Michelle Obama Finally Proud of America

This article comments on her statement, it links to the video of her saying it in Madison WI.

What she said was:

“for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction.”

WOW. She basically said it twice, I think she was very honest. Yet again the reason why the Obama candidacy likes to stick to "change" rather than any specifics. Here we have an Ivy league power couple that has made millions off books alone, and knows that with the combination of race and gender they can punch their tickets whenever they want for 100's of K a year salary, bitching about that country that has already given them

Blueprint for Malaise

I received a link to Obama's "Blueprint for Change" the same day that I ran into this excellent Charles Krauthammer article. I still believe that the Clinton machine will find a way to do him in, but the hype has reached a point that I've started reading "Audacity of Hope". One doesn't have to read very much Obama to realize that one can write a whole lot while avoiding saying much at all. There is a lot of "inclusion", "shared this and that", and horrendously mixed metaphors that culminate for the Obama faithful in "he is exactly what I want". I remain unconvinced that he has REALLY said much beyond "hope and change", although he certainly wants the easily led to believe that he has.

I heard him say after the IL shootings that "he was a strong proponent of the right to bear arms". At least that is what I heard. I wonder if I'll find out that he really meant "the right to BARE arms"? That is a joke of course, but what the joke means is that he MAY mean just about anything, including what some Democrats like to say; it means that the ARMY gets go have guns! Since he points out in his book that he believes the Constitution is a LIVING document ... open to all sorts of "interpretation", EXCEPT in those areas where HE sees it clearly ISN'T open to interpretation. Who says he isn't a classic liberal? Well, he does, but then his voting record shows him to be the most liberal Senator we have -- naturally THAT would be unfair and "unsphisticated" to use to attempt to evaluate him.

Here is a bit of a sample from the 60 pages of "plan". This first quote is right off the bat in the book, so one might assume that it is important:

“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists – and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

So then what might we make of the following from Open Secrets?



Does Goldman Sachs have no interests for their $420K, or are they just not "special"? Maybe they aren't a "corporation" or they have promised not to call anything they do "lobbying"? How about all of the other big investment and lawyer firms that are up on his contribution list? Even if we don't count what he is being given, what about all the folks that he is promising to GIVE things to if he is elected? How about Unions? Are they a "special interests" with lobbyists? How about all the federal workers in AFSCME? Is there no reporter in America that has the time to read his "plan" and check any of it out?

It is very hard to tease any real meaning at all out of his statements even if one suspends disbelief and assumes they are somehow connected to the real world. They would only seem like "a plan" to those that assume that the next big thing, the next diet fad, the next lottery ticket, the next medication, the next relationship or marriage, the next church swap, or in this case, the next politician is going to "solve my problems". To be human is to have sympathy for such thinking, since on one or more topics, all of us have been there. The "sale of hope" is as old as mankind itself, but our founding fathers were wise enough to realize that in leadership it is often quite dangerous.

There are many ways to say nothing. The easiest is to just speak in generalities and actually write nothing. The 2nd is to write a whole bunch of nothing. It is pretty easy to see why he sticks with "just change" in most of his speeches. It is even easier to see why the MSM is in no hurry to give the general platitudes that he would call "a plan" any scrutiny.

A concrete example;
"Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less Than $50,000: Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will provide an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors and relieve millions from the burden of filing tax returns. "

So if you are a Senior that didn't take care of your retirement and have less than $50k of yearly income, Obama says you deserve the "reward" of ZERO taxes. If you are a Senior that was responsible your whole life and DID take care of your retirement, you deserve to pay for the other guys reward (he doesn't say how much you get to pay extra) The Obama way is to penalize work, study, persistence and virtue, and subsidize sloth, indolence, irresolution and vice. Of course he doesn't SAY that, he just says what the feeble minded want to hear. Dire Straits said it better; "Get your money for nuthin and your chicks for free".

