Americans: No More Business As Usual

There’s been an interesting shift in the political scene in this country. Some would argue that it’s a shift toward populism, but I’m not so sure. I think this is more likely a shift away from the abusive system of the past where taxpayers get turned into piggybanks for the well-connected. Let’s discuss.

The difference between populism and where the public seems to be headed is actually quite dramatic. Populism tends to focus on destroying the current system of privilege, taking from the rich, and implementing policies aimed at remaking society in the name of the public. Because of the extreme nature of populism, it is often borderline violent and it tends to flirt with either anarchy or socialism. I don’t see any of that in the current political environment.

To the contrary, groups like the Tea Party want neither anarchy nor socialism. They don’t envy those who have, nor do they seek to crush the rich. What they want instead is to reshape the government to stop it from being able to do the bidding of the connected. Specifically, they want the government to stop guaranteeing the risks of big business, and they want the government to stop issuing two sets of laws, one which helps the connected and one which simultaneously hinders the unconnected.

This seems to be confirmed by a new poll conducted by Rasmussen. Indeed, this poll showed broad bipartisan opposition to cronyism and strong support for free market policies. Consider these results:

● Only 27% think it is “ever ok for the government to make investments in private companies.”
● 71% believe the private sector is “better than government officials at determining the long-term benefits and potential of new technologies.” Only 11% think the reverse.
● 64% think government money will be wasted if the government backs projects the private sector won’t.
● 66% believe crony connections drive most government contracts.
● Then there’s this: “By a 3-1 margin, voters believe elected politicians routinely provide help to favored companies.”
● And this: “Seven out of ten Americans believe government and big business work together against the rest of us.”

It’s the last couple that tell you what is going on. People saw trillions of dollars poured into the big banks to save them after they made horribly stupid bets on things that the banks themselves created after getting the Clinton Administration to change the law to allow them to take these kinds of risk. They saw how the entire financial system almost collapsed because 3-4 big banks fell apart and they saw how these same banks have returned to record profitability (and record size) while the rest of us get to pick up the tab. They saw how billions were funneled directly to unions through the stimulus bill. They saw how billions more were given to Obama donors under the guise of running “clean energy companies,” which went bankrupt within months of getting the billions. They saw GE lobbying to get nonsensical environmental laws passed and then turned right around and get waivers from those same laws. They saw how hundreds of billions in government contracts have been awarded on no-bid, sole-source contracts to companies that handed over tens of millions in lobbying money. They saw how loopholes were put into the tax code which protected only a handful of companies, or in the case of Charlie Rangel’s friends only one company. They saw bribes and sweetheart deals given for regulatory consideration. . . Chris Dodd and Countywide anyone? They saw average bondholders crushed in GM while the unions made out like thieves. They saw nonunion pension rights terminated. They saw a shakedown of Boeing. They saw attempts to tax and control the internet to protect contributors. And they saw no difference between Bush or Obama on any of this.

It is frankly surprising that people haven’t been more populist in their opinions. Outside of the leftist desire to steal from the rich and their rhetoric about getting even with the banks, the public has been remarkably calm. . . determined to change the game, but calm. And I think it is a real testament to the American public that their response to this pillaging and abuse has not been vindictive, but has been instead to demand the system be fixed so everyone can move on.

I think the Republicans better pay attention to this. I think Romney and Ryan will be great for this country, but they need to realize that the times have changed and the public now pays attention to who is sliding through the backdoor with their hand out. Business as usual must end.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Poll-arama: Blow Out Ahead

All right, we know not to read too much into polls this early. We also understand that polls get kind of fuzzy when translated into votes. And we know that electoral college votes are more important than the popular vote, and the electorate is largely fixed. Still, when you start to see so much data going in one direction, you begin to wonder. Things don’t look good for Obama.

● Yeah, They Built That: Obama’s “you didn’t build that” line continues to resonate with voters. We know this because people keep talking about it everywhere. Pollsters are even asking the public about it, which means it’s entered “the mainstream consciousness.” And guess what? The public isn’t on Obama’s side. According to Rasmussen:

● 77% believe small business owners work harder that other workers. Only 2% disagree.

● 57% believe that entrepreneurs do more to create jobs and economic growth than big business or government.

● 61% believe small business provides more valuable services to local communities than big business or government.

● And Gallup found there appears to be a fundamental shift in the public’s view of government as 61% now say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and private business.

This is all really bad for Obama, whose campaign strategy is to attack business as a mere outgrowth of government. The public ain’t buying it.

● It’s Not Bush’s Fault After All: Nor are they buying Obama's attempt to avoid blame. Riddle me this: who said in 2009, “Look, if I can’t turn the economy around in three years, I will be looking at a one-term proposition”? Here’s a hint: he’s spent the last three years trying to blame all his failures on George W. Bush. Well, according to a new poll taken for The Hill, that excuse has worn thin. The Hill found that 66% of respondents blame the slow economic recovery and total lack of jobs on bad government policy. Of those people, 34% lay the blame on Obama. Only 18% continue to blame Bush. Moreover, 53% of voters say Obama took the wrong actions and caused the economy to slow. None of this is good news for Obama.

What could be upsetting people? How about this. Who said in 2003 that George Bush needed to “fix up the economy” before he did anything else? Here’s a hint, it’s the same guy who decried Bush’s $300 billion deficit as “underscor[ing] the recklessness of the George W. Bush administration and the Republican Congress.” And it’s the same man who has now given us five straight years of budgets with trillion dollar deficits. If $300 billion was reckless, what does that make a trillion five times over?

● We’ll Take the Mormon over the Moron!: All of this is adding up fast. USA Today/Gallup asked people who they trust more when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs. Despite all the time and effort Obama has poured into his Bain Capital attacks, Romney wins this in a blowout: 63% to 29%. And it gets worse. Despite all the attacks Obama has made, including record spending on negative ads, Romney’s popularity has gone up from 53% to 54%, and the number of people who say they share Romney’s views has gone up from 42% to 45%.

But even more importantly, 18% of Republican and Republican leaning voters report being more enthusiastic about voting than normal. This compares to only 4% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners who report the same. That’s an enthusiasm gap of 14%!! Enthusiasm will be key this year because the evidence suggests that less than 10% of voters are actually swing voters. These numbers suggest a blow out in the works.

