until the Democrats stop crying wolf.

Racism is terrible, and it does exist. However, until there is solid, irrefutable evidence that racism does occur at Tea Parties, the NAACP and liberals do more harm to their cause. Every fake call of racism cheapens all attempts to repair race relations and call out bigotry. But then winning political points and losing the issue war is pretty much how all liberal causes operate.

Hate mail is an intriguing concept. Our society is growing more and more hateful because we can send horrible messages without suffering the consequences of ever facing that person. I’ve written about hate mail before, and I’m currently working on another project that is the target of a lot of hate mail.

Michelle Malkin’s post on hate mail amused me yesterday. Hate mail laws must be universal.

I’ve said before that the right and left have crazy fringes that send hate mail, and I still believe that. As I told someone on Twitter last week, I’m desensitized to being called a Nazi/Brownshirt/fascist, but it should be noted that it isn’t a very accurate slur. The Nazis were the socialist party in Germany. Plus, there’s a 90% chance you won’t spell “fascist” right.

I fail to understand what motivates someone to send a profanity-laced email. Is that person angry? Can they not process their emotions? Don’t they realize that someone is going to be reading that email, and that someone is rarely the intended recipient? I’m starting to believe that folks who send profane emails are one step above Darwin Award winners. If you can’t deal with your emotions with a complete stranger, I can only imagine how horrible you are in real life.

The notes that bother me are the ones that wish violence or rape upon myself or family members. Malkin highlights the email that wishes her family would die in a car wreck. How can you hate someone that much? I immensely dislike the Climate Change Sex Poodle and Nancy Pelosi, but I would never wish them dead or their families dead. Someone on this planet has to love them. Why do some people struggle to grasp that concept?

Based on Malkin’s post and recent hate mail experiences I’ve had, if you must send someone an angry email, follow these rules:

1. Don’t send it from your work address.

It is way too easy to track you down. Plus, in the event of Malkin, your email may be published. If you’re the kind of trashy person who sends hateful email, I believe your name should be spread all over the web. I’m sometimes tempting to look up the company and forward that hate mail to the writer’s supervisor. I haven’t done it, but I’ve wanted to… Technically, anything that goes through the server of your company is their property, and writing hate mail from a professional account is likely a violation of a workplace policy.

2. Don’t include your name, address and phone number in the footer.

I can’t begin to recount how many hateful messages have included where he or she lives (or ironically a quote from the Dalai Lama.) If you send a threatening note, be aware that your address makes it that much easier for me to file a complaint with the police.

3. Use correct spelling.

Sad, but many people don’t understand this fundamental concept.

4. Understand that there are words in the English language that extend beyond profanity.

I’ve actually written someone back a note for sending a thoughtful attack email. This person took the time to articulate exactly why he or she didn’t like the project. You’ll get further with thoughtful debate than four-letter words.

5. Stop calling women derogatory slurs.

It seems like liberals, especially liberal women, would be the last ones to use words like c–t, yet most conservative females have been called that. What does it accomplish? It just shows that you are tacky and hypocritical.

If Frank Luntz has taught us anything, how you phrase an argument is more important than the actual argument.

“Global warming” is now “climate change.” The “estate tax” is now the “death tax.” Think of popular buzzwords today: sustainable, social justice, rights, etc. All of these are now politically charged words.

Those changes make policy arguments more palatable to average voters, and therefore more acceptable. You should always beware a liberal complaining about the semantics of a political issue. It plays into the larger strategy of some sweeping social change to be unleased on America.

Yesterday, Miriam at Feministing threw a little hissy at the Associated Press’ use of “illegal immigrant.” While her post is laughable (a person with an anthropology degree is telling professional journalists how to write?), it shows the level of detail to which liberals will take their fight.

Miriam is upset that the Associated Press Stylebook* instructs journalists and writers to use “illegal immigrant” over the more-PC “undocumented worker.” She whines:

Screw you AP Style Book.

The AP Style Book is a resource for journalists on language, spelling, pronunciation and proper word usage. I’m not clear how the AP Style Book makes decisions, but it is widely regarded and highly used by journalists.

This explains why most of the mainstream media still uses the term “illegal immigrant.” I find the term offensive and disrespectful, as do most immigration activists. People are not illegal, actions are. The advocate community uses the term “undocumented immigrant” which the Stylebook clearly disagrees with.

