Maddening

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann's latest article is maddening. It is also the conventional wisdom regarding Obama.

On the other hand, we reject the total revamping of the health care industry, the reduction of doctor pay, the cuts in Medicare and the mandatory insurance embedded in the Obamacare legislation. Were Obama to embrace these solutions, he would quickly be able to pass his bill and would be hailed for it.

But will Obama do it? Will he emulate Bill Clinton and save his presidency by moving to the center? Certainly not before he has lost his control over Congress.

At least Morris isn't pretending that Obama is beholden to the left wing like some morons are. But the whole thing is insane. Obama and congressional democrats have moved as much towards the middle as they can, without being on the right.

But presumably Morris and McGann would encourage Obama to move all the way to the right, while constantly lambasting him for being one step to the left of Mao.

Motivations

It's like the 1990s all over again with our friends the Republicans. For 8 years they complained about the vanity and narcissism of President Clinton. I suspect we will have another 4 or 8 years of similar complaints about President Obama.

Certainly David Limbaugh's latest seems like a blast from the past.

The more painful exposure we have to Barack Obama -- and we're talking hyper-exposure at this point -- the more we realize how narcissistic he is. Indeed, we are treated to this overexposure precisely because of his narcissistic impulses. He can't keep himself out of the spotlight.

Obama suffers these complaints because he seems to see part of his job as being involved in the problems of America. George W. Bush felt no such illusion, and such ignored many of the problems of America. Because he was humble. Apparently.

Lets face it, a really humble guy or gal is unlikely to run for President and less likely to be elected. If you become President it's because, in part, you want to tackle the problems of a whole nation. That's not a humble thing to want to do. So to complain about the vanity of Obama? Well it's just pretty silly.

But since Obama can't really help but look narcissistic I don't expect our friends on the right to stop any time soon.

New Blog Joint

Added a new Blog Joint over there - "Jusies." Tis me brothers blog.

Comforting Truisms

One of the Right's favorite beliefs is that this is a Center-Right country. This is sort of true; certainly by international standards all American politics is right wing. But that's not how Conservatives mean it - particularly since they see moderate liberals like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as almost as liberal as Mao. Take Matt Barber's latest article, in which he argues firmly for the RNC to push strongly conservative candidates.

We remain a center-right country. In fact, a recent Gallup poll established that Americans identify as conservative vs. liberal by a nearly two-to-one margin.

So, whose advice will Republicans follow in 2010? Will it be that of a fork-tongued Democratic emissary like Tim Kaine? Or will it be that of the GOP's highly motivated, itchin'-to-vote, grass-roots Party faithful?

Essentially Tim Kaine argued that Republicans shouldn't purge out the moderates in their party, but should support them (this is in part a reference to Governor Crist in Florida, I am guessing and Marc Rubio).

Barber doesn't like that idea, but presumably he wants to see Republicans / Conservatives victorious rather than getting a long with Democrats. I want to return to the original thought - are we are Center Right nation? Well many people describe themselves as Consrvatives. But if you go down the issues presented in a neutral light, Liberalism does a bit better.

But that's the issue - issues aren't presented in a neutral light. Rather they are presented by half-hearted liberals (like the aforementioned Obama and Clinton) against full-throated opposition from the right wing chorus. And a significant number of Americans trust Conservatives more on this than they do Liberals, even when Conservatives are clearly talking out of their ass.

Kind of depressing. We'll see what happens up in Mass. today, and it's starting to look like more depression.

Mike S Adams

Mike S. Adams latest article is about how difficult it is to be a Conservative in a College environment, and how heroic it is for those Conservatives to stick it out. As a heroic Conservative in a college environment he loves writing these articles, which are, essentially about how heroic he is.

But there's something else.

I think you should take a digital tape recorder to your classes and record the strong emotional reactions, otherwise known as nervous breakdowns, when your professors hear about your ideas.

. . . I want you to begin right away with an attitude of going on the offensive. This is easy to do effectively by simply asking tough questions while they are in front of an audience of students.

Basically Adams doesn't like most of his colleagues and encourages his college readers to humiliate them. It makes me wonder if some Campus Conservative Heroes, like Mr. Adams, maybe create their own problems?

I-Pod Ten

Just random stuff today.

1. The Cranberries - "So Cold in Ireland"
2. Morrissey - "We'll Let You Know"
3. 311 - "Down"
4. Sergio Mendes and Brasil 66 - "Tristeza (Goodbye Sadness)"
5. The Crystal Method - "High Roller"
6. The Beatles - "Helter Skelter (Anthology Version)"
7. Sarah Vaugh - "Tea for Two (Chris Shaw Remix)"
8. R.E.M. - "Shaking Through"
9. Beastie Boys - "Root Down (Free Zone Mix - Prunes)"
10. Linda Perhacs "Parallelograms"

The last one is from Four Tet's contribution to the Late Night Tales series.

A Clear Statement

I have to applaud Terry Jeffrey's latest article for making the case against Gay Marriage so clear.