● A Cold Day In Minnesota: Finally, we have this amazing bit of new. Mitt Romney is within striking distance of winning Minnesota. Yeah, Minnesota. Obama leads 46% to 40%, but the key here is that Obama can’t get to 50% and his 6% lead is half of what it’s been in the past. If Minnesota is in play, then Obama might as well quit right now. The last Republican to win Minnesota was Richard Nixon. Even Ronald Reagan never carried that bastion of idiotic liberalism.

How do you say “blow out” in Minnesotan, eh?


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Ebenezer Obama Praises Himself

Recently President Obama has been declaring himself to be a fiscal conservative. Responding to Republican nominee-presumptive Mitt Romney calling administration economics “a prairie fire of debt,” John Maynard Obama responded with “He left out some facts—what my opponent didn’t tell you was that federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest rate of any president in almost sixty years.”

In your guts, you know he’s nuts. That’s an obvious lie, and it is accompanied by some very high-level chutzpah. Seeking to divert your lying eyes from the obvious, Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney expanded on the theme: “To make the point, as an editor might say, reporters should not buy into the b.s. that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think it’s a sign of sloth and laziness.” That’s the administration’s way of saying that what is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature isn’t true.

Obama has gathered together his team of economics “experts” to perform one of the biggest con jobs in history. You’ve undoubtedly heard Obama and his minions talking about how responsible his spending has been in comparison with previous presidents. And though you’ve likely simply ignored the enormous foolishness of it all, you’ve probably wondered where he comes up with such blatant distortion of facts. Well, let me give you a hint. Ever heard “figures don’t lie, but liars can figure?”

Step one: Blame all of your first year spending on George W. Bush, reserving only a piddling $140 billion as your own. Easily enough done, if you have no conscience. The fiscal year of Obama’s first year in office ended on October 1, 2009. So Obama’s experts claim that he had no control over spending before that date. Now you also have to ignore the $800 billion stimulus that Obama and the Democrats passed in February of that year because it didn’t actually kick in fully until after the end of the fiscal year. So the calculation Obama includes in his current lie about fiscal restraint uses a baseline figure for 2009 which is almost entirely attributable to him but which he blames on his predecessor.

Step Two: Use dollars spent by the federal government without any reference to the national economy, while still blaming Bush indirectly for most of the spending since 2009, . That way you can claim a “rate” of spending that is “fake but accurate.” If you ignore the gross domestic product, population increases, more people on the public dole and wildly divergent views of inflation, it’s possible to spend trillions of extra dollars while claiming the rate of increase over three and a half years is low. In 1983, the highest previous spending year, the US was spending 23.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for all federal programs, including revitalization of America’s degraded military capabilities. How does that stack up with Obama’s federal chunk of the GDP? 2009: 25.2%; 2010: 24.1%; 2011: 24.1% and for 2012, an estimated 24.3%.

Those differences may not seem like much until you take into account the other facts. Removing 1983, rates have ranged from 18% to 21% between 1984 and 2008. And the 500 pound gorilla in the room is the GDP itself. First, much of the decrease in spending in 2012 will be attributed to cuts to the military which are the opposite of what happened in 1983. And more importantly, the GDP itself has been hugely reduced by the recession which seems interminable under Obama. Simply put, 24.1% federal spending against a sick GDP is one helluva lot more than 23.5% of a GDP that had taken off for the stratosphere.

Democrats pay the latter fact quick lip service, hoping you won’t see that it is a major factor in determining spending as a relative component of the overall economy. Their argument is that the economy stinks, so federal spending looks larger as a percentage of GDP. No, it is a larger percentage. And that bumps up against Obama’s argument that his fiscal policies ended the recession back in mid-2009. If the current economy stinks, then who care whether it’s technically a recession or not? And what about this simple figure: at the end of 2008 public debt stood at 40.5% of the economy (still too high) but now stands at 74.2% and getting worse?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how liars figure. If simple, honest accounting doesn’t work for you, come up with some devious creative accounting to make your profligacy look like fiscal restraint. The next time your innate good sense says that Obama is outright lying about curbing federal spending, go with your instincts. They’re correct.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Judge A Man By His Friends

I’ve been trying to put together a voting guide to give you the “pro” case for each major candidate. Unfortunately, every time I start gathering “pro” information, certain candidates come out with more “con” reasons, candidates like Mitt Romney. The latest example is that Romney keeps hiring former Bush people. Ugh.

Hiring Bushies is bad in and of itself. Whether you liked Bush the person or not, the fact is he was not a conservative. From needlessly raising CAFE standards, to the Ted Kennedy No Child Left Behind Act, to expanding bankrupt Medicare to cover prescription drugs, to failing entirely to prepare for post-war Iraq, to opening the doors of the Treasury to Goldman Sachs, to doing nothing to lower the nation’s regulatory burden, to his tinkering tax cuts which did nothing to increase the national incentive to work, to TARP. . . Bush was no conservative.

His staff was worse, as they’ve continued to prove over and over again now that they are out of the White House. They bleed RINO blue and spend their days attacking conservatives and pimping for lobbyists. The advice they give is “surrender” and “stop being so partisan.” They never have unkind words for liberals, but somehow can’t find anything good to say about conservatives. So who in their right mind would bring these people onto their team? Romney.

And it gets worse.

The latest former Bush staffer in question is Alex Mistri. Beside being a Bushie, Mistri was a registered lobbyist for Solyndra. Yes, that Solyndra. This is one of the bigger Obama scandals and should become one of the bigger clubs with which the Republican nominee will beat Obama during the election. Hiring Solyndra’s lobbyist all but prohibits Romney from making that attack -- in fact, it basically says there was nothing criminal involving Solyndra. This is beyond stupid. Hiring this man at this time tells us something is very wrong with Romney’s judgment.

The next Bushie is Jim Connaughton, a big firm attorney and energy company lobbyist. Connaughton was the architect of Bush’s climate plan when he was Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. This is the same White House that mandated the use of renewable fuels in 2005 and raised fuel economy standards at the urging of the Democrats when he was a lame duck. Near the end of Bush’s term, Connaughton even embraced a national goal for controlling “greenhouse gases,” i.e. regulation to stop global warming.

