Rachel Maddow Decieves Viewers On "Employee Free Choice Act"

I've always considered Ms. Maddow to be little more than an MSNBC Affirmative Action hire. Now we know she's a dishonest Affirmative Action hire as well.

As you can see here, like all supporters of Big Labor's latest power grab, she obfuscates--either intentionally or due to ignorance--what's actually in this monstrosity of a bill.

Sphere: Related Content

Deja-Vu With The Chinese

The fact that the Chinese did almost exactly the same thing to the Bush Administration eight springs ago begs the question as to whether this is a coincidence or the second instance in what is becoming a pattern of the Chinese government testing new American presidents early in their administrations.

China says US navy ship was breaking law-HK website
Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:35am

BEIJING, March 10 (Reuters) - China said a U.S. naval vessel was conducting illegal surveying activities off its southern island of Hainan, a Hong Kong television website reported on Tuesday, after the Pentagon said Chinese ships had harassed the vessel in international waters.

"The U.S. navy vessel concerned has been in China's special economic zone conducting illegal surveying activities," said a statement from the Chinese embassy in Washington, reported by the website of Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television (news.ifeng.com).

"China cannot accept these baseless accusations. China demands that the United States halt all illegal surveying activities," said the statement

OK China. Whatever you say.

Sphere: Related Content

Picture Friday. Volume 2.

URKLENOMICS.






I HAVE NO CLUE!

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Double Standard on School Vouchers

Obama is planning on screwing over two of his daughter's classmates by siding with the teacher's unions on school vouchers instead of with the poor families who care about their child's education.

If he's going to force these kids back into the DC public school system he should have the courage to send his daughters there as well.

By William McGurn
Dick Durbin has a nasty surprise for two of Sasha and Malia Obama's new schoolmates. And it puts the president in an awkward position.

The children are Sarah and James Parker. Like the Obama girls, Sarah and James attend the Sidwell Friends School in our nation's capital. Unlike the Obama girls, they could not afford the school without the $7,500 voucher they receive from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. Unfortunately, a spending bill the Senate takes up this week includes a poison pill that would kill this program -- and with it perhaps the Parker children's hopes for a Sidwell diploma.


Deborah Parker
Sarah and James Parker attend Sidwell Friends School with the president's daughters, thanks to a voucher program Sen. Dick Durbin wants to end.
Known as the "Durbin language" after the Illinois Democrat who came up with it last year, the provision mandates that the scholarship program ends after the next school year unless Congress reauthorizes it and the District of Columbia approves. The beauty of this language is that it allows opponents to kill the program simply by doing nothing. Just the sort of sneaky maneuver that's so handy when you don't want inner-city moms and dads to catch on that you are cutting one of their lifelines.

Deborah Parker says such a move would be devastating for her kids. "I once took Sarah to Roosevelt High School to see its metal detectors and security guards," she says. "I wanted to scare her into appreciation for what she has at Sidwell." It's not just safety, either. According to the latest test scores, fewer than half of Roosevelt's students are proficient in reading or math.

That's the reality that the Parkers and 1,700 other low-income students face if Sen. Durbin and his allies get their way. And it points to perhaps the most odious of double standards in American life today: the way some of our loudest champions of public education vote to keep other people's children -- mostly inner-city blacks and Latinos -- trapped in schools where they'd never let their own kids set foot.

This double standard is largely unchallenged by either the teachers' unions or the press corps. For the teachers' unions, it's a fairly cold-blooded calculation. They're willing to look the other way at lawmakers who chose private or parochial schools for their own kids -- so long as these lawmakers vote in ways that keep the union grip on the public schools intact and an escape hatch like vouchers bolted.

As for the press, complaints tend to be limited to the odd column or editorial. That's one reason it was so startling back in 2000 when Time magazine's Tamala Edwards, during a live televised debate at Harlem's Apollo Theater, asked Al Gore about the propriety of sending his own son to private school while opposing any effort to extend the same choice to African-Americans without his financial wherewithal. As CNN's Jeff Greenfield would note later in the same debate, Mr. Gore "bristled" when Ms. Edward's put the question to him.

Virginia Walden-Ford, executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice, wouldn't mind making a few more politicians bristle. "I'd like to see a reporter stand up at one of those nationally televised press conferences and ask President Obama what he thinks about what his own party is doing to keep two innocent kids from attending the same school where he sends his?"

As for Sidwell, the school has welcomed the Opportunity Scholarship program. Though headmaster Bruce Stewart declines to get into either politics or the Obamas, he says that a program that gives parents more educational options for their children is not only good for their kids, it's good for the community. Plainly he's not doing it for the money: Even the full D.C. voucher covers only a small fraction of Sidwell's actual costs.

All of which leaves the First Parent with a decision to make: Will he stand up for those like his own children's schoolmates -- or stand in front of the Sidwell door with Mr. Durbin? It's hard to imagine white congressional Democrats going up against him if he called them out on an issue where they have put him in this embarrassing position. This, after all, is a man who has written of the "anger" he felt as a community organizer, when his attempts to improve things for Chicago school kids ran up against an "uncomfortable fact."

"The biggest source of resistance [to reform]," he said, "was rarely talked about . . . namely, the uncomfortable fact that every one of our churches was filled with teachers, principals, and district superintendents. Few of these educators sent their own children to public schools; they knew too much for that. But they would defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before."

Let's just say that Sarah and James Parker -- and thousands just like them -- could use some of that same Obama anger right about now.

Sphere: Related Content

So Offensible

Clearly this WaPO cartoon is implying that Barack Obama is going to steal our white women away from us. Where's Al Sharpton when you need him?

Sphere: Related Content

Picture Friday

MY PRECIOUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Sphere: Related Content

Pork In The Budget

Ok. So we’ve already established that Obama was pulling a fast one on us when he campaigned on the whole “Hope Over Fear” thing.

We also found out that the ‘transparency in government’ stuff was BS, when instead of being put up online for five days as we were promised, the stimulus bill was shoved through congress without a single member being allowed time to read the actual bill.

Now we find out that Obama really didn’t mean what he's been saying about pork for the last year either.

I’m not even referring to the laughable statement that the president made in Tuesday’s address when he said that the stimulus package was passed without a single earmark. That was a fib. What I’m referring to is the President’s budget proposal, which was released today. Remember when Mr. Change said this on the campaign trail:

“We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”

...or not.

Here are a few of the 9000 earmark goodies that your tax dollars are going to and which the president hasn’t indicated that he has any problem with:

$1.7 million for a honey bee laboratory in Texas

$1.5 million for work on grapes and grape products — including wine

$1.8 million to research “swine odor and manure management” in Iowa

$200,000 for Gang Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach. What?

Unspecified amount for Lobster Farmers in Maine

$185,000 for coral reef research and preservation in Maui County, Hawaii

$55,000 in meteorological equipment for Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Calif.

$9.9 million for science enhancement at historically black colleges in South Carolina.

$9.9 million for South Carolina's historically black colleges and universities.

$473,000 for La Raza

$24,000 A+ for Abstinence program in PA.

$300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center.

$950,000 for the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center.

$190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY for digitizing and editing the Cody collection.

$143,000 for the Las Vegas Natural History Museum. Sponsored by Harry Reid

$238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, i.e – canoe trips
$381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York, NY for music education programs

A $950,000 nature education center in Moss Point, Miss.