It would be GREAT if we could get what we want with minimal effort, little risk and in a very timely fashion, but sometimes it takes a whole stack of education, hard work, sticking with things when the going is tough, and investing today in time/money/commitments that won't pay off until the future, and even then only with RISK. Doing the right thing doesn't ALWAYS work, but unfortunately, doing the WRONG thing seems to "work" with predictable results.

Watching this play out in the 30th year of may career and knowing that I can walk out the door at about 1/3 of my salary is a new experience to watch an election from. There are A LOT of folks sitting where I'm sitting, and there are MANY billions of dollars hanging in the balance. If we walk out the door, his tax receipts fall by a whole bunch.

Are we all "rich"? Well, although our incomes are FINALLY "high", we worked long careers and invested every step of the way to get where we did. We didn't say "write a couple books and win a Senate seat" and suddenly go to being a multi millionaire. Not many of us went to Harvard either. Do I begrudge Obama success? No, not at all, but it would be nice if he didn't begrudge my success and the success of those that work and produce either.

One way the US system is SUPPOSED to work is that you PERSONALLY invest your time and money in years of education and work in a competitive "filter" that gets tougher and tougher as you rise through the ranks. For each step you make on that ladder you "win" higher wages, but also have a tougher job with a greater chance of being fired - you are more visible and the expectations on you are higher. More of your life ends up being invested in your career. If you are able to make it to a relatively high level relatively fast, you will have enough earning capacity for some period of time to make all those years of investment worth it.

There are a lot other ways; create your own business and sink everything you have into it to try to make it grow. Join a startup company and trade years of your life for stock options that you hope against hope will end up being worth a lot eventually. The list could go on.

The point is, that if there is no "pot of gold", the incentive to do all the innovation, risk taking, hard work and "basic slog" through decades of trial / error / challenge / learning is reduced, and at some point simply goes away and we are no longer America. I saw us get there once at the time of the "great malaise" in the late '70s. From the looks of the electorate and "plans" like Obama's, it looks like we are turning that way again.

Change

I love listening to the Democrats this year. I keep thinking of other scenarios where if someone comes up to you and says "there is going to be a lot of change", if one would be so willing to jump to the conclusion that it was going to be good. Try a few of these on:

1. Your Doctor says: "Well, you are going to see some big change in your life".
   
2. Your spouse tell you "There is going to be a major change in our relationship".
   
3. Your Boss says "It is time for some big changes in your relationship to the company".
   

I could go on, but you likely get the picture. The MSM and the Democrats, especially Obama are simply saying that they are "about change", with little to no idea of the specifics of that change, and why it might be good. Yes, yes, I know that a bunch of folks see "anything but Bush" as being "positive change", but this is STILL way beyond what would normally cause at least SOME media personality or SOMEBODY from asking for "just a bit more detail".

It isn't so hard to be popular when the media lets you get by with "just being about good things". Hillary seems to finally be trying to get a LITTLE definition out of what that Obama "change" might be about. The degree that the sheep are willing to step up and pull the lever for "just change" is a testament to the perennial power of the demagogue.

Garrison Keilor Realizes Results Count

We're failing our kids | Salon.com

Wow, this is the kind of thing I very rarely see, a VERY surprising and out of character for Garrison view that just because "No Child Left Behind" was a Republican idea doesn't make it evil, RESULTS actually DO count, and SOMEONE ought to be ACCOUNTABLE for those results. WOW!!! an extremely UN-lefty thought!

Naturally the responses from all the other leftys are 100% predictable with nobody supporting Garrison's views, BUT I give him extreme credit for being willing to leave the Education Lobby thought reservation for even just this short excursion.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Suicide Vest Waiting Period

Appropo of nothing, completely inappropriate, but hard not to laugh at.

Hey, if you are going to have a suicide vest, get out to a range and prove you know how to use it! Something that I actually DO wish they would do more, if a whole bunch of them want to own one, ALL I ask is that they demonstrate that they know how to use it ONE time at the range!



