Bloodthirsty Liberal

- Aggie

Let me put this as succinctly as I can:

To elaborate:

Dick Cheney is not the most popular of politicians, but when he offered a harsh assessment of the Obama Administration’s approach to terrorism last May, his criticism stung—so much that the President gave a speech the same day that was widely seen as a direct response. Though neither man would admit it, eight months later political and security realities are forcing Mr. Obama’s antiterror policies ever-closer to the former Vice President’s.

In fact, the President’s changes in antiterror policy have never been as dramatic as he or his critics have advertised. His supporters on the left have repeatedly howled when the Justice Department quietly went to court and offered the same legal arguments the Bush Administration made, among them that the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. He has also ramped up drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan.

However, the Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues, and it is on those that it is suffering the humiliation of having to walk back from its own righteous declarations. This is Dick Cheney’s revenge.

And as he is probably too busy shooting defenseless little furry creatures (deer, not hippies—although now that you mention it…), let me respond in his stead.

Ahem.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boy, it sure must suck to have to adopt the policies of someone you find the most evil entity to walk the earth since Rasputin last pulled the wings off a fly.

It would be like me having to admit Al Gore was right. As if.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gitmo, KSM’s trial—the administration has thrown its policies into reverse so many times, they’ve stripped the gears.

As long as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were responsible for keeping Americans safe, Democrats could pander to the U.S. and European left’s anti-antiterror views at little political cost. But now that they are responsible, American voters are able to see what the left really has in mind, and they are saying loud and clear that they prefer the Cheney method.

Mr. Holder has nonetheless begun a campaign to defend his decisions on Abdulmutallab and KSM, telling the New Yorker last week that “I don’t apologize for what I’ve done” and that trying KSM in a civilian court will be “the defining event of my time as Attorney General.”

That’s about the only thing he’s said I agree with.

Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain

Much has been written about the EU debt bomb, cleverly called PIGS.

The inevitable “sovereign debt panic” finally struck last week, causing severe one-day drops in stock markets from New York to London to Toronto on Thursday.

Ostensibly, the epicentre of the crisis is Greece, in danger of defaulting on its debt payments to worldwide holders of its government bonds, or sovereign debt.

But the fear about state defaults quickly spread to Spain, Portugal and Ireland, fiscal train wrecks that together with Greece now go by the unfortunate acronym PIGS.

Even then, the scope of a potential second global financial crisis so soon after the credit crisis of 2008-09 goes far beyond the euro zone, the 16 nations sharing a common currency, the euro.

Last week’s dramatics could have been far worse. And they may yet manifest themselves in an ugly fashion in weeks to come if the euro-zone countries don’t rescue what Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou described last week as “the weakest link in the euro zone.”

Greece accounts for just 3 per cent of the euro-zone economy. The crisis in the cradle of Western civilization serves merely as proxy for government over-indebtedness everywhere.

Only a few months ago, a Dubai on the edge of default had to be bailed out by oil-rich neighbour Abu Dhabi. [hard to keep these guys straight, isn’t it? - Aggie] A debt-strapped Argentina recently tried and failed to pay debts by raiding its central-bank treasury.

Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio is an eye-popping 95 per cent. But then, the U.S. isn’t far behind at 84 per cent. (The Canadian ratio is estimated at 35.5 per cent in the current fiscal year.) Greece’s deficit-to-GDP ratio is an alarming 13 per cent. But then, Britain isn’t far behind at 12.6 per cent.

And so on. Any thoughts? Maybe this is the End Of The Western World that the Iranians are drooling about? Then again, maybe it is just the usual nonsense.

Elections have consequences:

The U.S. looms largest. President Barack Obama just tabled a budget that projects a doubling in America’s national debt, to $28 trillion (U.S.), by decade’s end. That’s twice the size of the U.S. economy.

- Aggie

I’ll spare you the messy details, but I’ve fantasized about Sarah Palin’s palm, too.

But the MSM is positively perverse on the subject. Get your own fantasies, you creepy bunch of sickos!

Which you know they have. Andrea Mitchell lowers herself into a hot bubble bath. She closes her eyes and lets out a deep breath. Thoughts, impure thoughts, spill into her imagination. They involve basketballs and microphones, whipped cream and arugula. She wakes with a start as Alan Greenspan steps in opposite her.