$142,500 for a museum honoring the late House speaker Sam Rayburn

$300,000 for a science camp curriculum in West Virginia

$150,000 for renovations to the Westwood Theater in Rexburg, Idaho

Now, if President Obama doesn’t put up a fight and send this bill back to congress, demanding that all this junk be removed, I think any reasonable person has to conclude that the guy has broken yet another major promise to the American people.

And while breaking this promise he is at the same time talking about implementing job killing tax increases on entrpenuers and small bussiness owners who already pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country.

I know that these earmarks make up a relatively small percentage of the massive budget that Obama is proposing, and some of them were even proposed by GOP members of congress. But you all know that John McCain would never let this slide. Especially during an time of such econmoic uncertainty.

Spending money is the easiest thing for a politician to do. So forgive me if I’m not impressed by Mr. Obama’s ability to do so. I’m pretty sure that this was not what 52% of Americans voted for last Novemeber. And here's the real kicker. This bill actually contains earmarks put there by Obama an Biden when they were still Senators, but Obama cleverly took his name off of his earmark earlier this afternoon. How's that for transparency?

Sphere: Related Content

The GOP's Charisma Deficit

Last night Barack Obama gave a typical Democratic State Of The Union address in which he promised America the moon and stars. He told us he was going to cure cancer, pay for the college education of America’s children and halve the federal deficit. Amazingly, the only people who are going to have their taxes increased in order to pay for these things are the richest 2% of the population. Obama may as well have called for a permanent end to rain and crying babies.

Now, I know that Obama apologists are never going to second guess their hero, especially not this early into his first term, but for the rest of us, don’t you think it’s time for a little soul searching? The lesson Republicans should be learning as they are viewing the Obama love fest is that a lot of folks don’t care what’s being said as long as they like the guy who’s saying it and the style in which it’s being delivered.


Last night his supporters and much of the mainstream media continued to swoon, and didn’t bat an eye when the President had the audacity to tell them that the stimulus didn’t contain a single “earmark”. Apparently Obama has done to the term “earmark” what Bill Clinton attempted to do to the word “is”.

Of course after Obama’s speech the G.O.P followed him with Governor Bobby Jindal. Jindal is intelligent, young, has a story as unique and as interesting as Obama’s. His speech was a thoughtful, well laid out counter to the big government principles that Obama had spent the last hour talking about. Unfortunately, it was quickly evident, even to Republicans that the man who some Republicans were touting as “our party’s Obama” just a few hours ago, wasn’t even close. Jindal wasn’t just up against the pomp and fanfare of a Presidential address to a joint session of Congress, he was also up against the inevitable comparisons between his style of speaking to that of the president who was carried into office primarily because of his charisma and ability to connect with voters through rhetoric. There was no way Jindal was going to win that battle. Ten seconds into Jindal’s speech I turned to my father and said “This guy’s kind of a dork”.

Ten seconds after Jindal had finished; no one was talking about what the young Louisiana governor had said. Instead they were commenting on his strange, sing-songy delivery, his deer in headlights appearance and the fact that it was difficult to take him seriously after the rhetorical flourish and applause filled Obama stem-winder.

This leads us to an important question. Does the G.O.P have any chance of winning future elections, especially presidential ones, or even having people pay attention to our message over the next four years, without a charismatic, well-spoken individual out in front? I say no.

Since the Reagan years our presidential candidates have all had a certain type of charisma that appeals to a certain subset of Americans, but none of them possessed that natural charm or that aura of modern cool or the manipulation of easy to swallow talking points, that appeals to a broad spectrum of the American Idol viewing public.

George H.W. Bush was certainly a smart guy who knew just about everything there was to know about the inner workings of the federal government, but he was an exceptionally dull communicator. Robert Dole had a similar problem. He was qualified for the office of the presidency, but folks didn’t want to watch him on TV for the next four to eight years.

George W. Bush had certain type of straightforward Texas charm that was refreshing to a lot of folks after eight years of slick-Willy, however he was never able to effectively communicate on his feet and therefore couldn’t adequately defend his administration’s actions when defense was necessary. It also helped Bush immensely that he ran against two of the most obnoxious politicians of the age in Al Gore and John Kerry.

John McCain came across as being hot tempered and was clearly uncomfortable with talking points. He did not give off an aura of calm, especially when compared to his opponent.

What the party needs to do right now is to look at who we have waiting in the wings and make a certain amount of charisma and oratorical skill a prerequisite for our party’s nomination in 2012 and beyond. It doesn’t matter what wing of the party this individual comes from, be it the intellectual, country-club side (Mitt Romney) or the populist, social conservative side (Mike Huckabee), we have to come to terms with the fact that the last two times a Democratic president has been elected, they have had a huge advantage in the charisma column. Their nomination and subsequent election was made possible by the fact that most Democrats don’t care about experience. Their candidates agree on almost every major issue, so in the end the only difference between the candidates is their personal appeal to the Democratic primary voters.

G.O.P voters think a bit differently. There are several wings of the party and our voters have varied criteria on their checklist when choosing a presidential nominee. Unfortunately, in this environment we can’t trust the rest of the electorate to think as we do and vote for candidates because of their values, ideas, experience and vision. A Bobby Jindal simply won’t cut it anymore; despite the depth and salience of the message he’s delivering.

2012 will be a test for our party and depending on Barack Obama’s popularity it may be a test that we are destined to fail. However we must, as a party, begin to present likeable, well-spoken, cool, charismatic faces to the American public, who are ready for prime time. If this doesn’t not happen, young voters will never give us a chance and voters who are apolitical until they enter the voting booth will have no reason to pull the Republican lever.

I believe that Barack Obama is talented and intelligent, however I don’t buy into the description of him as “brilliant”. Some of his more enthusiastic supporters have begun describing him as such, but I am yet to see any real evidence that he is more than an incredibly well spoken guy who has thus far led a charmed existence in national politics. I don’t believe he’s any smarter than a Bobby Jindal, a Newt Gingrich, a Mark Sanford or a Tim Pawlenty. However if we fail to find a personality as intriguing and pleasing to the ear as Obama is, no amount of policy genius or time in office will make a lick of difference.

If Republicans want to win elections we should not, as some suggest, become more like the Democrats in terms of our policies. Instead we should emulate their recent ability to pick candidates with enough charm to make an otherwise uninterested electorate take notice and start really paying attention to what we have to say.

-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Bill Maher: Obama's Secretary Of Dumb

Despite the fact that they don't have George W. Bush to kick around any more, the pathological need that comedians and other celebrities have to put their ignorance on display clearly hasn't taken a hiatus.

Bill Maher can be a funny guy, but he really knows very little about politics or policy. So it's absolutely infuriating when this guy gets an hour on Larry King Live to pretend he's a pundit. That must be what he's doing because in this interview he's not funny at all. He's just angry.

For God's sake, this is the guy who says he's a "Libertarian"! Does he not know what that word means?

Here are some of the dumber things the HBO talk host said in his last venting session with King.

On the Stimulus:

"He offered what they wanted -- the tax cuts, which really are not stimulus. And he should have said from the beginning, look, I won the election, OK? We're going do it my way now. We tried that idea -- that tax cuts solve every problem. We had that. And that's what got us into this mess."

