Your Bath Is Drawn, Sire

I'm beginning to think our modern political class should dress like 17th century royalty instead of pretending to be ordinary guys who just happen to have a Brooks Brothers charge account. It would at least be an honest expression of how so many of them regard themselves, and us.

The last few weeks have brought us a bumper crop of news about past and current public officials assuming the royal prerogative:

First, and most spectacularly, we have the French head of the IMF arrested in New York for sexually assaulting a hotel maid, part of which included the Monsieur in the buff chasing the maid down one of the hotel hallways.  This is not the sort of stuff you'll get from your average peasant unless he's had about 12 shots of Jack and some strong weed, and even then only if he thinks there's no way his wife will find out. Some in France have sniffed at the notion that an eminent man such as the head of the IMF should be held to ordinary standards, but I think it will be hard for M. Strauss-Kahn himself to get sniffy if he finds himself living next to a stainless steel toilet.

Out in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger apparently has an easier way with domestic staff.  The revelation that he fathered a child with the family maid has not only broken up his marriage but probably ended his political career, whatever that was worth.  The fact that he felt no need to mention this indiscretion before or during his time as Governor has been little mentioned amid the soap opera aspects of the affair, but it does fit in with my theme here.

Meanwhile, some of our current and former presidential candidates have been keeping their hands in the royalist game well enough.  Newt Gingrich and his wife bought at least $250,000 worth of jewelry from Tiffany's through something called an "interest-free" revolving account, which Gingrich described as a "normal business arrangement." I'm personally familiar with "interest-free" transactions, also known as paying cash, but I don't think I've ever known anyone who had an interest-free credit account, and I've certainly never had one myself.  Stupid me, maybe all I had to do was ask.

The 2008 election's most toothsome candidate, John Edwards, this week came under indictment for what looks like major hanky-panky involving $925,000 of off-the-books campaign contributions used to keep his extra-marital affair (and the resulting child) out of the public eye, even as he was trying to become the leader of the free world.  I never did like the guy, but I didn't imagine he was as loathsome a beast as he's turned out to be.  I just figured he was a stuck-up, two-faced SOB.

Currently, Rep. Anthony Weiner's political career is rapidly decomposing following his "can't say with certitude" statement about whether or not that was his bulging crotch in the photo someone tweeted to a 21-year old female college student.  From what I've seen of him, I regard Weiner as the political equivalent of a cloud of gnats at a picnic, an annoying partisan pest much like the defeated Alan Grayson. Some Democrats have had high hopes for him, but I doubt that he has much of a political future after this, especially if it turns out he's been telling a great big fib.  So the big question in all this is: who does this schmuck think he is, a Kennedy?

Finally, lest we forget, our dear President has recently returned from his trip to Europe, where his super-giant sized prez car ran aground leaving the American Embassy in Ireland, which surely must be a metaphor for something.  Obama had along with him a staff of 500, none of whom were able to keep him from blowing it with the Queen of England yet again.  It appears that feeling like royalty and actually being royalty are two different things--at least, it probably takes more practice than Obama's had to convincingly pull it off.  In any case, Obama came home and rubbed it in our faces on a stop in Toledo, where he wolfed down two chili dogs and a side of fries, the day after the First Lady unveiled the USDA's new vegetable-heavy dietary guide, which replaces the widely despised food pyramid.

Enough already, guys, we give up.  Would you please just take your ermine robes and your golden balls and play somewhere else?  Please?

Dog on a Hot Car Roof

There's a weird but true story that Mitt Romney once strapped a dog carrier to the top of the his car and took his family, with the dog up top, on a 12-hour drive to visit his parents in Canada.  This isn't the same thing as beating or starving the poor animal but it is odd, and I think it's fair to wonder if this might be a small glimpse into the real man behind the haircut.

Be that as it may, Romney currently is facing an obstacle more serious than weird stories in his quest to be nominated:  his own record in office.  The Wall Street Journal last Friday published an editorial slamming Romney's insistence on defending the health care plan in Massachusetts that was the cornerstone of his term as governor, while at the same time criticizing Obama's federal health care plan, which was largely based on the Massachusetts model.  Romney reacted with a letter claiming the Journal editorial distorted the history of Romneycare, and that what was important was ending Obamacare and allowing each state to work out the problem as the citizens of that state see fit.

