Bennett on Choosing of BO

The Corner on National Review Online

I find this to be WAY too complimentary of BO. Jimmy Carter may have proven to be a disaster, but he was the Governor of a decent sized US state prior to taking the Presidency. That is HUGELY more experience than BO has had. Even Slick was a Governor--and as Bennett wisely leaves him out, he RAN as a "new Democrat" and he was clear enough in at least his lies to make it clear that he imagined that to be "centrist". I'm afraid we will find that Carter cost us very little in comparison to BO. Pain is relative.

And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate
in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military
and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a
far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit
without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic
party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of
John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the
Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate
in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s
religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all
these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience
to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the
instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama.
And the Democratic party has chosen him.

The Price of Talk, McCain vs BO on Iran

RealClearPolitics - Articles - McCain's Speech to AIPAC

The whole speech is worth reading, but this excerpt is especially revealing. BO is allowed by the MSM to utter any whim and their braying support follows immediately with no concern for the potential harm that could result. What harm could there be in talking? McCain has been around long enough, and even spent some time in prison camps himself with "patriots" like Jane Fonda "just talking" to know that while talk is often cheap, only the naive believe that it can't also be costly beyond measure.

What happens the moment after Tel Aviv is incinerated by an H-bomb? Does everyone negotiate some more? Naturally, all the talk by the Defeatocrats on Iraq hasn't done anything to encourage the folks we are fighting -- it is perfectly fine for leader of the Senate to state that "we have lost in Iraq" months before the surge forces even get there. Remember when it was CERTAIN that Iraq was in "civil war", and the situation was "hopeless"?

The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program. And
the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage
in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history. In
reality, a series of administrations have tried to talk to Iran, and
none tried harder than the Clinton administration. In 1998, the
secretary of state made a public overture to the Iranians, laid out a
roadmap to normal relations, and for two years tried to engage. The
Clinton administration even lifted some sanctions, and Secretary
Albright apologized for American actions going back to the 1950s. But
even under President Khatami -- a man by all accounts less radical than
the current president -- Iran rejected these overtures.

Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership
offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that
somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it's hard to see what
such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an
earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who
denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting
another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents,
as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly
acquire the appearance of respectability.

What Democrats Admire

I got to listen to Terry Gross interview Scott McClellen on his "Bush Admin tell all". Terry thought it might be "impeachable" that the Bush administration was "really driven by the idea of democracy in the Mideast more than WMD, but they pushed WMD because that was more salable". Wow, the horror, an American President that believes in democracy. Good thing that is a rarity -- I'm sure BO won't fall into that trap.

I wonder why Scott "came clean"? It is interesting to note that there is an insider book by Doug Feith who was actually in almost all of the meetings leading up to Iraq. (War and Decision") that is 5th on the Amazon best seller list. The NYT won't review that one, and I've never heard NPR do any interviews with Feith, even though he is much more accomplished on many fronts and a lot more of a heavyweight than McClellen. I wonder what the difference is?

Oh, Feith's book is heavily noted with a lot of references to documents that at least could be checked out in the future -- McClellen's is "anecdotal". It is how "he sees things". One just can't "lie" about "how you see things" (unless you are Bush or Cheney).

If you want to be popular with Democrats and the MSM, show that you have no personal character and turn on a Republican. Don't worry what you say, it need not really have any semblance of truth. It will be taken as gospel, you will be a hero in the media, and called "courageous". You will be amply rewarded for your "courage". There will be no questions asked and you will be welcomed with open arms by the liberal elite with any past sins you may have forgotten.

Try the same thing against a Democrat? Point out that you were sexually harassed (Paula Jones, Monica, Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broderick), or that you were there when supposed purple hearts were earned (Swift Boat Veterans for truth ... all 200+ of them), and you will be demonized from the first instant you open your lips. "Politically motivated", "liars", "must be paid off", "they asked for it", "loose women", etc.

Your past will be searched for any indication that you have ever done anything less than 100% in keeping with perfect character. If you have, your character will be duly assassinated and you will fall to the only sin that a liberal really recognizes, someone claiming to have some morals that is a "hypocrite". Even if you are blameless, you may well be still taken down in any way that can be created--the idea of a "liberal moral" is an oxymoron after all, "whatever gets the job done" will be the operative approach.

Is McClellen right, or is Feith? It may be hard to tell in the real world, but if we like to let the MSM make our decisions for us, it will be easy.

BO Quest for Power

So BO up and decided to leave the church that he has been a member of for obvious political purposes. Is there any limit to what one won't do for the prospect of political power? How can you dedicate your book to the minister that married you, baptized your kids, and then just throw him under the bus?

