Category Archives: Barack Obama

Links and thoughts on Obamanomics

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Here’s a video comparing and contrasting the media’s economic reporting during the Bush administration with their approach now that their man is in the White House:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eO5pDbf6et8

The creator of that video writes,

By the middle of 2003, a mild recession had ended and the economy turned around big-time, with the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs and whopping GDP growth of 7.5% in the third quarter. Yet month after month, the national media downplayed the good economic news with the dreaded “but,” as in “Positive economic indicator X was released today, but the economy is still in the toilet . . .” (Oh, by the way . . . George W. Bush was President back then.)

Of course, with President Obama now in the White House, the media’s economic coverage is the mirror opposite. As the unemployment rate skyrockets and hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost every month, the bad economic news is spun by Obama’s friends in the media: “Negative economic indicator Y was released today, but it’s not nearly bad as we’d expected, and besides,unemployment can be fun!”

But hey, at least the Pelosi/Obama super-duper extra-special economic stimulus package has softened the blow, right? At least job losses aren’t as bad as projected, right? . . . Well, actually, it hasn’t worked out that way:

All in all, I’d say that’s not exactly the recovery we were promised. I know Newsweek called Barack Obama our first Vulcan president, but offhand, I’d say the media coverage of his economic policy is more likely the result of a few Jedi mind tricks. As Randall Hoven says, I think it’s about time to call this “the Obama recession.” (HT: Shane Vander Hart) Most people aren’t to that point yet, but The Nation is now predicting that if and when the official unemployment rate goes above 10%, they will be.

When the federal government actually acknowledges that the country has a double-digit unemployment rate, when a figure that is above 10 percent becomes that official number—something that the trend lines suggest could happen this summer—the country reaches an emotional and political tipping point. . . .

Politically, it is the point at which people start looking for someone to blame. . . .

If the country is socked with a double-digit unemployment rate, and if the actions of the administration that is in charge are seen as feeding the increase in joblessness, that’s the political point of no return.

Of course, we’d be at that point (and beyond it) already if it weren’t for the way the government calculates things, since as John Nichols points out in that article, the real number is a lot worse than the official one:

America already has double-digit unemployment.

In fact, the real unemployment rate, as opposed to the official rate, is well over 15 percent.

That’s because the official unemployment rate—which as of Friday stood at 9.4 percent, following another leap in jobless claims for May—is not, as economist John Williams has noted, “figured in the way that that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression.”

What happens when we include people who have stopped looking for work because they do not believe there are jobs to be found, along with part-time workers who would like to be working full-time?

Then, we start looking not at the unsettling 10 percent figure but the far more frightening 20 percent number.

Ed Morrissey gives Nichols “high marks for intellectual honesty” in coming right out and saying this;

Normally, the Left likes to trot that out during Republican administrations and leave it in the barn during Democratic presidencies.

Morrissey agrees with Nichols’ conclusion even as he rejects his prescriptions:

Even if we wildly disagree on economics, we agree that Obama will own this unemployment cycle, and soon. The 10% mark is a psychological barrier that Obama simply cannot avoid. Even without it, blaming Bush has a shelf life whose expiration date is rapidly approaching. Bush didn’t spend trillions of dollars in 2009 and promise that it would create “or save” jobs. Voters will get tired of hearing how many jobs Obama thinks he’s “saved” while unemployment continues to rise.

Obama has been in charge for almost five months and got every single bit of economic policy he wanted from Congress. If the economy remains mired and debt keeps skyrocketing, people will start to ask what they got for all of their great-grandchildren’s money.

This will only be exacerbated if the president gets his way, since he’s pushing a change to our nation’s tax structure that will drive more jobs overseas. Don’t believe me? Maybe you’ll believe Steve Ballmer, who ought to know:

Last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer came to Washington to announce what Microsoft would do if Obama’s multinational tax policy is enacted.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said, “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S.” If Microsoft, perhaps our most competitive company, has to abandon the U.S. in order to continue to thrive, who exactly is going to stay?

In surveying the issue—President Obama’s proposal to end the deferral of multinational taxation—Kevin Hassett (a former advisor to the McCain campaign) asks,

Why does Obama advocate a policy that so flies in the face of everything that economists have learned? How could Obama possibly say, as he did last month, that he wants “to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens?” Further, how could Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner call a practice that top scholarship has shown increases wages and employment in the U.S. “indefensible?”

I have to admit I am at a loss. Maybe it is good politics to bash American corporations, and Obama isn’t really serious about making this change happen. But if the change is enacted, and domestic corporate taxes aren’t reduced to offset the big tax hike, the result will be a flight from the U.S. that rivals in scale the greatest avian arctic migrations.

Incidentally, that scholarship includes “the same James Hines who recently wrote a sweeping review of international tax policy with Obama’s top economist, Larry Summers,” so the president’s economic team has to be well aware of what the unintended consequences of his proposal would be.

