Aftermath--Gibbs Was Right!

Not the steamroller some had predicted but mission accomplished--the Obama express has been partially derailed and there's a new sheriff in the house. It's a great thing to live in a country where the voters can go out, pull a lever, and change the future all by themselves (then again let's not get too carried away--Alvin Greene got almost a third of the vote in South Carolina and he made Christine O'Donnell look like Madame Curie by comparison).

Some observations. Fox News was the slowest internet site of the evening for me. Whether that means they have inadequate servers or were being overwhelmed by tea partiers who were most active in this cycle is mere speculation.

As to explanations, surely the mainstreamers will stumble out of their hangovers this morning and blame everyone but Obama--the economy (stupid), temper tantrums, Beck or whatever--but of course this was a referendum on el gaffe de presidente. The sheer amount of independents who voted GOP this time was a dead give-away.

So what happens in January? Actually, what happens in December and the lame-duck? Since the GOP didn't run the tables and both Reid and Pelosi survived in their seats it might set up a last ditch opening for some of the more radical to suggest a last gasp ramrod of more unpopular legislation via reconciliation. Would they dare? With these cats you never know, although such acts of gross arrogance and would set up the president as an even bigger villain since he'd have to sign anything. So they'll probably just pass the tax cut extensions.

When showtime comes the new GOP House will be full of bluster but won't be able to do much with a Dem Senate and prez--there will be no shutting down the government or witch hunts for impeachment or overturning Obamacare, just threats to such and partial gridlock. Obama may choose to play rope-a-dope and stall hoping the economy comes back on its own, since any meddling from the House on the economy means they can take partial credit. So maybe the Dems will become the new party of no (surely they will be painted as heroic for it).

Whatever, Robert Gibbs was right, and many are glad about it. Pelosi will have to hand over that ostentatiously enormous gavel next year and there is still poetic justice in the world when "patriots" such as Alan Grayson can be removed from office by the people, with prejudice. Otherwise, just glad it's over.

DOING NO HARM? 11/3/10

In the clip about Slurpees (we have "Icees" down here, btw) Obama said he wants to sit down with the current Congressional leadership and the leaders-to-be in 'the next few weeks' and discuss where they can move forward with no harm done. Since he mentioned the tax cuts maybe he was referring to them, but maybe he was referring to already enacted Dem legislation as well.

In other words, he might suggest giving them a FULL extension of the Bush tax cuts in exchange for their promise to leave the health care bill alone.

If the new GOP leaders balked at such a shakedown then the outgoing Congress could let the cuts lapse and blame it on a lack of bi-partisanship, tea party anger, etc. They know the Senate will remain in Dem hands making it difficult to gin up new tax cuts once the old ones expire (without the Dems wanting to tack on all kinds of riders) so it seems to this observer that the most significant legislation in the next two years might be decided in the next 2 months between the lame duck Dems and the GOP leaders who aren't leaders yet. Let's hope 'sanity' prevails.

WRAP 11/3/10



Good Lord, is it possible that our old friend Baghdad Bob actually resurfaced in America in 2006 disguised as "Nancy Pelosi" and has been fooling everyone since? "We are on pace to maintain our majority"? With a 60 seat shellacking in progress?

Notice carefully out the window--for all we know that man walking to his car and driving off might have actually been John Boehner leaving to accept congratulations.

The Sum of all Fear

I'm an enemy of the POTUS. Actually an enemy via extension--anyone who's an enemy of the Latino is an enemy worthy of punishment according to our leader, and he's urged them to take out their wrath against their enemies at the voting booth. Will it matter?

All the professional pollsters have long ago given the mid-terms to the GOP. It's a pre-landslide landslide. But wait--nothing is official until the Diebolds have been scanned. Are we sure the pollsters have accurately factored in the felons, illegals, dead people and double voters? What if they are wrong? What would punishment look like?

Will we be targeted with drones (we are, after all, the enemy) or just have the amnesty bill rubbed in our faces like playground bullies or sanctimonious UN bureaucrats? Or will seeing the smug faces of Keith Olbermann and Jon Sanity Stewart be enough punishment?

Mm. Try to imagine a Democrat victory. After all the hoopla it would be called the biggest surprise of the century--Truman beating Dewey again. All they need do is hold the House by a thread to qualify. The mainstreamers would be practically orgasmic for weeks or even months on end. Obama would be held up as the greatest president of all time, the man who pulled victory from the jaws of the evil Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. He may even have to cut short his Asian mystery tour to come back home and bask in some glow.

Meanwhile every pundit would immediately be predicting the GOP's demise using the following logic--"if they can't win this one, when can they ever win?" etc. It would be a bloodbath. The narrative would have every GOP candidate as diminished, even those who won.

Sure the pollsters' reputations would be part of that bloodbath but all would be forgotten soon--they are just pollsters. Sure, there would be challenges in races across the nation to save face or to actually combat fraud but those too would wind down as the holiday season approaches.

After all, if the Justice Dept won't prosecute New Black Panthers standing in front of voting stations holding billy clubs there's no reason to believe they'd pursue much in this scenario either. And there would be very little pressure on them from the ecstatic mainstream media. Fox News would try but they would be fighting irrelevancy as the invigorated media would be on a crusade to ostracize them into the dustbin of history via 'media reform'. Same with talk radio--the louder they cried foul the bigger target they would become.

