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

The Great Dick Cheney Strikes Back

Joe Biden? Yeah, he's not going to be as powerful as Cheney. That's becasue he's not nearly as smart as Cheney. It appears that Cheney knows this. Does Obama?

Vice President Cheney mocked Vice President-elect Joe Biden's grasp of the Constitution, defended former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and said President Bush "doesn't have to check with anybody" before launching a nuclear attack.

In a blunt, unapologetic interview on "FOX News Sunday," Cheney fired back at Biden for declaring in October that "Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history."

"He also said that all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article I of the Constitution," Cheney said in a interview that was conducted on Friday. "Well, they're not. Article I of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch."

"Joe's been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can't keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature and which provides for the executive. So I think I'd write that off as campaign rhetoric. I don't take it seriously."

Cheney, who is often called the most powerful vice president in history, also challenged Biden's claim that the Bush administration has amassed too much executive authority, a trend Biden reportedly plans to reverse.

"If he wants to diminish the office of the vice president, that's obviously his call," Cheney shrugged. "President-elect Obama will decide what he wants in a vice president and apparently, from the way they're talking about it, he does not expect him to have as consequential a role as I have had during my time."

Biden bit back, however, in a dueling Sunday morning interview that aired on ABC's "This Week" in which he said he stood by his statements.

"His notion of a unitary executive, meaning that, in time of war, essentially all power, you know, goes to the executive, I think is dead wrong. I think it was mistaken. I think it caused this administration, in adopting that notion, to overstep its constitutional bounds, but, at a minimum, to weaken our standing in the world and weaken our security. I stand by that -- that judgment," Biden said..

Cheney defended the administration's aggressive prosecution of the War on Terror, which he said was a major reason the nation hasn't been attacked in seven years. He said the 1973 War Powers Act is a violation of the Constitution because Congress does not have the right by statute to alter presidential constitutional power.

"That it is an infringement on the president's authority as the commander-in-chief," Cheney said. "It has never been resolved, but I think it's a very good example of a way in which Congress has tried to limit the president's authority and, frankly, can't.

"The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States," Cheney said. "He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen.

"He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

Cheney also made clear that he had tried, in vain, to convince Bush not to fire Rumsfeld in 2006.

"I did disagree with the decision," Cheney said. "The president doesn't always take my advice."

Cheney said he supports Rumsfeld's successor, Robert Gates, "but I was a Rumsfeld man. I'd helped recruit him and I thought he did a good job for us."

Cheney also was unapologetic about using an expletive in 2004 to tell Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy what to do to himself. The incident occurred after Cheney heard that Leahy had suggested the vice president used his position in the White House to get contracts for his former firm, Halliburton.

"I thought he merited it at the time, and we've since, I think, patched over that wound and we're civil to one another now," Cheney said in the interview.

Cheney, who has low approval ratings, predicted that history would vindicate him and Bush.

"We've been here for eight years now, eventually you wear out your welcome in this business but I'm very comfortable with where we are and what we've achieved substantively," he said. "And frankly I would not want to be one of those guys who spends all his times reading the polls. I think people like that shouldn't serve in these jobs."

Sphere: Related Content

Angry Left Endorses Middle-East Immaturity

The shoes had hardly left the hand of the Iraqi who tossed them at President Bush during the Baghdad press conference yesterday when the leftwing blogosphere began cheering him as some sort of hero. The incredible success of the Surge in Iraq has been very frustrating for the left. Along with Joe Biden they claimed that the Surge could never work. Problem was that it worked. That is why they have been so silent recently on the topic of the Iraq. The complete turnaround there has been much too embarrassing for them to mention Iraq very much...until now. The shoes tossed by that Iraqi journalist let loose a river of pent up frustration in the form of hailing the shoe tosser. Here is a sampling of the the reaction from the Daily Kos:

Is the Iraqi reporter eligible for a Pulitzer?

What will happen to this reporter? Do we need to send money for his representation in court or is he dead already? My concern is for this guy. I understand that Dana Perino got a black eye from a microfone in the melee. I'm sorry but retribution is sweet! If we could help this shoeless person I would.

We can throw 9000+ combat boots at him as he waddles to Marine 1 for the last time.
Michael Ware Was Grinning From Ear to Ear! Iraq journalist Michael Ware was shown on CNN telling Blitzer about the shoe throwing incident. He was positively gleeful.And it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few other American journalists, whether based in Iraq or not, were also grinning from ear to ear in solidarity with the Kossacks over this incident. Meanwhile the

Huffington Post comments were very similar to those of the Daily Kos:

All I can hope for is that bubble boy takes a real good look at what he has wrought. He should rot.