What kind of person is that? In his supposedly "great speech" that people were comparing with JFK and MLK, he said that "he could no more disassociate himself with Wright than he could his own Grandmother". He has now disassociated himself from Wright, does that mean that Granny would be fair bus bait as well?

So what WOULD the limits of poiliical expedience be for this guy? One thing, we shure don't need to wait for any books by disgruntled employees to see that there is apparently nothing that he would see as a bridge too far in his quest for power.

If BO is now admitting that his personal choice of pastor and church for 20 years was "wrong", what would that say about his basic judgment? He stated clearly that in his judgment the Surge in Iraq was not going to work -- the bulk of data since last fall would indicate that he was wrong on that front as well.

Is there ANY "there, there" with this guy? Certainly doesn't appear to be!

Horrible News for Democrats?

The Iraqi Upturn - washingtonpost.com

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S.
troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out
further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs
a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than
abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the
evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary
timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean
providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army
operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated
his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to
defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Only terrorists, the Democrats, or the MSM could dislike that kind of news! Since the Post is core MSM, even they must be starting to worry that the fiction of the "lost cause" will be impossible to carry on through the general election. Potentially BO needs to get over there and meet with some generals and troops to let them know that their condition is hopeless and they will lose? Maybe he could even stop in and chat with some of the opposition in Iraq and let them know that if they can just hold out a bit longer, he has promised to cut and run and insure that Iraq is a US defeat that makes it it clear we are powerless against Islamic terrorism? He has staked his brilliant foreign policy analysis on making sure that comes to pass and we have a lot of terrorist attacks going forward (and QUICKLY mind you)-- we MUST be "less safe than we were when Bush took office". Can't prove that without a bunch of attacks, and I'm sure that none could be too big or too soon to satisfy BO.

Wow, if this can be accomplished with the worst President the US has ever had in office, just IMAGINE how great things will be when we have the full majesty of BO in the oval office! No doubt the turn-around will be breathtaking!

MSM State Secret Mildly Exposed

Lifting the U.S. oil drilling ban seen doing little good - May. 30, 2008

Gee, if we are short of oil, maybe we ought to allow drilling? Weird idea huh? Naturally, only the idiot Republicans and evil oil executives would consider something like this-or building refineries for that matter. Thankfully, we have the clearer Democratic heads and the MSM making sure that we don't increase our oil production by 20% or more in a shortage market. Hey, some oil company might make more PROFITS, and we surely wouldn't want that. One has to read well down in the article to find the 20% improvement, and realize that DOESN'T include increased oil shale or coal to oil conversion-there are plenty of government agencies stopping those as well.


I guess it is good politics if you can pull it off. Oppose energy exploration, drilling, innovation (coal/oil shale), refineries, slap a bunch of regulations on for this that and the other thing to increase costs while lowering production and then "blame the oil companies and the Republicans". Works good if you own the MSM and the vast majority of the folks are bleating sheep.

BTW, the old "Demonize the Opposition and Big Business" was the FDR way to keep the country in depression for the 8 years of his first two terms until he was forced to work with business to build the war machine for WWII, without which, we would likely have been in a permanent depression with his policies.

BO Choice: One Name on Ballot

Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign - CNN.com

I guess it is "change" not "choice" that BO has been peddling, so it is likely unfair of me to think that he would be in favor of having multiple candidates in an election. If one is really going to get to "unity", then having a single candidate is a great way to accomplish that, as BO effectively did in his first election.

Over Race?

Commentary: Race and Politics: Why Americans can't 'get over it' - CNN.com

Apparently, in the face of race, competence, experience, positions, character and all else are meaningless. There is no way that the American people could just decide that a guy that has never held a significant leadership position ought not be instantly promoted to President--unless they have problems with their hearts.

Sen. Barack Obama, in running for the presidency of the United States,
is challenging DeTocqueville's bleak assessment of the human heart. It
remains unclear whether the Illinois senator is on a hopeless mission,
or whether the American people will decide to make history by breaking
with it.

No Jack Kennedy

Power Line: Willliam Katz: Pay no attention to the facts

While one would hope that this is all obvious to the casual observer, I'm sure it is not. BO is no Jack Kennedy ... although McCain is just a little young to use that in a debate I suppose.

Arrogance and Ignorance

Power Line: Blindly Committed to Defeat

I've been struck on many occasions how arrogance and ignorance go together. There are none so sure than those who are completely wrong. I'm also struck by how often that Democrats manage to get exactly what they claim that they hate nearly right after they get power.

For 8 years they talked about Reagan being a "lightweight", "just lucky", "only about spin" and just in many ways "not engaged". Then they elected Slick Willie who fit all of those to a tee, but was SO out of touch that he was having sex at the office. One can't get much more disengaged in their work that that! The supposed "Reagan Naps" were pretty mild by comparison.