I’ve said this before, I think, that the great flaw in leftist economic theory is that it assumes that people’s economic behavior doesn’t change when tax laws change—and that’s just not true. Make something more expensive, people will buy less of it; make doing business in your jurisdiction more expensive, people will go where it’s cheaper. The Left understands this when it comes to things like tobacco and gasoline, which is why they’re all for higher taxes on both and were unbothered by last summer’s $4-a-gallon gas, but when it comes to taxes, they just don’t seem to be able to see it.

This is particularly problematic since the richer a person is, or a company is, the more they can do to avoid paying taxes if taxes are high enough to make it worth the effort. The more you raise taxes, the more the elite dodge them, and the more the burden falls on the middle class and below; the result is a tax structure which is functionally much more regressive and unfair, regardless of how it appears on the surface. Throw in the fact that under such circumstances, the folks who have the money are much less likely to use it to create jobs in this country, meaning less growth and less money in the economy, and most people get hit coming and going. We’re already seeing that under this administration; from where I sit, I think the economy’s likely to recover somewhat anyway, but the recovery will be weaker and slower and less complete because of this administration’s actions and policies.

And if, as I’m still very much afraid, al’Qaeda pulls off another major attack in the middle of all this, all bets are off.

 

Links to think about

Posted on by | No Comments

When I heard the news about the murder of George Tiller, one of the first writers to whom I looked for reaction was the Anchoress, Elizabeth Scalia, but at that point, she hadn’t gotten around to writing about it. On Thursday, though, she posted a superb piece as the daily article on the First Things website entitled “Tiller, Long, Bonhoeffer, and Assassination”; it’s an excellent piece of theological and moral reflection, and well worth your time to read. I particularly appreciate this piece of wisdom:

Why should we care about some dumb hick named William Long, who was only a soldier and not a hero abortionist? And why should his assassin’s name or religion matter? Because William Long was as entitled to the life he had, as was George Tiller. And Long’s death, at the hands of a man who used his religion to justify his actions, is the ultimate reminder of why Christians cannot emulate Bonhoeffer, for all his brilliance, or Tiller’s murderer: When we start thinking that we know the heart and mind of God so well that we may decide who lives and who dies, we slip into a mode of Antichrist.

The Pauline paradox “when I am weak, then I am strong” carries a flipside: “When I am strong, then I am weak.” Relativism is dangerous because we can too easily slip into the belief that we so well comprehend God’s will that we can confuse our own will for God’s, and thereby do terrible damage to one another. God’s rain falls on “the just and the unjust,” and it is one of the challenges of the life of faith that we must leave to God the rendering of his Justice.

The duty of a Christian—and it is a difficult duty—is to remain in the present moment that we might be alert to the promptings of the Holy Spirit (“continuing instant” in gratitude and prayer) while also taking the long view of things. This requires trust that however things look of a moment or a day, God is present and working: Nothing is static, everything is in a constant state of flux, all of it churning forward so that “in the fullness of time” Christ may restore all things to himself. What is left? Well, prayer, which is the most subversive of powers; it is a self-renewing weapon that cannot be wrested from us, and it cannot be over-employed.

Also of importance on this subject is Michelle Malkin’s reflection on the differing reactions to those two attacks from the media and the White House, “Climate of hate, world of double standards”:

Why the silence? Politically and religiously-motivated violence, it seems, is only worth lamenting when it demonizes opponents. Which also helps explain why the phrase “lone shooter” is ubiquitous in media coverage of jihadi shooters gone wild—think convicted Jeep Jihadi Mohammed Taheri-Azar at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill or Israel-bashing gunman Naveed Haq who targeted a Seattle Jewish charity or Los Angeles International Airport shooter Hesham Hedayet who opened fire at the El Al Israeli airline ticket counter—but not in cases involving rare acts of anti-abortion violence. . . .

The truth is that the “climate of hate” doesn’t have just one hemisphere. But you won’t hear the Council on American Islamic Relations acknowledging the national security risks of jihadi infiltrators who despise our military and have plotted against our troops from within the ranks—including convicted fragging killerHasan Akbar and terror plotters Ali Mohamed, Jeffrey Battle, and Semi Osman. . . .

Is it too much to ask the media cartographers in charge of mapping the “climate of hate” to do their jobs with both eyes open?

On Thursday, I posted a link to Robert Spencer’s demolition of the president’s Cairo speech, but he’s not the only one doing serious analysis and coming away worried; Toby Harnden of the Telegraph is another. Harnden highlights “Barack Obama’s 10 mistakes in Cairo” and concludes,

There’s been lots of breathless commentary today about the “historic” moment and the power of Obama’s oratory. In time, however, the speech will probably be remembered, at best, for its high-flown aspirations rather than the achievements it laid the foundations for. Or, at worst, for the naive and flawed approach it foretold.