I’d share Chris Matthews’ fantasies, but I’d be shut down by the FCC before the thrill got halfway up his leg.

But while you’re obsessing compulsively over a five-point outline Sarah wrote on her soft, white, gentle, perfect palm, you pervs, you missed a much, much bigger embarrassment:

The president can’t even talk to sixth graders without a pair of teleprompters and a Secret Service agent ready to take a bugger for the president.

“I do not like them, Sam-I-Am. I do not like green eggs and ham.”

I swear, when he tells his fat tubs of goo daughters a bedtime story, he must have a team of writers and a prompter at ha…

What’s that, you say, too mean?

Don’t talk to me. Talk to them:

“We went to our pediatrician all the time,” [Michelle] Obama said. “I thought my kids were perfect — they are and always will be — but he [the doctor] warned that he was concerned that something was getting off balance.”

…

“But we often simply don’t realize that those kids are our kids, and our kids could be in danger of becoming obese. We always think that only happens to someone else’s kid — and I was in that position.”

I won’t name which pretty little girl in question, out of respect for her privacy. But then, I don’t have to:

President Obama is also guilty of talking about his daughters’ weight. In an interview with Parents magazine in November 2008, the president said, “A couple of years ago — you’d never know it by looking at her now — Malia was getting a little chubby.”

You take that back, sir!

Just what all girls need: the commander in chief and leader of the free world—and his lady—opining on the BMI of all girls everywhere. Whoever wrote that on the teleprompter should be taken out and shot.

Is there a contrast to be made between Palin’s attitude toward her Down’s Syndrome son (”he’s perfect”) and Obama’s cute daughter (”she’s chubby”)?

Let me not run through the roster of dishonest statements (February’s a short month!).

Let me add just one more:

How Many Press Conferences Has Bush Held?
By Patrick on Nov 10, 2008 12:50 PM

An interesting exchange during today’s White House press briefing:

Q [C]ould you tell us the total number of press conferences held by President Bush?

MS. PERINO: I couldn’t tell you. …

Q The New York Times reported, “Mr. Obama has indicated he will hold a news conference once a month, but nothing has been set.” Does the President, as an upcoming private citizen, hope that his successor will try to emulate FDR in the number of his press conferences?

MS. PERINO: I don’t think the President will be providing any advice as to how many press conferences he has.

He might suggest that the new president keep his word:

Six months ago, network executives were complaining that the White House was costing them tens of millions of dollars by pressing them to carry presidential news conferences in prime time.

Problem solved: President Obama hasn’t held a full-scale news conference since July. Instead, he answered a dozen people’s questions last week on YouTube, most of them easily finessed and — extra bonus! — no annoying follow-ups of the kind posed by real, live journalists.

How about holding a press conference during All My Children or General Hospital? Why does the Messiah (heavenly chorus: ah-h-h-h!!) have to commandeer prime time for every utterance? I recall press conferences for previous presidents being held in daylight.

For comparison’s sake:

In the 21 months since his second inaugural, Bush has already held 15 solo press conferences. Last year, 2005, he held nine – more than double the number he averaged each of his first four years. In 2006, he’s already held six – including one in each of the last five months. At this rate his second term would not only easily surpass his first-term total but equal it in two years.

…

“Like most of his recent predecessors, President Bush does news conferences when it suits his purposes, not those of the press,” said Knoller. “It’s a myth to think that he’s in any way scared of the press or our questions. And he has shown increasingly that he enjoys the intellectual give and take - and needling reporters about their style, clothing or questioning.”

“To the extent there have been more regular press conferences in recent months, you can credit the calendar. The midterm elections loom large and he has much at stake.

So, maybe we’ll get more Barack Obama, after all.

Oy.

Anyway, here’s something of what we’ve been missing:

In practice, no single news organization can cover the ground of a 45-minute Q&A with newspapers, wire services, magazines, television, radio and bloggers, seen live on the air.

“What’s lost is the ability to get beyond talking points,” says Michael Shear, a White House reporter for The Post. “This is a president and White House that know how to be very scripted and very on message. . . . Frankly, we make our living studying and following details of these issues so we can zero our questions in on where the real tension lies in a particular issue.”