Meanwhile Obama, with the new 'mandate' in his pocket, would be like Karl Marx on a shopping spree with confiscated money from the bourgeoisie. Imagine the change to come.

Granted, Halloween was yesterday. This horror story outcome for the right is not liable to occur with the mood of the country. But if you've actually read this far you might consider it a reminder to do your civic duty tomorrow. After all, as Yogi Berra once said, it ain't over til they get at least a 5 percent margin of victory.

SANITY RESTORED! 11/1/10

Well, no matter what happens tomorrow it's comforting to know that at least some sanity was restored in DC this past weekend...



Just couldn't pass up the embed (for easy reference in the future, if nothing else).

Defining Sanity

Here's Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington saying--with a straight face--that the rally for sanity was really a rally against 'demonizing your opponents':


Perhaps she doesn't read her own site? Or the comments? And really, based on this headline, on her site, constructed around a rather suspect CBS count of Beck's rally...

Rally Attendance OBLITERATES Turnout To Glenn Beck Rally

...has she learned nothing from yesterday's teachable moment? Everybody knows that using all caps on the internet means screaming.

Restoring Sanity, but Where?

According to the WaPo's coverage of Stewart's 'Restoring Sanity' rally:

The "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" is billed as a correction to what Stewart, Colbert and their fans consider the extremism and dishonesty that have infected the American political system, especially the self-righteousness and fear-mongering they see in the right-leaning Beck and his employer, Fox News. The rally is scheduled to include musical interludes by such reliable openers as the Roots and professional rally balladeer Sheryl Crow. The event also will be emphatically covered by ratings and Web-traffic hungry mainstream media -- including The Washington Post -- that Stewart and Colbert vigorously mock.

So there's your only-mentioned target of insanity. The big question is will they pick on Olbermann (Olberdouche), Maddow (Madcow), Matthews (Tingles), and Schultz (Sgt Schultz). Surely they are also visions of insanity in America circa 2010. Oh, and this.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH A LITTLE INSANITY? 10/30/10

This week's musical selection, dedicated to Jon Stewart and insanity in general..at least in music.



How many other rock bands could yodel?

MORE 10/30/10

Seems HuffPo bused in 10,000 non-partisans, according to HuffPo. Personal anecdote--heard a CBS radio news report around 3 pm local time that mentioned the crowd being mainly liberal, and of course they used a soundbite of someone saying the right has become too radical. As predicted this was nothing more than a moderate democratic rally timed to GOTV on Tuesday.

I kept waiting for them to lampoon the fear of Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, or Social Security reform, or Global Warming, but didn't see it. The bigger question is whether this very large crowd will make Tuesday's results a lot closer. Gut instinct says the races will be closer than the media narrative.

MORE, FOR SOME REASON 10/30/10

Funny how it's OK for these folks to express fear:

GORDON PETERSON: Nina, columnist Paul Krugman says if the election goes as expected, his advice is be afraid, be very afraid. Should we take his advice?

NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: I am already afraid, very afraid. I mean, it’s not like governance has been going great. I think we’ll, I don't know whether I should be afraid, but there will be gridlock.

But that's not the kind of fear Stewart and Colbert were lampooning--that's the fear they were actually projecting by holding the rally. They really are afraid to lose one-party Democratic rule.

The same stuff was said in 1995 when Gingrich and crew rolled in to the House but the result was a stiff-arm of Clinton, more fiscally responsible government, and a decent economy up until 2000. Some of these folks need to stop fearmongering over the fearmongering.

The Age of Civility

This is apropos for a Friday going into the election next week..



HT Verum Serum

Defining the Enemy

It's nice to see our POTUS is finally clearly defining the "enemy" and encouraging punishment. No more talk about meetings without preconditions and that girly-man stuff.

And that "you're either with us, or against us" device to show his resolve--brilliant. No more mealy-mouthed moral equivalency. Everyone knows the panty-wastes who don't display the core American values of amnesty and border chaos have a thumpin' comin'!

As to the king thing, well Bushitler got reamed for admitting he could do more as a dictator but our current occupant is a man of dreams.

Hello, First October Surprise

This one's against Harry Reid:

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repeatedly lied to federal immigration and FBI agents and submitted false federal documents to the Department of Homeland Security to cover up her illegal seven-year marriage to a Lebanese national who was the subject of an Oklahoma City Joint Terror Task Force investigation, FoxNews.com has learned.

Let's follow this bouncing ball--she entered a sham marriage with a Lebanese citizen in 2003, who had arrived in 2000 to attend college in Oklahoma City. They stayed married while he did who-knows-what trying to earn his permanent resident card while she got a job with the National Council on La Raza in 2006, then later a job as a PR person for Harry Reid in October 2008. One month later she was busted by the FBI for the sham marriage while her 'husband' had begun to draw the attention of the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Ok City.

The scandal here seems to be whether the FBI told Reid's office about this in 2008 because according to Fox she remained in his employ until just recently. One could ask whether that was due to her ties with La Raza or just a desire to avoid bringing the husband's Middle Eastern baggage into Reid's press coverage, especially from the Oklahoma City area.