Find out who it was the guy deserves a medal of honor.
you go iraqi guy! wooohooo! we should all be chuckin our shoes at him! lmao!!!! the shoebomber! lmao!!!

I would love to throw something at Bush.. not a shoe though.. maybe a brick.. or cinder block.
Give that man who threw his shoes at the shrub an award...or better yet a statue built in his own likeness.

Shall we say thank you Al-Jazeera?

The next time you see Bush's motorcade rush by, don't let anyone keep you from giving him your shoe, too...
does anybody know the name and address of the man who threw the shoe? I'd like to buy him a new pair and throwing lessons.And finally, last but least, we have the input from the loons at the

Democratic Underground:
F---ing shame he missed.
Too bad Shrub didn't get his teeth knocked out, that guys a true hero!
*sigh* why can't anyone ever hit their targets? is it asking too much too see Bush hit in the face with a shoe, or Coulter with a pie, or Rove with flaming poo?
I soooooo wish I could throw something at the idiot too. You can see a larger collection of the DUer rantings at the DUmmie FUnnies

Sphere: Related Content

A LIBERAL'S Favorite Quotes of 2008

Taken From Michelle Malkin's Blog


What happens when liberals decide “Quotes of the Year”
By Michelle Malkin • December 15, 2008 02:28 PM
Fred R. Shapiro is a Yale historian. He compiles an annual “memorable quotes of the year” list and has publishes the “Yale Book of Quotations.”
MSM outlets love Shapiro’s lists.
Shapiro, you see, is an admitted liberal historian.
And the omissions on his authoritative list of quotes are revealing.
Topping the list are quotes from Sarah Palin and Tina Fey. John McCain made the list, too.
But out of all the gaffetastic gaffes committed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Professor Shapiro couldn’t find a single noteworthy quote to include on his definitive list. Because, you see, he did not find the Democrat ticket’s gaffes “memorable” or “remarkable:”
Sarah Palin lost the election, but she’s a winner to a connoisseur of quotations.
The Republican vice presidential candidate and her comedic doppelganger, Tina Fey, took the top two spots in this year’s list of most memorable quotes compiled by Fred R. Shapiro.
First place was “I can see Russia from my house!” spoken in satire of Palin’s foreign policy credentials by Fey on “Saturday Night Live.” Palin actual quote was: “They’re our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”
Palin also made the third annual list for her inability to name newspapers she reads. When questioned by CBS anchor Katie Couric, Palin said she reads “all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.” Palin’s quotes were pivotal, said Shapiro, associate librarian and lecturer in legal research at the Yale Law School who compiles the list. “This quote helped shape the election results,” he said of the Russia quote. “As it sank in the public realized this was someone really, really inexperienced and perhaps lacking in curiosity about the world.” Shapiro issued his Yale Book of Quotations, with about 13,000 entries, two years ago after six years of research. He expects to release the next edition in about five years, but in the meantime plans to issue annual top 10 lists.
…Palin’s running mate, Sen. John McCain, also made the list twice, once for his “the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong” comment in April and again for saying “maybe 100″ when asked last January how many years U.S. troops could remain in Iraq.
Shapiro said the quotes may have been somewhat unfairly construed. “Nonetheless, these quotes cemented his image as someone who was out of touch with economic realities or indifferent to economic realities and being someone who was fanatical about prosecuting the war in Iraq,” he said.
Shapiro relies on suggestions from quote-watchers around the world, plus his own choices from songs, the news and movies, and then searches databases and the Internet to determine the popularity of the quotes.
Phil Gramm, a McCain advisor, made the list for saying “We have sort of become a nation of whiners” in July in reference to Americans concerned about the economy.
President-elect Barack Obama didn’t make the list, not even for his much-criticized remark in which he said some small-town Americans “cling to guns or religion.”
“To me it didn’t seem like a very remarkable or very foolish quote,” said Shapiro, who describes himself as a liberal Democrat. “Ultimately I decided against it, but it was a close call.”
No “Gird your loins.” No “mark my words.” No “J-O-B-S is a three-letter word.” No FDR on TV.
No “57 states.” No “states in the middle.” No “Iran doesn’t pose serious threat.”
No “typical white person.” No “not the person I knew.”
No “first time in my adult lifetime.”
And no “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”
Some gaffes, as we saw over and over again over the last year, are more equal than others

Sphere: Related Content

An Important Moment For The G.O.P

Last night I was lucky enough to witness the first step in the effort to build an army of Young Republicans, strong and organized enough to stand up to the youth movement of Barack Obama .

The event was a meeting organized by several groups, all of which have web sites and principles, dedicated to the cause of bringing young conservatives together in the same efficient way that the Democrats have managed to over the last four years.