Obama has talked to correspondents at occasional press “avails” overseas. While he has taken as many as a half-dozen or more questions, that figure has been shrinking, and if a foreign leader is present, the American side may get just one or two chances.

Todd says that while he and other network correspondents have been granted short interviews abroad, there is no time for wide-ranging questions on, say, Iran or the Middle East. “All these pre-set interviews, they try to attach them to a specific topic,” he says.

Maybe they can put the press conferences on C-SPAN!

Some are portraying this transparent ploy (hey, finally, some transparency!) as something other than an obvious attempt to pass a political hot potato—but I say mash that bad boy up (the potato, not the president), stir in some crow, and serve it back to him (the president, not the crow):

President Obama made a dramatic attempt to jump-start the stalled health care debate Sunday, inviting Republicans in Congress to a half-day summit on the subject to be televised live later this month.

The president made the offer in an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric just hours before the Superbowl. Obama challenged Republicans to come to the discussion armed with their best ideas for how to cover more Americans and fix the health insurance system.

“I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues,” Obama told Couric. “What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table… I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.”

The invitation to join him later this month follows comments he made on Thursday during a speech at a Democratic fundraiser in which he said he wanted to sit with Republicans and “walk through the [health care plans] in a methodical way so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense.”

Oh, so he’s going to talk to us like you’re four year olds. That oughta help. ‘Cause we can’t be trusted to make decisions for ourselves. And we know he’ll only tell us the truth.

But nice of him to finally extend the Republicans an invitation. They’ve been about as welcome as a case of ebola in the negotiations so far.

Rush has always said that the Republicans should include themselves out of health care reform, at least on the terms proposed by the Democrats. I would agree, but why not take the opportunity to teach the president a thing or two about people running their own lives?

Or, in words he would understand: the Constitution doesn’t say what “government must do on your behalf” for a damn good reason! After life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we’re done (words from the Declaration, but they best define the governing philosophy of the Republic). I have yet to find any mention of free prescription drug or cheap dental in the document.

Republicans have plenty to say on health care, and on everything else, if they talk conservative values. Let us live our lives, keep as much money as we fairly can from our hard work, leave our children in the best position to succeed. That’s not a bad message, and it makes everything else sound irrelevant.

PS: Sounds like the Republicans have the same thing in mind:

The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access.

PS: Hugh Hewitt has three talking points for the Republicans: tort reform; interstate competition; and the effing economy, stupid.

PPS: Okay, so maybe President Obama isn’t even remotely serious:

In his rallying cry to a crowd of cheering supporters on Thursday, Mr. Obama described, in the clearest terms yet, his vision of how to enact comprehensive health legislation: House and Senate Democrats would resolve their differences and decide on a “final bill.” They would then invite “our Republican friends to present their ideas.”

…

In conversations today, the White House was quick to emphasize a couple of points. First, they’re not starting over. Legislation has already passed the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. That’s not to be taken lightly, and the White House isn’t taking it lightly. “The President has made it clear that he’s adamant about passing comprehensive reform similar to the bills passed by the House and the Senate,” one official said.

Having the GOP in for a debate after Democrats draft a “final bill,” similar to that virtually universally rejected by Republicans is absurd, which ought to be among the main points Republicans make if — as appears to be the case — they choose to attend.

We want to hear what you have to say, we just don’t want to listen to it—what a horse’s patootie.

First, let’s take a moment to congratulate The New Orleans Saints and the city of New Orleans. That was thrilling to watch.

Ok, on to the perplexing state of our nation. Did you know that the chief executive of JP Morgan Chase is a good buddy of Barack Obama? Isn’t that fascinating?

If the Democratic Party has a stronghold on Wall Street, it is JPMorgan Chase.

Its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, is a friend of President Obama’s from Chicago, a frequent White House guest and a big Democratic donor. Its vice chairman, William M. Daley, a former Clinton administration cabinet official and Obama transition adviser, comes from Chicago’s Democratic dynasty.

But this year Chase’s political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts.

I am flabbergasted. I thought he didn’t like bankers?

No wait!

Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda.

Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.