Also well worth reading is the online symposium on the Cairo speech that National Reviewpulled together; the contributors raise a number of serious issues, but also offer some strong positive comments. I was particularly struck by the contribution from Mansoor Ijaz, identified as “a New York financier of Pakistani ancestry [who] jointly authored a ceasefire plan between Muslim militants and Indian security forces in Kashmir in 2000”; Ijaz begins by praising aspects of the speech as “brilliant” and “just right,” but then says this:

Where he failed in Cairo was to delineate the overarching fact that Islam’s troubles lie within. It is not that America is not at war with Islam. It is that Islam is at war within itself—to identify what this religion and system of beliefs is in the modern age. Osama bin Laden and his Egyptian sidekick Ayman Al Zawahiri want to take us all back to the Stone Age because they have nothing better to offer their followers than hate-filled preaching. Why didn’t Obama say that?

Islam’s worst enemies are within it. . . .

In fact, the most glaring truth is that Islam’s mobsters fear the West has it right: that we have perfected a system of life that Islam’s holy scriptures urged Muslims to learn and practice, but over the centuries increasingly did not. And having failed in their mission to lead their masses, they seek any excuse to demonize the West and to try and bring us down. They know they are losing the ideological struggle for hearts and minds, for life in all its different dimensions, and so they prepare themselves, and us, for Armageddon by starting fires everywhere in a display of Islamic unity intended to galvanize the masses they cannot feed, clothe, educate, or house.

And finally, for a different perspective on the state of the nation and on the international situation than we’re getting from DC, check out what Sarah Palin had to say on Saturday in her speech in Auburn, NY.

I especially appreciate this line, given our current president’s apparent belief that the best way to conduct foreign policy is to apologize for America to all the people who’ve hurt us for being the kind of people they want to hurt:

We never need to fear that though we’re not a perfect nation, that we must apologize for being proud of ourselves.

Thanks, Governor. We needed that.

Pocket lint reaches a new low

Posted on by | 2 Comments

In recent weeks I’ve suggested that the shorthand MSM, for “mainstream media,” is inaccurate, and that our old-line media organizations would better be called the Obama-stream media, or OSM, and accused them of being so deep in Barack Obama’s pocket as to be little more than pocket lint.  Even so, I was surprised by a couple things I saw this past week.  One was Newsweek editor Evan Thomas telling MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that “in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above—above the world, he’s sort of God.”

I can only say that in a way, that’s not even as ridiculous as Thomas’ follow-up statement that “He’s going to bring all different sides together”; I suppose that might make sense if you don’t consider conservative Republicans to qualify as a “side,” but otherwise, you have to wonder if Thomas has simply missed the hyperpartisan way in which the Obama administration has so far conducted business, and the severe disaffection of a significant chunk of the electorate.  (As of now, a full third of the electorate strongly disapproves of the president’s performance, just about as many as strongly approve, according to Rasmussen.)  In any case, if this is what the much-vaunted new Newsweek is going to amount to, then I have to think National Review got it right:

That’s not the only way in which our self-described “independent media” made complete lapdogs of themselves this week, either.  I thought far too much was made of NBC’s Brian Williams’ respectful inclination of the head to the president on taking his leave of the White House (especially since President Obama respectfully returned it), and far too little of the way in which Williams acted like a star-struck teenybopper mooning around ecstatically after the President over the course of the interview.  Amazingly, though, Jon Stewart caught it, and pretty much handed Williams his head on a platter.

Many liberals who believed in the importance of dissent and challenging the government when they were the ones doing the dissenting and challenging suddenly have a very different view:

These people are seeing that attacking “The Man” is not so funny when it is their man in the crosshairs. Suddenly such folks have a new-found respect for the office and a more circumspect behavior toward the president is now du jour.

The upshot of all this is a climate that is truly toxic to free speech, demanding conformity to the Cult of O—to the point that even some liberals are beginning to feel stifled:

If you want to stop a conversation in its tracks, just question something President Barack Obama has said or done. It’s not open to debate—and I don’t think that’s healthy, for the country or the president.

It’s especially unsettling for a free speech girl like me. The First Amendment is important—but lately, it feels like my right of self-expression is being squashed.

One example: Obama’s comment to Jay Leno on “The Tonight Show,” comparing his bowling abilities to someone in the Special Olympics.

Can you imagine the uproar had Bush said that? He’d be banished from bowling alleys for eternity. His bowling average and IQ would have immediately been compared in Twitter messages demanding his resignation.

But instead, media and water cooler conversations the next day were about bowling scores and how tough the game can be. Anyone bringing up the insensitivity of the president’s remark heard, “Come on, give the guy a chance. So he said one thing wrong. Anyone could have said something like that.” End of discussion. . . .

Don’t get me wrong, there is a whole lot to like about Obama. I want his smart ideas and policies to work. I love his youth, his inclusiveness and the way he cuts through the minutiae of public policy. But when auto execs get the boot, foreign meanies mock us and Special Olympians are insulted, I’m sorry, he rates some disapproving chatter.

I appreciate that Laura Varon Brown has a real commitment to real freedom of speech:

We need to hear both sides. We must hear both sides. But we ought to be listening to each other, not waiting to pounce and then closing down the conversation.

The point is, whatever side you come from, you have the right to talk—which comes with an obligation to listen.

