"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." – Ronald Reagan

National Review columnist Mark Steyn makes an excellent point this morning:

There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.

On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.

Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.

I recorded a program for Fairfax Public Television over the weekend, and at one point the moderator asked me about the debate over cutting spending in Washington and the refusal of conservatives to accept raising the debt ceiling without taking serious measures to curb spending.

I dug deep and was able to come up with something like this:

For the better part of 70 years, both political parties in Washington have been content to increase spending and create debt. During that time, only a small minority actually called for decreasing spending and actually meant it. Let’s say it was about 10%. But you can’t do anything with such a slim minority.

After the 2010 elections, Republicans took control of the House, and among their ranks are a substantial number of conservatives. They don’t make up a majority of the Caucus — I don’t think — but they’re vocal. And those who were elected last November “don’t know how Washington works,” so they’re less willing to accept compromise than Members who have been in Washington for several terms.

So, over the course of the last 70 years, we’ve had compromise, compromise, compromise… more spending, more debt. And where has that gotten us? Right here. In a mess.

And who’s contributed to the mess? 90% of the ruling class in D.C.

On this public access program, I was asked why conservatives wouldn’t give in and agree to raise taxes or accept any proposals from the Democrats, to which I responded — it hasn’t been working! True conservatives have been shut out of the debate for decades. As far as I can tell, conservatives who want to cut government spending have about 70 years worth of catching up to do.

The time for compromise on the right has passed. It’s time to make significant cuts to government spending.

And what’s with this notion of compromise for the sake of compromise anyway? To paraphrase Erick Erickson, sometimes the evil party and the stupid party come together to do something that’s both evil and stupid all for the sake of compromise and bipartisanship.

What good is it if both parties sell us down the river just so they can say they worked together to do it?

We’ve finally changed the debate in Washington from “What can we spend?” to “What can we cut?” — It’s the first time in probably forever that this sort of debate is taking place in Washington.

Conservatives should stand their ground and fight for their principles now more than ever.

As of the time of the original story’s posting on Big Journalism, I still had not received word back from Rob Wolchek, the Detroit Fox affiliate investigative reporter in question. In an email I wrote to Wolchek on Thursday, July 14, I asked, simply:

I think you did a really great piece about auto workers using their lunch breaks to drink and smoke, but I’m curious: Why did you and the anchors end the segment by basically apologizing for the report? Was it in response to viewer backlash after the previous story? Why couldn’t the segment stand alone without the disclaimer at the end?

I appreciate your hard work. As a former news writer, it’s good to see hard-hitting investigative pieces like yours.

Thanks so much, and I look forward to your reply.

I will bring you his response if and when I hear from him.

If you’ve discovered this post by coming through Big Journalism, I encourage you to check everything else out here. If you’re a regular visitor to this site, I encourage you to check out the related post at Big Journalism.

UPDATE I: Last Friday, I tweeted at Fox Detroit’s Rob Wolchek to make sure he received my email. He replied – unsure if he’d received it, so I sent it again. Mr. Wolchek has not yet replied to my email.

UPDATE II: Mr. Wolchek replied to my original email just now (on 7/20) with the following message:

As you can imagine, these stories generate a lot of emotions from our viewers. This is Detroit and we depend upon the auto industry. It is a heavy load to do a story that can affect so many lives.

As a reporter, I investigate my stories as fairly as possible. I try not to take sides or put my political opinions in the stories. Regardless, a story like the “Busted Auto Workers” will be interpreted in many different ways by our local viewers and those across the country and even the world. You saw the on-camera banter as being apologetic. Others had very different opinions.

So let me state my feelings on the story. Most of the people that work in our factories are extremely hard-working, dedicated people. That’s why I get tips about the bad apples. The people we caught on camera make the good people look bad. I have many friends that work at Chrysler. They are good people. I don’t like to put a negative spotlight on their company. However, it is my job to investigate. I don’t apologize for what I found. The workers who chose to party during their lunch made those decision and we caught them on camera. They messed up and made their company and fellow employees look bad.