That last bit is a nod to the principle of federalism, and it's good that Romney recognizes that this is an important part of the argument against Obamacare.  Part of the trouble with Romney continuing to defend his now-disastrous plan in Massachusetts is that it will give the Democrats a very large club in trying to destroy Romney's credibility when he attacks Obamacare, should he become the Republican nominee.  The trouble Romney is currently facing on this issue from conservatives, though, is that Romneycare was a "big government" style solution to the health care issue, and I think the fear is that Romney is a technocratic, big solutions guy at heart. In the wake of the Tea Party movement and the conservative electoral victories of last November, the prospect of yet another "big government" Republican as the presidential nominee isn't going to go down well with a sizeable number of voters who wants to see Obama defeated, and the government downsized.

Meanwhile, another Republican seeking the nomination inserted a very large foot into his even larger mouth last Sunday on Meet The Press.  When pressed on whether or not Paul Ryan's approach to Medicare reform might hurt Republicans with voters, Newt Gingrich described the reform plan as "right wing social engineering," a remark that was poorly received just about everywhere on the Republican side.  This is an early but serious crisis in Gingrich's campaign, and he has spent the last week trying to repair the damage by speaking to conservative radio talk show hosts, among them Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and Mark Levin.  From the way things look now, I think his campaign is in serious danger, and I see few signs that he'll be able to recover from this mistake.

I think that what we'll be seeing in the battle for the Republican nomination is a contest between the candidate that the Republican establishment decides is acceptable, versus some sort of "outsider" candidate with a mandate to go to Washington and turn things upside down.  At the moment the establishment doesn't seem to be entirely happy with any of the candidates who have announced, and there is a casting about to convince acceptable candidates to enter the race, such as Mitch Daniels, Rick Perry, even Marco Rubio.  Meanwhile, presumed outsider Sarah Palin appeared yesterday in an interview with Greta van Sustern, to me sounding very much like someone who has nearly made up her mind to run for office.

In presidential primaries, there is always a faction that seems to be working for an early and insurmountable lead by the candidate who is supported by the party leaders, under the theory that the party can then approach the general election with more time and unity.  While that faction does sometimes prevail (as in the case of Bob Dole, for instance), it isn't remotely a guarantee of winning the final election.  I doubt that any such effort is going to succeed in the race for the Republican nominee for 2012, but if the establishment somehow manages to get their candidate nominated in a way that makes Tea Party types and other conservatives feel shut out, I think there will be an electoral rebellion against the party establishment throughout the country that will make 2010 seem only the prelude.

WTF

Somehow Blogger deleted my last post, called "Home of the Whopper".  It was about Obama's problems with telling the truth.

I can't remember all of what I wrote, so I'll just have to let this be the one that got away.  The only lesson I can learn from this is one I already knew--back it up!

Father Obama Knows Best

Barack Obama proves himself unfit for office in an interview to be shown Sunday on CBS, saying he will not authorize release of photos of bin Laden's dead body.

My view:  Release the photos.  We paid for them. They belong to us.

Note:  In my original post on this subject I quoted from the CBS announcement on their website where they attributed the following quote to Obama: “Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaida killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the internet.  Osama bin Laden is not a trophy – he is dead and let’s now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaida has been eliminated.” They now are attributing that quote to Rep. Mike Rogers of the House Intelligence Committee, with no mention of the correction. I guess being CBS means never having to say you're sorry.

Thank You, President Obama

The killing of Osama bin Laden by a U.S. military team last week is indisputably a welcome event to anyone who believes in punishing evil, no matter how long it takes.  The Obama Administration deserves commendation for this part of fulfilling President Bush's promise to bring to justice bin Laden and anyone else involved in committing the 9/11 massacres.

Beyond that, however, as in all things Obama, there are contradictions and unsettling questions that come to mind.

First, it appears that if the Obama Administration had gotten its way in closing down the Guantanamo detention facility, the information that led to discovering where bin Laden was hiding might never have been obtained by our intelligence services.  In addition, the special attack team that carried out the mission in Pakistan has long been derided by the left as a malevolent creation of America's prince of darkness, former Vice President Dick Cheney.  Whatever the nature of the attack team's creation, it sure did come in handy when Obama needed it.  Somehow it seems to me it would be nice if the Obama Administration was more forthcoming in giving credit to those in the Bush Administration who helped make this mission possible.

Second, the method of disposal of bin Laden's body, and the apparent indecisiveness on whether or not to present conclusive evidence that bin Laden has in fact been killed is a bit disturbing, if only for the fuel it might provide for yet more conspiracy theories surrounding the events on 9/11.  I have to wonder if the concern with showing bin Laden's remains proper Muslim respect isn't going to sicken relatives of victims of the 9/11 attacks, given the Administration's support for holding trials for the terrorists in Manhattan and for the mosque at Ground Zero.  Also, if I recall correctly from my short naval career, burial at sea from a naval vessel is granted for those who have served the nation honorably, clearly not the case with bin Laden. And given that U.S. taxpayers have paid for all this, I have trouble conceiving of any valid reason why we shouldn't see the pictures of bin Laden's dead body, whatever the potential for inflaming the endlessly-offended Muslim world.