The other Bushie is Greg Mankiw, the former chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Mankiw was an “outspoken advocate” for a carbon tax. His current job is to help craft Romney’s jobs agenda.... presumably destroying jobs, not making jobs. In September 2007, Mankiw wrote this in the New York Times:

“There is a broad consensus. The scientists tell us that world temperatures are rising because humans are emitting carbon into the atmosphere. Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.”

Maybe we should tax stupidity.

Since Romney is noted for his flip-flops on global warming, these last two choices are downright foolish. What should we trust? Should we believe Romney’s recent conversion to global warming skepticism? Or should it concern us that he’s filling his team with global warming enthusiasts?

Finally, as we mentioned yesterday, Cain is being smeared with unidentified sexual harassment allegations. It is worth mentioning again, that Bushie Karl Rove, who has been acting as an unofficial Romney cheerleader on Fox, has jumped on this along with the MSM and is trying to smear Cain. Way to go Karl.

Whether we believe these people will influence Romney the wrong way or not, their hiring demonstrates a lack of judgment by Romney. In hiring them, Romney defuses two strong issues which should be used against Obama and instantly raises skepticism in conservative ranks that he is who we fear he is -- an establishment, dead-center technocrat. Yet, he gets NO benefit from hiring them because whatever wisdom they may bring is readily available in less offensive personages all over the country. So doing this was stupid. Romney gave himself a self-inflicted wound and got no benefit for it in return. That’s not the kind of judgment we want in a Republican President.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guess He Wasn't So Bad After All

You all know that with the exception of Supreme Court appointments, tax cuts, and his love for America, I was no big fan of George W. Bush. For me, "compassionate conservatism" was a long way of saying "liberalism." Big gummint, fix everything from Washington DC, fight a war against an enemy you refuse to name without a clear goal in mind. But even his late-term low polling numbers are beginning to look good now next to the Messiah's.

The last place on earth I would look for W. to be outpolling Obama is in the rich, liberal enclave of Martha's Vineyard. Well, if T-shirt sales are any indicator, Bush today would be elected if he ran against Obama. Yeah, I know, it's not scientific. But it's fun.

The Boston Globe, a noted liberal newspaper, breathlessly announced that they were shocked--shocked--to find out that during his weekly vacation, Obama was less popular than Bush, at least on Vineyard T-shirts. On August 18, the Globe reported: "One barometer of the plunge in excitement has been the sale of Obama-themed T-shirts, which designers had been banking on after the craze of last year [Obama's last visit there]. Clothing labeled with the president's name sold by the thousands, helping to salvage a tough economic year for the island. But this year's T-shirt sales are much less brisk, merchants say." Except for Bush tee-shirts, of course.

A local clothing merchant says: "Last year, Obama gave you goose bumps, but I don't think you're going to see that this year." Last year this merchant sold 4,000 tee-shirts emblazoned with "I vacationed with Obama." This year, his hottest item is one depicting George W. Bush with the legend "Miss me yet?"

T-shirt sales in Martha's Vineyard are off across-the-boards, but then so is everything else. A year ago, Obama didn't even need a boat to get to Martha's Vineyard. He just walked over from the mainland. The economy was terrible, and Obama was blaming it all on Bush. To paraphrase Dinah Washington's best-selling hit--"What a difference a year makes." Even loyal Vineyardites (Vineyarders? Vineyardians?) aren't buying the "Bush did it" mantra anymore. They have given Obama nearly two years to make some inroads into the recession. There are few indicators that his massive government programs are doing anything except deepening the debt and the deficits needlessly.

As for the tourists, they're aware that they're about to get taxed heavily for Obamacare and the stimulus packages that didn't stimulate much of anything except unemployment in the private sector. So, many visitors who might have sojourned there during Obama's visit decided to hold onto what little money they have left just in case they're next in the unemployment lines. They're cringing at the thought of which socialist policy Obama might next push through against their will.

For the tee-shirt folks, I suggest a new one. A picture of a homeless person, wearing a shirt with Obama's picture and the legend "mission accomplished."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Bush People Attack Republicans Again

The Bush team never liked conservatism, never understood politics, didn’t have a clue how to govern, and didn’t care. They thought they were “beyond all that.” And over eight years of nasty, big-government incompetence, they managed to drive a very conservative public right into the arms of the socialists and crazies that make up the Democratic Party. In fact, if it were not for Obama’s overreach, they would have made the Republicans into a permanent minority party. Well, they’re back, and they’re doing their best to hurt the Republicans once again.

A few days ago, several Republicans began advocating changing the 14th Amendment to reflect the realities of the modern world. While I observed that this was likely little more than an election ploy by some of them, I also noted that this was a good idea if it could be achieved. Moreover, this idea cannot be reasonably construed as racist or offensive (except of course by far-left race-baiting Democrats) as it would do nothing more than make our laws similar to the laws of every other country in the world. Heck, even uber-RINO Lindsey Graham is on board for this one. Since then, ninety-four Republicans have co-sponsored legislation that would limit citizenship to children born in the U.S. with at least one parent who is a naturalized citizen, legal permanent resident or serving in the military.

But the Bush people don’t like Republicans or conservatives or the public or anything we ignorant and racist conservatives and/or the public might want. So they’ve pounced on this:


Exhibit 1: Mark McKinnon, who served as Bush’s media adviser on both Presidential campaigns said that Republicans would risk losing “their rightful claim to the 14th Amendment” if they continue to “demagogue” the issue:

“The 14th Amendment is a great legacy of the Republican Party. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the GOP now wants to amend it for starkly political reasons.”

So expressing and trying to address the concerns of the vast majority of the public is being a “demagogue”? So trying to make our citizenship laws just like everyone else on the planet is an “embarrassment”? And since when has anyone credited the Republican Party with creating the 14th Amendment? Oh wait, I think 50 Cent mentioned it in one of his rap songs. . . my bad.