Who knows what'll happen next (assuming this gets much coverage outside of Fox). Reid might point out how he tried to save the illegal alien population of the world through amnesty, which would have presented this tragedy from happening, which was actually caused by Sharon Angle for opposing illegal aliens. All while claiming no knowledge of the staffer's problems.

Still, it seems pretty weak as October surprises go, especially for Democrats--after all if the president can have an illegal alien aunt and suffer no political damage then Angle shouldn't hope for much. And surely the Dems will soon turn the focus of evil towards Fox News for reporting it.

Self Evident

At least three times now in recent weeks the president has quoted the Declaration of Independence and left out the word "Creator" while speaking at fundraisers. What does that tell us?

Maybe it tells us he needs contacts to read the teleprompter. But missing the same word? What are the odds? It's not hard to pronounce, like corpsman, and after all, he's not Bush. Is he pandering to the atheists? No, they can't hold that much electoral sway. Maybe he's being sensitive to the Muslims? Nope, they believe in a Creator, too. Hmm, maybe he's just a moron.

Pass the Shovel Please

Righty blogs are in a buzz over the admission from Times writer David Brooks that Obama told him there really wasn't such a thing as 'shovel ready' while he was telling America to plow borrowed money into those magical shovels.

OK, let's be real: Obama and friends most likely used the same tactic to sell ARRA that Bush and friends used to sell the Iraq war (the Iraqi oil would pay for a large chunk of the cost, etc), ie., politicians are generally in the business of promising miracles through hoodwink, especially when the situation is dire or deemed as such. The 2000 page ARRA set a land-speed record for passing through Congress and was clearly written well in advance, just like most of the Patriot Act. It was a reaction to fear, unless you believe in the Illuminati.

But did Brooks really break a story? Here's Obama in the WaPo in December 2009, ten months ago and about ten months after George Soros handed him the finished bill (sorry, couldn't resist), talking about shovels:

"The tension we've been seeing is that what is good for the longer term may not work as an immediate short-term stimulus. We're still getting slapped around in the Recovery Act for this," Obama said. "The term 'shovel-ready' -- let's be honest, it doesn't always live up to its billing."

Other than vintage Obama--the all knowing SpockYoda figure floating above the maelstrom telling everyone what to do, then explaining how and why everyone failed when his advice tanks--let's be clear here...that's about as close as he gets to admitting failure (in this case by saying others were lying to him about the term). But those in the know like Brooks were no doubt smiling because they knew it was a game all along.

BTW, this was the same event in which Obama said the Chinese were rebuilding faster because they aren't 'burdened' with democracy. Ironically, SpockYoda also said the following in the same article:

But at the same time, Obama made it sound as if he was not keen on doing more of the road repavings and other faster-acting repairs that have dominated the infrastructure, which he said "may duplicate needs of the past as opposed [providing] vision."

Which is strange considering the 50 billion planes, trains and automobiles "roads, railways and runways" stimulus package he's proposing, apparently just to smack around the GOP on the never-ending campaign trail. And here the Apollo Alliance was taking the credit for the infrastructure funding in the original ARRA, which they apparently helped draft. Or in other words, Obama may have promised change but he didn't mean changing the way politicians operate. His goal has always been about spreading the wealth around, globally. Tactics that work towards that goal won't change.

Speaking of which, the real failure of the ARRA is yet to be determined, and that is, did it grease enough palms to keep the House and Senate in Democratic hands come November? We shall soon find out.

The Politics of Terrorist Trials

Robert Gibbs was hit with a question today in the daily briefing--paraphrasing--"when will the trial for al-Nashiri be conducted?" He gave the same stock answer the families have heard for 10 long years. Ten long years ago today, as a matter of fact. Obama waxed reflective:

“I will never forget meeting with some of the families of the victims of this bombing in February 2009. I am deeply grateful to them for their sacrifice, and their efforts to keep the memory of this tragic event alive in our nation’s conscience.

They probably haven't forgotten, either:

Obama called a meeting of the Cole families and made us feel comfortable that something would be done. Now I see that it was a political stunt and how disingenuous he was on this issue. Supposedly we had a contact person at the White House. Obama told us we would always have an open phone. After the announced decision I tried calling this guy and am not getting any response at all. It seems this administration does not care.

Hmm. According to this story everyone is ready to go:

“We don’t have a date yet” for reviving the charges, the official said. When he and other military officials have asked about the delay, they’ve been told, “The administration wants to wait until after the election to go forward,” the official added.

Today it was announced that lawyers for Major Hasan have asked for a 30 day delay (until after the election). Nobody seems to know much about the trial of Underbomber Abdulmutallab other than he's fired his lawyers and wants to defend himself--usually a sign he wants the opportunity to rant off a diatribe like Little Rock recruiter jihadist Abdulhakim, whose own state trial is also languishing and under a gag order (apparently for everyone except the suspect).

Maybe the Ghailani trial (Embassy bombings) has provided enough negative PR already this close to the mid-terms. But fret not--no matter what happens (guilt, innocence, hung juries) these guys will all remain locked up for life. And their brothers on the battlefield will be killed on site. There will be no stealing of democracy!