In The Know: New Iraqi Law Requires Waiting Period For Suicide Vest Purchases

Krugman: Hate Springs Eternal

I've started reading the Obama "Audacity of Hope" book and this column by admitted lefty Krugman from the times struck me as following the same general technique as Obama follows:

1). First, identify the REAL source of "hate" (or evil, or whatever) ... "Nixon", "the right", "Republicans".

2). "Be reasonable" point out how it is POSSIBLE that parts of that evil COULD sneak into the goodness of "your side" if you aren't vigilant. (in this article, poor defenseless Hillary and Bill are being tarred with "lies") Maybe this time, a few are from the generally good, although "personality cultish" Obama folks.

3). If we all are willing to just realize how bad the Republicans are, we can soon "all be on the same side", and then there won't be any more "partisanship". Won't that be grand?

Reagan had it right; the left is firm in their defense of your right to agree with them. They don't mind a few Republicans, as long as they are agreeable with the general Democrat outline and willing to roll over when the time comes. Olympia Snow is about as far "right" as they are willing to allow to live.

I guess that once the Dems get through, one will have no freedom to espouse conservative thought in public (fairness doctrine, blog registration, "hate speech"), no economic freedom (high taxes, closed shop unions, trade restrictions, regulation) and likely no freedom to worship since everyone else needs to be free FROM religion. I suppose that married Gay sex is "great good" that makes it all worthwhile.

Hate Springs Eternal - New York Times

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 11, 2008

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”

The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred. And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod. Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.

One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bushmaster

Went with a buddy to pick up his Bushmaster "Patrollman" today, but it turned out that it had not arrived at the gun shop yet. Big disappointment. We managed to spend some time punching holes in paper with our array of handguns (mostly his, but who is counting!;-) ) . I got the opportunity to shoot his .44 Mag, formerly "the most powerful handgun in the world". It has been exceeded now, but it is still PLENTY powerful, with a good deal of kick for me. It would take a lot of rounds before I became comfortable with that gun. It is a VERY cool Ruger revolver model, it is just that I'm not man enough to shoot it well yet.

For some odd reason, I also seemed to have developed a "pull to the right flinch" with my 9mm. Oh well, guess I'll just have to practice more. We were shooting an honest 25 yards today, and whatever I said about our first foray out, it was MUCH shorter than we were shooting today. I suspect that we were only shooting 10 yds before, BIG difference.

I also got a chance to shoot his Taurus 1911 frame .45. BIG hole, plenty of recoil, but nothing like the .44 Mag. Very much a style of gun in the running for "sometime" in my collection.

We took a target out to 75yds and got out my Remington 742 30-06 and each shot a 4 shot group. Hadn't fired that gun in over 20 years, but I'd kept it cleaned and oiled over the years and gave it a little TLC last night in prep for today. It shot very accurate, it seemed to want to jam on the final shot in the clip -- I'd guess that I need some new clips, the gun is 32 years old, that could have something to do with it.

Anyway, I couldn't resist picking up a new Bushmaster "shorty". They move their model numbers around quite a bit, but mine is an XM15-E2S, which looks an awful lot like this current model. In fact, it looks identical.

So why "an assault weapon"? The reasons are:

• Mostly because I've wanted to shoot one since I was a little kid and they look extremely "military". I can't afford a Hummer, F-16, or a tank, so this will have to cover my little boy immature army fantasies.
  
• It shoots .223 and NATO 5.56mm rounds. I picked up Wolf .223 at 20/$7 and some off-brand 5.56mm for 20/$10. I have hopes that in bulk I can be running at 20/$6 or less. In contrast, the cheapest I could get 30-06 for was 20/$22.
  
• It has a 30-shot clip. When punching holes in paper, there isn't any advantage in having to switch clips more.
  
• It is very light -- something like 6lbs.
  
• It is SUPPOSED to be very accurate and have very little recoil.
  
• Did I say it "has that look"?
  