Held at the Capitol Club, nestled snugly against the Capitol building on the Hill, several things really struck me about the meeting.

First off the place was packed full of young people. There were at least two hundred of us who showed up, anxious to become involved in the movement on the ground floor.

Next, the energy in the room was incredible. There were no glum faces or pity parties being thrown by those who were near suicidal because of the incoming administration. To the contrary, these Republicans seemed incredibly optimistic and excited about having the opportunity to rebuild the party from the ground up while at the same time leaving their own unique mark on the party machinery to aid future generations.

There was no hateful rhetoric against Obama or the Democrats, no talk about how we can destroy the other guys and not a single mention of Rod Blagojevich. The talk at the meeting was limited to pro-growth ideas on how we as young people can use our energy and passion for politics to make our party competitive again in all fifty states.

Finally, what shocked me the most was the high number of young African Americans who attended the meeting. Barack Obama got nearly 70% of the youth vote, and 96% of the black vote. Basic math would lead one to believe that the number of Republicans who fit into both of those groups would be limited.

Not so. Not only was there a high percentage of African Americans in the audience, but two members of the panel were black as was the individual who organized the event, American Solution’s Princilla Smith who deserves a great big “thank you” from everyone who cares about the future of the G.O.P.

At the end of the meeting one of the events organizers, Arlington’s Kenneth Ryan James, introduced a motion, which would have sent a unanimous resolution to the RNC, asking them to add a delegation of Republicans under 40 to the group that would be voting on the next RNC chairman.

Instead of just shouting out “Yes We Can!” in unison the group thoughtfully and raised concerns and asked questions about the amendment and in the end decided to table it in order to discuss it further.

This is the kind of levelheaded pragmatism that our party needs going forward. Of course, we young Republicans have never been the type to give our unquestioning allegiance to an idea or an individual who sounds good but has little to offer in the way of substance.

So spread the word. A movement is being built.

Here are the websites that are leading the charge. These are our versions of MoveOn.org so sign up with them and keep an eye on their event listings. Next time one is happening, get of the couch and go.

http://hiphoprepublican.com/

www.yrnetwork.com/

http://www.rebuildtheparty.com/

http://www.americansolutions.com/

Thanks to everyone who attended. Let’s get this thing started.

I'm the guy on the right side in the middle who is staring off into space.

Sphere: Related Content

The Corruption State

Note: Of the last 8 governors the state has had, 4 of them have served time in prison.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Won....

....so I gues that means the American people agree with me!

Dec. 7 is Pearl Harbor Day Reverend. It happened shortly after FDR got on the TV after the Great Depression hit.

Sphere: Related Content

Some Good News You Probably Missed

This is the money in the freezer guy.


Anh 'Joseph' Cao beats Rep. William Jefferson in 2nd Congressional District
by Michelle Krupa and Frank Donze, The Times-Picayune
Saturday December 06, 2008, 11:40 PM
Indicted U.S. Rep. William Jefferson suffered what may be the final blow of his storied political career in the most improbable way Saturday, when an untested Republican opponent took advantage of Louisiana's new federal voting rules -- and an election delay caused by Hurricane Gustav -- to unseat the nine-term Democrat.

With the upset victory, Anh "Joseph" Cao, a eastern New Orleans attorney who fled war-ravaged Saigon as a child, becomes the first Vietnamese-American in Congress. He will represent a district that was specifically drawn to give African-Americans an electoral advantage and one in which two of every three voters are registered Democrats.


His defeat came on a day of abysmally low turnout, which political pundits had predicted could be Jefferson's undoing despite his demographic and political advantages.

Ironically, had Gustav not postponed the voting schedule one month, the general election would have been held the same ballot as last month's presidential election, when high turnout among African-American voters likely would have carried Jefferson to a 10th term.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana's 4th Congressional District, Republican John Fleming, a physician from Minden, won the seat being vacated by retiring Congressman Jim McCrery, a Republican from Shreveport.

The two races, both delayed because of Gustav, were this season's last contests for the U.S. House of Representatives. Saturday's results mean Louisiana bucked the national trend and wound up with a congressional delegation of six Republicans and a single Democrat. Three Democrats represent Louisiana in the current Congress.

Speaking to supporters Saturday night at Palace Cafe on Canal Street, Cao, 41, made reference to Jefferson's earlier victories this season -- and to the legal problems that undoubtedly contributed to his downfall.

"I know he went through two previous primaries, and that must have been hard," Cao said. "But tonight, the people of the 2nd District have spoken. We want a new direction. We want accountability, and have it."

Cao made direct reference to his improbable political ascent, seeming as astonished as anyone else.