What I think she’s discovering is that many of her fellow leftists don’t really share that commitment; rather, they’re no different than many of the conservatives they despise, commited to free speech for themselves and those who agree with them, and willing to embrace whatever argument they can to shut down those who disagree.  Unfortunately, conservative impulses in that direction are reined in by the fact that conservatives don’t control the big media corporate conglomerates in this country, and thus can’t shut anybody up (except callers into radio talk shows, anyway).  The same is not true of liberals, who really can go a long way to shutting up, shutting out and shouting down competing points of view.  (Websites like Conservatives4Palin are an experiment in how far the Internet can be used to counter this.)

Which makes the floor-scraping boot-licking tail-wagging groveling of media figures like Evan Thomas and Brian Williams not merely shameful, but actively harmful to this country.  I think Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is over the top to declare that “The greatest threat to America is not necessarily a recession or even another terrorist attack. The greatest threat to America is a liberal media bias,” but I do think he’s correct to identify it as a threat—and I don’t say that because it’s liberal and I disagree with it.  Rather, I say that because at the moment, we have a liberal hegemony in the elective branches of our federal government, and we have a national media structure which, because of its bias, is disinclined to challenge anything those branches do—which means that one of the major checks on our government isn’t currently functioning.

Any time government can get away with more, it will; any time government can get away without having its mistakes hammered in the media, it’s going to make more and worse ones; and the whole thing will only breed arrogance on the part of our government, and whenever that happens, a crash is coming. And arrogance is exactly what we’re seeing from this government; it is the whole style and approach of the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, which is why the British media have gone into revolt.  The US media are unwilling or afraid or too star-struck to do so, however, which means they’re firmly under Gibbs’ thumb—and for most of them (all but Jake Tapper, really), apparently perfectly content to stay there.  As Vanity Fair’s Michael Wolff put it,

They have been handed a most remarkable historical moment—in which they get to remake the media in their own image. They have the power and they are the subject. These people in this White House are in greater control of the media than any administration before them.

And we, the people are the poorer for it.

Barack Obama’s priorities

Posted on by | 2 Comments

The Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces finally saw fit yesterday, two days after the murder of Pvt. William Long and the attempted murder of Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, to issue a statement on this attack on two young men who had pledged him their service (HT:  Michelle Malkin):

I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.

Compare this to Sarah Palin’s statement, issued Tuesday (yes, a sitting governor took this seriously enough to respond more promptly than the President of the United States):

The stories of two very different lives with similar fates crossed through the media’s hands yesterday—both equally important but one lacked the proper attention. The death of 67-year old George Tiller was unacceptable, but equally disgusting was another death that police believe was politically and religiously motivated as well.

William Long died yesterday. The 23-year old Army Recruiter was gunned down by a fanatic; another fellow soldier was wounded in the ambush. The soldiers had just completed their basic training and were talking to potential recruits, just as my son, Track, once did.

Whatever titles we give these murderers, both deserve our attention. Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death.

And then, further, compare this to the statement of our Commander-in-Chief on the murder of George Tiller:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

What conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons?  I can think of four.

  1. Barack Obama cares more about the murder of abortionists than about the murder of American soldiers.  The former “outrages” him, the latter merely “saddens” him.
  2. Barack Obama is more willing to condemn those who act in the name of Christianity than those who act in the name of Islam.  Murder by the former is “heinous,” while murder by the latter is merely “senseless” (never mind that it made perfect sense to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, formerly Carlos Leon Bledsoe).  This makes sense, given that he appears to be committed to a policy of naïve appeasement of global Islam, while his attitude toward evangelicals who don’t like his actions is, “I won.”
  3. Governor Palin takes the murder of American soldiers more seriously than President Obama.
  4. The likes of al’Qaeda are going to be a lot more worried if Sarah Palin is elected president down the road than they will ever be about Barack Obama.

Superb analysis of the President’s Cairo speech

Posted on by | No Comments

—one might almost call it a fisking—courtesy of Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.  I’m not going to try to excerpt it (not only is it long, but the comments are interspersed with the text of the President’s speech, making it less friendly to excerpting), but I encourage you to go read it; Spencer exposes a lot of the West’s naïve misconceptions about Islam—misconceptions which, alas, Barack Obama seems to share.  Taken all in all, having looked at the speech, I agree with Spencer, Michelle Malkin, and to a remarkable degree, even HuffPo’s Peter Daou (whose article title, “Let Women Wear the Hijab: The Emptiness of Obama’s Cairo Speech,” captures my point of agreement with him beautifully):  we have good reason to be concerned.

Obama administration ticks off Brits . . . again

Posted on by | No Comments

. . . Wait, wasn’t this supposed to be the administration that was so in tune with the international community that they’d make us popular around the world again?  So far, it doesn’t seem to be working, at least where the UK is concerned; Barack Obama has been doing a good job of ticking off our (historically) closest and most reliable ally since his second month in office, and now his (overmatched) press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has just made matters worse.  Apparently Gibbs didn’t know that deliberately antagonizing Fleet Street is a bad idea, or he wouldn’t have said this:

“I want to speak generally about some of reports I’ve witnessed over the past few years in the British media and in some ways I’m surprised it filtered down,” Gibbs said.