For good measure, McKinnon finishes his slander by chastising Republicans for wanting to use the 14th Amendment “to drive people away.” Wow, that sounds like something right off the digital-sewer pages of Huffpo.

McKinnon, by the way, worked for a slew of Democrats before he joined Team Bush. Democrats like former Texas Governor Ann Richards of Texas (“poor George can’t help it, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth”) and drunken Rep. Charlie Wilson. He also represents steroid user Lance Armstrong and turd Bono. McKinnon has said that he only joined Bush’s staff because:

“This Governor Bush was doing some things that really got my attention. He was talking about education reform. He was talking about immigration reform. He was talking about issues that had typically been Democratic issues. He was talking about them in a really compassionate way. . . he’d gotten ahead of the Republican Party.”

Yep, Bush was so far ahead of the Republican Party he’d become a Democrat. McKinnon also is the source who blasted Palin in the media for her debate preparation. At the time, he was informally helping out the McCain campaign, though he resisted formally joining because he “wanted no part in flailing Obama.”


Exhibit 2: Cesar Conda, who served as a domestic policy adviser to Dick Cheney, called this proposal “incredibly offensive” and said that “this proposal . . . validates the left's worst lies about our party not being inclusive.” In other words, we’re proving we're racists. At least he called these "lies," which is more than the other Bush Leaguers have done.

Conda describes himself as a movement conservative, though he’s recently attacked Rand Paul and now Colorado Republican candidate Ken Buck. He’s also praised Obama’s “muscular policy to win the war in Afghanistan.”


Exhibit 3: Bush speechwriter and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, said the Republican proposal violates the “wisdom of the authors of the 14th Amendment” who “wanted to take this very difficult issue -- citizenship -- outside of the political realm.” He then accused Republicans of wanting to substitute a “subjective standard” for the “objective standard [of] birth.”

Of course, this is a lie as no one is suggesting substituting a subjective standard. Nor does he apparently understand the reasons the 14th Amendment was written the way it was. And since when is citizenship "a difficult issue" unless your advocating something the public hates.

What’s more, Gerson is one of those “conservatives” who routinely demonizes other conservatives in his column. For example, in a column titled “Letting Fear Rule,” he compared opponents of Bush’s immigration reform bill to “nativist bigots of the 1880s.” He has been blasted by various conservatives including National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru. Here is Gerson talking about the Republican Party:

“My low point with the Republican party came in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The response of many Republicans was to use the disaster as an excuse for cutting government spending, particularly the Medicare prescription-drug benefit for seniors.”

And here is Gerson attacking conservatism:

“What does antigovernment conservatism offer to inner-city neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing. What achievement would it contribute to racial healing and the unity of our country? No achievement at all. Anti-government conservatism turns out to be a strange kind of idealism — an idealism that strangles mercy.”

Yep, because small government conservatism is about anarchy and racism, and only big government can cure racism and broken families. . . look how great Johnson Great Society turned out! Oh wait, that only made things worse. Of course, the fact that big government caused the problems Gerson is proposing big government should now fix escapes his small mind.


These are the people who drove the Bush administration. They are the Bush League. Their unmitigated and unrelenting failures gave us Obama and disgraced the Republican brand. And now they are at it again, lobbing slanders at those evil Republicans for trying to defend their country from a virtual invasion.

It’s time these people went away and joined the rest of the “big government compassionate conservatives” on the ash heap of history.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

For Once, I Agree With The New Republic

Jonathan Chait, senior editor at The New Republic is probably best-known to non-subscribers for his 2003 article in which he proudly declared "I hate President George W. Bush." Now, hold on. That's not what I agree with. Recently, Chait was called to account for his bluntness by Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.

Chait takes issue with Gerson because he thinks Gerson's article was another squishy defense of civility in politics. Now that's where I agree with Chait. Aside from the fact that Gerson was a complete sycophant for Bush as the size of government and the deficit grew by leaps and bounds, Gerson (then and now) acted as if liberal contempt for Bush were completely deranged. Well, it was often over-the-top and frequently downright nasty, but unlike Gerson's assertion, it was certainly not inexplicable. Bush quite clearly offended liberal and leftist Democrats in much the same way Barack Obama clearly offends conservative and rightist Republicans.

As someone once said, "politics isn't beanbag." And it isn't a meeting of The Society of Friends either. When that purplish dinosaur Barney starts writing a political blog, we can expect saccharine civility. Both Bush and Obama are polarizing political figures. Many a true word is said in jest, and many a nasty word is said in anger. Those of us on the blogs are usually writing about some very recent and very contentious issue, and when those issues revolve around major political figures, it's not to be unexpected that we are going to be very pointed in both our criticism and language concerning those same political figures. And unlike the cool and reserved atmosphere of textbooks discussing the issues years later, an occasional ad hominem attack on our perceived enemies is going to slip out.

Although I think the conservative camp has done a better job of holding down the obscenities and insubstantial personal attacks, our skirts are not entirely clean, nor would I expect them to be. Likewise, I think that Bush did a far better job of handling criticism than does Obama. But I expect that my liberal friends would strongly disagree with me, and probably not in the most polite of terms. So what? I'm very angry about where the Obama administration and the Democratic Party are leading us. And that occasionally leads me into some intemperate language. But how I was required to act toward my opposition in a courtroom is quite different from how I am free (and likely) to behave on a political blog.

Gerson attacked Harry Reid for calling Bush a loser and a liar. He attacked Al Gore for calling Bush a moral coward. He excoriated antiwar protesters for comparing Bush to Hitler. Chait probably agrees with them, but his comments are reserved for Gerson's finding anything unusual about that. Gerson is shocked, shocked, to hear such uncivil rhetoric from the other side. Well, the First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech (all speech is offensive to someone). If the left becomes so civil that it ceases to use such exaggerated claims, that dampens my freedom to call Obama a loser, liar and moral coward (although I will usually back it up with a fact or two), or compare him to Stalin (which I have never done). Each time a bigtime politician makes a statement like that, are we expected to self-censor and follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules? So for entirely different reasons, I agree with Chait. Let it all hang out, and be ready to defend your position, only this time with facts and evidence, not simply more venom.