Third, the Administration appears already to be using this to make political gains. The White House released photos of Obama and senior officials in a room watching the operation as it went down, I suppose to show how incredibly involved and committed Obama & Co. were to the success of the mission.  Would they have released these same photos if the mission had been a failure?  I find this reminiscent of the failed rescue mission in Iran during the Carter presidency, an indication that Obama may practice the same sort of micro-management that was so spectacularly unsuccessful during the Carter years.

The liberal media has been spinning all this as a wonderful triumph for Obama personally, and as something that should put to rest the notion that his reelection is in danger--in essence, that the election is already over.  Obama himself at a "bi-partisan" dinner (planned before the raid) remarked that he hopes this will bring back some of the unity in the country that has been lost since 9/11.  Whatever.  If he wants more "unity" in the country, he might try backing off on destroying the economy and circumventing the Constitution, for a start.

The notion that Obama has done something extraordinarily courageous and visionary in this affair is simply ridiculous.  The American people have long demanded that bin Laden be brought to justice.  If it became known that Obama (or any other President) had refused to attack bin Laden once his whereabouts were discovered, he would surely have faced calls for his impeachment and likely would have been driven from office.

So, let me thank you, Mr. President.  For once.

Distractions

At the helm of the Hindenburg

Donald Trump apparently has made himself enough of a pest that after years of controversy, President Obama finally authorized the release of the Hawaiian record of his birth, calling the issue a "distraction." Obama took time out of his serious presidential work to hold a press conference to make the announcement. AP's circulating photo of the event shows a beaming Obama.

I believe this indicates two things about the White House view of this: first, that they've come to the end of being able to milk this controversy to their advantage, and second, that this has been a triumph for them politically. 

Well, maybe it is, within their own Democratic party echo chamber.  This all reminds me of nothing less than the Clinton/Lewisnky affair.  I remember Bill Clinton making a televised national address where he pointed his finger at us and denied his extra-marital bj, and subsequently let the country be dragged through a year-long constitutional crisis rather than simply admit the truth. Exactly what his motive was in all that only he really knows, but being that he was Bill Clinton, I doubt it included defending Monica Lewinsky's honor, such as a European politician might claim in a scandal. Being that he was also a politician, I assume that political considerations were never far from his mind, if in fact they weren't the primary consideration.

So President Obama & crew were likewise willing to let this controversy fester for years because they saw it being to their political advantage.  After that advantage dissipated when Trump latched on to the issue like a gila monster, it probably took some White House staffer about 20 minutes to arrange for the release of the certificate.  I think we'll see the release of Obama's academic records in a quicker fashion, assuming the administration realizes that it's best to feed the Donald monster quickly and hope he'll go elsewhere for his next meal.

Meanwhile, the rest of the country is dealing with a few distracting problems like, um, rising food and gas prices, the falling dollar, high unemployment, the continuing collapse of the housing market, the approach of hyperinflation, terrorism, the developing Libyan quagmire, depression, suicide...

But rest easy, America, the President is happy today.  He thinks he scored some political points, and for a politician, that's what it's all about.

Palin & Otherwise

President Obama's administration has been such a juggernaut of disasters that it's difficult to for me to imagine that he will be reelected on merit. Public opinion polls have shown his approval ratings to be low compared to the numbers seen in many previous administrations, though I tend to think that given the liberal nature of some of the polling organizations, his actual approval among voters is lower than reported.  In polls where voters are asked to pick Obama against a generic Republican opponent, he generally runs even or slightly above, which can't be good news to the politicos in the White House.

Still, the problem in defeating the President is that he won't be running against a generic opponent--he'll be running against a living politician, who may or may not be skilled enough and lucky enough to beat him.  Whoever the Republicans nominate will have a tough campaign to run, given that the Democrats and the liberal media will spare no expense, and, if the last three years are any guide, do just about anything without shame to ensure that Obama is reelected.

We're beginning to see jockeying for advantage going on among possible candidates, including some very unlikely candidates. Charles Krauthammer and other journalists are beginning to seriously survey the field. I'm not going to go into that sort of thing here, but I think that what we're seeing shape up on the Republican side so far is a contest between establishment favorites and those who will be attempting to prevail without the aid of the Republican establishment, commonly called "outsiders."

In spite of being both a governor and vice presidential candidate as a Republican, Sarah Palin is clearly at odds with the Republican establishment and is probably the least likely of the top tier candidates to be supported by the likes of Karl Rove or the national GOP.  She also has been the most effective in throwing the White House off its stride and in general making the left nuts to the point where they engage in extreme and embarrassing behavior, whether they realize it looks that way or not.