• It may be the last chance I have to ever get one. I know, I know, Democrats are HUGE supporters of ALL the rights found in the Constitution-like the right to Abortion, the right to a completely private call a terrorist of your choice, and of course the COMPLETE right to not have any kind of government spying WO a warrant, as in they would NEVER support having your company send a W2 form of your pay unless they could obtain "probable cause" that you were cheating on your taxes! They are SO trustworthy that I'm SURE that they would never try to infringe on a right that is directly listed in the constitution!
  

Now I have another reason to be very anxious for some warmer weather!

Jesus and Yahweh, The Names Divine

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Yahweh-Divine-Harold-Bloom/dp/1573223220

I picked up the subject book by Harold Bloom on the bargain rack for $6, a deal just WAY too good to pass up. Our congregation is reading through the whole bible this year again, and I have also been in a class studying "The Purpose Driven Life" (due to be blogged on soon), and the Bloom book really hit me well at this time.

Bloom is a "higher critic" of literature in the sense that he searches for the meaning of the style, allusions to other literature, creation of characters and even feeling, and tries to gain as much meaning as he can from the text. He is a non-practicing Jew by religious background, and he is awed by the literary power and originality of especially Yahweh in the bible. He is similarly moved and bothered by Mark's Jesus, and by the "impossibility" of the relationship of the trinity. He is unconcerned about "literal truth"--these are religious texts, they are to be MORE than "literally true". They are about a God and an existence beyond the human, beyond the temporal, beyond beyond. He sees trying to to put God in a book is "the literal heresy". Yahweh states "I am that I am" to Moses, leaving the obvious potential for the inverse "I am not,  that I am not not"-Yahweh answers to nobody. He abandons his chosen people, his prophets, and even his Son to a cross of ultimate despair.

When we first meet Yahweh, he is a God beyond human imagination, and fits nearly none of what humans would see as a "good God"- constantly demanding of praise, capricious, playing favorites with his people, and  throwing up his hands and drowning them all. Dealing with the devil to all but destroy his servant Job, in whom he shows a pride that seems "sinful" to mere mortals. Bloom comes very close to what I suspect to be a major truth of the bible: it isn't about US. God is SOVEREIGN, that means that "his ways are not our ways", but one of our gigantic tasks in this life is to accept that sovereignty, in total, but especially over our pitiful little lives. We don't judge God, he judges us, and without the covering blood of Christ, the result of that judgment is Hell.

"J's Yahweh is a very persuasive representation of transcendent otherness. And yet Yahweh is not only "anthropomorphic" in the text,  but presented as just "superhuman", and not at all a pleasant fellow. Why should he be? He is not running for office, questing after fame, or seeking benign treatment in the media. Christianity sometimes calls Jesus Christ "the good news" (Mark 1), certainly true as our saviour, but he does "bring a sword", brutally demonstrated by Christians throughout history. 

Being Jewish, Bloom has a hard time dealing with the idea of Yahweh leaving his chosen people to the Holocaust at the hands of "the Christians". Bloom is essentially an agnostic Jew, so for him, "Christian" is a term without power, yet it is tragic to see how close he comes to the flame of the Word without the power found there being quite able to reach his soul.

In reading Bloom I come closer to seeing how literature is so much more than "words on paper". Not well enough to convey that to another reader for certain, but maybe enough to see it through a lens darkly. 

Break to the Right

The last couple of weeks have been one of those serious learning experiences for me. Regular readers know that I fully expect people of all polticial stripes to be "generally human" with the predictable results of misconceptions, inconsistencies and emotional reasoning. Would it be so that I could say enough prayers, read enough books or get lucky enough to not regularly fall to such problems myself, but I know that is not to be so.

Much like I harbored the illusion before 9-11 that if people were capable of doing something relatively sophisticated (like flying a commercial jet), they would not be the kind of 100% evil it would take to fly that plane into a building. I learned about evil that day, and it is one of those lessons that I will not be forgetting as many Americans have chosen to.