Gerson got very colorful about halfway through his pro-civility screed. "Questioning the legitimacy of a democratic outcome; abusing demeaning and attempting to silence one's opponents--is a sign of democratic decline. From the late Roman republic to Weimar Germany, these attitudes have been the prelude to thuggery. Thugs can come with clubs, with bullhorns, with Internet access." Chait challenges Gerson on this point saying: "And I simply don't know what to make of Gerson's conflation of attitudes expressed via bullhorn and the internet, on the one hand, with those expressed via 'clubs.'" Nor do I. Gerson misses the important fact that both sides use verbal "attitudes" to express their anger, but so far, the only clubs that have been used have been the bully boys of the SEIU against Obama opponents and Black Panther "poll-watchers" in Philadelphia. It also feeds into the left's faux indignation about anti-Obama words leading to violence (but only on the right, of course).

Chait has trouble with Gerson's columns for very logical reasons (even if I don't necessarily agree with them). Says Chait: "The problem--and this is the whole problem with the civility obsession--is that it's hard to formulate a coherent set of standards. Gerson thinks Al Franken belongs outside the realm of of acceptable discourse. On the other hand, he thinks Rush Limbaugh . . . belongs within that acceptable discourse." It's that classic question--quis custodiet ipsos custodes "who will guard the guardians?"

From an historical perspective, the past decade has been relatively mild. Check out what Adams and Jefferson supporters had to say about each other. Check out what Jackson and J. Q. Adams supporters had to say about each other. Take a close look at what Lincoln opponents had to say about him. Ditto FDR supporters versus every other candidate's supporters. More of the same for Reagan supporters and opponents. And just to get Gerson, a newspaper columnist, back into the world of reality, nearly all those attacks were printed in the newspapers and political tracts, without the benefit of bullhorns or the internet. Somehow, we survived it all.

To prove his point, Gerson very civilly includes in his latest column the following words: "I don't hate President Obama." Well, good for him. Let me conclude this article with my own take on the subject: I hate Barack Obama. Did I do good, Mr. Chait?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bullies Can Dish It Out--But They Can't Take It

E. J. Dionne, touchy-feely leftocrat, has an article this week in my favorite Democratic house organ, The New Republic. Dionne is the gentle stalking-horse of the Democratic cadres, a horse that can see all those cruel fascists that the Republicans can't see, but wears blinders so he can't see the thugs and liars among his friends.

The article is entitled: All Isn't Fair--How to fight extremism with civility. And what better magazine to publish it in than the New Republic--the magazine that headlined an article by its own senior editor, John Judis, a few years back entitled: I Hate George Bush? Dionne uses an age-old method of proving that your opponents are out-of-control by citing an alleged member of that opposition who is in agreement with you. The old joke is that liberals love citing Christians to prove their point, as long as they are dead Christians. And they love citing Republicans, as long as they no longer have any standing within the Republican Party.

Dionne's tender sensibilities have been offended by the in-your-face opposition to the Obamassiah, particularly at the tea party protests. And sure enough, he found a "Republican" who agrees with him. Former Congressman Jim Leach spent thirty years "Going his own way. If this meant standing against his caucus, he was content to do so." Pretty heroic, huh? A maverick even. Or maybe just a RINO. But since he agrees with Dionne on the current Republican leadership failing to slap down the "extremists" within their midst, he is therefore the perfect "dead" Republican to cite.

And Mr. Leach is all touch-feely too. Dionne describes him by saying "The characteristic Leach look is a comfortable sweater worn under a tweed jacket, in season and out. That's about as fashionable as the persona of old Mr. Chips, the warmhearted and mildly Victorian headmaster who was the hero of James Hilton's 1934 novel (they made a movie out of it too, in case you hadn't noticed). Yes--Mr. Chips. Doesn't that just warm your cockles?

So now cometh the perfect Republican to go after those Republican leaders who can't get control of their crypto-Nazi troops with the hateful signs and hateful words. Leach, indistinguishable from the Democrats, lost his seat in 2006 because in that Democratic landslide the voters figured they might as well have a real Democrat rather than a Democrat calling himself a Republican. Ah, but he wasn't bitter, says Dionne. "He turned to academia, not the lobbying trade favored by so many other defeated politicians, and in 2008 engaged in the ultimate act of a maverick (a real one) by becoming a Republican for Obama." What a shock. The maverick Republican candidate for President wasn't far enough to the left to suit this maverick.

And glorious Obama, the Anointed One, returned the favor by appointing Leach chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Says chairman Leach: "Little is more important for the world's leading democracy (are we still the leading democracy after 11 months of Obama?) in this change-intensive century than establishing an ethos of thoughtfulness and decency of expression in the public square." Golly, I wish I had thought of that. If I had, I could have understood such thoughtfulness in Democratic discourse as "Bushitler," and "I hate Bush," and "Bush lied, people died." And the gentle, thoughtful Democrats haven't stopped, even today.

"If we don't try to understand and respect others, how can we expect them to respect us, our values and our way of life." And who, exactly, are "we?" "Words reflect emotion as well as meaning. They clarify--or cloud--thought and energize action, sometimes bringing out the better angels in our nature, sometimes lesser instincts," says Leach. "Leach's speech is the kickoff for a 50-state civility tour, and my hunch is that this very civil man may have to put up with a lot of incivility along the way" says Dionne.

Which type of incivility are you referring to, Professor Dionne? The Republican/conservative/tea party kind where they hold up signs that are very disrespectful of the Chosen One, or the SEIU/ACORN beating people up with their signs kind? The "vote against Obama, he's a socialist" kind, or the baseball bat, chain-wielding voter intimidation kind (thank you, New Black Panthers)? Yes, indeed, words can wound metaphorically, which is why we have a First Amendment. You have your panties in a bunch over tea party words that might lead to violence, while continuing to wear those blinders about leftist words which have actually been turned into violence, frequently.