Any inquiry aimed at discovering the nature of marriage must ultimately arrive at one of two conclusions: Either marriage is something with an absolute nature ordained by God and thus unchangeable or it is an artificial thing, created by human beings on their own authority, and thus changeable according to the whims of whatever members of the human race happen to gain the political power needed to define it for the rest of the species.

Yeah that's pretty much it. Jeffrey's conclusion is, naturally, that God created Marriage and we have a duty to preserve the traditional definition of it. Because if we don't than we will have plural marriage and other bad stuff.

The weakness in the argument is that it presupposes that we should legislate based on what God wants. God may very well be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (I believe he is) but our mortal and fallible opinions on what God wants are as changeable as the wind. More to the point we live in a multicultural society. Americans practice a multitude of faiths and some practice no faith at all.

What Jeffrey is explicitly asking for is that we set a theocratic law - we rule from the Bible, or to be more precise, his interpretation of the Bible. I personally think that's a very bad precedent, and if that is the strongest argument proponents of marriage discrimination should bring to bear, than I hope we start coming to our senses.

Obama Must Know

David Limbaugh's latest article starts with a classic opening paragraph.

Could we all agree that we are doomed as a nation if President Barack Obama continues his deficit spending at unprecedented levels? Can you think of any reason, then, to justify this spending? Oh, our president says it's to jump-start the economy? Sorry, that dog won't hunt. So what's his real motive?

I need hardly point out that the hated President Clinton created a budget surplus that the beloved President Bush pissed away.

But the best part is "What's his real motive?" I mean that just says it all. Limbaugh, unsurprisingly I suppose, believes that his right wing beliefs are so obviously correct that for the President not to accept them, he must have a sinister motive.

Of course this is a deceit after a fashion - he writes his article as if the President alone was controlling the spending of the country, when in fact it is Congress that has a lot to do with our fiscal priorities. But I suppose the rationale is that his readers need a focal person to hate, and Obama provides that focus.

Douglas MacKinnon sez "Don't Hug Obama"

MacKinnon's latest article is about rejecting Michael Steel and Charlie Crist, while building up core Conservative principles. Fair enough. I think him taking a shot at Steel for believing that God put in his position is a bit odd, considering the last Republican President clearly believed that God wanted him to be President and commented on it quite a few times.

But when he gets to Crist, things start getting odd.

As the National Review said, “One of the most liberal politicians in the Republican firmament.” Beyond that, Crist is literally an Obama hugger.

Why does Crist want to bolt the Governor’s mansion after only one term? Why does he not want to run for reelection? Could it be because when he took office, unemployment in Florida stood at 3.3 percent and that when he physically hugged President Obama and his “stimulus” package, it was at 9.6 percent and that now, it is at 11 percent?

I've highlighted what are apparently Crist's biggest problems.

In fairness to Crist, the housing bubble popping hit Florida particularly hard, and unemployment numbers throughout the nation has skyrocketed. But for having the gall to hug Obama, and physically no less, I can understand where MacKinnon is coming from.

If only he had kept his hugging ways to the mental sphere, like us decent Americans.

Democracy Not!

Pat Buchannan's latest article takes a strong stand against Democracy. We shouldn't encourage it.

Given free, inclusive elections in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, there is a likelihood our allies would be dumped and leaders chosen who were committed to kicking us out of the Middle East and throwing the Israelis into the Mediterranean.

What, then, is the rationale for the National Endowment for Democracy to continue tax dollars to promote such elections?

Of course Buchannan doesn't seem to realize how much the middle east and other parts of the world resent us for interfering in their internal affairs. We have a long history of propping up friendly dictators and that history isn't lost in those parts of the world. That doesn't exactly win people over to our side. But then I suppose if we help friendly dictators keep their people down we don't have to worry about them.

2010 The Year of Doom

Maybe that should be Doooooooooooooom!

I guess not. Anyway this is from Victor David Hasnon's latest article in which he posits that a weak President (Obama) will lead to the middle east and china deciding to screw with us in a major way.

In general, al-Qaida interprets our outreach as a sign of moral weakness. Since 9/11, more than one-third of all terrorism-related incidents in the United States occurred in 2009 alone. Maj. Nidal Hasan's murderous rampage at Ford Hood, and al-Qaida's foiled Christmas Day effort to blow up a jet over Detroit are just precursors of what to expect this year.

The implication is that this is what we get for electing Barack Obama.

It's interesting that Hanson is so in tune with the thought processes of al-Qaeda.

Conservative Democrats

Dick Morris and Eileen Gann's latest article illustrates how differently the world looks from the right. It is about Conservative Democrats such as Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu, and how they are basically done.

Now that Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Byron Dorgan in the Senate and the likes of Marion Berry, Tom Perriello and John Spratt Jr. in the House have shown how easily they fold under pressure and how thin their conservatism really is, their states and districts will no longer be deceived into re-electing them. They will be replaced by real Republicans.

The Democratic game of electing moderates in conservative districts who then vote to keep liberals in power is over. It over-reached. By collapsing so completely and so publicly, it has become self-evident to the most gullible of voters that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat. You are either an Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid clone or you are a Republican. That's the new two-party system.

