Random Thought #1: Comparing Trump to Obama
Trump and Obama are very similar. They both have large groups of followers who have convinced themselves to believe what they want to believe about their God instead of paying attenotion to what their God um, ACTUALLY SAYS AND DOES. "Make America Great Again" is not substantially different from "Si se puede, hope and change." They're both contentless appeals to patriotic emotion. And the people who buy them turn around and fill them with their own fantasies, regardless of the real actions of the guy who sold that shit to them.
Random Thought #2: Comparing Trump to Clinton
Here's the difference between Clinton and Trump:
Clinton was clearly a "more of the same thing as the last 25 years" interventionist. Everyone knew what to expect if she won.
Trump is also a "more of the same thing as the last 25 years" interventionist but one who conned non-interventionists into believing otherwise.
Same policies, but with Trump the War Party gets its wars AND gets to discredit the non-interventionist cause.
Random Thought #3: What the Trump regime portends
Trump is the kind of guy who is going to brew up a "constitutional crisis" every week. And the country can't stand more than one of those every few years. At some point all three branches of government go in different directions and we do what every other country ends up doing eventually -- wake up one morning and learn that the military took charge overnight.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 07, 2017
Hey, Look at That. Pretty Cool, Huh?
Long-time readers know that I've sometimes been rough on Ron Paul (on e.g. "states' rights," the "paleo strategy," etc.). No apologies, all that is what it is, but it's also enormously flattering that Paul (and host Daniel McAdams) chose my latest Garrison Center column to riff on in yesterday's episode of The Ron Paul Liberty Report.
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Election 2016 Handicapping: Key GOP Credibility Issue
The 2008 presidential election went to the Democrats in a walk. After seven years of losing ground wars in Asia, the Republicans just weren't in any position to compete, so they didn't. The Democrats didn't have to compete, so they didn't either. John McCain offered to serve George W. Bush's third term. So did Barack Obama. Obama won because McCain had an "R" next to his name.
The 2012 election cycle could have been competitive. In order to make the race competitive, Republicans had to present a contrast on ObamaCare, on foreign policy, or on both. Instead, they went with the Me Too Mannequin -- the father of ObamaCare, their most hapless and un-charismatic presidential nominee since Alf Landon, whose foreign policy positions alternated between deer in the headlights confusion and "just like the last two guys, I guess, but better because hey, it's ME" -- and lost again.
In 2016, it's the Democrats who will have to own the previous eight years of insane/idiotic foreign policy, with their most likely nominee having presided over a non-trivial portion of the insanity/idiocy as Secretary of State.
If the Republicans want to compete in 2016, or at least clear the board and set themselves up for victory in 2020, their best shot is to knock off the "yes, we too are mentally retarded and morally reprobate" crap and clear the board by acknowledging how abysmally stupid and corrupt the Bush/Cheney administration was on the foreign policy front.
Oddly enough, they're getting an assist in doing so from David Corn of Mother Jones. Here's the money quote from Rand Paul circa 2009:
Most of the potential Republican candidates still seem to think, the contrary evidence of 2012 notwithstanding, that the road to the White House runs through Sheldon Adelson's checkbook (and, therefore, through Dick Cheney's rich capacity for self-serving fantasy).
They were wrong about that last time around and they're wrong about it now. Nominating a candidate who's sane and sage on foreign policy may not be enough to generate a Republican win in 2016, but nominating another whackjob or greedhead is almost certainly a recipe for Republican failure in 2016. Just sayin' ...
The 2012 election cycle could have been competitive. In order to make the race competitive, Republicans had to present a contrast on ObamaCare, on foreign policy, or on both. Instead, they went with the Me Too Mannequin -- the father of ObamaCare, their most hapless and un-charismatic presidential nominee since Alf Landon, whose foreign policy positions alternated between deer in the headlights confusion and "just like the last two guys, I guess, but better because hey, it's ME" -- and lost again.
In 2016, it's the Democrats who will have to own the previous eight years of insane/idiotic foreign policy, with their most likely nominee having presided over a non-trivial portion of the insanity/idiocy as Secretary of State.
If the Republicans want to compete in 2016, or at least clear the board and set themselves up for victory in 2020, their best shot is to knock off the "yes, we too are mentally retarded and morally reprobate" crap and clear the board by acknowledging how abysmally stupid and corrupt the Bush/Cheney administration was on the foreign policy front.
Oddly enough, they're getting an assist in doing so from David Corn of Mother Jones. Here's the money quote from Rand Paul circa 2009:
There's a great YouTube of Dick Cheney in 1995 defending [President] Bush No. 1 [and the decision not to invade Baghdad in the first Gulf War], and he goes on for about five minutes. He's being interviewed, I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it'd be civil war, we would have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes. Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea. And that's why the first Bush didn't go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government and it's a good idea to go into Iraq.
Most of the potential Republican candidates still seem to think, the contrary evidence of 2012 notwithstanding, that the road to the White House runs through Sheldon Adelson's checkbook (and, therefore, through Dick Cheney's rich capacity for self-serving fantasy).
They were wrong about that last time around and they're wrong about it now. Nominating a candidate who's sane and sage on foreign policy may not be enough to generate a Republican win in 2016, but nominating another whackjob or greedhead is almost certainly a recipe for Republican failure in 2016. Just sayin' ...
Friday, March 21, 2014
About The Coming Clobbering
From The Hill:
Well, no. It's not "Democrats" who get clobbered in midterm elections, its the president's party that gets clobbered in midterm elections.