And finally, I should point out that Dionne and Leach don't attack the tea partiers and other anti-Obamists directly. They know full well that those movements can never be squelched by the words and phony peace-offerings of the left. So they address their complaints to the Republican leadership (whoever they are) in terms of their intentional or negligent failure to rein in the "extremists." Well, you two, I have some news for you. Conservatives don't take orders from the entrenched leadership of a fractured party trying to find its way back to its foundations, and conservatives don't march blindly to the tune of their "superiors" in DC and the state houses. Unlike Democrats.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democratic Administrations Seem Less Stressful

Ever notice that life is less stressful when the Democrats hold the White House? Actually, I’m serious. I’ve lived through several now and I can honestly say that the country seems much more at ease when the Democrats are in charge. Bear with me as I try to figure this out (or bare with me if you prefer).

Honest Jimmy Carter

My first real experience with a Democratic President was Honest Jimmy Carter. Good times, let me tell you.

Sure, we had 7.6% unemployment, 13.5% inflation, falling incomes, gas lines, labor strikes and the such, but that’s part of life. Anyone who says differently is just expecting too much. . . or so the media constantly assured us. Besides, Jimmy was such an honest man that you couldn't fault him. At least, that was the standard media motif.

With nothing to worry about, there were no nasty movies about Carter either. In fact, if I remember correctly, Hollywood was largely apolitical at the time, except for the occasional movie attacking Nixon. Oh, and the music. . . the apolitical music?! Great stuff!

The Evil Ronald Reagan

Then came Reagan. Man, the Reagan years were tense. The economy was crap. Sure, he got unemployment down to 5.2% and inflation down to 1.9%, but those weren’t real jobs. The real jobs were vanishing at an alarming rate, leaving us to sell hamburgers to each other. . . and our Japanese masters.

What caused all of our jobs to vanish? Greedy corporate types, all personal friends of Reagan, would forcibly buy our prosperous companies and part them out just to make a quick buck. I remember seeing a film about this. In fact, I recall a bunch of films attacking this horrible thing called mergers and acquisitions, and vulture..., er, venture capital.

And don’t forget what Reagan did to us with his debts! He sold our futures! Deficits of around 3% of GNP?! What was he thinking? (For cynics who note that Obama’s deficit is 12.6% of GNP, all I can say is that it was a different time and 3% meant more than it does today.)

Fortunately, there was strong oversight. The media kept on him day. . . after day. . . after day! He may have been made of Teflon, but that wasn't going to stop them. And who can forget all those Congressional hearings to investigate every single thing Reagan or anyone in his administration did (or didn’t) do! Even Hollywood and the music industry strove to point out how horrible Reaganomics was over and over again.

Oh (almost forgot), Reagan was dangerous too. He dreamed of getting us killed. He wanted to start a nuclear war! At least, that’s what a dozen movies (like Dreamscape) told us. . . and the protesters chanted. . . and a few Congressional Democrats proclaimed. . . and a bunch of singers sang about. It is any wonder things were so damn tense!

Heartless George Bush

Then we got Bush. He wasn’t Reagan, but he wasn’t much better. Bush brought us the wars that Reagan always wanted. He attacked Iraq to get its oil. In fact, I remember protestors screaming this daily, and of course Hollywood and the music industry backed this up in their films and music. The media did a great job of investigating this too. . . constantly. As I recall, they really dug into the idea that he sold Iraq the very weapons they would use to kill so many American soldiers and he encouraged Iraq to attack Kuwait, a ruthless dictatorship of the kind that Bush favors, just to cause the war. True evil there.

Man, wasn’t it funny when he threw up in Japan? How many times did I see that on television!

Bush also gave us junk bonds, increasing the pace of jobs disappearing, and the S&L crisis -- caused by his nephew Neil Bush! He brought us the age of the never-ending Independent Counsel. And he created homelessness to kill poor people. Robert Redford told us so himself (Sneakers anyone?). I’m pretty sure the media backed Redford up on that. I don’t recall exactly, because there were so many stories about the 200 million homeless that it got a little confusing, but I think they did confirm it.

Very tense times.

Good-Natured Rogue Bill Clinton

Bush gave way to Clinton and things changed. Sure, Clinton loved women, but man was he a good guy. He was the Great Communicator II, the greatest politician of our time!

Let’s see, great economy, budget surpluses, nothing happened overseas. He ended homelessness. Sure, there were more mergers during the Clinton years than the Reagan/Bush years, but those were good mergers. They made America efficient.

Unlike Bush, Clinton never sold any influence. At least, I don’t recall hearing about that in the media.

Strangely, the number of films about presidents dropped off to almost nothing during his term. In fact, Hollywood largely went apolitical again, hmm. But that’s not to say they were playing favorites just because they were all FOBs. . . we got their word on that. Plus, don’t forget, they did do that one film about Clinton being a good-natured rogue who loves McDonalds. I remember a good deal of consternation in the media over that.

I don’t recall any protest music. But then what would you protest? He only used the military where it was absolutely necessary -- when the safety of the United States was at issue. . . like in Yugoslavia, and Somalia, and Haiti. And unlike Bush, whose failures led to a second Gulf war, Clinton solved the Somalia and Haiti problems completely -- or if he didn't, we never heard about it. He would have solved that Al Qaeda problem too, if the Republicans had let him. And you can't really blame him for Rwanda, no one knew what to do about that.

All in all, it was a very tension free time.

Bushitler

But all that changed when Bushitler stole the election and imposed himself upon us. I don’t even know where to begin with Bushitler.

Look at the problems he didn't solve in Rwanda, Somalia, and the genocide in Darfur!

And I’m not saying he caused 9/11, but I read that he knew about it and he didn’t call the airport to stop those guys because he wanted to create an incident to let Dick Cheney’s firm take Iraq’s oil. I don’t have any facts to back that up, and neither does the media, but I seem to recall reading that daily in real newspapers. I guess, sometimes the truth transcends the facts.

Seriously, was there anything he did right in Iraq or Afghanistan? Not according to the media, or Hollywood, or the music industry, or the protestors, or Democratic Congressmen, or Senators, or governors. And wow was Hollywood busy with movies about Bush and Iraq. The music industry too (how unfair to attack the Dixie Chicks for saying what everyone in the media was already saying).

And that was just the beginning. He tried to kill black people when he caused Katrina. He destroyed our economy, causing an unemployment rate that reached almost 7% -- no economy can survive with an unemployment rate that high, and the President is directly responsible for unemployment. . . except Obama and his 10.5%, that’s not his fault.