"Never in my life did I think I could be a future congressman," he said. "The American dream is well and alive."

Though he was a relative unknown before this race, Cao was flanked Saturday night by a number of local political power brokers.

U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, a Republican from Metairie, introduced him to screaming supporters. City Councilwomen Jackie Clarkson and Stacy Head, both Democrats, were in attendance, along with former TV news anchor Helena Moreno, who was defeated by Jefferson in the Democratic Party runoff. Several GOP party leaders, including former City Councilmen Jay Batt and Bryan Wagner, also joined the crowd.

At Cao's side was his wheelchair-bound father, who spent seven years in a North Vietnamese prison camp during that country's civil war. In his closing, Cao offered thanks to the local immigrant community, and he made a special plea for peace in the country of his birth.

"I'd like to thank my Vietnamese community," he said, "and I'd like to encourage young Vietnamese in this country to work peacefully for a free and democratic Vietnam."

Meanwhile, at an Uptown art gallery, Jefferson, 61, a Harvard-educated attorney and former state Senator who was raised amid dire poverty in Lake Providence, La., said he thought voter fatigue contributed to his loss.

"Over three elections, I think people kind of ran out a little bit at the end of, I guess, the juice it takes to keep on going," he said. "There were three very difficult elections and on Nov. 4, a lot of folks thought we already won.

"I'm sure that if we poll, somewhere out there in the 2nd District is a vast majority of people who support our campaign and who, had they voted today, would have expressed it," he said.

Speaking to about 50 supporters who gave Jefferson a standing ovation when he entered the room, Jefferson thanked his family, labor leaders, local ministers and African-American voters, whom he praised as the "bedrock" of his political base.

"I'm so very grateful to each and every one of you, folks who are here and folks who are out there, for the warm embrace that you have given me over the years," he said.

Jefferson's demise resulted in part from Louisiana's return after 30 years to a closed primary system. As the only Republican to qualify for the general election, Cao spent September and October meeting voters, honing his message and raising money.

Meanwhile, Jefferson had to fight off six well-known challengers who together raised almost $2 million in an effort to unseat him in the Democratic Party primary and runoff, which were open only to registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

With his name appearing for the first time on Saturday's ballot, Cao was able to reach out to voters who supported the Democratic also-rans, as well as about 50,000 voters, most of them registered Republicans, who were forced to stay on the sidelines during the Democratic Party races.

As predicted, there was a dramatic drop-off in turnout Saturday compared with the Nov. 4 election that featured Barack Obama, now president-elect.

Last month, nearly 164,000 Democrats and independents in the 2nd District cast ballots. Even with the universe of voters expanded Saturday to include all registered voters, only 66,846 showed up to the polls.

In a rare radio interview in advance of the general election, Jefferson had expressed concerns that his base of African-American supporters might assume that he had won re-election last month and stay home Saturday.

Cao, who came to the United States when he was 8, holds a bachelor's degree in physics from Baylor University and a master's degree in philosophy from Fordham University. After a stint as a Catholic seminarian, he earned a law degree from Loyola University in 2000.

Married with two daughters, he now runs a law practice in Venetian Isles specializing in immigration.

Cao took an interest in local politics after his home and office were swamped during Hurricane Katrina.

His first bid for public office last year, when he sought the open 103rd House District, was inauspicious. Running then as an independent, he finished fifth in a six-candidate field.

Cao said he began eyeing a run for the 2nd District seat shortly after a Virginia grand jury indicted Jefferson last year on charges of bribery and public corruption following revelations in 2005 that FBI agents found $90,000 in marked bills in his freezer and linked him and several relatives to a wide-ranging bribery scheme.

Counting among his backers Gov. Bobby Jindal and Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand, Cao attracted solid support from local, state and national Republican organizations. He raised almost $90,000 from a slate of party operatives, local executives and members of the Vietnamese community. He also pumped $70,000 of his money into the campaign.

Hoping to pad his war chest further, Cao joined the Republican National Committee and the state GOP last month in filing a lawsuit challenging a decades-old cap on the amount of money the groups can spend on coordinated advertising efforts. As of late last week, the suit had gone nowhere.

Cao maintained a generally cordial tone during the campaign, limiting his criticism of Jefferson to questions about the congressman's effectiveness and ethics and rarely mentioning the criminal charges.

However, as election day neared, the National Republican Congressional Committee stepped in with a series of harsh mail pieces and an automated telephone call to voters that highlighted the allegations of money laundering, racketeering and bribery and labeled Jefferson as "crooked."

Organizers of Cao's campaign denied having a hand in the attack.