Sure, it's troubling if Justice is delaying justice for political reasons. Not surprising, but troubling nonetheless because it shows an apparent disregard for the importance of this fight. But if true it's not entirely clear whether that reluctance would be over the right's reaction to trials in federal court (Nashiri is to be tried in a military tribunal) or the left's anger over all things terrorism and torture in general and their perception that the administration has failed miserably in their responsibility to frogmarch enough Bush criminals.

Most likely it's the latter. Not that Obama wouldn't delight in frogmarching a few Republicans this close to the mid-terms if he could, but when the shoe is on the other foot it sometimes tends to produce a clearer view. Besides, there's always hope.

MORE 10/13/10

Here's an MSNBC article on the Cole by Michael Isikoff rehashing the "Bush ignored Richard Clarke" meme that invariably comes up in leftist circles, the crux being that bin Laden was able to use the non-response to the Cole as a recruiting tool before 9/11.

So let's get this straight. Attacking Muslim lands to strike back after attacks is a recruiting tool for the jihadists. NOT striking back after attacks is a recruiting tool for the jihadists.

While 'stale' might not be the best term to describe the situation after the Bush folks came in it was close--there was no outrage or public cry to revenge the attack outside the national security sector. The public was resting from the election snafu and had still not figured out AQ was at war with the west and what it meant, nor, apparently had the new administration. Imagine for a second had Bush come on TV and announced he was invading Afghanistan in June 2001 due to the Cole attack, and how the left would have reacted.

Stealing Our Democracy

How dare they! How? Desperate times and all. Here's the theme of a new DNC ad against those evil repukes:

"Stop stealing our democracy"

Hey, everyone knew the party of ends justify means...the party of 'I won'...the party of personal destruction cough Palin cough O'Donnell would play the Bush card--they made a promise. No shocker.

Yeah, one could question whether the DNC is even aware that we don't have a democracy but rather a constitutional republic, but that begs another question--how could so many holders of JDs get it so wrong? Perhaps they purposefully meant to equate America to dime a dozen third world "democracies" run by tinpots. Maybe that's where the true hope and change lies.

But the bigger question is why in the world would the president want to wage open warfare with the US Chamber of Commerce--during a recession? Seems just a tad counter-productive, especially since he has two more years to work with them in his laser-like focus on jobs, jobs, jobs and they represent the folks who create lots of jobs, jobs, jobs. So it's very very weird, even from an Axelrod political perspective or even a D'Souza analyzed anti-colonialist viewpoint, unless they are simply figuring their target voters have no clue what a chamber of commerce is or does. Just associate them with Rove and they become evil and must be defeated at all costs (unlike say, the Taliban)!

And that leaves another question, whether this new attack signifies a coming scorched-earth strategy should the Republicans take back control of Congress. Over the past few days there have certainly been stories about 'hand to hand combat' and 'play(ing) hell' by both Obama and Biden in describing how they will guard the change in a post GOP apocalypse (victory) world. And here it seems like just yesterday they were whining about a lack of cooperation from the minority party while condemning them as a party of fear. Go figure.

Oh well, who knows. This is Obama, the enigma. Maybe it's not really a sign of the coming revolución but just some pot rattling to turn out the base, sort of like getting rid of a warmongering general as NSA in favor of a political hack (thanks to the awesomely fortuitous timing of Bob Woodward's new manuscript) a month before the mid-terms and the effect it might have on certain voters. Politics as usual, in other words, the kind of undeliverable Obama said he wouldn't deliver but did. Then again, something about this smacks to a certain degree of truth.

Clinton's Fault

Interesting study from the American Sociological Review about the sub-prime mortgage mess:

Predatory lending aimed at racially segregated minority neighborhoods led to mass foreclosures that fueled the U.S. housing crisis, according to a new study published in the American Sociological Review.

Since their perspective is unsurprisingly lefty it's refreshing to see an admission of one of the main problems--too many defaults from the target group Carter and later Clinton were trying to "help".

Of course the sociologists came out with a stock rationale for those defaults--predatory lending--but subtract the idiotic boilerplate and the remainder nicely defines the problem and part of the reason for the subsequent great recession. That's not to say the MBS and other instruments created by banks and financial institutions weren't also to blame but they were clearly in response to the government's vision of affordable housing fueled by powerful lobbies, not the other way around.

That's why a job at one of the GSEs, like Fannie Mae, became a plum or maybe even more during the halcyon days of Clinton.

At any rate, perhaps someone can make sure the President of the United States gets this report because he's still out blaming the worst economic crisis since the depression on the 'failed policies' of George W. Shrub. Sounds like Clinton was at least half responsible, if not more, yet returning to his policies is what Obama is suggesting we need to do to fix everything.

God on Their Side

The Huffington Post has a breathless headline this morning:

Christine O'Donnell Says God Is Guiding Her Campaign (VIDEO)

The story goes on to point out comments she made about her faith guiding her in the campaign. But that's not the story. The article quotes Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of the Interfaith Alliance, on the subject on politics and faith:

Candidates for public office are free to talk about how their faith informs their thinking, but should not imply that policy positions will be based on scripture rather than the Constitution. It has been my experience that when candidates intentionally insert faith into politics, the purpose is rarely to protect religion; rather it is done to enhance a political position.