In her "comeback" speech at the Wisconsin tea party rally on April 16, she clearly outlined her differences with not only the President, but the leaders of her own party in the Congress as well.  I found her raised voice in the speech a bit hard to listen to, but she was trying to be heard over hundreds of leftists in the crowd showing their civility and tolerance by screaming obscenities and making whatever other noise they could in hopes of silencing her, so she probably didn't have much choice in that.  Her speech was cheerfully combative, and she was clearly making a point in choosing to speak in Madison, site of the recent mob madness by union members and their leftist supporters.

Palin for some reason inspires strong opinions in many people.  No one really knows whether or not she intends to run for President, in spite of the tendency of some journalists and commenters to declare her unlikely to run, a case of wishful thinking if ever I've seen it.  I don't think the Republican primary campaign will really begin in earnest until she announces her decision.  It seems to me it will be difficult for the other candidates to map out an effective strategy without knowing her decision, and I think their efforts to raise money will also be stymied until her intentions are revealed.

I think that if Sarah Palin chooses to run, the other candidates and their allies in the party establishment will have a difficult time defeating her.  If she does manage to win the nomination, it will have been after a fierce fight, and she will come out of the nominating convention looking very strong indeed.  The White House will of course attempt to make her an object of ridicule, but I doubt they'll have much luck at that, and what they'll have on their hands instead is a serious battle in which Palin won't feel any of the reservations against attacking Obama that plagued the McCain campaign in 2008.

Folks

To me, one of President Obama's most annoying mannerisms is his frequent use of the word "folks" in his speeches, usually when he is referring to a group of people who hold some belief that he intends to refute.  There often isn't any such group or belief, but our President never lets reality get in the way of making straw man arguments in the pursuit of his agenda.

Yesterday, the President made yet another of his eye-glazing speeches that was so dull it even knocked out the Vice President for a spell.  The thrust of the speech was that Paul Ryan's budget plan is mean and vicious and will keep us from winning the future, and that only by following Obama's economic plan for the future will we be able to remain the glorious country that he and the First Lady want to completely change.  Except he doesn't really have a plan in so many words.  Oh yeah, I almost forgot -- he wants to raise income taxes and close off all those pesky tax deductions that keep the government down in the mouth and scrapping for spending cash all the time.  He's even coined a new phrase for that last bit:  eliminating tax deductions is now called spending reductions in the tax code.  The man is a poet.

In Obamaworld, everyone else is to blame for all the problems we have, and it's never Obama's fault.  In his speech he claimed that his "plan" will eventually cut $4 trillion from the national debt, not once acknowledging that he is the same fellow who in only two years (along with Pelosi & Co.) has added trillions to that very same debt, all in a knuckleheaded Keynesian attempt at stimulating the economy and creating or saving™ millions of jobs.  In case you haven't been following closely--it hasn't worked.

Meanwhile, down here in Air Force One's no-fly zone things aren't going so well.  Folks are having problems just making ends meet, much less prospering and laying store for the future.  Obama's pursuit of delusional economic ideas is causing all kinds of misery for folks.  Many still are losing their houses. Unemployment remains high, especially among young folks and minorities. Depression and suicide are on the rise.  In general, the bad economy is putting the lives of millions on hold as they wait for a sign that they'll finally have an even chance of successfully pursuing their dreams and plans.

I'm not very familiar with theories of divine punishment, but I hope there is a special place in hell for utopian fools like our President, people willing to impose their vision on the rest of us, against all evidence that their plans ever cause anything but destruction and poverty in the long run. Short of that, I'd like to see one Barack Obama suffer my vision of his presidency ending before he wants it to, followed by a long term as ex-President trying to convince the world that, no, he really wasn't the worst President in the history of the republic, no matter what folks keep saying.

The Boehner Expedition

For all the drama we've been witnessing in the past few weeks over the budget showdown, you might have thought there was a serious fight going on between the President & Republican leaders in the House. On hearing the news of the compromise that has been reached on the continuing resolution, it seems to me that what was most important to these negotiators was finding an agreement that would allow everyone involved to suffer the least amount of political damage possible.

Seriously, with all the momentum going against President Obama since the elections, and with monthly deficits running over $200 billion a month--all that Boehner & Co. can force the Democrats into agreeing to cut is an extra $6 billion dollars?  This is a victory, a triumph?