First off, anyone who still can't admit that tax cuts stimulate the economy is living in a partisan dream world. It's been proven time and time again that tax cuts, especially those which are targeted toward the people who pay the lion's share of the taxes, have a stimulative effect. It was true when Kennedy did it. It was true when Reagan did it and it was true when George W. Bush did it. Hopefully these smaller tax cuts will have a similar effect, but don't tell me that tax cuts don't work. If anything, it is yet to be proven that the heavily Keynesian approach that Obama is taking, works. So on this front Maher doesn't know what he's talking about.

In addition the idea that Republicans believe that tax cuts "solve everything" as well as the idea that that tax cuts are what got us "into this mess" are little more than Democratic talking points aimed at the folks that don't understand how the current financial crisis came about. No one thinks that tax-cuts "solve everything" but don't put up a false choice in order to help Obama push through his agenda. I thought Maher was above that.

On Judd Gregg:
"I guess his Republican friends got to him -- you know, like the mob."

Right. You see this statement shows us that Maher believes that Gregg had no political convictions. I would be interested to see what Maher thinks about Obama's decision to completely politicize the census. This was the real reason Gregg left and will have sweeping ramifications in regard to....


Political demographics:

"You know, I hope that they're looking at what he's doing, because he's going to Republican areas. He went to Indiana -- a Republican district. He went to Florida. When he read that onstage: "The stimulus package passed," they all cheered."

Just because Obama was in a Republican district doesn't mean that their are no Democratic Obama worshipers in that particular place. Every Democrat in the county is going to come out for the chosen one. And of course folks like Julio are going to cheer for Obama. That's his base. A guy like Julio would cheer for Obama if Obama told him that the government was going to provide him with a helper monkey to organize his bong collection. Why was Maher surprised by this?

"You know, the people, I think, are on his page. And, you know, I think we need one more election to get rid of some of these mossbacks who just don't get it. I mean they're taking their orders -- their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. He is effectively the head of the Republican Party right now.....I think they're absolutely following Rush. And that's how clueless that party is. They looked to find the future, and they found radio."

The word "mossback" has two definitions. I think Maher was using it in order to infer that the G.O.P is old-fashioned and reactionary. Unless he was calling us all large sluggish fish.

It's incredibly ironic that any celebrity who suddenly became a political expert during the Bush years, would lecture the G.O.P. on being "reactionary". This is especially true in the case of Maher who once discussed the benefits of having Dick Cheney killed with his crack panel which generally consists of Krauthammer like intellects such as Eve Ensler, author of "The Vagina Monologues" and Mos Def, who penned the classic political anthem "Ms. Fat Booty".

Now, it's true. I do believe that Rush Limbaugh is the most powerful guy in the party at the moment, and Liberals keep telling us that this is a bad thing. (Me thinks they doth protest too much.) I'm not sure how they're arriving at this conclusion since like tax cuts, talk radio has proven time and time again to be a very effective G.O.P stimulus, which is exactly what our party needs right now. For all of you who think that Limbaugh is just some dope with a microphone and that Maher is somehow more enlightened or thoughtful, I encourage you to listen to the two of them opine back to back. Listen to them for five minutes and it's obvious that Limbaugh is far more well-read on matters political. It's analysis (if not always incredibly deep) vs. talking point generated laugh lines aimed at Republicans.

For a long time I thought Maher was a bit more like John Stewart and that his constant mockery of George Bush was just a comedian being a comedian. If figured that when the next president rode into to town he wouldn't give that guy the benefit of the doubt either, in the name of laughter. However it's now clear that not only is Maher a liberal, but that he's also a shill for President Obama.

The media got what they wanted in President Obama. It's now time for them to stop giving ignorant, partisan celebrities a platform to play pundit. If Maher wants to discuss silly, unimportant, liberal favorites such as his contention that organized religion is the root of all evil let him do it. But don't encourage him to start spewing nonsense when it comes to important issues like the economy and foreign policy. Someone might actually take him seriously and there is far too much at stake right now to give Maher any real power.

Sphere: Related Content

ABSENT

How Barney Frank was left off of Time magazines List of the 25 people to Blame For The Economic Crisis Is Beyond Me. At least the left-leaning weekly was honest enough to give Bill Clinton some of the blame. However leaving off Frank, one of the top apologists for Fannie and Freddie as well as a chief proponent of The Community Reinvestment Act is a glaring omission.

Sphere: Related Content

Paging Dr. Stupid

Dumb Daschle Idea Snuck In With Stimulus

Have you ever seen the movie Saw III? I know, I know just hear me out. Throughout the movie the bad guy sets up elaborate “tests” for his victims and they must overcome both psychological and physical torture in order to live.

Well, at the end of part III, the bad guy is killed, however I turns out that he’s placed more traps to be activated post-mortem and manages to continue to lead his victims into them even after he dies, by way of tape recorders placed all over the city.

Scary and realistic!

Well, as it turns out the vanquished Tom Daschle has done pretty much the same thing. Before being asked to drop out of consideration for HHS secretary due to a failure to pay taxes, he convinced Barack Obama to sneak something into the stimulus bill.

While most of the non-stimulus items in Obama’s massive pork-package are wasteful, but only harmful when added up, i.e. millions for Frisbee golf courses, honeybee insurance, etc. This one is incredibly dangerous on its own. Here’s what it is:

The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research or FCCCER, which is the perfect acronym for this, starts off as a fairly decent idea. It would put all medical records into a big federal database. This is terrific because it eliminates all of the administrative costs associated with paper records, which are staggering, and it will allow for the easier transfer of records from hospital to hospital.

Then it gets bad. SAW III bad.

First there would be a new bureaucracy. This government bureaucracy will monitor each time you go to the doctor and if these bureaucracy think that the treatment that your doctor is giving you is too expensive then they will “guide” your doctor into taking some other course of action. If your doctor doesn’t do what the feds recommend, either due to a disagreement with their ideas of what procedures would be most “appropriate and cost effective” they would be punished. So now Uncle Sam is basically limiting your personal doctor who knows you far better than Tom Daschle does (I’m guessing) to procedures that Uncle Sam endorses.

Now here’s where it gets creepy. Doctors who go along with the plan will be known as “meaningful users”. This title is not defined, but if you’re not considered a “meaningful user” of the system you will face penalties. And in a quote directly from the bill that could have come out of an Orwell novel, the HHS secretary will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time”. So eventually, one guy in Washington DC will be able to add to the list of procedures your doctor can’t perform whenever he gets the urge. To me “Meaningful Users” sounds like robot-talk. And not friendly robot’s either.

Why would they do this you ask? Well it’s quite simple. In order to bring down health care costs Obama and Daschle want the government to discourage doctors from using expensive new medications and new technologies. They also want Americans to become more accepting of “hopeless diagnoses” and of “forgoing experimental treatments”. Sorry Grandma, you’re gonna’ die! Deal with it.

And the more reliant on the government we become for our health care, the fewer options that are open to sick people. The article that exposed this smelly little nugget that was being slipped into the stimulus at the last minute, explains that this FCCCER, was modeled after a similar program in the UK.