“Let’s just say that if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a writeup today of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I might open up a British newspaper,” he continued.

“If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I’m not sure that would be the first stack of clips I picked up.”

Mind you, that arrogant, petulant little tantrum was in response to a single article in theTelegraph.  One article, and he can’t take the heat.  I hate to see what Gibbs would do if his boss ever had to take the volume of abuse, calumny, and slander that Sarah Palin gets.

Not only does this not speak well about Gibbs’ emotional maturity and ability to deal with criticism (and perhaps that of his boss, for that matter), it says very bad things about his judgment.  Actually, what it suggests is that he’s gotten so accustomed to the craven, supine submission of the OSM that he takes that as his due, and thinks everyone should cower before him likewise.  He reminds me rather of Prince Rabadash, actually:

Then Rabadash rolled his eyes and spread out his mouth into a horrible, long mirthless grin like a shark, and wagged his ears up and down (anyone can learn how to do this if they take the trouble). He had always found this very effective in Calormen. The bravest had trembled when he made these faces, and ordinary people had fallen to the floor, and sensitive people had often fainted. But what Rabadash hadn’t realized is that it is very easy to frighten people who know you can have them boiled alive the moment you give the word. The grimaces didn’t look at all alarming in Archenland; indeed Lucy only thought Rabadash was going to be sick.

Unfortunately for Rabadash Gibbs, the British press are the Archenlanders in this scenario, and they aren’t about to be cowed, as the Telegraph‘s James Delingpole made abundantly clear with this response to Gibbs’ comments:

Your treatment not just of the British media but of Britain generally smacks of a risible ineptitude. First, you let President Obama send back the Winston Churchill bust. Then, you insult our visiting prime minister with a dismally low-key reception (worthy of a minor African head of state, not your closest and most loyal ally) and shoddy gifts (those DVDs). Then you compound the insult by having one of your monkeys declare, Chicago-politics-style, “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.” OK so we know Obama’s not much interested in foreign affairs and has a special loathing for Britain because it roughed up his Kenyan granddad during the Mau Mau insurrection. But don’t you realise, that one of your jobs as his press secretary is to make out like he loves us so much even his underpants have a union flag on them? . . .

We know we’re not angels. We know we can go over the top sometimes. But unfortunately that’s a much bigger problem for you than it is for us. You see, while a lot of your mainstream media will hold fire on stories which they think may reflect poorly on your wondrous Obamamessiah—what his half-brother has been up to, say—we have fewer qualms about telling it like it is. So far, you’ve had a pretty easy ride. . . . But just you wait till we start showing our teeth. . . .

A lot of Americans know this. They appreciate our irreverence. They enjoy our frank criticisms of all the myriad areas where Obama is getting it so badly wrong—everything from his disastrous cap and trade measures, to his brutal treatment of Chrysler dealerships which didn’t support him, to his pork barrelling, to his failure to do anything that looks remotely like rescuing the US economy. That’s why they come to read us online: because they can and there’s nothing you can do to stop them.

If Delingpole opted to hit the press secretary and his administration low, Nile Gardiner decided to swing high:

Can you imagine Gibbs making these remarks about The New York Times or The Washington Post, or NBC, ABC or CBS? This would never happen. The British press, especially the Telegraph, has been singled out because they frequently publish articles critical of the Obama administration and are not afraid to take on the status quo in Washington. Increasingly, millions of Americans are turning to online UK news websites for cutting edge reports on American politics and U.S. foreign policy that the mainstream media refuses to cover in the States, especially if it is unflattering to the Obama White House.

Robert Gibbs’ completely unwarranted rant against the British press is an absolute disgrace, and the President should disown his views. An unreserved apology by Gibbs is also in order.

For all its talk of “raising America’s standing” in the world after the Bush years, the Obama administration is doing a spectacularly bad job of reaching out to its allies. Unfortunately this is the new face of America’s public diplomacy, which will only serve to alienate public opinion across the Atlantic. Congratulations Gibbs—you’ve just made an enemy out of the entire British media, quite an achievement for the man in charge of selling the President’s message.

Even given Gibbs’ previously established (low) standard of competence, this is a most remarkable fiasco; but the most remarkable thing is that no one at the White House seems to recognize it as such.  Barring a groveling apology from the administration to the British media (and Britain more generally), I think we’ll have to conclude that the solipsism and self-absorption of this administration is so great that they really honestly don’t see the harm in antagonizing the Brits.  If that’s in fact the case, it’s going to come back and bite them in the end.  Badly.

Front-line leadership vs. rear-echelon dithering

Posted on by | No Comments

So North Korea is testing nuclear warheads and long-range missiles—and announcing that they will no longer abide by the armistice that ended the Korean War—and so far, Sarah Palin is sounding more presidential about it than Barack Obama.  Maybe back during the campaign when she stressed the significance of Alaska’s position on the front line of America’s defenses as support for her readiness to deal with foreign policy, she wasn’t just talking through her hat; whether it’s the fact that Alaska is now in range of a North Korean nuke or not, she certainly seems to have more of a grasp of the strategic realities here than the president does, even when limited to 140 characters:

More N Korea nuke tests: why consider US missile program cuts now? AK military program helps secure US. Now is NOT time to cut our defense.