Bushitler also generated a massive deficit of around $200 billion! And don’t even think of comparing Obama’s $1.4 trillion deficit to Bushitler’s, they just aren’t the same thing. In fact, they're so different that the media doesn't even bother making the comparison.

Don’t forget Bushitler forced an entire generation of soldiers to develop mental illness and to become homeless. Everybody lost their homes! He let AIDS run wild in Africa, and, let’s be honest, he was stupid. How many times did I hear that! Probably every day. And didn’t he cause a school shooting?

Thank God he’s gone. Too tense.

Barack “The Messiah” Obama

Finally, we have the Obamatopia of today. What pleasant times. Sure there’s 10.5% unemployment, but that’s to be expected -- employment always lags in a recovery. We have $1.4 trillion deficits, but that’s Bush’s fault too, and those should drop again in 5-10 years. The dollar is falling, but that’s good for the stock market.

We’ve had no mass shootings and no terrorist attacks that have made the news. We have no homeless, and all of our soldiers are fine again. Foreclosures have stopped. We have no racial strife, except that racist cop. AIDS in Africa has ended. He solved Darfur. Obama brought peace to South America, I don’t think we’ve heard a peep out of Chavez in some time. . . certainly no criticism from him. Our relations with the Middle East are great, or so we're told.

What’s not to like? In fact, times are so good that most journalists have little to do except report what Obama tells them. I don't think I've heard a body count since Bush left office? And I guess the media dropped their demand to film caskets coming home. Who needs the stress of seeing that!

Hollywood too seems to have become apolitical again, except for the few films honoring Obama. Of course, the television industry also has worked hard to help Obama out with bringing us together and doing a few good things.

All very stress free.

My Point

Ok, enough. I think you get my point. I am actually being quite serious when I say the world seems less dangerous and less contentious when the Democrats are in power. For most people, it does. And there is a reason for that: the Democrats’ fellow travelers in the media and in the culture industry work to generate that perception.

They will savage Republicans on a 24/7 basis, including making things up when there is nothing to complain about. Angry films get cranked out, personal attacks are made nightly on television or in songs, Congressional investigations are held, and a chorus of hate arises all to keep the public on edge.

Why? Because the perception that life is contentious when the Republicans are in charge can be a powerful force to wear people out under Republican regimes, to get them to give Democratic another chance, and to keep fence-sitters voting for Democrats.

This is why it’s so important that conservatives reinsert themselves into the culture -- from Hollywood, to Madison Avenue, to the music world, to the media. We cannot allow this perception to continue unchallenged. It's like letting your competitor send people to your restaurant to bother the customers.

By the way, lest anyone suggest that the left is merely acting on principle, explain to me why they suddenly go silent on those same principles, and will ignore or forgo them, when the Democrats win the job? It’s all for show folks.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Knock, Knock. Who's There? Yoo. Yoo Hoo?

At least for now, warrantless wiretapping and interception of electronic transmissions originating in or near Al Qaeda terrorist camps are in limbo. President Obama and his Attorney General are occasionally at odds, then in agreement, then at odds again with Congress over the issue. There is also on-again, off-again talk of investigation and trials for those involved in the program. If the investigations and trials go forward, the subject of this article will probably find himself in the dock as a defendant. He is U C Berkeley Boalt Hall Law Professor John Yoo.

If you've heard the professor's name at all, it's probably in relation to a much more exciting and overplayed topic--his opinions on enhanced interrogation techniques. But except for the possibility of show trials, that issue has pretty much been put to bed. The administration will determine the policy, and that will be it. With or without enhanced interrogation techniques, the war against terrorists goes on, and our ability to prevent attacks is being crippled by political nonsense and legal gibberish revolving around interception of foreign electronic communications.

In the wake of September 11, 2001 the nation realized that our ability to know what we need to know overseas was a mess. Our investigative agencies were forbidden to share information, lest that mystical line between CIA extraterritorially and FBI domestically be crossed. Mainland authorities knew very little about Al Qaeda, and its possible entry onto American soil was knowledge forbidden to be passed on by the CIA to the FBI and other local authorities. Yet knowledge of communication between terrorists in the Middle-East and here was critical. That was tragically demonstrated by the World Trade Center attacks.

FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) was a tool of the Cold War. We had clearly-defined enemies, and huge counterintelligence agencies with a nearly one-for-one personnel ratio. For nearly every spy, we had a spy spying on him. The internet scarcely existed, so most communications were by telephone, mail or diplomatic courier. Phone wiretaps were relatively easy to obtain, because the warrant would allege "Boris Badinoff, known KGB agent, is receiving calls from his bosses in Moscow" and a judge would routinely sign the warrant.

Al Qaeda saw the weaknesses in the act, as well as the potential of cell phone and internet communications. They exploited those weaknesses. The enemy was largely unknown, and its operatives nearly impossible to locate or identify.

Immediately after 9/11 the President and his advisors recognized the weaknesses as well. Immediate information was needed about any further pending terrorist attacks, and FISA rules severely limited that ability. What was needed most was the ability to monitor communications from overseas terrorist strongholds to their operatives in the U.S. The requirement of probable cause and identity of the person(s) to be tapped (the domestic FISA standard) rendered the operation nearly impossible. Likewise, building evidence to prove past crimes as the purpose of domestic criminal wiretapping rules is completely irrelevant to monitoring the activities of unknown terrorists receiving instructions from their master overseas.

As a high-ranking member of George Bush's national security advisory group, John Yoo advised that if the agencies were scrupulously cautious about monitoring only those communications coming from the terrorist camps, and specifically Afghanistan and border regions of Pakistan, then they could proceed without violating the FISA rules or the Constitution. They were faced with looking to lengthy and often contradictory FISA rules which did not address the subject directly, since the act had long since become obsolete in terms of the new technology threats facing America after the Cold War. And they were faced with an all-new kind of threat, immediately after a horrible attack on American soil that very few saw coming.

Alexander Hamilton recognized "new dangers" early in the history of the Republic. He argued in the Federalist Papers that the power to protect the nation ought to exist without limitation because "it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies." He further argued that "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man (the executive), in a much more eminent way than the proceedings of any greater number (the Congress and the courts)." This is an early statement of the "unitary executive" concept as it relates to the power of the President to conduct war.

