Job Creation Obama Style

Despite my deep dislike of all-things Obama, I have to disagree with my compatriots on the Right in sounding the alarms over Sestak-Gate, which is now spiraling down into the fetid political pond of Romanoff-Gate.  Patronage is as old as civilization, and an indispensable factor in political governance.  If a political party cannot stock its administration with its own, then it cannot govern.  In fact, the Congressional intervention of the last decades into Executive branch administration of its agencies by prohibiting President's from firing "career" personnel for political reasons is primarily responsible for the entrenchment of Washington bureaucracies into bunkered power centers.  As a result, we now have a fourth branch of government, the third, fourth, and fifth level bureaucrats with life tenure, who calcify worn out policies into the body politic and continuously oppose new Presidents and new agendas. Gridlock results.  What is needed is political patronage, which would tow away all the 1950's and 1960's junk heaps and jalopies, clearing the streets for newer models which will navigate the city in accordance with new rules of the road as determined by democratic consensus.  That the political appointees and the political party that appoints them reap personal benefits from the arrangement is only a by-product of having any kind of government at all.  If you don't like it, downsize and eliminate all these government jobs.  You would have my hearty support. What is most revealing about this whole affair, however, is the absolute tin-ear of the Obami. Continue....

The 8 pound Flotilla in the Room

The Flotilla Incident in the Mediterranean occurred, and the verdict is in. Israel made a decision in " ... advance, premeditated and with determination to kill and to create a confrontation with these people, and to take them all to ports in Israel. Israel always ignores all international norms, all international laws, all humanitarian laws. [Israel] doesn’t care about anything." The evidence, of course, will be reviewed at some later time, assuming anyone is still interested.

Even conservative supporters of Israel's right to regulate its borders and defend itself seem curiously flummoxed by the whole affair. Max Boot of Commentary tosses around words like "incompetent" and "fiasco" in sizing up the Israeli Defense Forces handling of the matter, seriously undercutting his stated aim of "constructive criticism." The best analysis by far in my opinion is Noah Pollack, who correctly identifies Israeli (and by extension, US supporters of Israel) error in resorting to a defensive strategy in the face of world denunciation. By any international standards of the sovereign rights of the State to protect its people from aggression, Israel was in the right in its actions. But, although certainly germane to the issue, a mere defense against the charges is a weak and ineffective response in the face of the rabid echo chamber Israel finds itself in. Mr. Pollack goes on to detail numerous offensive strategies Israel could have adopted, all of which I agree with.

But the central point in this whole affair is this:  the Flotilla Incident is a tempest in a tea pot, an 8 pound baby flotilla in the room which deserves not a moment of reflection.

Continue....

An Enlightened Character

Easy, in your post of May 10 ("Debt Up to Our ...), you state: "For the Administration, however, American economic dynamism is precisely what is wrong with America and the world.  America's economic power feeds the American Beast of Capitalism (bad), Colonialism and Exploitation (worse), and a War-Mongering Militant Culture (evil), which is edging the world ever closer to Nuclear Annihilation." In an interview with Michael Totten, Paul Berman makes much the same point vis a vis the mind-set of the Western apologists of Islamism: "We look at ourselves in the Western countries and we say that, if we are rich, relatively speaking, as a society, it is because we have plundered our wealth from other people. Our wealth is a sign of our guilt. If we are powerful, compared with the rest of the world, it is because we treat people in other parts of the world in oppressive and morally objectionable ways. Our privileged position in the world is actually a sign of how racist we are and how imperialistic and exploitative we are. All the wonderful successes of our society are actually the signs of how morally inferior we are, and we have much to regret and feel guilty about." The real basis for screwy thinking like this is the historical degeneration of the Western Enlightenment into bilious abstractions no more concrete than the older religious metaphysics.  Rich societies are rich because they enjoy the freedom to form mini voluntary associations with others in mutually beneficial exchanges.  This concrete rational conclusion about what capitalism is totally escapes our current intellectual elite because they are locked into quasi-Jungian/Freudian/Marxist abstractions that care not for the intentions and motivations of real, concrete people, but point rather to a deep, unconscious reality of which real people are just pawns. Continue......

Gay? Don't Ask

Reporters keep asking the White House to comment on the fact that, according to CBS News and some other sources, its Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, is gay.  Since this is the gay-friendliest Administration in history, you would think such questions were uber softball.  Speech writers could just dust off some of their old texts, substitute "sagacious Sapphic" for "wise Latina," and the Obami could drone on endlessly about shattered glass ceilings, a voice for the mute, and a new emphasis on fashion in an institution mired in bleak, black-robed pullovers.  They could then finish with their usual flourish about the latest history-in-the-making moment of an Administration that is nothing if not the greatest history maker in the history of history.  Instead, the White House bristles at such questions, blasting CBS News for "posting lies," and stating emphatically that the " ... reference to Ms. Kagan as gay is inaccurate." Not that there is anything wrong with being gay, of course. The Administration is just angry because ..... ehrmm, uh .... Well.  I'll have to read through all this stuff again and get back to you on that.