They believe W is the prototype for "arrogance and ignorance", but after reading BOs book and watching him in action, I think they haven't seen much yet. Bush has always been a guy that knows his limits and surrounds himself with help. BO seems to think that he knows everything while he blathers about 10K dead in Kansas from a tornado, visiting 57 states and his uncle liberating Auschwitz. He is sure he "knows it all", only it is pretty clear even while the press is pitching him softballs, that the first term Senator with no leadership experience is just like a first term Senator with no leadership experience that thinks that he knows everything.

A legend in his own mind
Blindly Committed to Defeat

John McCain invited Barack Obama to go with him on a trip to Iraq; Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, responded dismissively:

"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."

Jim Geraghty notes that Obama has been to Iraq once, for two days in 2006. Geraghty makes the legitimate point that Obama seems to be willing to meet with just about anyone in the world except our generals in Iraq:

"And isn't Obama vulnerable to the argument that a man who's pledged to meet unconditionally, one-on-one, face-to-face with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really ought to meet at least once one-on-one with Gen. David Petraeus?"

Fair enough, but what is most striking to me is the unattractiveness of Obama's reply to McCain. Burton sneeringly suggests that when McCain has gone to Iraq it was merely a "stunt," not a legitimate effort to understand conditions on the ground. And Burton displays the combination of arrogance and ignorance that is the trademark of the Obama campaign, declaring, as an article of faith and contrary to the facts, that the Iraqis are making no political progress. Burton's retort is a naked expression of the blind faith in defeat that has become one of the ugliest features of contemporary liberalism.

30 Years in a Week

A week from tomorrow I'll have achieved the milestone of 30 years employment at one company. I could retire in a week at age 51 for between 1/4 and 1/3 of my salary. I have no intention of retiring anytime soon, but that is a good feeling. Sitting out on the back deck looking at the new master bedroom suite being installed and enjoying a beautiful evening. There are a lot worse ways that life can go!

Things like 30 years have a way of making one think back, and the symetry of "the 8's" for me is interesting when I think about it. From '68, when I was 11 at this time of the year and turned 12 in the fall, I recall having a painted turtle that we called "snappy turtle" at the time they were talking about Robert Kennedy's assassination. I recall that a little, but one of my most favorite memories from childhood was that Christmas eve when we were over and my Aunt and Uncle's home where they had COLOR TV! ( I bought my first color TV the 2nd year of my now 30 year career, in '79). I was mesmerized as Apollo 8 circled the moon and read from the book of Genisis. For a science and areospace interested boy raised in a fundamentalist church, there was a lot of symbolism going on there. During my career, James Lovell, the pilot on that mission and the commander of the ill-fated but "successful failure" Apollo 13" came and talked at an inventors breakfast that I was invited to, which was a great memory of my work years. So 40 years ago is a solid memory.

30 years ago I graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire and started my career. Everything I owned at the time was moved down in my new Datsun 200SX. We had a gas crisis that summer as gas went about .50 a gallon for the first time in history, and people were complaining about high prices and how "it was always going to go up". Wow, times have really changed in 30 years! I started out at the princely sum of $15K a year which was a high salary that expanded rapidly as inflation took off like a rocket--the salary expanded, but the take-home really didn't as taxes were not indexed for inflation in those days and the biggest beneficiary of my raises was the Government. Even with all those tax dollars, Jimmy Carter felt strongly that a "great malaise" had settled over the nation and our best years were behind us.

By '88, morning in America had come and I was a new father. It was a very dry year, and it was the first time that I went fishing with the core of the current fishing trip gang. It was also an election year and Bush 41 would take the reins from by far the best President of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan. I will be very surprised if we have another President while I draw breath that even comes close. So '88 was a memorable year.

I don't think there was so much about '98 that stands out. We shipped Java, which I hope isn't the last big successful project of my career. We had already moved to our current home 3 years before. The thing that seems crazy is that 10 years ago doesn't even seem long - in fact, it is hard to believe that '98 is already 10 years back. I suspect that is a common sense for those of us advancing in years just a bit.

Guess that is enough reminiscing for one night. I may be prone to do a bit more of that with the upcoming anniversary.

Feeling Bad About Economy

This is a great little CNN example of "keeping the sheep on the right track". I wonder how many times in American history you COULDN'T go out and find a family that would tell you "things are bad"? They don't list their income, so we have no idea what they mean by "solidly middle class". The article contains a bunch of polls about "how bad things are" and claims it is the worst since the recession of '82 -- but that is only in POLLS, it states NOTHING about actual economic numbers. Not surprising, because those would show it isn't even a recession since the GDP hasn't dropped for even a single quarter yet.