Emphasis added to point out the dichotomy created by this statement just a few days ago, from the President of the United States, in response to why he became a Christian:

"It was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead -- being my brother's and sister's keeper, treating others as they would treat me," he said.

"And I think also understanding that, you know, that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings -- that we're sinful and we're flawed and we make mistakes, and that we ... achieve salvation through the grace of God."

and..

"I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith,"

Hmm, sure seems like he might be trying to suggest the precepts of Jesus and the Bible have led to his 'policies', doesn't it?

Not in My Backyard!

CNN reports the 'backstory' of how the Hatfield-Clubbs of Des Moines, Iowa got their backyard picked for Obama's backdrop backyard tour:

"It's like winning the lottery," Jeff Clubb said, "but without even buying a ticket."

The couple say they are baffled about how they even made the list to be considered. They are both registered Democrats who voted for Obama, but neither of them campaigned or raised money for the candidate. Jeff Clubb, a former Arizona resident, says he voted for John McCain for senator when he lived there.

The White House often looks for people who have a good life story and have benefited from the administration's policies. The Clubbs fit the bill, as middle-class parents of two young children, Tristan 11, and Skyelar 9. Jeff is a former firefighter who now teaches social studies and religion at Holy Trinity Catholic School. Sandy is the athletic director at Drake University.

Hmm, what consists of a "good life story"? Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have good life stories--both came from 'working families' and both have overcome adversity. How about Sarah Palin? Would her backyard qualify? So maybe there's a backstory to the backstory. Scrounging Googles we find this feed:

White House staff asked Democratic state Rep. Janet Petersen, one of the first state legislators to endorse Obama, for names of potential hosts. "I wasn't given any parameters, like they've got to be Democrats or Republicans or independents," said Peterson, who lives near the Clubbs. After scouting the Clubbs' yard, White House staff said they were interested.

Yet she picked Democrats who lived in the neighborhood. What are the odds!? For some reason CNN didn't think that was part of the backstory. What are the odds!? More from the feed:

Sandy Hatfield Clubb said there's no backstory of a connection to the White House. [1] The guest list is about 80 names long, and the White House let the Clubbs choose all but about 20

Yes, all the stories made a point to note the couple were not political activists and didn't give money to Obama. Indeed, the net seems devoid of screeds under their names (or they've covered their tracks well). But does it really matter? As long as they weren't closet Birchers or birthers Obama only needed a nice prop to continue his down home message of how Destructive W. Bush screwed America and it ain't his fault...



Notice he is now claiming the Bush tax cuts are the largest part of the current deficit, even larger than his "emergency" stimulus spending that goes into the trillions. And he says the GOP didn't counter them with any spending cuts. Trouble! Yet immediately thereafter he launches into a back-pat over passing 8 small business tax cuts and proposing an extension of those very same Bush tax cuts, with no proposed cuts. Eh? Gee, doesn't anyone in the backyard get to ask a follow up or pose a rebuttal? Were the media tied up behind an oak tree or something?

Truthiness over Substance

Click over to any mainstream media site this afternoon and type "Christopher Coates" in their search bar and see what you get. A quick survey showed not much... here's CNN (not on main page); ABC had a back page shortie from the AP as did CBS and MSNBC. The WaPo, to their credit, was the only main news outlet giving the story top billing first slot on their web page:

Former voting section chief Christopher Coates, who was transferred to the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina in the midst of a controversy over the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, testified Friday morning before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Justice Department officials strongly dispute his allegations against the agency.

The paper of record had nothing on Coates as of 5 pm CDT. But they did have a top page feature on someone who once testified in front of Congress, Valerie Plame. Maybe that was a tweak.

Of course the all had prominent front page coverage of comedian Stephen Colbert 'testifying' before a House subcommittee today. Now, a cynical person might think the Democrats were trying to hijack the headlines to shift focus away from what could be a very embarrassing story about the Holder Justice Department by bringing a clown to Congress. Not sure which one was scheduled first but Zoe Lofgren, the congressgoof who invited Colbert, claims he was invited to bring attention to the cause of illegal immigration.

There's nothing on Lofgren's Congressional page but her Facebook page has a post that 'explains' why she invited him wherein Colbert says he was there to stand up for those who leave their rights at the border and make a mockery of our rule of law by entering America illegally to pick fruit for cash to send back to Mexico (paraphrasing, of course).

So maybe there was no conspiracy but the fact is most of the mainstream papers felt a comedian in Congress other than Al Franken deserved much more coverage than potential fraud at the DOJ. If only Emanuel had fired a few US Attorneys.

Financial Revisionism

Limbaugh has been off the rails the past two days over Obama's town hall comment that he inherited two unpaid for wars and two unpaid for tax cuts (town hall snippets available in parts here).

El Rushbo's rants bring up a few important questions about how the president is shaping history on the financial downturn, a few highlighted below...