My current "false belief" was that to live a life of conservatism meant that one was forced to pay attention to reality and especially the reality of history, since to a great extent, the understanding that since the idea of conservatism is to live a consistent principled life, the only way to do that was to demand that reality be faced and history not be re-written to fit some "comfort of the moment".

I was wrong. As readers of this Blog know, I'm no great fan of John McCain -- opposition to the Bush tax cuts, McCain Feingold and "the gang of 14" would all be low points where I completely disagree with him. He does however stand very tall on the Iraq issue, and even when a whole bunch of what apparently are "fair weather supporters of liberty" got all weak kneed on Iraq, McCain stood strong with no concern that his position would cost him any chance to gain the nomination. That is the kind of courage that I'd argue that anyone that would seek any claim to being called a conservative MUST admire. They don't have to "support him", but agree or disagree, that is the kind of character that real conservatives admire.

Ronald Reagan once spoke of the "11th commandment", "Never speak ill of a fellow Republican". In those days, anyone to the right of a moderate Democrat was in the "radical right". Conservatives had been totally in the wilderness since '64, and although far more moderate than the current crop of far-righters remember him as, Reagan was seen by the media then as WAY over to the radical right.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter and a host of other supposed "conservative" commentators have come out and said all manner of things about how they will never support McCain and will be staying home or voting for a Democrat. While I've listened to all of these folks at times and I'm sure I will again in the future, I have to admit that I'm shocked with their behavior. Were it just an "emotional reaction", it would be more understandable--I'm sure they see as I do that the odds of any Republican beating Hillary or Obama are long indeed, and that is dissappointing, but one wonders on their motives. Some thoughts that cross my mind:

• Being in the opposition is FUN. You get to throw a lot of stones, ignore anything good, and NEVER have to take any responsibility. You just "blame the other side". With Republicans in both houses of congress and in the white house, I think these folks discovered that being in charge was a lot less fun. Even wars that you support strongly (and these guys did) don't always go smoothly, not ever stock/jobs report is rosy, and there is no doubt that the POLITICIANS that you hired don't live up to all your expectiations. Much has I have found in being on both sides of the leadership fence, it is MUCH more "fun" to throw some grenades at those in charge and just go home with a wonderful sense of self-righteousness. It may be "fun", but it doesn't get the job done, and in even the quite short term it is MUCH less deeply rewarding.
  
• It is a long time since '80, and these folks have forgotten how cold it really is out in the wilderness. Having Osama Obama or Massah Hillary pointing fingers at their "scapegoat dejour" while passing vote buying prizes around like it is Christmas will get old after a few years of double digit declines in the market and increases in taxes. I guess these brilliant folks have already signed up to wallow in a few years of "Bush blame" right along with the Michael Moore's, Harry Reid, Teddy Kennedy, Slick and Hilly, etc, etc. I'm sure all those folks are having justifiable pleasure in watching the supposed rational right get in a complete hissy fit over McCain. Michael Reagan with "John McCain hates me" was one of the most wussy pieces I've ever read. "McCain is arrogant" ... oh, sniffle sniffle, PLEEZ ! I haven't seen him telling us "he didn't inhale", or wagging his finger and saying "I did not have sex ...". Wow, maybe there really are more closet cross dressers on the right than I would have ever imagined -- I suppose with the stress of having things not all go the way they had planned all the time they put on a few pounds, things got a bit too tight --- and suddenly the squeals have gotten high pitched.
  
• A column by Mark Levin finally brought out a phenomenon that I never really thought I'd see from the right. Blatant re-writing of history in the service of trying to tar McCain, and in one of the oddest ways possible -- by claiming that "Reagan only appointed solid conservative judges"! My goodness, Kennedy voted with the majority on Kelo which outlaws private property if the local community decides they want to transfer your property to someone else!! If you can't stand up for private property, there isn't very much that is conservative to stand up for. O'Connor was of course the darling "moderate swing vote" praised by such "solid conservatives" as Biden, Teddy Kennedy and Schumer! Wow, our standards for being a "conservative" have REALLY gotten low, especially when the only purpose in the whole deal is to try to do damage to a fellow Republican.
  