Check out this good read on N. Korea that sheds light on need for strong US defense tools & economic sanctions. http://tinyurl.com/oaf2rm

Must Read: Here’s link to article concerning N.Korea’s missile range & progress.http://tinyurl.com/kre9lh

Yet as North Korea accelerates its pattern of provocations, the governor of Alaska may be standing firm, but the Obama administration can’t even make up its mind whether Kim Jong-Il is a threat; they may declare that “The United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state,” but they don’t seem willing to do anything more than “respond to the threat with ‘the strongest possible adjectives.’”  The situation is critical, but the White House seems to want nothing more than for North Korea to recede back below the threshold of public consciousness so they can get back to more important things (like rescinding some of the restrictions on lobbyists that President Obama announced with such self-righteous, self-aggrandizing fanfare back in January).  “Speak softly and carry a big teleprompter,” indeed.

Wow . . . liberal writer takes hatchet to Barack Obama

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I can’t say I’ve ever been very aware of Ted Rall, but apparently he’s a syndicated columnist and editorial cartoonist of some significance; apparently he’s also an atheist and very liberal, but apparently willing to call out Democrats if he thinks they have it coming, rather than take the party line as a straightjacket.  I think he does a remarkable job of proving that with this column (HT:  Mark Hemingway):

We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now—before he drags us further into the abyss.

My oh my.  I’m not sure any conservatives have dared to cut loose with a broadside like that (and if they had, they would have been torn to shreds for it by the OSM); to read this coming from a liberal is nothing short of amazing.  But then, I think the issue that provoked him to this point is one on which liberals and conservatives should agree, and unite in opposing the White House:

I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK. . . .

Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people’s lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can’t control, what George Orwell called “thoughtcrime”—contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

He’s right about that; this proposal would be exactly the sort of banana-republic behavior I’ve been worrying about (as in this post) ever since the campaign, given some of the tactics we saw from Barack Obama and his flunkies then.  In truth, the whole idea here is profoundlyilliberal, and really rather hard to explain.  Either President Obama is one of those folks who has a sneaking hidden admiration for totalitarian techniques (something more common on the Left than one would think, as we saw with Code Pink and other leftist organizations when they snuggled up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), or else this is his solution to the dilemma he faces.  After all, if he’s committed to giving captured terrorists the same rights as any American, and giving them the rights Americans have now would be a threat to national security, what else is he going to do?

The question is, will people go along with it?  Not if Rall has anything to say about it, we won’t—and again, it’s hard to argue with his point:

Locking up people who haven’t done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to “preventive detention” is an outrage. That the president of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.

Rall is here addressing the issue of terrorism, but this is in fact a much broader concern and temptation in jurisprudence, perhaps especially with regard to sexual predators—if preventive detention ever becomes a reality in the American criminal-justice system, it won’t be long before the clamor arises to have it applied to violent rapists; there are more than a few people even now who think it would be perfectly appropriate to pre-emptively imprison folks like that until they’re too frail to feed themselves.  (Science fiction plays with this theme at various points; the apotheosis of this would of course be Philip K. Dick’s 1956 short story “The Minority Report,” and the 2002 film based on it, with his concept of the “Precrime” unit that identifies and arrests criminals before they commit their crimes.)

All of this leads Rall to a remarkably strong statement:

Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed George W. Bush, I won’t follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.

Now, the conclusion that President Bush was a terrible leader is Rall’s, not mine; I don’t happen to think he was.  I do, however, think that all too many Republicans fell into line behind him when we shouldn’t have out of political calculation (calculation which, ultimately, proved incorrect, as that behavior turned out to be unwise politically as well as philosophically).  I also don’t think it correct or fair to call President Obama “a monster”—that’s hysterical hyperbole of the worst sort.

The man’s a politician, nothing more and nothing less—though to be specific, he’s a Chicago politician, which is about the most cynical and manipulative sort our country has—and if there’s “something rotten inside him,” well, there’s something rotten inside each and every one of us.  Traditionally, it’s called sin, though I would imagine that as an atheist, Rall doesn’t think he’s supposed to believe in it.  And yet, it’s there all the same, in Barack Obama no less than in anyone else.

And that, I suspect, is the reason for Rall’s harshness in going after the president:  Barack Obama was supposed to be better, and so far (and here I agree with Rall completely) he’s been worse.  What you hear in this scream of rage is, I think, the anguished fury of severe disillusionment, as it has become apparent that Candidate Obama played the Left the same way he played everyone else.  Such political principles and impulses as he has are hard-left, that much is clear, but (as with Bill Clinton) they are secondary to the main goal of gaining, maintaining, and extending power.  If it suits his particular sort of Realpolitik to keep his promises, then he’ll keep them; if it doesn’t, he won’t; and if he can duck responsibility for not keeping them, or keeping them, or (if most advantageous) for addressing an issue at all, he’ll do that, too.