“This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. “

The introduction of FCCCER into the stimulus bill is sneaky and manipulative on Obama’s part. He is taking advantage of taxpayers during a time when Americans have become so fearful of economic collapse that Obama has been able to convince them that even debating his trillion-dollar stimulus plan is counterproductive. Not only is this a bad way to govern, but the long-term ramifications FCCCER itself are horrendous.

You see, if the federal government is going to tell doctors what equipment they can use, and what medications are allowed to be given to sick patients and the government will take pains to fall on the more cost-effective side, this eliminates the private sector’s incentives to create newer, better drugs and life saving technologies. The guy who stands to make a fortune by building a better MRI isn’t going to build it if doctors wont use it out of fear of being punished by the government. So while in the short term, health care cost will go down, important medical advances will take longer to realize and in many case stagnate far longer than necessary.

It’s a real life horror movie that none of us need to live through. The only thing that can save us now is the good sense of two senators from Maine and one former cancer patient from Pennsylvania, who might not be with us now if the government had told him that his advanced case of Hodgkin’s Lymphoma was a “hopeless diagnosis” and one which he should simply “accept”.

-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

No Middle Ground

More fear. Less Hope. But what I really, really want to hear is the President's explanation as to how the Bush tax cuts, "helped lead us into this crisis." Anyone? Bueller?

Monday, February 09, 2009
Pratfall
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:31 PM

The president's press conference was a huge mistake, not because he made a partisan case for his massive spending plan. Nothing else could be expected.

But when he distorted the GOP opposition as wanting to do nothing he lost the game. The American people are tuned into this debate and know very well that the GOP is committed to a large but balanced stimulus plan that puts tax relief and immediate infrastructure spending to work to immediately surge the economy. They have listened closely to the arguments made on the Senate floor and know that the president's bald mischaracterization of those positions is just false.

Combine that bit of theater with the deeply disturbing answer on Iran --looking for Iran to reach out to us after two weeks of "diplomacy"-- and his incoherent explanatuion of the origins of the financial crisis, and the president left millions cold and worried tonight. He may get his porkapalooza, but the campaign rhetoric tonight is not up to the job, and voters know it.

Sphere: Related Content

Really, Really, Really Good News

I'll reitorate. This is by far the most important upcoming election for the GOP. We must win this one.

From Rassmussen Reports:
Feb, 6

Republican Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell has a three-to-nine point lead against three hopefuls for the Democratic nomination in this year’s closely-watched Virginia gubernatorial contest.

McDonnell, who announced this week that he will step down from his post on February 20 to campaign full-time for governor, bested only one of the three Democrats in early December.

Now, the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows the lone Republican gubernatorial candidate topping his best-known opponent, Terry McAuliffe, by seven points, 42% to 35%. In December, he held a five-point edge over McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant, major Democratic fund-raiser and former national party chairman.

McDonnell is even further ahead of Rep. R. Creigh Deeds of Bath County – 39% to 30%. The two men were tied two months ago.

Brian J. Moran, a former state delegate from Alexandria, led McDonnell by four points in the earlier survey but now trails by three, 39% to 36%

Sphere: Related Content

But...Hope! Change! Wait a minute, where's everyone going?

Stumbling out the gate: Barack Obama flubs his first big test
Updated Sunday, February 8th 2009, 9:45 AM
By Michael Goodwin

The first days of President Barack Obama have not been easy ones. It's not easy to waste a mandate and a honeymoon at the same time, but President Obama seems determined to try. You know he's off to a lousy start when his most favorable reviews came after he said, "I screwed up." Did he ever, and not just once. If he keeps going this way, America will be saying, "We screwed up."

He's our President, it's a horribly dangerous time at home and abroad and we desperately need him to succeed. But he can't be successful unless he builds a broad swath of public trust in his leadership. So far, he's going backward.

It's very early, but it's worrisome that Obama has stumbled almost since he took the oath. His inauguration speech was uninspired and next to nothing has gone right for him. Already he looks like he needs a vacation.

The historic young President with the political wind at his back has quickly turned testy toward those who disagree with him. Despite promises to the contrary, he's been so rigid that the defeated Republicans are relevant again.

Obama's fumbled rollout is surprising, given a smooth and skillful transition. He appointed key players early, talked repeatedly of being ready "to hit the ground running" and was eager to get off to a fast start.

Maybe too fast. His vetting of top aides was shockingly sloppy, and he has been concerned primarily with the speed of the stimulus bill, not its contents. The failed vetting produced a string of embarrassments over tax dodgers and influence peddlers, and his embrace of the flawed stimulus has put him on the wrong side of the American public, with only about 1 in 3 voters with him.

Even more surprising, his famously cool temperament is AWOL. He has been visibly frustrated at what he calls needless delay, despite a rapid timetable given the whopping price tag of the stimulus legislation and the uncertainty of its impact.

He should genuinely welcome those who want to make the bill better. After all, there's never been much doubt he would get a huge package passed, so he doesn't need to make enemies over it. The only real question is whether it will succeed.

But unable to get his way quickly, he pulled rank with a snippy, "I won." When the Senate insisted on debate, he turned to harsh attacks and campaign-style rhetoric. Some insiders already are grumbling about disarray and arrogance.
So much for a change in Washington.

What happened to the gracious uniter, the man who held a dinner to honor opponent John McCain and embraced the concept of a team of rivals? That seems like ancient history as he and McCain now are sniping at each other

It's also disappointing that, instead of appealing to our hopes, Obama has resorted to fear-mongering, a tactic he often accused former President George Bush of using. Our new President sounds like the old one, warning that failing to do what he wants would be a "catastrophe," a word he used twice in one day.

The real catastrophe would be to borrow a trillion dollars for no lasting result except the liberal pet projects that have turned the bill into a porkfest.

A friend, in a clever reference to JFK's first big mistake, calls it Bambi's Bay of Pork. Obama's touting the bill marks him as careless with taxpayer dollars, and it's a reputation he will not find easy to shake, especially if the legislation fails to boost the economy and add jobs.

Nor will it be easy to persuade anyone he is nonideological after his turn to hard partisanship on just his 16th day in office. In a political hot-house atmosphere, he called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "our rock" and "an extraordinary leader," oblivious to her 18% approval rating. He claimed the stimulus she produced reflected "discipline," meaning he's either cynical or didn't bother to read the turkey before embracing it.

He accused critics of pushing "tired arguments and worn ideas," but there is nothing more tired than Washington's wasteful spending. He wants to "name and shame" corporate fat cats who abuse taxpayer bailouts, but cheers his Dem mates for an outrageous tab that knows no precedent in our nation's history.

Who is this guy? Where is the Barack Obama who charmed the country and challenged it to greatness?

That's the guy we elected. That's the President we need.

Actually, I'm beginning to think that this is the President we need:

Sphere: Related Content

Call These Dudes......

Instead of bitching about the defections of Specter, Snowe and Collins, let's be proactive and target red state Democrats. Here are a trio of Democrats who could really suffer if their constituents find out that they're backing Pelosi's stimulus plan. Call these senators on Monday.

Blanche Lincoln (D)-Arkansas
(202) 224-4843

Jon Tester (D)- Montana
(202) 224-2644

Mark Begich (D) - Alaska
(202) 224-3004

And tell them to do something about this as well....