On election day, the Cao campaign launched a surprise, last-minute offensive with a pair of automated phone calls urging voters to pull the lever for Cao. The messages were recorded by Moreno and former Orleans Parish District Attorney Harry Connick. It was both supporters' first foray into the general election campaign.

Though Jefferson will pack up his Capitol Hill office, he will remain in the news: Originally scheduled to begin last week, his trial is likely to start in early 2009.

Also in the cross-hairs of federal prosecutors are Jefferson siblings Betty Jefferson, the Orleans Parish 4th District Assessor, and political consultant Mose Jefferson, who were indicted last year on charges that they conspired to loot more than $600,000 in taxpayer money from three charities.

In a separate case, Mose Jefferson was indicted on charges that he bribed the former president of the Orleans Parish School Board.

Those trials are set for early next year.

Jefferson's defeat also marks the latest and most severe blow to the Progressive Democrats, the Central City-based political organization that he founded.

Among Jefferson allies who have been forced from public office since news of the FBI probe into Jefferson's dealings broke are: Renee Gill Pratt, the congressman's former legislative aide who lost her seat on the City Council; close ally Eddie Jordan, who was forced to resign as Orleans Parish district attorney; and Jefferson's daughter, then-state Rep. Jalila Jefferson-Bullock, who lost a bid last year for the state Senate.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Official

After posting the now widely talked about Zogby Poll and accompanying video showing ignorant Obama voters getting stuff wrong in the new film "How Obama Got Elected" there was pretty much a unanimous cry of outrage from my Obama supporting acquaintances. They told me that the poll didn't mean squat if it didn't have similar results showing how uninformed John McCain's supporters were.

So a new Wilson Research Strategies Poll was done. Here were the results:

The 12 "Zogby" questions were duplicated, one on the Keating scandal was added for extra balance. The results from Obama voters were virtually IDENTICAL in both polls.

Here are the highlights:

35 % of McCain voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

18% of Obama voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.

Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.

Those that got "congressional control" correct voted 56-43 for McCain.

Those that got "congressional control" wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.

The poll also asked voters to name all the media sources from which they got information.

Those “exposed” to Fox News got "congressional control" correct 64-25 (+39)

Those “exposed” to CNN got “congressional control” correct 48-38 (+10)

Those “exposed” to Network news got “congressional control” correct 48-39 (+9)

Those “exposed” to print media got “congressional control” correct 52-37 (+15)

Those “exposed” to MSNBC got “congressional control” correct 55-35 (+20)

Those “exposed” to talk radio got “congressional control” correct 61-29 (+32)

Voters in the "South" had the best response rate on “congressional control” (+22)

Voters in the "Northeast" had the worst response rate on “congressional control” (+9)

Those “exposed” to Fox News voted 70-29 for McCain.

Those “exposed” to CNN voted 63-37 for Obama.

Those “exposed” to MSNBC voted 73-26 for Obama.

Those “exposed” to network newscasts voted 62-37 for Obama.

Those “exposed” to national newspapers voted 64-36 for Obama.

Those “exposed” to talk radio voted 61-38 for McCain.

Those that could associate Bill Ayers' name/story with Obama voted 52-48 for McCain (We added Ayers name to the "Zogby" question and it significantly increased the rate of correct response, indicating a very superficial grasp of the overall story).

Those that knew Obama had made negative comments about “coal power plants" voted 76-24 for McCain.

Those that knew Obama had his opponents knocked off the ballot in his first campaign voted 66-34 for McCain.
McCain voters did poorly (only 42% correct) onteh Keating question and,in general, the voters did universally worse on questions where the negative information was about their candidate

Women under 55 did worse than they might have by guessing on four of the thirteen questions, and yet 95% of them knew that Palin was the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter. Even 95% of those in this demographic group who didn't know “congressional control” got this question correct.

Those “exposed” to MSNBC “scored” 90% correct on the three Palin questions (including an incredible 98% on the “pregnant teenage daughter” question), while those not “exposed” to MSNBC averaged 84% correct on those three questions.

Here's a link to the original Zogby poll:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642

And here's the original video that brought this to light. It makes me laugh and cry at the same time.

Sphere: Related Content

Four Reasons To Be Thankful

I wasn’t blogging over the holiday weekend. I was eating. I assumed that you were doing the same thing so I saved my annual list of things we have to be thankful for until today.

This year, all Americans find themselves in a nervous state regarding the economy and if you’re a conservative, about the coming changes which are sure to follow President-Elect Obama’s inauguration.

However, recent events should ease our minds a bit and lead us to be grateful for our good luck and to be optimistic about our future in this ever-resilient nation of ours. So here is a partial list containing some things to be happy about in these tumultuous times.