I could go on, but the political season is still young, my opportunities will abound. I only hope that after the "Fairness Doctrine" comes back under the upcoming regime that folks like Limbaugh and Hannity are allowed to be heard anywhere but from a box on a street corner. Of course, that may be a major act of courage with folks looking out for "hate speech". Not pro-gay marriage? Don't think that "the rich" ought to have to pay their "fair share"? Well, that might require fines and jail you know-- the kind of "lies" that haters like that spread have caused a whole lot of "divisiveness" in our country.

Ballistics

Ballistic and price comparisons of some common pistol rounds.

Some conclusions to date:

• 9mm Price/Performance can't be beat for a "real gun".
• The good old .22 is AMAZING on price, velocity and even energy.
• A Glock 32 or Sig Sauer 250 shooting the .357 Sig seems like a "must have"! The current ammo price listed is Cabela's bulk (so I bet I find it cheaper), it is easy to see why CIA, SS, Seals, FBI, etc have almost all gone .357 Sig
• The .38 Special / .357 Mag setup in a revolver is still an excellent option

Caliber	Wt(gr)	Speed(fps)	Energy(ft-lb)	Cost/100
.22Rem	36	1280	131	$2
.32Auto	71	900	128	$38
.38Spc+P	125	945	248	$25
.380Auto	95	955	190	$26
.40	165	1060	412	$22
9mm	115	1190	362	$16
.357Mag	125	1450	583	$56
.357Sig	115	1564	624	$38
.44Mag	180	1610	1036	$58
.45ACP	230	835	356	$58

Billy in South Carolina

The MSM did take a little notice of Slick's desperation in South Carolina, but Krauthammer gets it pretty well here.

Clawing for a legacy

By Charles Krauthammer


Legacy? What legacy?

There was general amazement when (the now-muzzled) Bill Clinton did his red-faced, attack-dog, race-baiting performance in South Carolina. Friends, Democrats and longtime media sycophants were variously perplexed, repulsed, enraged, mystified and shocked that this beloved ex-president would so jeopardize his legacy by stooping so low.

What they don't understand is that for Clinton, there is no legacy. What he was doing on the low road from Iowa to South Carolina was fighting for a legacy — a legacy that he knows history has denied him and that he has but one chance to redeem.

Clinton is a narcissist but also smart and analytic enough to distinguish adulation from achievement. Among Democrats, he is popular for twice giving them the White House, something no Democrat had done since FDR. And the bouquets he receives abroad are simply signs of the respect routinely given ex-presidents, though Clinton earns an extra dollop of fawning, with the accompanying fringe benefits, because he is (a) charming and (b) not George W. Bush.

But Clinton knows this is all written on sand. It is the stuff of celebrity. What gnaws at him is the verdict of history. What clearly enraged him more than anything this primary season was Barack Obama's statement that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that . . . Bill Clinton did not."

The Clintons tried to use this against Obama by charging him with harboring secret Republican sympathies. It was a stupid charge that elicited only scorn. And not just because Obama is no Reaganite, but because Obama's assessment is so obviously true: Reagan was consequential. Clinton was not.

Reagan changed history. At home, he radically altered both the shape and perception of government. Abroad, he changed the entire structure of the international system by bringing down the Soviet empire, giving birth to a unipolar world of unprecedented American dominance.

By comparison, Clinton was a historical parenthesis. He can console himself — with considerable justification — that he simply drew the short straw in the chronological lottery: His time just happened to be the 1990s, which, through no fault of his own, was the most inconsequential decade of the 20th century. His was the interval between the collapse of the Soviet Union on Dec. 26, 1991, and the return of history with a vengeance on Sept. 11, 2001.