Sphere: Related Content

Introducing "The Endive"

Here is a posting from a site called "The Endive" which is essentially a conservative answer to "The Onion". If this posting is any indication as to what we can expect from these guys in the coming years then at least something good will have come from this entire Obama mess.


Obama Taps his Kenyan Half-Brother to Improve Stimulus Plan

President Barack Obama presented improvements to his economic stimulus plan following an outpouring of criticism from Republican Senators.

“My half brother George just informed me via e-mail that he has just inherited the sum of $66.6 billion American dollars, but he fears losing it to his corrupt government,” said the President, “Therefore, we can help each other out at the same time. All we have to do is set up an account for him here in America. For this, he promises to give us 95 percent of the money.”

According to the President, George Obama is ready to transfer the funds immediately; he just needs $5,000 U.S. dollars for the wire transfer and Kenyan legal fees. The President’s plan generated optimism in the Senate.

“This is the best plan I’ve heard in years. A small investment of taxpayer money will pay off in spades as soon as George makes that wire transfer,” said Chris Dodd, D-CT, “If the American people don’t accept this plan, I may go ahead and do it myself. I didn’t even realize they had that kind of money in Kenya!”

“We tried a similar plan in Vermont,” said Patrick Leahy, D-VT, “A nice young gentleman from Nigeria was on his death bed and didn’t want the government taking his money. We set up an account for him and sent him $3,000 U.S. dollars in legal and wire fees. We also went ahead and sent him another $5,000 for radiation treatment and $8,500 to keep the Nigerian government off his back. He plans to transfer the money any day now, and boy are we excited!”

Republicans weren’t quite as excited, but didn’t seem all that motivated to do anything about it.

“Yeah, I got a similar e-mail from a young man in Zimbabwe,” said Lindsey Graham, R-SC, “But I decided to ignore that e-mail and instead respond to the one that promised me that she will love me more if I take two pills a day and become huge. I’m looking forward to becoming huge.”

“I found quite a deal on Viagra,” said Lamar Alexander, R-TN, “It must’ve saved the taxpayers at least $200. I wasn’t really paying attention to Obama’s plan. It probably involves too much spending, though.”

The President finished his presentation of the amended plan with a word of outreach to all Senators.

“If we pass this thing,” said Obama, “Not only will George give us billions of dollars, but he has promised to throw in an entire bag of weed.”

“Is that reefer?” said Robert Byrd, D-WV, “I like the reefer.”

Sphere: Related Content

Ashley Judd's Caribou Bloodlust

As many of you know, I am an animal lover. I have a soft spot for all of God’s creatures except of course for snakes and insects. But we all hate those things, so it’s ok. This is why I was so disappointed this week, when actress Ashley Judd publicly came out in opposition to laws in Alaska that protect the endangered caribou population.

First of all, it is beyond me why Ms. Judd, would want to make it more difficult for the caribou, whose population hovered around 500 only a few short years ago, to survive.

Since these protective measures, which Ms. Judd opposes, have been put in place Alaska’s Fish and Game department estimates that the caribou population has increased to 6500 this year.

So why would Ms. Judd want to put the caribou at risk of becoming endangered once more?

I mean come on Ashley. Look at this little guy. Isn’t he adorable? Look at those big eyes, that soft fur, and those majestic horns. How could you want such beautiful animal to die Ashley? Have you no soul? I was particularly surprised by Ms. Judd's actions because individuals in her industry are usually so level headed and intelligent.

I don’t know why Ashley Judd hates caribou. But I do know that there’s something you can do if you care about protecting these incredible animals. If you care, please visit this site, and go to their page on protecting Alaska’s caribou population. Here you will learn how we can stop the murderous Ms. Judd from destroying Alaska’s precious eco system and sending the caribou into extinction.


STORY:JUDD ENDORSES CARIBOU SLAUGHTER

Sphere: Related Content

THIS IS NOT GOING WELL

THIS IS NOT GOING WELL

His cabinet nominees are being revealed as tax cheats, he’s dropping charges against terrorists who have murdered American soldiers and he’s promoting a massive government spending package that includes $150 million dollars to insure honeybees in the name of economic stimulus. Is this what you Obama supporters voted for?
The president seems to think it is.

Attempting to shift the blame back on the G.O.P. for our current economic troubles, last night Obama attempted to make the case that honeybee insurance and STD prevention was what the American people voted for last November.

“I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change”

“Change” perhaps. But do you really believe that Barack Obama would have won the election if he had proposed a trillion dollars in government spending during the campaign? I think not.

No, Obama’s supporters voted for two things. “Change” and “Hope”. “Hope Over Fear” to be exact. Of course Obama’s not delivering that either. In his attempts to terrify the nation into supporting him, Obama has repeatedly tried to convince the American people that an economic boogeyman dwells within their closets and that this monster will not hesitate to eat your children while they sleep.

“Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.”

You really have to be completely ignorant of history and economic cycles to think that any economic downturn that strikes a free market is permanent. To the contrary, history shows us that it is the socialist nations, the ones which so many on the left, including Obama himself, think that we should emulate, that tend to fall into stagnation and long term economic malaise.

Obama is a great campaigner, however thus far his actual leadership abilities and his abilities as an executive have been exposed as tremendously sub-par . Because he’s still in campaign mode but now lacks the huge crowds and internet support structure which he enjoyed during the campaign, he is getting discouraged and angry.
In his speech last night Obama publicly showed that he is a liberal Democrat to the end and not at all interested in extending any real olive branch to the other side.

We now essentially have a one party government. Because of this, common sense compromise proposals such as John McCain’s, in which all unspent money in the stimulus package would be put back into the general fund once the recession ends, won’t even be considered by Harry Reid. The reason for this is simple. The current stimulus is largely a payoff to Democratic special interest groups. These groups want their money and they want it now.

17%. That’s the amount of the stimulus package that will actually get shot in the arm of the economy with in the next year. Obama mocks his opponents as he prepares to unnecessarily add to the deficits and debt, which he derided throughout his Presidential campaign.

Within two weeks Obama has become the complete opposite of what he claimed to be in the year during which he enchanted a large, tractable swath of the American people into supporting him for our nation’s highest office.

Now we are subjected to false narratives and continued talking points from a partisan cheerleader, when what we need is a president.

Republicans, believe that we need a real stimulus package, one with both tax-cuts and spending, especially on infrastructure, but also one, which is void of pork and non-stimulative Democratic handouts. We also now believe that everything we warned you about Obama over the last year and half been proven to be true. We are weaker in the eyes of our enemies and on a path to a nanny state. Two weeks in, a great big ‘we told you so’ seems to be well on the way.

There is good news however. Recently on Facebook and on other social networks, I’ve noticed that since the inauguration Obama supporters have essentially tuned out having no interest in defending Obama’s economic package or his moratorium on “The War On Terror”, while Republicans have begun to use these tools to connect with each other and expose the Democrats agenda.

Obama thought that he was so popular and had received such a mandate, that he could get away with anything. Even allowing San Francisco liberal, Nancy Pelosi to craft the centerpiece of his economic policy. Fortunately, most of the nation is way too smart to give him a pass and the approval for his stimulus currently wallows in the mid-30’s.

The honeymoon is over Mr. President. You’ve “screwed up”.