What has been shown here is that for Boehner there is a new third rail in politics--"shutting down" the government.  After seeing how Boehner has behaved in the past two budget fights, I have a lot of trouble imagining that he will be any tougher when the battle over the 2012 budget begins this summer.  I don't have any way of knowing what assurances Boehner has or hasn't given to Paul Ryan about how much support he can expect for his new budget plan, but for now it seems to me likely that Ryan is going to have to drag the Republican leadership kicking and screaming in pursuit of serious budget reform.

I think it's easy to predict that the Democrats are going to fight in every way they know how against Paul Ryan's proposal for next year.  Seeing the results of Boehner's past two budget negotiations has me worried he's already given the Democrats a winning strategy in that fight--all they need do in the end is threaten to shut down the government.  Faced with that threat, I'm afraid what we'll get from Boehner yet again is another "best deal we could get."

Maybe it will be the best deal he could get, but the way things look now, I doubt it will be the deal we need.

Off The Waterfront

Ah, 1980.  It was a time of shag haircuts and shag carpets, of disco on the wane, of unemployment and inflation, of gas lines and national humiliation.  It was also the final year of Jimmy Carter's presidency, a time when much of the country concluded that Jimmy Carter didn't know what the hell he was doing.

If a President is generally viewed as successful, he will probably be able to scare off serious challenges to his nomination for reelection. Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton are good examples of this. Not having a challenger in the primary gives a President more time to prepare for the general election, and to concentrate on that most important of all campaign functions, fundraising.

By the time 1980 rolled around, Jimmy Carter wasn't seen as having had a successful term as President.  He was presiding over an economy that is still the most vivid example of stagflation that the United States has so far experienced.  His foreign policy, after his success bringing Egypt and Israel to peace, had descended into disarray as it seemed aggressive foreign leaders had taken his measure and decided he was no obstacle to their plans.  The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and in Iran the Shah was deposed, after which it was quickly taken over by religious radicals, who eventually seized the U.S. Embassy and held the staff as hostages, and with them President Carter's political fortunes.

With Carter's public approval ratings hovering below 30 percent, it naturally became clear to ambitious Democrats that Carter might not be able to survive a primary fight.  The man who stepped up to the challenge was Sen. Ted Kennedy, a flawed candidate for sure but one who represented the left wing of the party more solidly than Carter did.  Jerry Brown also launched his own campaign, with an ideological stance that reflected the state of the weather as much as any deep-seated convictions.

Carter did win the nomination, after a bitter fight that was only settled on the convention floor, and after the failure of various White House campaign strategies, including the daintily named Rose Garden strategy.  The difficult primary, added to Carter's other troubles, finally led to his loss in the general election to the republican Ronald Reagan, a prospect many Democrats up until a month before found simply laughable.  Since that time, Reagan has inspired in Democrats considerable anger and frustration, but certainly not much laughter.

So now our current President has officially launched his reelection campaign, though of course anyone with eyes to see knows that campaign really started about two heartbeats after Obama said to Chief Justice Roberts "so help me God."  Even with all the angry opposition Obama has generated in the last two years, his how-low-can-it-go approval numbers, gloomy economic prospects, and his bizarre foreign policy, he is regarded as a shoe-in for being renominated by his fellow Democrats, and I haven't even heard a whisper of rumors of any Democrats seriously considering challenging Obama for the nomination.

Still, there is time for Obama's long march of catastrophes to finally taint his prospects enough that he might begin to look unelectable against even a Republican.  If that happens, who would oppose him? Hillary Clinton is clearly tired and seems to have finally satisfied her need for public humiliation.  The pool of Democratic governors, the usual source of presidential candidates, has been depleted since so many statehouses went Republican in last year's elections.  Most of the leading Democratic senators are unpalatable nationally, such as Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer.

The Democratic party has become so left-wing that it seems to me they face a serious problem in the future, that problem being a growing inability to field candidates who will appeal to the larger base of voters who aren't leftists. The sort of closed political culture that the Democratic party has evolved into tends to stunt imaginations and, ironically, to prevent a healthy diversity of opinions.  Given the lockstep performance of Democrats in Congress in the past four years, I wonder if they haven't crossed the line and become a party of lemmings.

So my question of the moment is, has the Democratic party become so monolithic that no one will dare challenge their president, weak and ineffective though he might be?  The last week has shown us that Obama's support is even diminishing among blacks and hispanics, in addition to his perceived loss among "independents" and other voters without strong ideological commitments.  I find myself a bit amazed that so far there doesn't seem to be any fear among Democrats that Obama is driving them off a cliff into a canyon of electoral oblivion.

If our current Democrats had been writing the script, Brando's Terry Malloy would never have found the courage to get up after Johnny Friendly and his gang pounded him into the pavement.  To me, that just doesn't make much sense.