1.Obama’s Apparent Pragmatism

Last week the President-Elect made two decisions which should give us all great confidence that he intends to put common sense over ideology. The first was his decision to keep Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates at the Pentagon. This signals that, despite his constantly evolving campaign message of failure in Iraq, Obama has finally come to terms with the fact that our recent efforts in the region have been successful and that defeat is not an option.

At around the same time as the Gates news was being floated, another balloon was released suggesting that Obama’s plan to hike taxes would be put on hold until the economic crisis was over.

Again, it would appear that, once out of campaign mode, Obama has wisely admitted what Republicans have always known: raising taxes is bad for the economy. Especially in the short term. Especially when you’re in a recession. Especially when there is so much uncertainty regarding the financial markets.

These two moves should instill great hope among those who didn’t vote for Obama that he is more pragmatic and less radical than we once thought.

It should also send a clear message to liberals that even though Obama ran against the Bush Administration, your great savior is not going to overturn two of his predecessor’s biggest policy initiatives. If he’s smart, he won’t touch the Patriot Act either.

2.We didn’t Elect/Re-Elect John Kerry

Throughout the course of this campaign, Democrats liked to hype this election as the most important in out lifetime. Four years ago Republicans dubbed 2004 with the same title. Despite which one you think was more important, everyone should be happy about the fact that John Kerry was not running for re-election this year.

Had Kerry prevailed in ’04 many events would have unfolded in the same way as they have under President Bush. New Orleans would still be under water and the financial crisis would have gone down the same way.

The difference would have been that when the situation in Iraq got really bad in 2005-06, Kerry would have packed it in. This move would have once again saddled America with the label of a weak-willed nation which doesn’t stand up to its enemies when the going gets tough. Al-Queda would then have free-rein over the world, knowing that if they shed enough blood, America would inevitably back off.

The Democrats who love Obama can be grateful that Kerry lost as well, since had he won, Obama would have at least had to wait until 2012 to run for the White House. Had Kerry lost in ’08, a likely outcome given the economic situation, Obama would have had to face an incumbent GOP president. That’s much more difficult than running against an unpopular lame duck.

3.Gay Marriage Protests


In the wake of the financial crisis and the weakening economy, our enemies and even some of our citizens have jumped at the chance to label the American experiment a failure. Some folks are saying that capitalism has failed, even as shoppers are trampled by plasma TV craving consumers at Wal-Mart.

Of course, anyone with a sense of history realizes that reports of America’s demise are greatly exaggerated. Nowhere is this more evident than in the left’s reaction to the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in that state.

The reaction among many people, especially the young folks who thought it was so important that they elect anti-gay marriage candidate Obama, was to go out and protest, and to shoot petitions around Facebook. This reaction should show us that we Americans are not so troubled by dwindling 401k’s or terror, that we don’t have time to debate relatively trivial matters such as who gets to call themselves “married” and who does not.

While many Americans shake their fist in outrage at “greedy” CEO’s and repeatedly remind us of how much the rest of the world hates us, deep down they must know that everything is going to turn out all right. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be so riled up about this.

Now before you call for my head or say that I'm full of H8(which is an oversimplification and a cop-out, I might add), ask yourself this: if unmemployment was 25% and the Mumbai attacks had happened in Chicago, would anyone's immediate concerns dwell on gay nuptuals? I think not.

4.The State Of The Planet

Finally, there’s some good news about Global Warming. IT DOESN’T EXSIST! Seriously though, new findings by NASA and a statistics firm called Hadley-data recently released a report which stated the following:

- In every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased

-There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.

Now, I have never jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon, but there’s really no bandwagon to jump on unless you completely accept the Al Gore vision of environmental apocalypse.

Hopefully, the election of Barack Obama will signify an end to the knee-jerk alarmism, which has come to define the left during the Bush years. That same alarmist sentiment that gave us such liberal favorites, as “We’re becoming a fascist state!” and “Our civil liberties are disappearing!”

What is needed is vigorous debate and a thorough fact-check before our nation starts throwing money at a problem that may or may not actually be a problem.

-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Deepak Blames America

Deepak Blames America
The media look within to explain the sick delusions of the Mumbai killers.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

If the Mumbai terror assault seemed exceptional, and shocking in its targets, it was clear from the Thanksgiving Day reports that we weren't going to be deprived of the familiar, either. Namely, ruminations, hints, charges of American culpability that regularly accompany catastrophes of this kind.


APSoon enough, there was Deepak Chopra, healer, New Age philosopher and digestion guru, advocate of aromatherapy and regular enemas, holding forth on CNN on the meaning of the attacks.