-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Brainwashed In New Rochelle

Nothing tics me off more than when adults use kids to promote a poltical agenda or attempt to brainwash them via arts and crafts. Here's one example from Michelle Malkin:

"Caution: Tax dollars at work, creating 7-year-old Obama-bots in the New Rochelle, NY school system.

Students at an elementary school in New Rochelle, NY, a largely Democratic suburb of New York City with a City Council and School Board dominated by Democrats, were recently assigned an in-class assignment to color in drawings of Barack Obama to mark the occasion of the inauguration of the 44th President. The drawings depicted Obama in various heroic poses, flags waving in the background, but one drawing went beyond adulation into overt political activity disguised as a pedagogical exercise. The drawing is a campaign button, in the center of a circle Barack Obama is smiling surrounded by another circle with the words “Students for Obama 2008″.
Do public school employees cross the line with this sort of thing?

At least one student objected but her concerns were ignored.
“I was mad”, the second grader told Talk of the Sound. “I wanted McCain to win”.
New Rochelle Superintendent of Schools Richard Organisciak, an Obama supporter, did not respond to emails requesting comment."

If you want to e-mail this "academic" feel free.


Richard Organisciak
Superintendent of Schools
City School District of New Rochelle
rorganisciak@newrochelle.k12.ny.us

Sphere: Related Content

Hope Over Fear

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Starts Off As A Divider

For those of you who read these posts, you know that I have already expressed my disappointment in Obama’s abandonment of the whole “Hope Over Fear” pledge, which was the centerpiece of his campaign. Obama going on TV everyday and warning us of economic Armageddon unless congress signs off on $325 million for STD prevention, is just as fearmongery as anything George W. Bush was ever accused of hyping .

I also understand the limits and rules of the political game. Obama has to convince people that the situation is dire if he wants to get his agenda through. However, his supporters and detractors alike should be honest enough to admit that he is not fulfilling his promise of a tone change in Washington.

Today Obama’s oft repeated promise of tone change, a post-partisan era and unity once again showed itself to be little more than political sloganeering as Obama put forward a bill, so partisan, so ideologically charged that not even a single Republican could find a reason to vote for it. In fact, even 11 House Democrats abandoned the popular President, in order to oppose the pork laden spend fest that was the Obama “stimulus” package.

I keep telling myself; ‘The guys not stupid. He must have known that this bill didin’t have a chance at getting Republicans on-board.’ That’s what bothers me so much about it.

Obama could have put forward a bill that was a bit cheaper. One that had a chance of garnering bi-partisan support. He said he wanted votes from both sides of the aisle and he came into office with enough good will to achieve it if that’s what he really wanted. However, Obama seemingly couldn’t wait to cast off this illusion of a new era of compromise and instead put forward a bill that flies in the face of everything Republican’s stand for.

Partisans will love this. That’s not the point though. The point is that eight days into his administration, Obama has shown himself to be a completely different guy than the man who talked of our “unity of purpose” in his inaugural address.


It will be easy for some of Obama’s most heartfelt and loyal supporters to write off the discrepancy between Obama’s words and actions as one of necessity given our current situation. However, I will remind you that the campaign was not that long ago. Obama knew what lay ahead and yet even after his electoral victory kept using the same rhetoric in order to appeal to his supporters and those who didn’t vote for him, but who were open to his promise of a new style of leadership.

So with all due respect, I ask this of Barack Obama’s most loyal supporters. Will you be willing to overlook hypocrisy over the next four years, if the president’s agenda suits your desires or will you hold president Obama accountable for the promises he made and the way he presented himself to the American people?

Your answer to that question should tell you a lot about yourself. Especially those who are relatively new to the poltical process, and I know that’s a whole lot of you.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Rookie Mistake

In his first week as President, Barack Obama made it a priority to be seen as breaking with Bush policy. In a largely symbolic move he ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. If he’s lucky, Obama will see his order come to fruition sometime next year.

Next, he ordered that interrogation methods used on suspected Jihadists be limited to the toothless guidelines laid out in the Army Field Manual. Whatever one's opinion of this move as policy, one has to admire Obama’s bravery. Turning U.S. policy 180 degrees from where it has been for the past seven attack-free years is almost certain to be at the center of any debate that occurs following another terrorist attack on American soil.

The break from the Bush years that really caught me off guard however occurred on Friday. From the time of the Florida recount to the childish boos that greeted him at Obama's inauguration, George W. Bush never responded to his critics in the media. Not to the hyperpartisan voices of Bill Moyers or Keith Olberman. Not to the borderline senility of Helen Thomas. Not to Paul Krugman who spent eight years on the op-ed page of the Times praying for a recession. Not to the deranged and uninformed rantings of comedians, actors and musicians who suddenly fancied themselves members of the pundit class because someone stuck an Air America microphone in their face. Certainly not to the thousands of left-wing bloggers whose visceral and pathological hatred of President Bush sparked numerous conspiracy theories which often culminated in calls for harm to befall high-ranking members of the Administration such as Dick Cheney or the cancer-stricken Tony Snow. For eight years, Bush kept above the fray. For better or worse, he attended to the business of the nation rather than engage the other side. Three days into his administration Obama attacked Rush Limbaugh.

Predictably, many on the left cheered when in defense of his stimulus package Obama said:

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

This was seemingly in response to Limbaugh’s recent comments in which he openly stated that he hopes Obama’s agenda “fails”.

Whatever you think of Rush Limbaugh, it is impossible to deny the influence that he wields among the Republican base. In fact, it is likely that it extends even further. Limbaugh’s show was the catalyst for the talk radio boom of the nineties and helped turn moderates and independents against Bill Clinton leading to the G.O.P’s big mid-term victories in 1994. His audience of nearly 14 million listeners a week is the highest of any radio show in the nation.

Ironically, Obama followed his attack on Limbaugh with a call for bipartisanship. What Obama failed to realize is that because of the lack of high profile G.O.P leaders in the government, Limbaugh is now one of the de facto leaders of the Republican party. Talk radio is by far the most effective conduit for Republican ideas. It is to conservatives in the wilderness what newspaper editorial pages and blogs such as Kos and Huff Po were to liberals during the Bush years.
In attacking him, Obama has not only given Limbaugh a high profile shout out, but has also made Limbaugh relevant to the process. His attack on a beloved conservative figure will serve as a rallying cry to his devoted listeners, many of whom were prepared to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in his early days in office. No more.

Furthermore, by making a statement in which the implication was that he doesn’t take Rush Limbaugh seriously and that the American people shouldn’t either, Obama exposed the fact that he clearly does take Limbaugh seriously. Why else would he find it necessary to mention him?

Obama is the President Of the United States. I doubt that Obama would sit down with the radical leader of a third world country elevating that leader’s cause and tactics by the mere presence of America’s highest ranking official unless he felt that the United States had something to gain. So why would he draw attention to his detractors if their points were lacking validity?

Perhaps I’m overthinking this. Perhaps Obama simply didn’t think about what he said before he said it. Maybe this is the sequel to his now infamous comments about “bitter” Pennsylvanians clinging to their guns and bibles because they lack job security. If this is the case, then it tells us that Obama has not yet made the transition from grass-roots, left-wing candidate Obama to President-of-all-the- people Obama.