Thankfully, they don’t advocate using the term “alien.” But illegal needs to go.

If you want to contact the AP Style Book and lobby them to use “undocumented immigrant” you can email them here: info@apbookstore.com.

This may seem like a silly battle, especially since her argument hinges on personal offense, but phrasing is critical to winning policy battles. One of my graduate school professors proudly explained how she changed the word “terrorists” to “freedom fighters” when working as a copyeditor in the 70s. There’s quite a difference of perspective between freedom fighters and terrorists. (She also brought a union organizer who was a former aid to Cynthia McKinney to class, but that’s another story.)

The left needs to re-frame the immigration debate in order to win. As long as persons who enter the country without permission are known as “illegal immigrants” it reminds voters that they broke the law. Those individuals are starting their American existence as criminals. Liberals want to hide that fact. They want you to feel guilty for your hard work and success and spread your wealth around to “underserved” or “at-risk” “undocumented workers” because it’s just not fair!

Most liberal policy arguments are built on sob stories. How can they evoke sympathy for someone when the proper term reminds you of their criminal activity. Thus, the bland “undocumented worker, which emphasizes “worker,” as in person earning their own living. It’s part of our American pathos to side with the underdog.  “Undocumented” just makes them appear to lack a passport. The term is far more palatable and easier to sell voters on the need for immigration reform that includes amnesty.

Newsflash to Miriam: People can be illegal. The term “illegal immigrant” references their status in this country. If they moved from another country to America, they are immigrants. If they entered this country without permission, that makes them and their actions illegal. Also, it’s Stylebook not Style Book.

It is absolutely critical to the immigration debate that we win this battle over semantics.

*For those outside of writing worlds, the AP Stylebook is the bible of the media. My beloved 2002 edition has literally been bled over from my J-school days. It started out a few pages of guidelines to standardize the newspaper world and is now the voice of authority for the industry. Individual newspapers and outlets can maintain their own style guidelines (such as using Mr. Smith vs. Smith) but the Stylebook is the national standard.

In other terrible news facing America, the disaster in the Gulf isn’t getting any better. While Obama and his minions have been a little too “hands-on” with the economy, many have complained that the President has barely acknowledged the oil spill.

This video from RightChange.com highlights the timeline of response from the Obama Administration.

Oil Spill Timeline from RightChange on Vimeo.

It would be nice to pretend that we have an experienced leader in the White House, but do we really want Obama interfering? He could have acted pro-actively, such as lifting the Jones Act and accepting international aid far earlier, but do we want more? His idea of action would be to nationalize all oil companies.

Every time Obama gets involved with something, it gets worse. While the economy is the biggest example, consider his involvement with elections. No candidate that the President has campaigned for has won. That’s bad for a President who once enjoyed 70+ approval ratings, especially when stumping for fellow Democrats.

Look at other situations where Obama has gotten involved: Beer Summit, college football playoffs, and the Toyota recall. Things get worse when the President steps in with this administration.

While the White House needs to stop pretending that they’re on a West Wing episode and actually start leading, perhaps it is best that Obama keeps playing golf. Nashville seems to be recovering, and he never even acknowledged the disastrous flooding there.

Face it folks, we’re never going to get presidential reassurance from Obama. He’s not capable of giving an FDR-esque speech about fear in the face of an economic depression or soothe the nation like Reagan did after the Challenger explosion. In his 18-month tenure, he’s proven to be incapable of anything but a stump speech. Let’s stop complaining about his lack of emotion and be thankful that he isn’t more involved. At that point, get ready for your doomsday scenarios.

Right now, as oil fills the Gulf of Mexico, what do the people along the coast need? A President who doesn’t wait two months to accept international aid? Answers to the urgent pleas of Governors Jindal and Barbour? An administration that doesn’t punish companies actually following the laws and proper procedures by continually attempting to prohibit drilling?

Nope. They need volunteers…

According to Voices for National Service, there’s a proposal to create a new branch of the Corporation for National Community Service:

On June 30, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced H.R. 5654, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act, which will create new “wage-earning jobs and national service positions to clean and restore the Gulf Coast waters, beaches, and habitats as well as rebuild local communities and economies.” In creating a Gulf Coast Community Conservation Corps (CCC), the bill recognizes the expertise of the Corporation for National and Community Service and the agency’s grantees in responding to past disasters – such as Hurricane Katrina and 2008’s severe flooding in Iowa.