The political lesson of Ted Rall’s column (apart from its message) is this:  the true believers aren’t going to stand for that very long.  E. J. Dionne, in recognizing (and celebrating!) the fact that President Obama and his administration have been quite deliberately selling different stories to different ideological groups as a tactic for advancing his agenda and isolating conservatives, worried a little that the president might overreach, and that it might not ultimately work:

But establishments have a habit of becoming too confident in their ability to manipulate people and events, and too certain of their own moral righteousness. Obama’s political and substantive gifts are undeniable. What he needs to realize are the limits of his own mastery.

Dionne is correct in his concerns; and given the case of Ted Rall, I suspect that this approach ultimately won’t work, that the president will find that his mastery is ultimately too limited to pull off what he’s attempting.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

—Abraham Lincoln (attributed)

The Obama administration strong-arming continues

Posted on by | 2 Comments

A few weeks ago I posted on reports that the White House had intervened with some of Chrysler’s creditors to force them to give up their rights for the benefit of the UAW, changing the rules after the fact to pay off a political debt; I got a couple responses from liberals saying, in essence, “What’s the problem here?”  I posted at greater length answering that question, though I got no comments that time.  Now, in the parallel situation with GM, even the Washington Post has been forced to take notice of the rancid favoritism being shown by the White House,

declaring,

GM’s new owner (the Obama administration) should stop bullying the company’s bondholders. . . .

While the Obama administration has been playing hardball with bondholders, it has been more than happy to play nice with the United Auto Workers. How else to explain why a retiree health-care fund controlled by the UAW is slated to get a 39 percent equity stake in GM for its remaining $10 billion in claims while bondholders are being pressured to take a 10 percent stake for their $27 billion?

I realize that liberals don’t see anything wrong with this—after all, it’s a liberal Democratic president funneling money to a liberal organization that’s practically a wing of the Democratic party—but I can just imagine the ear-splitting shrieks we’d be hearing about “the rule of law” and “undue influence” and “political thuggery” if a Republican administration had tried anything of this sort.

Nor is this the end of the administration’s blatant manipulation of the process.  Last week, I took note briefly of a case in Florida where a Dodge dealer in Florida had his dealership taken away from him without due process for no good reason whatsoever; now it comes out that there’s reason to suspect partisan manipulation in Chrysler’s dealership structure.  A blogger named Doug Ross writes,

A cursory review by that person showed that many of the Chrysler dealers on the closing list were heavy Republican donors.

To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn’t an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified. . . .

I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal rightly notes that “Ross’s evidence is suggestive, not conclusive. It does not appear that anyone has yet conducted a complete analysis of Chrysler dealers’ political contributions “; but it’s mighty suggestive indeed, especially as it fits right in with an emerging pattern.  But then, as Taranto says, “Political intervention in private business is an invitation for the most brazen sort of corruption.”

Is Judge Sotomayor the best conservatives could hope for?

Posted on by | No Comments

On reflection, I think so.  It was obvious from the beginning that Barack Obama was going to pick a woman to replace David Souter, which of course meant a liberal woman.  While there were rumblings that he might name a non-judge such as Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm or Homeland Security Secretary (and former Arizona governor) Janet Napolitano to the vacancy, the smart betting seemed to have it going to one of three people:  Solicitor General Elena Kagan (the former dean of Harvard Law School), Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and Judge Diane Wood.  Of the three, the most talked-about leading up to the nomination was Judge Wood, which made perfect sense to me since she’s the one who worried me the most; I don’t really want any of these folks on the Court, but given the likely options, I was hoping vaguely for Solicitor General Kagan, who seems to me to be the most reasonable of them.

As for Judge Sotomayor, she’s not only hard-left, she’s also a comparative lightweight (not that she’s not a very bright woman, just that she’s not in the same ballpark as, say, Diane Wood, or Antonin Scalia) and so when she was announced as President Obama’s pick, I was more than a little non-plussed; sure, she’s qualified, but hardly the best-qualified nominee, even off that very short list.  Her record at the 2nd Circuit Court is uninspiring, to say the least, as Ed Morrissey notes:

The current court, including Souter, has already heard oral arguments on [Ricci v. Destefano]. They should rule on this before the end of their current session, which will come next month. If they overturn Sotomayor, that will emphasize both her incorrect decision on the merits as well as a lack of intellectual curiosity, an issue raised by her colleague Judge Cabranes.

A reversal on Ricci will raise the issue of the several reversals Sotomayor has received over her 11 years on the 2nd Circuit (the Washington Times says she bats .400 at the Supreme Court—not a confidence builder). The Supreme Court has reversed her at least four times already, at least one of those a unanimous 8-0 reversal, which makes her look either more liberal than anyone currently on the court or less competent. One of the times the court upheld Sotomayor, the majority scolded her for misrepresenting the statute in her opinion.