Clinton's decade, that holiday from history, was certainly a time of peace and prosperity — but a soporific Golden Age that made no great demands on leadership. What, after all, was his greatest crisis? A farcical sexual dalliance.

Clinton no doubt wishes he'd been president on Sept. 11. It is nearly impossible for a president to rise to greatness in the absence of a great crisis, preferably war. Theodore Roosevelt is the only clear counterexample, and Bill is no Teddy.

What is the legacy of the Clinton presidency? Consolidator of the Reagan revolution. As Dwight Eisenhower made permanent FDR's New Deal and Tony Blair institutionalized Thatcherism, Clinton consolidated Reaganism. He did so most symbolically with his 1996 State of the Union declaration that "the era of big government is over." And more concretely, with a presidency that only tinkered with such structural Reaganite changes as tax cuts and deregulation, and whose major domestic achievement was the abolition of welfare, Reagan's ultimate social bete noire.

These are serious achievements, but of a second order. Obama did little more than echo that truism. But one can imagine how it made Clinton burn. He is, after all, a relatively young man who has decades to brood over his lost opportunity for greatness and yet is constitutionally barred from doing anything about it.

Except for the spousal loophole. Hence his desperation, especially after Hillary's Iowa debacle, to rescue his only chance for historical vindication — a return to the White House as Hillary's co-president. A chance to serve three, perhaps even four terms, the longest in history, longer even than FDR. The opportunity to have dominated a full quarter-century of American history, relegating the George W. Bush years to a parenthesis within Clinton's legacy.

It was to save this one chance, his last chance, to be historically consequential that Bill Clinton blithely jeopardized principle, friendships, racial harmony in his own party and his own popularity in South Carolina. Why not? Clinton knows that popularity is cheap, easily lost, easily regained. (See Lewinsky scandal.) But historical legacies are forever.

He wants one, desperately. But to get it he must return to the White House. And for that he must elect his wife. At any cost.

Why was he out of control in South Carolina? He wasn't. He was clawing for a second chance.

Powered by ScribeFire.

How the "Truth" Works

Today one of America's "good guys", John Edwards, dropped out of the race. As he said "the son of a mill-worker" would "survive just fine". I'm thinking that might not be all that hard in his brand new 30K square foot house with 10's of millions of dollars of wealth gained largely via lawsuits against the health care industry. Naturally, whatever Edwards gained, we are assured by the MSM, has no effect on increasing costs. Apparently the "productive benefit" of these lawsuits and his huge gains has no effect, while CEO pay is a GIGANTIC problem. That is "just the way it is". CEOs bad, John Edwards good, that is all the sheep need to know.

I find myself not particularly surprised that even after I heard him on more than one occasion say he was "in it for the duration", or "all the way to Denver", he happened to drop out. Things turn out differently than planned sometimes, and of course if you are a Democrat, that is OK. For a Republican, the MSM would see it as a "lie".

One could potentially look at Hillary differently, who said multiple times she would not campaign in Michigan or Florida, and now is touting her "victories" in both. Apparently she "didn't get around to getting off the ballot in Michigan, and doesn't accept that what she did in Florida was "campaigning" since the events were "closed". Yes, "campaign" is a much bigger word than "is", and definitions have always been hard for the Clinton's.

One can't expect the MSM to take much note of these items, we are talking about Democrats after all. Whatever else might be true, Edwards and Hillary "care deeply"-we know because they say so, and as the MSM has told us, "they can be trusted". It is simply beyond the pale to even consider that such wonderful people could just be "poverty pimps" willing to take advantage of the very people they claim to be trying to help in order to keep them as a permanently enslaved hopeless underclass for their own purposes.

NOPE, absolutely ZERO evidence of that, but it is EASY to believe that Bush and Cheney only went into Iraq because they wanted to scare people and get a lot of money for Haliburton. There is a TON of evidence for that! No matter that everyone was certain of WMD, and Saddam killed 100's of thousands-it is CLEAR that Bush cared nothing about those items, only scaring the public and money for Haliburton.