How the ebullient Dr. Chopra had come to be chosen as an authority on terror remains something of a mystery, though the answer may have something to do with his emergence in the recent presidential campaign as a thinker of advanced political views. Also commending him, perhaps, is his well known capacity to cut through all sorts of complexities to make matters simple. No one can fail to grasp the wisdom of a man who has informed us that "If you have happy thoughts, then you make happy molecules."

In his CNN interview, he was no less clear. What happened in Mumbai, he told the interviewer, was a product of the U.S. war on terrorism, that "our policies, our foreign policies" had alienated the Muslim population, that we had "gone after the wrong people" and inflamed moderates. And "that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay."

All this was a bit too much, evidently, for CNN interviewer Jonathan Mann, who interrupted to note that there were other things going on -- matters like the ongoing bitter Pakistan-India struggle over Kashmir -- which had caused so much terror and so much violence. "That's not Washington's fault," he pointed out.

Given an argument, the guest, ever a conciliator, agreed: The Mumbai catastrophe was not Washington's fault, it was everybody's fault. Which didn't prevent Dr. Chopra from returning soon to his central theme -- the grave offense posed to Muslims by the United States' war on terror, a point accompanied by consistent emphatic reminders that Muslims are the world's fastest growing population -- 25% of the globe's inhabitants -- and that the U.S. had better heed that fact. In Dr. Chopra's moral universe, numbers are apparently central. It's tempting to imagine his view of offenses against a much smaller sliver of the world's inhabitants -- not so offensive, perhaps?

Two subsequent interviews with Larry King brought much of the same -- a litany of suggestions about the role the U.S. had played in fueling assaults by Muslim terrorists, reminders of the numbers of Muslims in the world and their grievances. A faithful adherent of the root-causes theory of crime -- mass murder, in the case at hand -- Dr. Chopra pointed out, quite unnecessarily, that most of the terrorism in the world came from Muslims. It was mandatory, then, to address their grievances -- "humiliation," "poverty," "lack of education." The U.S., he recommended, should undertake a Marshall Plan for Muslims.

Nowhere in this citation of the root causes of Muslim terrorism was there any mention of Islamic fundamentalism -- the religious fanaticism that has sent fevered mobs rioting, burning and killing over alleged slights to the Quran or the prophet. Not to mention the countless others enlisted to blow themselves and others up in the name of God.

Nor did we hear, in these media meditations, any particular expression of sorrow from the New Delhi-born Dr. Chopra for the anguish of Mumbai's victims: a striking lack, no doubt unintentional, but not surprising, either. For advocates of the root-causes theory of crime, the central story is, ever, the sorrows and grievances of the perpetrators. For those prone to the belief that most eruptions of evil in the world can be traced to American influence and power there is only one subject of consequence.

Jew Haters Deserve Ostracism in the West
Accustomed as we are by now to this view of the U.S., it's impossible not to marvel at its varied guises -- its capacity to emerge even in journalism ostensibly concerning the absurd beliefs about the 9/11 attacks held by so many Muslims. It's conventional wisdom in the region -- according to a New York Times dispatch from Cairo, Egypt, last fall by Michael Slackman -- that the U.S. and Israel had to have been involved in the planning, if not the actual execution of the assaults. No news there. Neither was the information that there was virtually universal belief in the area that Jews, tipped off, didn't go to work at the World Trade Center that day. Or that the U.S. had organized the plot in order to attack Arab Muslims and gain access to their oil.

The noteworthy point here was the writer's conclusion that the U.S. itself was to blame for the power of these beliefs. "It is easy for Americans to dismiss such thinking as bizarre," Mr. Slackman allowed. But that would miss the point that the persistence of these ideas represents the "first failure in the fight against terrorism." A U.S. failure? Nowhere in the extended list of root causes here was there any mention of the fanaticism and sheer mindless gullibility that is the prerequisite for the holding of such beliefs.

Its very ordinariness speaks volumes about this report. A piece written with evident serenity, the perversity of its conclusions notwithstanding, it's one emblem among many of the adversarial view of the nation that is today entrenched in the culture. So unworthy is the U.S. -- an attitude solidly established in our media culture long before the war on terror -- that only it can be held responsible for the deranged fantasies cherished in large quarters of the Arab world. So natural does it feel, now, to hold such views that their expression has become second nature.

Which is how it happens also that the U.S. is linked to the bloodletting in Mumbai, with scarcely anyone batting an eye, and Larry King -- awash perhaps, in happy molecules -- thanking guest Dr. Chopra for his extraordinary enlightenment.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

For The GOP, Now Is Our Moment

The first opportunity for the GOP to re-stake its claim as the party of small government and free markets has presented itself earlier than anyone could have expected.

