Defense budget as related to GDP is a false and misleading argument, especially when the budget is 30~35% of all federal revenues, and relies 100% on federal deficit spending.

Pay for military expenditures with a balanced budget and if fighting terrorism is important then taxes should be raised to support it. Right now, only the troops in the field are paying the ultimate price while others look for every angle to get out of paying taxes, get out of paying for the sacrifices of the men and women in the military, and get out of paying for a safe and stable society.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost roughly $108 Billion/year not counting Billions more for the future costs of caring for America’s wounded veterans. The running total of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001; One Trillion Ninety Two Billion is enough for 200 Nuclear reactors or Thousands of Wind and Solar Farms:

http://www.costofwar.com/

2010 Annual USA Military spending is 30% of all government revenues ($722 Billion out of $2.4 Trillion) not counting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Defense spending rises to $895 Billion for 2011 (34.8% of $2.57 Trillion in Revenues).

2010 USA Defense Spending = $830 Billion ($722 Billion plus the wars $108 Billion), all of which is borrowed deficit spending money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/

Terrible analysis and understanding of what has transpired in America the least 20 months. Displayed ignorance of the wars and the economy, yet alone the reasons they exist. No GP here.

waltersobchek2 wrote: "I've just about had my fill with political coverage implying the following causal chain:
Americans don't like Dem/Rep policies --> Anger --> Vote for other Party

As years of political science research has shown, this is how it actually goes:
Americans are angry (about anything) --> Vote for other Party/Dislike governing party's policies"

Thanks. I agree. And I would add that in the corporate media we only hear one side.
I am angry, too, but vote for Republicans?
I am not insane.

Speaking from someone on the fringes of baseball, I think the analogy worked well, especially playing off Dionne’s post. Tata, like any good umpire, is calling a strike when he sees it. And why should he have to spell out what a home run slug could have been for the Democratic Party? They had dozens of opportunities to connect to the American people but continued to choose an agenda that was too far left of the We The People baseline to score any major points. Actions that only frustrated and angered fans. Then, Instead of facing up to those truths and those fans, they discounted and belittled those who spoke up in opposition. Obama could have changed his game plan at a number of points but didn’t.
The crux of the blog to me is that the Democratic team is out of sinc and out of touch with what mainstream Americans want and need. That is, as the blogger indicates, why their players are left bat-less and may be soon tossed out of the game. Democrats came to the world series thinking the other team (the Republicans) were nothing but a group of losers. They thought they’d have an easy walk through the bases and the fans would be cheering them on, but the homeruns Obama wanted to score weren’t in the ball park for the American People. And at the heart of this problem is the fact that the commander and chief does not believe in, take pride in, and love the fundamental core of what makes America, America. Kind of hard to lead a team to victory under those circumstances.

OK

You had me all set up. The Democrats missed a high-hanging fast ball. They had an opportunity to harness anger and beat the Republicans.

But ... all they had to do is act like Republicans?

I don't swing, the ball doesn't reach the catcher's mitt, a run scores from third base.

The writer is out in left field.

I'm not really following here. When you say that the Dems failed to swing at a hanging curve, what exactly would that swing have looked like? What kind of policy would have been analogous to driving that fat hanging curve over the fence?

My guess is that that policy doesn't exist. People are upset because of a whole host of things (mostly caused by macroeconomic factors) that are largely out of the effective control of politicians.

I've just about had my fill with political coverage implying the following causal chain:
Americans don't like Dem/Rep policies --> Anger --> Vote for other Party

As years of political science research has shown, this is how it actually goes:
Americans are angry (about anything) --> Vote for other Party/Dislike governing party's policies

And yes, I mean ANYTHING. Presidents have been blamed for shark attacks.
http://www.march.es/ceacs/Publicaciones/working/archivos/2004_199.pdf

This would be more believable if, say, Mayor Fenty had "seen it coming, picked up on the momentum, and timed [his] swing to counter the surge coming [his] way."

The author assertion that the Democrats "should have seen it coming, picked up on the momentum, and timed their swing to counter the surge coming their way" would be more plausible if he could demonstrate how that might have been possible.

I learned nothing new about voter outrage, Obama's missteps, etc., here. Though I do have a sudden urge to find a baseball game on TV.

I like this blog post, but it’s almost too much. It would have worked better as a series of blog posts, with more meat attached to each one. In baseball terms, Tata should have worked his way up the ladder:
1 – the Democrats regarded anyone who disagreed with them as part of the fringe; e.g., if you have a problem with the health care bill you’re a Tea Partier (fastball at the knees, outside corner)
2 – Obama cancelled the DC school voucher program while sending his kids to one of the most elite private schools in the country because by his own admission DC schools are up to snuff (slider, belt high, little off the outside corner)
3 – assessment of the real impact on the economy of Iraq/Afghanistan, vs. Obama’s implied view of it (fastball, at the letters, inside corner)
4 – the medical bill in detail; what’s wrong with it and why reasonable people can be unhappy with it without being a wacky member of the lunatic fringe (heater, head high, swinging strike, don’t trip over that top step of the dugout on your way back)