We have poured Trillions down the "stop poverty by telling people that someone else owes them a living" hole wihout success since Johnson declared "war on poverty" in the 60's. It isn't like there haven't been plenty of lives lost in that battle too; from crime, suicide, drugs, etc. It is just that nobody honored those "soldiers in a truly lost cause". A half a Trillion and 4,000 lives is tiny compared to the poverty war-and at least in '07, there was actually progress in Iraq.

When a multi-millionaire comes running your way telling you that "they are going to solve your problems"-for free, the right response is to run the other way as fast as you can. Once you buy into that dependent-victim world view, you are well on the way to perpetual slavery of thought and condition. The only remaining issue is just how much of the rest of the country may get taken down that road with you.

Tryphorgetin

Endorsements

Teddy the drunken Senator has decided to endorse Obama. He has previously endorsed terrorism and both Saddam and Osama Bin Ladin over Bush, so I guess there is a bit more consistency there than one would typically see from a lefty. So much for Obama being seen as a "moderate". I was thinking that I'd only trust Teddy in picking Scotch and young women, but I think there is a 3rd area that I believe him. He is probably able to pick the most out to lunch lefty in the race pretty well. Maybe by the coke-crazed look in his eyes? Anyone ever remember when the left was trying to make such a big issue out of young W's supposed cocaine use? I suspect that cocaine use will be seen as a "positive thing" with Obama.

The NYT has endorsed McCain! Just when I was trying to get used to thinking that I was going to have to support him as "the best available", THIS !!! Well, I'm sure the NYT knows that their endorsement hurts him with a lot of Republicans and their endorsement of any Republican is sort of like the Pope saying who the least objectionable Demon in Hell would be. It isn't a statement of who their constituency ought to vote for, just the action that they think will screw up the devils on the right the most. Gee, I WONDER which party they will endorse for President? ... being "unbiased" and all.

Therefore, in the interest of consistency, I have to ignore the NYT on the positive as much as I ignore them on the negative.

The Reagan Mythology

It seems that both conservatives and liberals are locked in bitter struggle over the legacy of Reagan. Bill Kristol points out that Reagan was "conservative before he became Republican" which he argued makes him a unique politician in the 20th century, unlike FDR and Kennedy who were just politicians who liberalism adopted.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman, the Democrats and a lot of the MSM are back to trying to re-write history so that the last 25 years were some sort of an economic debacle with the only exception being the Clinton years-oh, and somehow "Internet Bubble" is a term that has strangely been lost in a lot of the lefts "unbiased recent history".

One thing seems to be clear, Reagan is a pivotal figure in recent US history, the ineffectual don't get this much attention 20 years after leaving office. One of the fun things about at least Clinton and Carter as Democrats is that they managed to hand the incoming Republican Presidents econimies that were either "in" or very close to recessions, while Bush Sr handed Clinton a growing economy.

This is a nice little trick, as the sagging economy means lower revenues and almost requires higher deficits, so those numbers come out bad. The downside for the Dems is that if the Republican DOES get the economy turned around, as both Reagan and Bush were able to do, then they might get credit for it. The solution to that, since the MSM is so sypathetic is to just "talk the economy down" during a Republican administration. A Republican recovery is always "jobless", or "just based on debt", or "only benefiting the rich", while a Democrat economy, even if it turns out to just be an internet stock bubble ala Bill Clinton is always "robust", "structural", "broad based", or some other positive term.

Even though the market crashed in March of 2K, and the economy was rapidly slowing, the MSM had nothing bad to say about it until Bush took over and it immediately became "the Bush recession". In '92 however, the "Bush recession" lingered in the minds of the MSM while Bill Clinton was elected, but in fact we were already out of recession before Clinton ever too office. Naturally, the Bush tax increase, which no doubt deepened and lengthened the recession cost Bush votes with conservatives (mine for one), but got him no credit from either the MSM or Democrat voters.