Obama will soon realize that there is nothing to be gained by setting up a talk-radio straw man, because as Bill Clinton learned, talk radio is not made of straw and will fight back if engaged by the President. Don’t believe me? Consider this. A few weeks ago Republicans were all talking about how they hoped Obama was a “successful” president. It was Limbaugh who was the first to make the point that if Republicans truly believe that big government is an economic albatross and that history shows us that it is destined to lead to more problems in the long run than it solves in the short term, then we have a patriotic duty to do everything we can to make sure that Obama’s agenda doesfail.

Once Limbaugh’s statement was reported out of context by the mainstream media in an attempt to expose those mean and nasty Republicans who were refusing to cave into Obama’s plans, I think that many wanted to know if Limbaugh could have actually said something so far outside the spirit of bipartisanship. Once they saw what Limbaugh actually said it was a huge wake-up call for Republicans who up until them had been disillusioned by November’s electoral defeat and were afraid of picking a fight with a president whose honeymoon was expected to last years.

When Obama mentioned Limbaugh by name, Rush’s statement went from being a minor news story to a rallying cry among the Republican base. Come tomorrow, Limbaugh will have additional justification for working against Obama because he was attacked personally by the leader of the free world. It’s a win-win for Rush.

If President Obama wants to get bogged down in a fight with talk radio at the expense of his policy plans, conservatives should welcome it. It will distract him from his agenda and ensure that it fails. In all honesty, I hope it does.

-Dan

Sphere: Related Content

Time To Put The Race Issue Behind Us

Barack Obama’s first speech as President was monumental for the circumstances surrounding it, but not incredibly memorable or consequential for what was said by the new President. There were no standout lines, no soaring rhetoric, it was a straightforward speech aimed to appeal to everyone regardless of party and is likely an indicator of the strategy of triangulation, which is to be pursued by the new Commander In Chief.

While Obama’s speech lacked anything even remotely controversial, the speech marked a turning point in our history far greater than the transition of power itself. Jan 20th 2009 should be remembered as the day that the issue of race was diminished in importance to a point near insignificance.

This realization may be hard for some to swallow. Over the years the issue of race has been used to avoid discussion of serious problems facing the poorest African American communities as well as a weapon with which to bludgeon those who criticize the nanny state and the un-American nature of outdated Affirmative Action programs.

The torch was passed on Tuesday afternoon, but it did not simply pass from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, but also from a generation of civil rights leaders who until now represented the African American community to the post-racial leadership of the first black president.

Nowhere was this more on display than in Reverend Joseph Lowery’s statement following the Obama speech. Lowery, who seemed to have missed the last three months or so gave an impressively silly Benediction in which he prayed:

“…help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.”

In a rhyming fashion reminiscent of the now equally irrelevant Jesse Jackson, Lowery proved to have completely missed the significance of the preceding 20 minutes. The day came, and Lowery still thinks he’s sitting at the back of the bus.

For anyone, black or white, to continue to imply that the racist tendencies of Americans are responsible for any of our country’s ills, be they local or nationwide, is the height of absurdity. A black man now occupies the most coveted job in the world. The fight for blacks to judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is over. Martin Luther King won.

With victory comes a new normal. Black and white, public officials and private citizens alike should now receive scorn from all sides if they attempt to use race to justify their actions, or to criticize those who have stood in the way of their agenda.

Folks like Rep. Bobby Rush, who played the race card in defending Senator designate Roland Burris by warning Senate leadership against going “…on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the US Senate", deserve to be castigated with the same derision as we reserve for those who make comments deemed to be insensitive towards minorities.

Any attempt to claim institutionalized racism in today’s America should be met with a hand gesturing towards The White House.

If race-based excuses and the view held by some that America is a fundamentally racist country have not dissolved by this time, then I fear that the historic significance of Tuesday’s inauguration was a mirage. I hope that this is not the case.

Sphere: Related Content

Last Hurrah For The Bush Haters

In a final act of low class BDS which has defined the left over the last eight years, today Obama supporters openly Mocked outgoing President George W. Bush as he took the stage for the swearing in of President-Elect Obama.

"Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah. Hey Hey Hey. Goodbye" they sang. Too his face. One last act of mockery aimed at the man who had kept them safe and who himself had kept silent in the face of their temper tantrums for the last seven years.

Many psychological studies of the left's eight year destruction of anything resembling political discourse in this nation will be penned in the coming years.

I believe it is important to point out the lack of class exhibited by these individuals as they celebrate, so that our citizens can compare and contrast.

We on the right can choose our own path in the coming years and while it will not be my path, it will be very hard to blame those on the right who choose to treat Obama the same way his predecessor was treated by many who make up the current president's base.

This article sums it up well. I recommend everyone read it:



January 20, 2009
Bush and the Bush-HatersBy J. R. Dunn

There is one thing certain to go through Barack Obama's mind during the inauguration: at one point or another, while glancing at George W. Bush, he will consider the treatment that Bush got as president and hope to God he suffers nothing even vaguely similar.

It can be stated without fear of serious argument that no previous president has been treated as brutally, viciously, and unfairly as George W. Bush.

Bush 43 endured a deliberate and planned assault on everything he stood for, everything he was involved in, everything he tried to accomplish. Those who worked with him suffered nearly as much (and some even more -- at least one, Scooter Libby, was convicted on utterly specious charges in what amounts to a show trial).

His detractors were willing to risk the country's safety, its economic health, and the very balance of the democratic system of government in order to get at him. They were out to bring him down at all costs, or at the very least destroy his personal and presidential reputation. At this they have been half successful, at a high price for the country and its government.

Although everyone insists on doing so, it is impossible to judge Bush, his achievements, or his failings, without taking these attacks into account. Before any serious analysis of the Bush presidency can be made, some attempt to encompass the campaign against him must be carried out. I hope no one is holding his breath.

It's quite true that other presidents have suffered baseless attacks. Lincoln was generally dismissed as an imbecile, an unwashed backwoodsman, and an orang-outang (as they spelled it then). There exists an infamous Confederate cartoon portraying him with devil's horns and one foot on the Constitution. Next to no one at the time could have foreseen the towering stature Lincoln would at last attain.

Richard M. Nixon probably stands as the most hated president prior to Bush. But that was largely thanks to a relatively small coterie of east-coast leftists and their hangers-on, angered by Nixon's early anti-communism (which had become more "nuanced" by the time he took office, as the 1970 opening to China clearly reveals.). Nixon had the support of most of the country, the famed "silent majority", during his first term, and if not for his own personal failings, he would unquestionably have prevailed over his enemies. Difficult though it may be to believe, Nixon was only one paranoid slip away from being considered a great or near-great president
With Reagan, the coterie was even smaller and more isolated. His enemies continually underestimated him as a "B-movie actor" (which, by the way, showed a serious misunderstanding as to how the old studio system actually worked), and were just as continually flummoxed by his humor, his intelligence, and his unexcelled skill at communication. As the outpouring of public emotion surrounding his state funeral made clear, Reagan today stands as one of the beloved of all modern presidents.

