<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pete Wehner on the President&#8217;s Highly Ambitious Founderist Progesssivism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/01/22/pete-wehner-on-the-presidents-highly-ambitious-founderist-progesssivism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/01/22/pete-wehner-on-the-presidents-highly-ambitious-founderist-progesssivism/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 13:21:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete Wehner on the President&#8217;s Highly Ambitious Founderist Progesssivism &#124; CATHOLIC FEAST</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/01/22/pete-wehner-on-the-presidents-highly-ambitious-founderist-progesssivism/comment-page-1/#comment-32815</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete Wehner on the President&#8217;s Highly Ambitious Founderist Progesssivism &#124; CATHOLIC FEAST</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:06:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=10382#comment-32815</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Here&#8217;s what Pete says: Mr. Obama’s speech was not a call to unity; it was a summons to his liberal base to fight–on global warming, for gay rights, for gun control, Source: Postmodern Conservative&#160;&#160; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Here&#8217;s what Pete says: Mr. Obama’s speech was not a call to unity; it was a summons to his liberal base to fight–on global warming, for gay rights, for gun control, Source: Postmodern Conservative&nbsp;&nbsp; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/01/22/pete-wehner-on-the-presidents-highly-ambitious-founderist-progesssivism/comment-page-1/#comment-32814</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:53:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=10382#comment-32814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;How can the Republican sell necessary downsizing to safety nets?&quot;

You don&#039;t have to &quot;sell&quot; it.  It&#039;s more than just &quot;necessary&quot; as you say.  It&#039;s going to happen.  The promised money isn&#039;t there, and is never going to be there.  The question is how/whether the GOP can position itself to politically benefit.  Clearly the current DC class doesn&#039;t have a clue.

Of course, the problem is that the evidence that things have to radically change regarding government overspending is going to be economic disaster.  But economic disaster means that the government has to overspend to compensate!  Quite the catch-22, isn&#039;t it?

I&#039;m still relatively hopeful that America isn&#039;t France, or Greece, and that people won&#039;t be completely blind to what has to happen, but it may very well be a close run thing.

In summary, I don&#039;t have an answer to your question.  Clinton blew a gift-wrapped chance to use the Cold War peace dividend to reform things gracefully, and Bush/Obama probably blew the final chance.  Now it&#039;ll be the hard way...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;How can the Republican sell necessary downsizing to safety nets?&#8221;</p>
<p>You don&#8217;t have to &#8220;sell&#8221; it.  It&#8217;s more than just &#8220;necessary&#8221; as you say.  It&#8217;s going to happen.  The promised money isn&#8217;t there, and is never going to be there.  The question is how/whether the GOP can position itself to politically benefit.  Clearly the current DC class doesn&#8217;t have a clue.</p>
<p>Of course, the problem is that the evidence that things have to radically change regarding government overspending is going to be economic disaster.  But economic disaster means that the government has to overspend to compensate!  Quite the catch-22, isn&#8217;t it?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m still relatively hopeful that America isn&#8217;t France, or Greece, and that people won&#8217;t be completely blind to what has to happen, but it may very well be a close run thing.</p>
<p>In summary, I don&#8217;t have an answer to your question.  Clinton blew a gift-wrapped chance to use the Cold War peace dividend to reform things gracefully, and Bush/Obama probably blew the final chance.  Now it&#8217;ll be the hard way&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