Let me assure the bankers and the democrats that Mr. Obama will stop attacking Wall Street “fat cats”. They need the money. It will stop. Take a chill.

But this article in the NY Times today is the intellectual equivalent of finding out that John Edwards had a love child. Instead of the sex tapes with the mistress, we get hanky-panky with the bankers. Sure, I imagine this was all part of the public record, but how odd that a President who has spent considerable energy bashing business leaders and bankers, hangs out with them in his free time.

Wall Street fund-raisers for the Democrats say they are feeling under attack from all sides. The president is lashing out at their “arrogance and greed.” Republican friends are saying “I told you so.” And contributors are wishing they had their money back.

Huh. To tell you the truth, I’m not opinionated about this mess. I don’t understand finance at all and know what I don’t know. But, to a casual observers of the Obama campaign and first year in office, it is astonishing to me that the financial people didn’t perceive his hostility. It wasn’t a secret. I wonder what they were thinking?

- Aggie

At least, I didn’t. I was still too much of a liberal ideologue to allow for anything like warm feelings for the old man then. There was grudging respect (for his accomplishments, his certainty in his beliefs), even if I didn’t approve.

I tease my liberal friends (if they can take it, which few of them can, the poor woozums) about my conversion, but I haven’t shared with them that I suppose if there was one thing I regret most about my left-wing past, it is that I can’t say I ever voted for Ronald Reagan.

Stories like this are why:

Today marks the 99th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth.

…

Having written so much on the man, I get lots of questions about Reagan this time of year, running the gamut from his domestic achievements to his historic foreign-policy triumph: peacefully ending the Cold War. Sometimes I get asked for unreported anecdotes reflecting on his personality and character. I have a bunch of those, which were eagerly shared with me by people who met Reagan (he talked to anyone) or were dug up from the thousands of letters Reagan wrote to everyday Americans over a long lifetime.

…

And so, with that background, I’d like to take the opportunity presented by Reagan’s time of year — not to mention the month of Presidents’ Day — to share an anecdote that was told to me by Bill Clark, Reagan’s close friend and most significant adviser.

At the time this happened, Clark was serving as Reagan’s national-security adviser. He had previously been deputy secretary of state, and would later be appointed secretary of the interior. His driver all this time was a man named Joe Bullock, a Georgia native who had moved to Washington during the Great Depression. Joe was a victim of the cruel Jim Crow laws that afflicted the South. He went to Washington for a better life.

Joe first found employment as a mule driver. He eventually began chauffeuring various senior people in the federal government, some of whom, including a high-level figure in the Carter administration, didn’t treat him well; in fact, that previous cabinet secretary didn’t speak a word to Joe in three years.

Thus, Joe was taken aback when Bill Clark not only talked to him, asking questions about his life and family, but also asked whether he could sit up front. Clark rode shotgun with Joe, drawing more than a few stares and safety concerns as well, since Clark, given his influence in national security, was a target of America’s enemies.

One morning, Clark’s father visited Washington. He hit it off with Joe. Clark’s father was a rancher, a man of the West. He gave Joe a gift: a Western-style belt, with a kind of “John Wayne belt buckle,” as Clark described it. Joe loved it, proudly displaying it by always leaving his blue suit-jacket unbuttoned.

That belt soon assumed a life of its own. A state visit by England’s Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip was upcoming, and protocol demanded that the White House provide gifts. Clark, Reagan, and a few others brainstormed following a morning briefing. For Philip, Clark suggested a “Western belt.” He had one in mind, made by Si Jenkins, a Santa Barbara friend of both Clark and the president. (Reagan, too, was a California rancher.)

“Well, what does it look like?” asked Reagan. Clark noted he had a model in the car: Joe, who was wearing the belt. “Send him up,” ordered the president. They called for Joe, who entered via the door of Reagan’s secretary.

Joe had worked for the federal government for half a century, but had never been within 50 yards of the Oval Office. He walked in. He saw Clark, Vice President Bush, the senior aides, and the president of the United States. He was in awe, overcome. Suddenly, this tough six-foot-four man began weeping: He had come so far since Jim Crow and the Great Depression. He was choked up.