So why would CNN have this as their headline story today? Are we in Iraq? Afghanistan? Was there NO negative news they could find from any of those places? I see that they DO have "Bush's EX press secretary is selling a book in which he says he THINKS he lied for the President". Zowie, nothing much more honorable than ex-employees making a buck selling books making claims that they know will be popular, THAT has never happened before!

Power Line on "Fall of Conservatism"

Power Line: They only look brain dead

The guys at PL are more critical of the piece than I was, but make some excellent points. The are more optimistic than I am at this point, I certainly hope they are right.

This formulation may be better for a conservative return to power, but I'm worried that the cost of another Carter will be far higher in lives and treasure this time around:

Packer assumes, without any supporting analysis, that he’s got the future right.
Packer is quite taken with the following formula: Goldwater was to
Reagan as McGovern is to Obama. But Reagan won two landslide victories
and completed a two-term presidency of which most Americans approved.
Obama has accomplished none of these things. Thus, the appropriate
formula might just as easiy turn out to be: Carter was to McGovern as
Obama is to Carter.

Slick on the MSM

Bill Clinton: 'Cover up' hiding Hillary Clinton's chances - CNN.com

It has been gratifying this election cycle to see the Clinton's suddenly realize that the MSM is biased. What a startling revelation that must be for them. They even thought it was RIGHT biased as in "vast right wing conspiracy" as presented on the Today Show by Hillary.

I found the following to be especially touching and probably true. How hard is it for Democrats to see that the MSM wants BO at this point? Imagine if the MSM REGULARLY filtered the news against a set of views that you held.

"If you notice, there hasn't been a lot of publicity on these polls
I just told you about," he said. "It is the first time you've heard it?
Why do you think that is? Why do you think? Don't you think if the
polls were the reverse and he was winning the Electoral College against
Senator McCain and Hillary was losing it, it would be blasted on every television station?"

He added, "You would know it wouldn't you? It wouldn't be a little
secret. And there is another Electoral College poll that I saw
yesterday had her over 300 electoral votes. ... She will win the
general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure
you don't."

Are We Safer?

Power Line: Are We Safer?

It is an article of faith among Democrats and the MSM that the Bush Administration has made us "less secure". We regularly hear how "foolish" Iraq is and how it is a HUGE "recruitment vehicle for terrorists".

Will there ever be a requirement for some empirical measurement of that supposed fact? Wouldn't the truth of that require an actual terrorist attack? The article shows a nice little list of terrorist attacks on US citizens around the world prior to our taking action in Iraq (back to the '80s). There is a strange "lucky symetry" with the number of attacks in the five years since we went into Iraq. They have dropped to ZERO.

The article gives some ideas as to "why that may be", but they leave out an obvious one. We have been told THOUSANDS of times by the MSM that "Saddam had no connection with international terrorism and there was NO WAY he was a threat to the US". That has been told to us so many times that if there is ANY truth to the idea that "repetition makes even the most outlandish of claims believeable", people HAVE to believe that negative to have been proven.

Anyone with a basic understanding of induction understands that 1000's of examples CAN'T prove a negative. The "Black Swan" book that I'm reading now calls induction the "turkey problem". To the Thanksgiving turkey, it would seem completely reasonable to "induce" that each and every day a benevolent member of the human race arrives with food, and I will always be well cared for. A few days in front of Thanksgiving some year, the birds induction is proved horribly wrong right at the point at which his sample size of "looks good so far" seemed "certain".

Our MSM has convinced most Americans of two negatives. 1). Saddam had no WMD and 2). He had no connection with international terrorism that could be a threat to the US. To think otherwise is to be a fool. It is a definition of "fool" that has a lot more to do with being a sheep than it does with any connection with the rules of logic that have been understood back to the Greeks.

At this point, what evidence would it take to prove that we were safer in 2000 than we are now? Since 9-11 happened in 8 months after Bush took office, and the attack on the Cole took place in October of 2000, I'd think that for the Democrats and MSM to be correct, we have to have at least two terrorist attacks of greater significance before 9-11-2009. We constantly hear the assertion that we are less safe. Don't we need to have some specifics on how we might be able to test that lack of safety, and also evaluate the probable BO administration on how much safer we then become in the future? What is the use of making constant claims of us being "less safe" unless you are going to stand up to some proof of that being the case?

As you know, I'm a huge believer in the assessments of Democrats and the MSM, so I guess I'll expect two or more very serious terrorist attacks between now and 9-11-2009 since our safety has been lowered so much over the brilliant security record of Slick Willie. I can also trust that after those attacks, BO will lead our nation to tremendous increased safety and a giant leap forward in world stature. Potentially we can look for a return to the halcyon days of the Carter Administration?