So why did President Obama choose her?  Part of it was no doubt the identity-politics aspect of naming the first Hispanic to the court, along with the third woman.  Part of it may well have been that he thought she was a safer nominee.  It will almost certainly take Democratic defections to sustain a filibuster, which isn’t at all likely under normal conditions, but there’s been the suggestion that Judge Wood’s recent record on national-security issues was a red flag; the recent refusal by the Senate to support the closure of the Guantanamo detention center suggests that if Judge Wood’s views on national security worried the Blue Dog Democrats enough, a successful filibuster might be possible.  Judge Sotomayor might lack the sheer intellectual firepower of Judge Wood, but she’ll be an equally reliable liberal vote and the identity politics works in her favor.  Since the president will have a reasonable shot at filling three slots on the court over the course of this term, it appears he decided to take a safer and more politically appealing course for his first shot.

Now, this isn’t to say that Judge Sotomayor has no baggage; she does, and particularly the following remarks:

All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is—Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t “make law,” I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.

That line came from a 2005 panel discussion at Duke; I think Michael Eden is right to say from this that “Sotomayor clearly acknowledges her view, even as she recognizes how radical and wrong it is, and therefore says the pro forma things to cover [herself].”  The other much-quoted passage of her thought will likely be this one, from a 2001 speech at Berkeley:

I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. . . .

Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

From this, one can see why some Republicans are talking filibuster; but barring the unforeseen, it won’t work.  They wouldn’t keep Maine in the fold on filibustering Judge Sotomayor, and these sorts of issues aren’t going to cause mass Senate defections.  Aside from discovering that she’s five years in arrears on her taxes, or something like that, Judge Sotomayor will be Justice Sotomayor as soon as the appointed time arrives.

And for that, I think the GOP should be grateful; if they did somehow manage to block her nomination, I believe they’d end up regretting it.  As a matter of pure Realpolitik, Barack Obama is going to put a liberal in that seat and that’s all there is to it; the only question is whatkind of liberal he’ll put there.  Given that, I think the party and its leaders need to listen very carefully to Jonathan Turley’s complaints about the nomination (video below):

You know, we are not selecting a house pet. We’re selecting a Supreme Court justice and as an academic I have a certain bias. And that is does she have the intellectual throw weight to make a difference on the court? And I have to tell you the optics are better than the opinions in this case. I’ve read a couple of dozen of her opinions. They don’t speak well to her being a nominee on the Supreme Court. . . . I think that a lot of academics are a little bit disappointed. I am in the sense that Diane Wood, Harold Koh, were not the ultimate people to prevail. These are people that are blazingly brilliant. They would have brought to the court intellects that would frame in the conceptual way. . . .

I’ve read roughly about 30 of these opinions. She has a much larger library of opinions. But they are notable in one thing and that it’s a lack of depth. There’s nothing particularly profound in her past decisions. She’s been a judge a long time. That’s opposed to people like Judge Wood on the 7th Circuit and she was viewed as a real intellectual powerhouse. You really can’t read the opinions of this nominee and say, “Oh yeah, this person is a natural choice for the Supreme Court.” . . . I have to say that liberals obviously are enjoying rightfully a certain short term elation with this twofer, a woman and a Latina, being put on the court. But in terms of long term satisfaction she does not naturally suggest that she is going to be the equal of Scalia and I think that was the model for liberals. They wanted someone who would shape the intellectual foundations of the court. Her past opinions do not suggest that she is like that. . . .

Ultimately questions about empathy and temperament are less important than whether this person is going to have a profound impact to help shape the court and this nominee really doesn’t have a history to suggest that.

Dr. Turley is unhappy because in his estimation, Justice Sotomayor is unlikely to be anything but a vote on the Court.  She’ll be a reliable leftist vote, to be sure, but she will probably have little effect on the votes of her colleagues—a point which is supported by how unpersuasive they’ve tended to find her reasoning as it’s come to them in her opinions from the 2nd Circuit.  President Obama had the chance to nominate a liberal who would not only be a vote, but would influence the overall direction of the court; as far as we can tell at this point (which is, admittedly, never as far as we think it is), Sonia Sotomayor will not be that kind of justice.  For that, Republicans should be thankful—and should hope that somehow the political climate changes enough between now and the next Supreme Court vacancy that the president will have to nominate someone more moderate.

And in that hope, this nomination may well be useful.  The concerns about Judge Sotomayor won’t be enough to create Democratic opposition, but they may help the GOP make its case to the electorate, as Ed Morrissey argues:

The Republicans have an opportunity with Sotomayor that doesn’t involve knocking her off the court. They have an opportunity to use the hearings to show Sotomayor as a routine appellate jurist with a spotty record who got elevated to this position as an act of political hackery by a President who couldn’t care less about his responsibilities to find the best and brightest for the job. Like many of Obama’s other appointments, it demonstrates a lack of executive talent and intellectual curiosity on his part. This appointment makes an argument for more Republicans in the Senate after the midterms, if for no other reason than to force Obama to start putting a little effort in making his nominations.

Taken all in all, as a conservative, I don’t like the pick, but I think it could and should have been a lot worse.  Given that elections have consequences, and wipeouts have big consequences, that’s practically the best-case scenario.