1. Obama says it took 10 years to get into the mess therefore it'll take awhile to get out.

This is clever phrasing. It leaves the impression that George W. Bush caused the greatest financial downturn since the depression but the reason he stipulates 10 years has more to do with the reforms signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999 and 2000, which opened the door to the derivatives and other financial flim-flam instruments that were created to spread the financial risk around in an effort to support affordable housing initiatives. Of course we know Obama was wildly in favor of these programs and took more political money from Fannie Mae than any other candidate. Even Obama's new OMB candidate won't agree that financial deregulation was the entire cause of the bust.

2. He whines that he was given a 1.3 trillion debt wrapped up in a bow when he got to the White House.

Of course what he doesn't say is that 700 billion of it was from the TARP bailout that HE voted for, which was needed to bail out the financial industry for propping up the affordable housing boondoggle that was being exploited by just about everyone, including Democrats and Main Street.

It was the Bush administration who timidly tried to reform the GSEs but was thwarted by Congress, mainly by the Congressional Black Caucus, who saw such reforms as racist. Senator Obama was an honorary member of the CBC.

3. Obama says there were two wars and two tax cuts that weren't paid for that contributed to the debt he is now managing.

This is what really peeved Limbaugh and should peeve others as well, because he's in effect saying that wars are simple government programs and not national security responses to attacks. FDR didn't pay for his "two wars" either--and taxes were already maxed out by by early 40s. Using national defense to blame a predecessor for debt is an outrageous thing for a president to assert.

As to tax cuts, even Chris Tingles Matthews understands how silly Obama's logic is on saying they 'weren't paid for'. Tax cuts are simply the government not taking as much personal income from the governed. The money does not belong to the government, it belongs to the people. Right now we are operating under a law that sets a tax rate; it expires at the end of the year due to the way it was passed but letting it expire (similar to letting a transportation bill expire) would mean a tax increase, period. Obama is getting away with another rhetorical flim-flam by insinuating the expiration would not be an increase.

Meanwhile he's all over the place on tax cuts, boasting that he's given 8 so far and will extend the 'middle class' Bush tax cuts (remember when the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich?), yet at the same time saying they contributed to the financial collapse, presumably because of decreased government revenues, which is highly questionable as shown here.


Clearly, Obama likes using town halls because he can control the audience and perhaps the moderator, and will not get tough follow-up questions after his syrupy filibustering answers, which he knows will make TV. He's entirely in his element, perhaps the best ever.

But imagine if the crowd were filled with fair-minded journalists. When asked if he might debate Boehner using the same town hall format, as Clinton did with Gingrinch in the 90s, he dodged by saying that since he doesn't think Boehner will become Speaker, there's no point.

CRAP 9/22/10

I could have saved myself a lot of time in typing by just pointing the reader(s) to this.

The Economy vs the Extremists

That's apparently what Decision 10 will be coming down to if the Democrats decide to pursue one of the range of options ideas available to AxelRahm:

President Obama’s political advisers, looking for ways to help Democrats and alter the course of the midterm elections in the final weeks, are considering a national advertising campaign that would cast the Republican Party as all but taken over by Tea Party extremists, people involved in the discussion said.

Of course the article was a trial balloon because no party would give away a strategy so easily. The White House is now 100 percent denying it. Maybe the guilt-by-association slam campaign didn't focus group well. Nevertheless, the story is out--tea party extremists=GOP. Mission accomplished for today.

Meanwhile Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO chief enforcer and keeper of the faith even if he's not good at ciphering, has already sent out 2.5 pieces of angry mail targeting TEA members. He's been on the attack for several months now. And who are the extremists again?

Yes, yes, everyone knows it's all the Democrats have. They can't run on takeovers and cram-downs with unemployment still 9-10 percent. "It's the economy, stupid" still holds sway as always sans some kind of imminent security threat. With so little substance we can expect a lot of Alinsky Rule 5 activity, perhaps with the presidential participation (this stuff really trips his trigger). Wildcard one is whether the big media will do their part by focusing incessantly on O'Donnell and other conservatives they believe are ripe for intimidation or public mocking or will they play it more even this time.

Seems if the GOP is to counter this coordinated blizzard of innuendo and smear they need to circle the wagons and keep hammering a message that the real extremists are already in power and have nearly bankrupted the country--and if given a mandate will raise taxes and enact cap and trade and a variety of other budget busters. Here we have wildcard two--it's not clear they can do it with cracks already showing between the TEA caucus and the GOP establishment.

Wildcard three would be the faux conservative Dems up for reelection in 'Red State' districts. A super negative campaign could easily blow back on them and make them turn cartoonishly right, which could be exploited via pointing out their votes. But here we have wildcard four--the Dem machine has a lot of money. It ain't over til it's over.

Counting on the Unions

It's a given that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are beholden to powerful labor unions for their survival. Such a postulate is easily proven by looking at the Stimulus, health care bill, auto bailout, cash for clunkers, recent state aid bill and the proposed infrastructure stimulus--all had significant perks for unions, including restrictions on some that forbade non-union companies from competing. And of course Joe Biden, who probably wouldn't have been chosen had he not appealed to 'the working man'.

So it's interesting to see this headline in the New York Times today about union influence:

Unions Find Members Slow to Rally Behind Democrats

The column hits mainly on the disappointment union members are feeling after devoting so much time and effort into getting a Democrat super majority. Here's a comment that might sum up the entire mid-term political situation:

For the union brass, turning around voters like Mike DeGasperis, a steelworker from Martins Ferry, Ohio, could prove difficult; two years ago he was motivated by his “anti-Bush” feelings.