Although cooler heads prevailed in the long run, the power of the President to conduct foreign affairs, particularly war, has remained with the President for overseas action ever since. Domestically, law and the Constitution prohibited the President from exercising this power (particularly the Fourth Amendment), and the power overseas was allowed as a prerogative of conducting a traditional war. September 11 changed all that. Even FISA, designed originally to speed up the process of obtaining warrants in light of speedier communications and capability of a foreign power to strike quickly, did not address the world of instant global communications from sworn enemies of the United States who had no public faces or traditional home countries.

After a honeymoon period of say, two or three days, the mainstream press and the liberal hounds started their march to the tune of "why do they hate us?" and the rhythms of "what did we do to bring this on?" followed by the mantra of "why are people in the government looking at our private communications and listening in on our private telephone calls?" The simple answer is--they're not, unless you're staying in touch with your terrorist friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then only if the communication originated there. Otherwise, your communications are protected by FISA, even though it has had to be much-revised since September 11, 2001.

Once the blood was in the water, the liberal sharks (and some conservative fuddy-duddies) started the "nothing like this has ever been allowed in American history before" litany. Well, in response to a Supreme Court decision forbidding warrantless domestic wiretapping, liberal icon Franklin Roosevelt authorized the FBI before Pearl Harbor to intercept "any communications, domestic or international of persons suspected of subversive activities, including suspected spies." Bush, upon careful advice from Yoo, never went that far.

Based on law, constitutional precedent, and the opinions of every appellate court which addressed the issue, including the FISA appellate court, and in tandem with the provisions of the Patriot Act in 2002, Yoo advised the President that he was free to intercept and investigate any communications from terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan which were addressed to persons physically present in the United States. The 2002 FISA court decision included the following clear words: "The President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. FISA cannot encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Five Inspectors General, ignoring everything cited above, have advised President Obama and Attorney General Holder that Professor Yoo was entirely wrong in the advice he gave President Bush, and have stated that they believe the overseas interceptions were both unlawful and unconstitutional. They relied on the rules which have been applied to Presidential power in peacetime, while ignoring the exigent circumstances, and the clear inability of Congress to declare war on a faceless enemy that was nevertheless conducting a war against America. Had Congress been able to declare war, then everything the left is throwing at Professor Yoo and his boss would be completely moot. In fact, it is clear that Yoo erred on the side of caution by advising Bush not to follow FDR's example.

But a political show trial is a political show trial, so facts mean next-to-nothing. In the early going, the pro-investigation, pro-trial forces on the left have singled out Professor Yoo as a particularly juicy target because of the wiretap advice as well as some things he has subsequently suggested about enhanced interrogation (but did not advise Bush on directly).

Even if it never happens, what makes this situation unique is the nature of what might be charged against Yoo. For the first time in modern American history, the President, Congressmen, Senators, and the Attorney General have been seriously considering the investigation and prosecution of a legal advisor to the President for offering legal advice. Even if some court, somewhere, sometime, should decide that Yoo was wrong in his opinion, that has never been grounds for prosecuting the advisor. Think of it this way: If Woo had advised President Bush that overseas wiretaps were illegal and unconstitutional, but that the President should go ahead and do so anyway out of emergency necessity, there might be a case. But exactly the opposite is true, and even the leftists out for Woo's scalp have never claimed otherwise.

Yoo is important only because he is a rather unknown figure outside legal and political circles, and as important as his advice was, it's not clear that he was personally important enough to the fortunes of political types on the right to warrant circling the wagons. They are wrong. In the event that such a thing should happen, the importance of the matter is that the Obama administration will have established the idea that is is perfectly acceptable to put a man on trial solely because he is on the wrong side of the political fence from a triumphalist political party-in-power. That slippery slope could easily lead to the end of two-party government in the United States.

Minor disclaimer: Although Professor Yoo teaches constitutional law at my alma mater, he arrived after I left, I have never met the man, and I have no ties to Boalt Hall other than my Alumni Club membership.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Dunking For Dollars

A Rhode Island Democrat Suggests Bush Should Volunteer To Be Waterboarded For Charity. $100 Per Second.

R.I. state representative Rod Driver sent letters to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice inviting them to participate in a charity event in which they would be waterboarded, gaining $100 for each second they could withstand the interrogation technique. No word yet on whether invitations were also sent to Nancy Pelosi and all the Democrat members of the Congressional committees who approved the technique, despite their lame denials.

I'm going to give this moron the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was just a nasty political joke. But even if it was, is this the way we should be dealing with an issue of extreme national importance? Driver says he thinks that since Bush doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture, he should be willing to submit to it, particularly since this is only for charity. This legislator has trivialized the torture debates, not just for those who believe in the waterboarding technique, but for those who oppose it as well.

Driver clearly thinks the technique works. He doesn't expect Bush to last even a full second before begging them to stop. On the other hand, if Driver considers it torture, then he is saying that torturing your opposition for a laugh is OK, just as long as the person being waterboarded isn't a jihadi terrorist with crucial information about a potential attack. Either way, the humor falls flat. This debate is real, serious and earnest, and there is no clear agreement on the technique even among the contributors on this blog. How does this kind of nonsense serve any legitimate purpose?

Of course there is always the alternative that Driver actually means what he's saying. In which case, his next stop should be a lunatic asylum--or San Francisco.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Life in NYC - Disaster Averted!

The news broke all over NY last night – the FBI and NY police department had foiled a plot of four home grown man-made disaster-ists to bomb a synagogue and Jewish community center in Riverdale in the Bronx and to shoot down military planes. Apparently the FBI has been following them since last summer [a Bush administration era operation, if you’re keeping track] and the investigation culminated in arrest of these four brainiacs. They were in the act of setting up parked cars wired with fake explosives supplied to an FBI informant when the FBI and NY police swooped in and arrested them. The only injury was a bump on the head for one of the suspects. That’s one for the good guys! Thank you, FBI! Thank you, NYPD! Thank you, Mr. Bush! [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...