The original co-sponsors of the Gulf Coast Restoration Act include Reps. Steve Israel (D-NY), Jim Himes (D-CT), Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Jim Langevin (D-RI), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), John Lewis (D-GA), and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). The Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition in the House has endorsed the bill as well.

Download the press release here.

Never let a crisis go to waste, and why waste this opportunity to expand the funding and power of the federal governments’ bastion of socialism–the Corporation for National and Community Service?

While the Gulf Coast does need help to clean up and restore, it can be done with…volunteers. They don’t need paid volunteers. They don’t need expensive government programs with layers and layers of bureaucracy. There are thousands upon thousands of environmental NGOs. Why aren’t these groups empowered to clean up the Gulf? Why do we have to spend additional money in creating another government program from an agency that has extensive corruption and ethics violations that are consistently overlooked? (Honestly, CNCS should be investigated as the next ACORN. It’s just as bad.)

If we are going to spend federal money in the clean-up project, why don’t we pay private companies employing local people who are already trained in how to deal with this disaster? Creating a new government program is immensely expensive. Once legislation passes, it can take months until policies are drafted to implement them. Then there’s marketing, recruitment, hiring, transportation, administration, etc. If this is created, it could be six months to a year before the first oil-covered duck is washed by a GCCC volunteer.

The spin on this bill is that it will create jobs in the economically-devastated Gulf. Perhaps it will create “jobs” but can people actually live on those?

The entire point of Corporation for National Community Service is to fight poverty. Ignore the mission creep of putting the GCCC under the CNCS, but no program under the Corporation actually pays what liberals like to call a “living wage.” Unless you are in management and a full federal employee, you only earn a small stipend or 105% of the poverty level. They are happy to provide you with a $5,000 grant for college or to forgive student loans, but that money doesn’t pay the rent or put food on the table.

105% of the poverty level will definitely fill the gap of high-paying jobs on oil rigs or decent jobs that shrimpers or fisheries provide…

While this program will supposedly be funded by BP,* why not put the money into actual clean up? By creating a new government program, the Democrats sponsoring this legislation are creating an additional pork project that will eventually run out of money and force more Americans to be dependent on government. When the eventual monies run out from BP, they’ll whine and complain about this hurting the children and demand expanded government funding. This is a blatant attempt to create more federal jobs and destroy the private sector.

My biggest problem with liberals is the deep faith that no matter the problem, a government agency should be created to deal with it. It doesn’t matter if the original problem was created by an existing government program. They just create another pork project or add a layer of bureaucracy.

Keep in mind that the Corporation for National and Community Service already saw a massive, and I mean, massive increase in funding with the Obama Administration. Shouldn’t they have an existing reserve fund for disasters? Every time there’s an emergency, they go back to Congress for additional aid. They did it with Katrina and with the Midwest flooding a few years ago.

This would be like going to your boss for a raise every time you get sick, have a car accident or need to replace a kitchen appliance. The American people are broke. It’s time that this entitlement mentality from government programs end. We will never be fiscally sound as long legislation this ridiculous is even allowed to be considered.

*Why is Congress looking at BP as a bottomless cash cow? Their stock has already declined in value. Eventually, they’ll run out of money. What happens when the company goes under because President Obama and Congress are determined to teach them a lesson? Jobs will be lost and even more lives destroyed. Also remember that many retirement funds have stock in BP. While BP’s culture needs to change, and the company should take responsibility for their wrongdoing, a witch hunt will ultimately hurt American taxpayers.

The RNC has an extremely funny microsite up today: Obama’s Chicago Network.

The tag line is the scariest part: It’s Not TV, it’s Reality. I wish it was just TV. If this was just a really, long awful episode of The West Wing, think about how much better life would be.

I really like the concept of I’m a Politician. Get Me Out of Here. As close as Democrats are to Hollywood, why has this not already happened? Imagine Blago, Eliot Spitzer, Jack Abramoff and other dishonored political types fighting it out in the jungle. That’s reality TV that I would watch. Politicians go on reality TV in the UK. Why not here?