“We heard everything was going to change, but there hasn’t been much change and the unemployment is still bad and the area we live in is still really depressed,” said Mr. DeGasperis, who was laid off for 10 months last year.

He said he had not decided whom to back in the House, Senate and governor’s races — all key in Ohio, a pivotal swing state. “I’m going to keep my options open.”

Guess it wasn't "change that mattered" for him. Notice also the motivation--'anti Bush feelings', which is quite strange since Bush wasn't running. He was clearly energized by a combination of the left's successful demonization of Iraq and by the last minute collapse of the housing market in 2008, which was also blamed on exclusively on Bush. He voted to get rid of a marketed culture of evil and failure.

So what does his recent change of heart mean, exactly? It's hard to say for sure, but it could be interpreted to mean there's a better way to create jobs aside from demonizing Republicans, printing money or confiscating it from those who create the jobs. Regardless, it points out how difficult it's going to be for the Dems to run on an economy they completely own--the GOP voted against every one of the socialized programs.

That's not all, though. The story wanders into an area many Democrat and union bosses are loathe to go--loyalty in the booth. Many rank and file union members simply have a hard time pulling the lever for someone like Pelosi. According to the story 37 percent of union members voted for McCain. Many union men and women are patriotic down to earth Americans who don't like the country being run down, or the perception thereof.

So it'll be interesting to see if the Dem party leaders and various union spokesflacks like Richard Trumka can convince people like Mr. DeGasperis to vote against Bush one more time. It's really all they've got. Perhaps the bigger question might be how far they are willing to go to get it done--the stakes are ridiculously high.

MORE 9/19/10

Here's an interesting take on GM's former Delphi unit and the pension debacle that developed as GM began to teeter towards bankruptcy itself. Seems the UAW workers got the gold mine while their white collar salaried employees got the shaft. The WaPo asks if it was politics or crisis management... gee, if it was any other president aside from the one who told the plumber he wanted to "spread the wealth around" that might be a tough question to answer.

Let the Games Begin, er, Continue!

Obama is making all the late Labor Day internet mainstream news headlines with his "fired up" Milwaukee speech. The picture at left is a composite of his demeanor during the Iraq speech and today's barnburner (it's clear what animates the man). Here are a few headlines..

Obama Revs Into Campaign Mode in Wisconsin

Obama assails GOP, promotes new jobs program

Fired Up Obama Pushes $50 Billion Infrastructure Plan to Create Jobs

ABC also had a subheadline.. "If I said fish live in the sea, Republicans would say no", which was included in the speech along with the normal blevy of knocked over strawmen and the requisite analogy about cars, ditches and keys. It's almost as if Obama has forgotten he was once a member of a Democratically controlled Congress in 2006 and got all that money from the GSEs.

Anyway, it's "game on". Obama will be working every hour of every minute of every day to save jobs--mainly those held by his various ideological friends in Congress.

BTW, the 50 billion infrastructure fund is interesting, since the original Stimulus was billed as both a jobs program and had about 50 billion for infrastructure. Forgotten, or spent elsewhere?

And what up with the railroad thing? The original stimulus had billions for rail. Where are the bullet trains? And no he doesn't mean freight rail since most lines in America are privately owned and issue stock and are in good financial shape despite the downturn (thanks to deregulation). Besides, the Senate recently passed a bill giving tax breaks for private capital investment in the freight rails. That means it's not from you--unless you want it to be. In other words, the American way.

No, Obama probably will send some of the money to subsidize transit unions via commuter rail and Amtrak, the latter of which just got through with a nasty union fight over losing a commuter rail contract in Virginia. If it ever happens, that is. Chances are this is another strawman; a bill offering goodies that the GOP cannot possibly sign onto, so when they don't Obama can continue to blame them for the failure of the original stimulus they just said no to.

DOG DAYS 9/7/10

The right blogosphere has gone to the dogs over Obama's dog comment. But it's obvious what he's doing here. The reason he goes off script when attacking strawmen and big business/bankers and not during national defense announcements is because it's where his passion, hope and change lie. Clearly O wants to exit, stage left from all the wars so he can focus every hour of every minute of every day on the one campaign promise he's managed to keep more than any others--transforming America. Spreading the wealth around.

He even compared success in general to greed, saying that's not what made America great. Does he include Google and Microsoft in that? He should know that 'greedy' corporations were a large part of making America great. There's a difference between common sense regulation and simply taking their money and giving it to someone else.

It's all for the working man, which means union man, as if nobody but union people actually work. That's another false illusion designed to create an image of us versus them. That's not what made America great.

Obama was also animated back during the AIG crisis when he told the corporate dogs that they better watch it, because he was the only one standing between them and the pitchforks. An open threat, which resulted in the government appointing people to break bankruptcy precedent and make their own rules. That's not what made America great either.