Debt Up to Our ... [Pick Your Fav Anatomy Part]

John Steele Gordon clarifies the Ticking Debt Bomb set to go off in our midst. He states in part:

Moody’s projects that the cost of federal-debt service could reach 22.8 percent of government revenues as soon as 2013.

That would not only threaten our credit rating and drive up still further the cost of borrowing, but also increasingly constrain the ability of the government to pursue American interests. In the 1920s Britain was paying over 40 percent of revenues to service its debt from World War I, gravely limiting its ability to function as a Great Power. In the 1780s France was spending over 80 percent of revenues to pay interest on its debt, no small reason why the 1780s didn’t end well for the French monarchy.

However, he then concludes in puzzlement:

The people seem increasingly aware of this looming threat. Just ask Senator Bob Bennett of Utah, denied nomination to a fourth term yesterday largely because he voted for the TARP bill in 2008. But do the political class and the Washington media?

I would answer: of course they do. The Obami made it very plain during the campaign that they sought a Reaganesque Presidency, in which America would be "fundamentally changed." Conservatives seem to think this meant the Obami wanted an American renewal like Reagan's, with rapid growth and low unemployment, but engineered with Liberal policies and economic restructuring.

For the Administration, however, American economic dynamism is precisely what is wrong with America and the world.

Continue......

Tea Party: Silent No More

Continued from here.

Let's return to the 1960's, when Richard Nixon famously courted what he called America's Silent Majority. He insisted that there was a vast swath of the American electorate that was center-right in its proclivities that was largely ignored in political circles in favor of a more vocal minority.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and so too did the loud trumpeters of the Left get the media coverage. 

Richard Nixon attempted to give voice to these heretofore undetected voters, but met with mixed success. Ultimately, it was his Southern Strategy (attracting an entirely different type of voter) which bagged him the White House in 1968. The Silent Majority itself never really fell for Mr. Nixon's dubious charms, nor for Gerald Ford in 1976. But it existed, and a good case can be made that the Christian Right was a major part of it, finally coming out of the closet in the late 1970's. 

In my opinion, the Tea Partiers are the remainder of the Silent Majority, finally awakened from their slumbers by the political seismic shocks visited on America by President Obama.

Continue post ......

Tea Party: Silent No More

Click the title for all posts in this series.

Despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party and the national media, it seems the Tea Partiers will not don the racist-militia-angry-white clown suits their betters have made for them. The latest obstacle to the Democrat's pr machinations? A survey by Gallup placing the TP'ers solidly in the demographic mainstream of America. That's right; on income, education, sex, race, et al., these people mirror the broad middle of America itself.

Only on party affiliation do the results skew towards Republicans, but this is by no means a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. Independents are just as likely to be Tea Partiers, and are represented in this movement in about the same proportion as they are in the general population.

So, Tea Partiers are not the fringe of American society; they are Everyman. But that something is everything tells you exactly nothing about what it is. Who are these people, really? And what does this movement mean for the politics of America?

Continue......

Another Rino Charging the Ranks?

It appears Gov. Crist is seceding from the Republican Party.

If this is true, then rather than accept the clear preference of Floridians for Marco Rubio for the Senate, Charlie Crist is prepping for a run as an Independent.  He cannot win; his brand of Republicanism will not fly with the base this election season, and the general public is not taking kindly to cynical political moves like this.  But Mr. Crist might siphon off enough votes to cause Rubio to lose. 

If I may be so bold as to quote myself on so-called Republicans In Name Only (Rinos):

NY-23 was another instance of the historic confrontation between two factions of the Republican Party going back more than 60 years. To name just a few of the contests: Goldwater v. Rockefeller in 1963, Reagan v. Ford in 1975, and then Reagan v. Bush (the Elder) in 1979.

The lesson for the Republican Party is the same lesson after NY-23 that it should have learned from those races: the Rino/Molted faction of the Republican Party are bitter, petty losers, who will not hesitate to savage their own party when election day comes. Rockefeller did it to Goldwater; Ford did it to Reagan when he refused to make Reagan his Vice President; and George Bush (the Elder) would have done it to Reagan if not for Reagan's statesmanlike reach across the Republican divide to tap Bush for Vice President.

And now, Crist does it to Rubio.   "Bitter, petty loser" only begins to describe Mr. Crist as he turns on the Florida Republicans who have supported him all these years.  I think Marco Rubio will win anyway, and Mr. Crist will become a tattered footnote in politics.  If so, good riddance.

Take Down

I know funny, and THIS is funny. But it's also one of the best analyses I've read of why the latter day Star Wars movies were just --- not quite right. I'd tell you to watch all 7 parts of the RedLetterMedia review, but you won't be able to stop after the first one.  So I won't.

Palin Power

Sarah Palin appears to be coming into political focus. Matthew Continetti writes:

Palin is assuming a new role as a conservative vanguard, a charismatic leader who summons the masses to battle. That is clearly what she was up to in Minnesota. The crowd, the rhetoric, the energy all confirmed that the balance of enthusiasm favors the GOP.

"Charismatic?" You betcha. Her performance in the Minnesota Republican Party campaign rally even impressed Chris Matthews:

MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews proclaimed himself "dazzled" by Bachmann's and Palin's speeches Wednesday, suggesting they may be "the new star power of the right."