A major U.S. industry is on the verge of bankruptcy and despite the fears of a short-term impact on the economy, Republicans must oppose a bailout of Detroit in order to set the auto industry on a path of self-reliance in coming decades.

Barack Obama ran against Washington-as-usual and it worked. One of the things that people across the political spectrum say they hate the most about the government is special interest influence in policy making, and throughout the campaign Obama claimed that he hated it as well.

That being said, Obama relied heavily on Union support and support from the United Auto Workers union in particular, for both money and organization in both the primaries and the general election.

The proposed government bailout, which Obama supports, would provide taxpayer money to an industry that have been losing money hand over fist, quarter after quarter for years. The government cash would prevent them from having to layoff their unionized employees, keep the assembly lines running and keep their CEO’s flying in private jets until the next time they get into trouble.

A long-term solution is what is needed and for the Big Three and bankruptcy is the first step in the long rehabilitation process.

Now, bankruptcy doesn’t not mean that Ford, GM and/or Chrysler will just disappear, never to be heard from again. What it does mean is that the auto companies will be forced to change the way they do business in order to survive and once again become profitable.

Most importantly, they will have to renegotiate contracts with the unions so that they can once again compete with overseas companies like Toyota, which are currently kicking their butts all over the marketplace. In addition to this, once the bankruptcy occurs, the government can use its new leverage to give Detroit real incentives to adopt new technology in the vehicles they produce.

Even though they claim to love hybrids, most Democrats are so beholden to the unions that they would support them regardless of the long-term environmental benefits associated with forcing the car companies to restructure from the bottom up.

The GOP, however, has nothing to lose. The House GOP was adamantly opposed to the original $700 billion bailout package, but went along with it in the end, essentially out of hope of preserving John McCain’s chances in the November election.

Without the electoral albatross around their necks, the GOP can stick to their guns and put immense pressure on Democrats in swing districts to kill a handout that the American people are almost certain to oppose.

Bailing out our financial institutions is one thing. Millions of investors and businesses relied on the money that was at stake in the preservation of the gatekeepers of our nation’s private wealth.

If the Big Three fail, jobs will be lost, the market will lose more of its value and the economy in the affected regions will assuredly suffer. However, letting the companies fail and rebuild from the bottom up (which they almost certainly will, not wanting to abandon their infrastructure) will have a long-term positive impact in that it will force a 20th century industry to adapt to a 21st century world.


When the bailout comes to the desk of President Bush, I am confident that he will veto it. When the same bill comes to the same desk before President Obama, he will be forced to either hold true to his campaign rhetoric, in which he billed himself as a new kind of politician, or risk losing the support of one of the special interest groups that helped him get elected. Not a good position for a president to find himself in only weeks into his presidency.

With the abdication of political power comes the ability to return to ideological purity without the threat of electoral repercussions.

With this opportunity also comes a chance to regain typically Republican voters who abandoned John McCain and the GOP for Libertarians like Ron Paul and Bob Barr. These voters are largely young males whose votes wouldn’t have made much of a difference for John McCain at the polls. But the energy and fierce loyalty they exhibited during the long campaign is exactly what we need to counter the Obama youth’s celebrity-driven dedication to their candidate.

Either way, this is the line in the sand that we as a party need to draw in order to reinvent ourselves and for the auto industry to reinvent itself.

-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Polar Opposites-Hold Off On Holder

I guess it's poetic justice that the left would crucify AG Alberto Gonzales for approving the "torture" of terrorists and then not make a sound when Barack Obama nominates a man whose claim to fame is approving pardons for them. This guy isn't getting confirmed without a lotof noise from us.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Base

UTICA, New York -- Just 2% of voters who supported Barack Obama on Election Day obtained perfect or near-perfect scores on a post election test which gauged their knowledge of statements and scandals associated with the presidential tickets during the campaign, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

Only 54% of Obama voters were able to answer at least half or more of the questions correctly.

The 12-question, multiple-choice survey found questions regarding statements linked to Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his vice-presidential running-mate Sarah Palin were far more likely to be answered correctly by Obama voters than questions about statements associated with Obama and Vice-President–Elect Joe Biden. The telephone survey of 512 Obama voters nationwide was conducted Nov. 13-15, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points. The survey was commissioned by John Ziegler, author of The Death of Free Speech, producer of the recently released film "Blocking the Path to 9/11" and producer of the upcoming documentary film, Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected.

"We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion." - John Zogby



"After I interviewed Obama voters on Election Day for my documentary, I had a pretty low opinion of what most of them had picked up from the media coverage of the campaign, but this poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace," said Ziegler.

Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin.

Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden -- 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.

Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President.

In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election -- 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.

Sphere: Related Content