It's kind of an odd argument. First of all, many liberals believe that the Health Reform bills were gutted by these people, particularly Nelson and Lieberman (who Morris leaves out of his article, for reasons that escape me). Nelson put pressure on Harry Reid to remove the Public Option and to ensure that none of this money will go to abortions. In my mind and many others he substantially weakened the bill. After getting all those concessions, does Morris really expect Nelson to vote against the bill after all?

But again, Morris sees this bill as excessively liberal, while many if not most liberals see it as excessively pro insurance industry. I guess the real question is how will the American people see it.

Waiting for the Adults

I think I'm overusing the description "Childish." I've been taken to task for it before, but it just seems to fit a lot of the time, when talking about Conservatives and the War on Terror. The latest example comes from David Limbaugh, in which he has the audacity to wait for adults to implement his childish world view.

The answer is Obama is a liberal and he has deliberately surrounded himself with like-minded, weak-willed leftists who are congenitally incapable of grasping the presence of evil in the world. They are blind to the reality that the terrorists hate us because of their ideology and theology and not because of any alleged misconduct at a detention facility. Do you really think it's plausible that people who engage in the brutal tactics these people engage in would bother recruiting on the absurd bases that Obama claims?

It was bad enough when these liberal Democrats were making such arguments for the cynical partisan motive of undermining President Bush and enhancing their own political positions. That was inexcusable. But now it's even worse. These arguments are just painfully reckless and, sorry, stupid. Oh, how I long for a return of the adults to Washington.

OK. Here's the argument - Terrorists are bad for reasons of their own and don't care about Guantanamo or the abuse of prisoners. A few points.

1. This does accurately describe a handful of the terrorists leaders.

2. It does not accurately describe the Islamic world or the Third world or the rest of the world as a whole. Most people have shifting views of everything.

3. Terrorists are recruiting - the people they are recruiting do not share that Manichean world view initially.

4. When Terrorists recruit, it helps to portray the United States as evil and depraved. It's even easier when we do things that are evil and depraved. Like say Abu Ghraib from a few years back.

5. In order to root out terrorists we need the support of countries in the middle east; both governmental support and support from the people of those countries. Such support is less likely to materialize or be full throated if the people beleave that America is doing bad things, particularly bad things to Muslims.

6. The United States has done bad things to Muslims - more to the point, in some cases they have done these things to non-terrorists that happened to get swept up.

It's childish to pretend that everybody is what they are and that nothing can change that. And many Conservatives, like David Limbaugh, suffer from this form of childishness.

I'm so Tired of the War on Terror

I mean we are stuck with it for now and the foreseeable future, but seriously. Still the one thing I'm even more tired of is children pretending to be warriors. Like Doug Giles.

It's one thing to argue that we need to be involved in the middle east militarily because it's in our best interests, no matter the cost. It's another to want to wage war vicariously because you feel it's the manly thing to do and because your philosophy does not admit to the humanity of Muslims.

Which brings us to Doug Giles latest article.

In case you didn’t hear about the Polite War we’re trying to wage with you, the gist of what we’ll do for you and your people who are trying to slaughter us is this: We will not attack you during your sacrosanct celebrations.

Matter of fact, we’ll go a step further and court martial our troops when they play a game of pin the tail on Mohammed at Gitmo, or flush a Koran, or accidentally serve Achmed Jell-O. Not only that, but we’ll prosecute our intel ops who ferret out your Islamic mass-murderous plots, and we’ll promote Muslim maniacs to major within our own ranks.

. . . However, if you don’t capitulate to our level of niceness, we will continue to maintain that level because we want to prove to the world that we’re pleasant even if thousands more Americans have to be killed.

Doug Giles can't be bothered to consider that this is a multi front war, in which we are trying to eliminate those dedicated to hurting us while preventing other Muslims from joining in their insanity. He can't be bothered because in his weak mind there is no difference between terrorists who want to kill us and Muslims who are minding their own business. He also can't be bothered to enforce military discipline - as I understand it, it doesn't matter what the regulations are or if Doug Giles agrees with them. Troops who break regulations need to be dealt with for the morale and cohesiveness of the units. But again Giles can't be bothered with that (in fairness, he'd probably prefer to see regulations allow for the abuse and torment of Muslims.

News From the Past - January 1, 1930

This is kind of a sad story - it's kind of like the last one - eye catching headline, but sad story. It's from the Havre Daily News, Havre Montana.

Woman Masquerading
As A Man Shot While
Robbing small Store

ROCHESTER, N. Y.. Dec. 31. (AP) — Masquerading as a man and accompanied by her husband and two of her six children on an early morning burglary, Mrs. Winifred Shields, 35, was fatally shot today as she fled from a store they had entered.
Her husband. James Sr.45 and two of her sons, James, jr., 17, and John, 16, returned when the woman fell and were arrested by deputy sheriffs.

There are also stories about how 1930 will be a good year economically. Didn't quite work out that way for many people.