I appreciate Mr. Wolchek’s reply and understand his position.

UPDATE III: According to the most recent Fox Detroit update:

From the Fox 2 story on Chrysler Group’s Trenton Engine Plant, the Company was able to identify nine employees captured on video. To date, all nine employees have been suspended indefinitely without pay pending further investigation. While the evidence seems conclusive, the Company needs to act in accordance with corporate policy and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement before further action is taken. The investigation is ongoing.

The Atlantic has the scoop on Paul’s ads – old and new… but Ron Paul just picked up a huge chunk of TV time in Iowa and New Hampshire.

And the ad is damn good:

ABC News has the story, too.

As I announced previously, I am now a contributor to Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism. My first post focuses on Bill Maher’s appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight:

Forget about the liberal “new tone” that was touted in the wake of the tragic shooting in Arizona by a crazed political party-less lone wolf. It’s open season for media talking heads, who continue to marginalize conservative women because they embrace a right-of-center form of feminism.

The most recent — and altogether unsurprising — culprit is Bill Maher, who sat down with CNN’s Piers Morgan to spew his misogynistic rhetoric Monday night. Morgan proposed a choice between either Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann. That part of the interview went something like this:

Morgan: Now, if you had a choice – gun to your head – which one is it? Palin or Bachmann?
Maher: I would need a gun to my head.
Morgan: [Laughter.]
Maher: I hope Sarah Palin gets in, so that they split the MILF vote.
Morgan: [Laughter.]
Maher: But I guess Bachmann… at least she’s somebody who can read. You know, she has a job. She was a lawyer. She’s in Congress. She’s not someone who just sits there and reads the prayers on her BlackBerry like Sarah Palin does. I mean, you know, we’re splitting hairs here.
Morgan: Could Sarah Palin become President? Is it possible in the current climate?
Maher: Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes. People who say this one is a joke or this one is a joke. I remember when I was 12 years old in 1968 and Ronald Reagan was first considering running for President. And I remember what a joke that was. Ronald Reagan? You mean, the “Bedtime for Bonzo” guy?… though, I think he did become President. Yes, absolutely. Because if she could get the nomination and anything can happen… I mean, this Republican Party is not your father’s Republican Party. Somewhere along the line, they got on a short bus to Crazytown… And if someone gets the nomination of one of the two major parties — especially, in a bad economy with a black President… Yea, she could become President.

Ignore the fact that Morgan continues with the mainstream media’s Bachmann v. Palin false dilemma. (Perhaps I’ll save that for another day.)

He kicks off this line of questioning by using violent rhetoric: gun to your head. Where have we heard that recently?

Oh yea! Both Barack Obama and liberal investor Warren Buffet used the violent imagery to argue against Republican attempts to stop an increase to the debt ceiling last week. Buffet went as far as to say Republicans would “blow your brains out” in their quest for fiscal sanity in Washington. If anyone’s holding the American people hostage, it’s those in Washington who want to continue to spend us deeper and deeper into debt.

But nevermind that. Back to Maher’s hatred of conservative women. Piers Morgan didn’t so much as raise an eyebrow as Maher carried out his rant against conservative women. Morgan’s approving laughter is enough to make one shudder.

Just a last week on Maher’s HBO program, he was bested by Ann Coulter, who accused Maher (rightfully so) of being a misogynist. You can see the video here. While Maher flatly rejected the accusation, he then went onto defend his history of dating only supermodels by saying, “They don’t have to be [supermodels], it’s just suggested.”

Certainly, if a conservative pundit demeaned women in the way Bill Maher does, he’d be roundly criticized.

However, why should we be satisfied letting one of our own (Coulter) make the case against Maher’s misogyny? Feminists from my home state — the Tennessee Guerilla Women — have plenty to say about Maher’sunacceptable attitude toward women. (Their documentation of Maher’s offenses goes back to 2007.) It’s unfortunate the mainstream media is complicit in the marginalization of conservative women.

Is this the kind of backwards behavior we can continue to expect from our enlightened progressive friends? Regrettably, the answer is most likely yes.