No one in the room was prepared for that reaction. They were dead silent, uncomfortable, unable to respond — except for Ronald Reagan. The president rose, walked over to the driver, extended his hand, breathed in, and said matter-of-factly, “Mr. Bullock, I understand you have a belt to show me?”

It was an “everyman” touch. And it put old Joe immediately at ease. Business-like, Joe showed the belt, and then he and Reagan began swapping stories, chatting away like old friends.

“The rest of us just faded away,” said Bill Clark, “as the two got along famously.” President and driver, remembering the old days.

Bullock left with a story to tell his fellow drivers, and his grandchildren. He died a few years later.

No, this anecdote is nothing dramatic. It’s not like challenging Gorbachev to tear down the wall. It’s simply another of many small stories I hear constantly about Ronald Reagan. This was a good president and a good man. The White House needs more of them. That’s a thought worth bearing in mind this February.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find a remarkable contrast between that anecdote, typical of the man I’ve come to know after his passing, and the very public, very staged moments where President Obama lays hands on his adoring throng. Only a few people witnessed that scene, and it has been essentially untold for decades. Everybody’s seen Obama hug Harriet Hughes, even as he did nothing for her (a local Republican put her up rent-free until her son could finally get a job).

The teller of this tale didn’t draw the parallel directly, but I don’t think he’d mind that I did.

That’s how I’d describe President Obama’s fleeting escape from disfavor in the polls:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove which Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. That matches the President’s ratings just before the State-of-the-Union Address. While Obama received a modest bounce in his ratings following the speech, today’s results suggest that the bounce is over.

I’ve been meaning to announce a new occasional series called “What Was That All About”?

You know, Obama announces he intends to try KSM and his war criminal buddies in Night Court (with John Larroquette as the DA), which announcement is met with holy hell from everyone involved (mayor, governor, congressmen, cabbies), and then he says, oh never mind. What was that all about?

The president of Honduras announces he wants to ignore his country’s constitution and remain in office like forever, except his country’s supreme court and legislature say we don’t think so—and we back the putsching president, and call his removal from office a coup? And after the whole thing dies down, and the democratic institutions of Honduras have their say, the ousted tinpot, banana republic dictator wannabe stays ousted, we accept it without a peep on the back pages of the A-section of the newspaper. What was that all about?

President Obama surges to near parity in the polls, only to plummet to pre-speech paucity—his Strongly Disapprove numbers within three of his Total Approve—in less than a week. What was that all about? (Ditto “Cash for Clunkers”, “Leases for Layabouts”, etc. etc.)

I think I might have clue on what that last one was all about:

The American people overwhelmingly reject the basics of Keynesian economics: only 11% believe more deficit spending is needed to spur the economy while 70% say deficit cutting is the answer.

Both are wrong: a temporary deficit from broad, deep tax-rate cuts would in short order then balloon receipts after the resultant economic expansion, and go far toward erasing said deficit.

And then you know what we’d say about the panic over the deficit? What was that all about?

PS: Ed Morrissey:

This explains why Obama likes to keep himself on TV screens. He usually gets these kind of bumps from his major addresses, but those temporary increases now evaporate more quickly than before. People appear to sense potential in Obama, but are less patient for him to demonstrate it than they were at his election.

You might not have noticed, given all the prime time addresses and the “exclusive” interviews, but there’s one forum President Obama avoids like the plague:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs Thursday defended the number of formal press conferences, or lack thereof, held by President Obama in recent months.

CNN White House correspondent Dan Lothian asked Gibbs why Obama has been unavailable for questioning by the White House press corps over the past six months.

“He has taken questions at different press avails from a whole host of reporters,” said Gibbs. “We’ve done a countless number of interviews, more interviews in the first year than any other president in recent memory. He enjoys the format, we just haven’t done one in a while.”

The president last held a prime time news conference on July 22, 2009.

And you all remember what happened then:

“Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly….”

I don’t know if that was the day Scott Brown decided to run, but it was the day that he stood a pretty good chance of winning (at least winning the endorsement of the Cambridge Police Department, despite Martha Coakley’s husband being a former member of the force).

I just think Obama takes one look at Jake Tapper and Major Garrett and sees David Gregory and Sam Donaldson. And he says to himself, “[bleep] that [bleep], after what they do to Gibbsy, no way I’m going up there without my teleprompter.”