Defining the Tea Party

ABC News online has a feature story about the Boston Tea Party, written by Mark Gemein (of Fortune Mag, Salon, and elsewhere) who points out the disconnect between high taxes and the real Tea Party, using it to make some observations about the modern TEA folks:

The effect of the Tea Act was not to make tea more expensive for colonists, but much less so -- and much cheaper than it was in England. The economic losers here were tea smugglers, among them the wealthy merchant John Hancock, who would go on to become the first signer of the Declaration of Independence. Yet, ultimately, this didn't matter one bit. What was at stake was no longer tax revenue and the price of tea, but the right of the Crown to tax the colonies.

He goes on to summarize:

Democrats assume that if they could only convince folks that the program of federal austerity advocated by Tea Partiers will prolong the economic malaise, that support would wither away. But to try to prove to that to Tea Party supporters today is a little like trying to prove to the original Tea Partiers that the net effect of the Tea Act was to lower the price of tea. It may well be correct, but it misses the driving force of the movement. The Tea Partiers may talk about economic growth, but what they really care about is the moral project of rewarding the Responsibles and punishing the Deadbeats. For the movement zealots, it's the principle that really counts -- and even a little Depression may not be too high a price to see it through.

But is it a fair observation or a cleverly worded partisan hatchet job? Well, he refers to Paul Krugman as something of a modern Keynsian Paul Revere; a voice in the wilderness trying to warn the stubborn TEA people of the impending Hoover-like doom (evidently compared to the successful FDR spending programs and eventual war borrowing that cut the depression to only 10 years). All in all it's one of those articles that feels like a slam without the official slam seal of approval.

For instance, he seems to paint the movement as not only ignorant of history but more a pack of closet xenophobic racists who just want to punish minorities and their entitlements at the expense of patriots ('responsibles') for our massive debt, which he never calls dangerous or unsustainable. The fact he links to Rand Paul to summarize 'their position'--as if Paul has somehow been elected as TEA president--is another clue. And the cheap shot at Hancock feels like one of those "flog a sacred cow" kind of historic revelations inserted to shock the hoi polloi.
Of course more context would have been useful but why ruin the intended effect.

Fortunately in Democracies history isn't written by one man or Wikipedia--thanks to the sex poodle there are other sources. Here's another way of looking at the Tea Act in a much less verbose summary, taken from "Social Studies for Kids", an online scholastic site:

1773 Act that gave a monopoly on tea sales to the East India Company. In other words, American colonists could buy no tea unless it came from that company. Why? Well, the East Indian Company wasn't doing so well, and the British wanted to give it some more business. The Tea Act lowered the price on this East India tea so much that it was way below tea from other suppliers. But the American colonists saw this law as yet another means of "taxation without representation" because it meant that they couldn't buy tea from anyone else (including other colonial merchants) without spending a lot more money. Their response was to refuse to unload the tea from the ships. This was the situation in Boston that led to the Boston Tea Party.

Notice the slight difference in tone in getting to the point--the Colonists saw it as a stunt along with an unfair tax, even if the price was lower--but of course the scholastic site wasn't trying to make any political points. Here's a summary from the Boston Tea Party Historical Society:

The Tea Act taxed the tea at source (i.e. in India) so there was no tax collection in the colonies. The act allowed the tea to go directly to America instead of having to be imported to Britain and then re-exported to the colonies. This made the tea 9d per lb cheaper, even with the 3d tax. It also allowed the East India Company to sell the tea exclusively to chosen merchants (consignees) in the American colonies. This established monopolies in America and offended colonial merchants.

Manipulation and monopoly. Here's yet another short take:

The Boston Tea Party was an "in your face" approach to let the British authorities know that the Patriots in the New World had their own ideas; their own agenda; and their own plans for self-government.

In other words the point was more of making a point--that the government of Britain, of which they had little say, was not going to dictate their affairs any longer, even if through bribery. And in that alone there are certainly some parallels to modern politics and the mood of the TEA folks, regardless of whether they completely parallel the original history. So here's another version of what the modern TEA party might represent in context with the original Boston Tea Party:

The Tea Act was a bailout by the British government of their state-run tea company after years of screwing the Colonists on high duties, which precipitated a black market. The act was craftily marketed as a benefit but one which the Patriots saw through almost immediately and acted valiantly to stop. Hancock was not a criminal, he was a free trade patriot. And taxation without representation is wrong; bailouts don't work over the long run; and free markets are more in line with the rights of man than artificial government manipulation.

While it's true there are some who don't understand anything except "no new taxes" and some who probably don't get the historical connection, such wasn't completely explained in Mr. Gimein's article. But before calling it a partisan shot maybe it's more a style issue. For comparison, the same writer seems to be defending George Soros in this provocatively titled older piece. It's an interesting read, pointing out Soros' war against the "with us or against us" Bush doctrine (that liberals took completely out of context) and the evils of capitalism in general. It goes on to illustrate how an enraged Soros bought his way into the Democratic machine in trying to effect change on American politics, and how he should be taken seriously not as some kind of nut.

But was he defending him or just trying to warn free-marketeers? Hard to say but there wasn't anything in there close to insinuating that Soros was a misguided socialist ignorant of history or economics, which might more parallel the above piece. One thing is sure--the closer the November elections come the more of these kind of articles will appear in the mainstream press as they attempt to pigeonhole the Democratic opposition.