Bush is alone at being attacked and denied support from all quarters -- even from many members of his own party. No single media source, excepting talk radio, was ever in his corner. Struggling actors and comics revived their careers though attacks on Bush. A disturbed woman perhaps a half step above the status of a bag lady parked outside his Crawford home to throw curses at him and was not only not sent on her way but joined by hundreds of others with plenty of spare time on their hands, an event covered in minute-by-minute detail by major media.
At least two films, one produced play, and a novel (by the odious Nicholson Baker, a writer with the distinction of dropping further down the ladder of decency with each work -- from sophisticated porn in Vox to degrading the war against Hitler in last year's Human Smoke) appeared calling for his assassination -- a new wrinkle in presidential criticism, and one that the left will regret. And let's not forget that tribune of the voiceless masses, Michael Moore, whose Fahrenheit 911 once marked the end-all and be-all of political satire but today is utterly forgotten.

While FDR was accused of having engineered Pearl Harbor (as if even an attempted attack on the US would not have been enough to get the country into WW II in real style), no president before Bush was ever subjected to the machinations of an entire conspiracy industry. The 9/11 Truthers, a mix of seriously disturbed individuals and hustlers out to pull a profitable con, accused Bush and his administration of crimes that put the allegations against Roosevelt in the shade, and with far less rational basis. These hallucinations were picked up the mass media, playing the role of transmission belt, and various fringe political figures along the lines of Cynthia McKinney.

But even this pales in light of the actions of the New York Times, which on its downhill road to becoming a weekly shopper giveaway for the Upper West Side, seriously jeopardized national security in the process of satisfying its anti-Bush compulsion. Telecommunications intercepts, interrogation techniques, transport of terrorist captives, tracking of terrorist finances... scarcely a single security program aimed at Jihadi activity went unrevealed by the Times and -- not to limit the blame -- was then broadcast worldwide by the legacy media. At one point, Times reporters published a detailed analysis of government methods of searching out rogue atomic weapons, a story that was no doubt read with interest at points north of Lahore, and one that we may all end up paying for years down the line. The fact that Bush was able to curtail any further attacks while the media as a whole was working to undermine his efforts is little less than miraculous.

As for his own party, no small number of Republicans (not all of them of the RINO fraternity) made a practice of ducking out on their party leader. Many refused to be photographed with him, several took steps to be out of town when he was scheduled to appear in their districts, and as for the few who actually spoke out in his favor... well, the names don't trip easily into mind. This naked pusillanimity played a large role in the GOP's 2006 and 2008 electoral debacles. Until the party grasps this, don't look for any major comeback.

And last but not least (I think we can safely overlook the flying shoes, which have been covered down to the last aglet), Bush is the sole American chief executive -- perhaps the sole leader in world history -- to have had a personality disorder named after him, the immortal Bush Derangement Syndrome. Few at this point recall that this was an actual psychological effort at diagnosing the president's effect on the tender psyches of this country's leftists. Was there a Hitler syndrome? A Stalin syndrome? The very existence of BDS says more about the left in general than it does about Bush.

What were the reasons for this hatred and the campaign that grew out of it? We can ask that question as often as we like, but we'll get no rational answer. All that we can be sure of is that Bush's actual policies and personality had little to do with it. Al Gore's egomaniacal attempt to defy this country's constitutional rules of succession merely acted as a trigger, giving the left a pretext to open up the attack. The same can be said about lingering bitterness over Bill Clinton's impeachment. While certainly a factor, it by no means accounts for a complete explanation. After all, did the GOP of the 70s go overboard in avenging Richard Nixon's forced resignation by working over Jimmy Carter? The best course was actually that which they followed, to allow Mr. Peanut to destroy himself.

As in all such cases, Bush hatred involves a number of factors that will be debated by historians for decades to come. But one component that cannot be overlooked is ideology, specifically the ideologization of American politics. It is no accident that the three most hated recent presidents are all Republican. These campaigns are yet another symptom of the American left's collapse into an ideological stupor characterized by pseudo-religious impulses, division of the world into black and white entities, and the unleashing of emotions beyond any means of rational control. The demonization of Bush -- and Reagan, and Nixon -- is the flip-side of the messianic response to Barack Obama.

There's nothing new about any of this. It's present in Orwell's 1984 in the "Five-Minute Hate" against the imaginary Emmanuel Goldstein, himself based on Leon Trotsky. The sole novel factor is its adaptation as a conscious tactic in democratic politics. That is unprecedented, and a serious cause for concern.

Being a Democrat, Obama has little to worry about, even with the far-left elements of his coalition beginning to sour on him. The ideological machinery is too unwieldy to swing around in order to target a single figure. Even if circumstances force him to violate the deeper tenets of his following, personal factors -- not limited to skin color -- will serve to protect him.
For the country as a whole, the prospects are bleaker. The left is convinced that hatred works, that it's a perfect tactic, one that will work every time out. They have already started the process with Sarah Palin, their next target in their long row of hate figures. They're wrong, of course. In a democracy, hatred is not a keeper, as the Know-Nothings, Radical Republicans, segregationists, Birchers, and many others have learned to their eventual dismay. But the process can take a long time to work itself out -- nearly a century, in the case of racial segregation -- and no end of damage can occur in the meantime. One of the byproducts of the campaign against Bush was to encourage Jihadis and Ba'athists in Iraq with the assurance of a repetition of Saigon 1975 as soon as the mad and bad Bush 43 was gotten out of the way. This time, the price was paid by the Iraqi people. But in the future, the bill may be presented somewhat closer to home.

And as for the "worst president in history" himself, George W. Bush has exhibited nothing but his accustomed serenity. Despite the worst his enemies could throw at him, his rehabilitation has already begun (as can be seen here, here, here, and here). He will be viewed at last as a man who picked up the worst hand of cards dealt to any president since Roosevelt and who played it out better than anyone had a right to expect. As Barack Obama seems to have realized, there is much to be learned from Bush, a man who appears to personify the golden mean, never too despondent, never too overjoyed, and never at any time overwhelmed.

Other presidents may encounter the same level of motiveless, mindless hatred, others may suffer comparable abuse -- but we can sure that no one will ever meet it with more equanimity than George W. Bush.

Sphere: Related Content

"Hope" A Casuality Of The Recession

It turns out that the whole “Hope” thing was just a talking point. Surprised? Today Barack Obama proved that his bumper sticker friendly, campaign slogan of “Hope Over Fear” was just that. A “slogan”.

The slogan implied that some politicians have exploited the fears of the American people over the past eight years on issues such as terrorism and other threats from abroad in order to gain support for a political agenda and that Obama would govern differently. Whether or not you agree with his assessment of the least eight years, you’d imagine that Obama would at least wait until he was in office before breaking a promise that essentially made up the basis for his entire campaign.

In his first policy speech since winning the election Obama attempted to make Americans even more nervous about the economy than they already are in order to gain traction for his massive government spending legislation.

“I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.

In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.”

Again:

“We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future.”

Whoa! No fear there!

I believe that Obama is greatly exaggerating the dangers of the current crisis, however, regardless of that, Obama knows that this tactic could work. You have to get the American people on your side if you want to pass legislation such as this and just as with decisions involving war and peace, it is important that Americans know the consequences of inaction.

However, today’s statement was exactly the kind of thing that Obama promised NOT to do .

So for those of you who bought into the whole “Hope Over Fear” thing, you should really ask yourself, just how much of a pass are you going to give Obama before you begin to reassess your high opinion of him as a “different” kind of poltician?

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Good Man, Bad Choice

Sphere: Related Content