For example, in 1994 -- the middle of Democrat Bill Clinton's first term -- the Republicans took dual House and Senate majorities away from the Democrats for the first time since the 1950s. And in 2006, the Democrats took both House and Senate back (they also had taken the Senate briefly in 2001, when it was split 50-50 until Vermont US Senator James Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent and caucused with the Democrats). Then in the 2010 midterms, the Republicans took back the House.
Why does the president's party lose seats at midterm?
Well, it's a lot easier to energize the president's party's base when the president is running for re-election. If he's popular at all, he has coattails. His campaign spending is basically a force multplier for his party. At midterms, he's theoretically not running. He's just governing.
And the opposition's base, almost by definition, doesn't like the way he's governing -- so it's a lot easier to energize them.
There are a lot of reasons why the Democrats look set to take a beating this November. ObamaCare is one that comes immediately to mind. Some kind of midterm general structural bias against Democrats isn't one that comes to mind at all, because such a bias is compeletely imaginary.
President Obama complained Thursday that Democrats "get clobbered" in midterm elections, blaming a "toxic" atmosphere in Washington for suppressing key Democratic constituencies.
Well, no. It's not "Democrats" who get clobbered in midterm elections, its the president's party that gets clobbered in midterm elections.
For example, in 1994 -- the middle of Democrat Bill Clinton's first term -- the Republicans took dual House and Senate majorities away from the Democrats for the first time since the 1950s. And in 2006, the Democrats took both House and Senate back (they also had taken the Senate briefly in 2001, when it was split 50-50 until Vermont US Senator James Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent and caucused with the Democrats). Then in the 2010 midterms, the Republicans took back the House.
Why does the president's party lose seats at midterm?
Well, it's a lot easier to energize the president's party's base when the president is running for re-election. If he's popular at all, he has coattails. His campaign spending is basically a force multplier for his party. At midterms, he's theoretically not running. He's just governing.
And the opposition's base, almost by definition, doesn't like the way he's governing -- so it's a lot easier to energize them.
There are a lot of reasons why the Democrats look set to take a beating this November. ObamaCare is one that comes immediately to mind. Some kind of midterm general structural bias against Democrats isn't one that comes to mind at all, because such a bias is compeletely imaginary.
Friday, November 09, 2012
The Ask Before Us
 |
| (Photo credit: 401(K) 2012) |
No he doesn't. That's a bare-faced lie.
The government doesn't "ask" for taxes from anyone.
They're taxes. They're not requested. They're collected pursuant to demands backed by forcible seizure and possible criminal penalties in cases of non-compliance.
If you support taxing "the rich" -- or anyone else -- at least be honest about what that involves.
If you want to argue that taxes aren't theft, i.e. that they are morally acceptable pursuant to some kind of binding "social contract" or whatever, feel free, but even in that case nobody's "asking." Collecting remains a coercive process (i.e. one backed by force or threat of force) whether or not it is an immorally aggressive process (i.e. one that violates a victim's rights).
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Desultory In-Progress Debate Notes
9:01pm Central Time: Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ ... there are "major party" presidential candidates running on a platform of sending troops back into Iraq?
9:05pm: Obama wrapped up Iraq on the Bush timetable. He "surged" Afghanistan, amped up the drone war in Pakistan, launched a renewed covert war in Somalia, honchoed the takedown of bin Laden ... there's just no way to get around his "national security" flank from the hawk direction. But a bunch of these bozos are trying. As usual, the only one talking a lick of sense on foreign policy is Ron Paul.
9:07pm: Santorum notices that the Iranian people think America is cool -- then says what we need to do is keep trying to change that. Because the best way to overthrow an unfriendly regime is to do everything you can to keep its popular support level at the highest level possible.
9:13pm: Riffing on break commentary -- 53% of Americans support ending marriage apartheid. Republican candidates: "Fuck'em."
9:15pm: Newt Gingrich thinks that every issue is a "very big, very important topic." Ask him about his bunions and he'll roll out a plan for massive revisioning of NIH.
9:17pm: Mitt wants to get rid of all the "loopholes and deductions" that keep the poor politicians so destitute. Santorum wants to get rid of all the deductions except the ones that are actually there, so that it can be 1955 in Pennsylvania's factories again.
9:20pm: Mitt and taxes, sittin' in a tree ... Says we're "inches from not being a free economy any more." Because, you know, back in the days of Nixon's wage and price controls, things were so much freer.
9:21pm: Oh, shit, Paul's giving an economics lecture. Everything he's saying is absolutely right. He also sounds like he's about to scream "get off my lawn!" at any second.
9:23pm: That one guy from Texas, the other one, Rick somethin' or other, is flapping his gums. He's got the whole "get off my lawn" tone thing going, too. Someone plug in the shrill-meter.
9:24pm: Huntsman's glad someone's actually letting him speak this time. Mitt's rambling. He seems very much off his game tonight. He's worried he'll fall below 40% next Tuesday. He's right to be worried.
9:27pm: Newt thinks that Obama is a radical European socialist now. Quite a transformation from Kenyan anti-colonialist, huh? But now he's trying to make Romney into Obama, and I admit Romney looks more like Switzerland than Swaziland. Santorum looks ... lost.
9:28pm: Santorum will "use the language of bringing people together." As long as they're heterosexual and there's no contraception involved, of course.
9:30pm: Anonymous is ... China.
9:35pm: Huntsman: A trade war is a bad idea. Mitt: China will swerve first.
My partial impression (I came in way late): So far I'd say that Huntsman is picking up some points (that break into Chinese was gold), Santorum and Romney are cratering, Newt and Paul are holding their own, and Perry should have gone ahead and dropped out last Tuesday.
OK, wow, it's over. Or are there closing statements still to come? If that's it, I'm thinking the bloom came off Santorum's rose in a pretty big way already, but that the big loser was Romney. He sounded shrill and defensive, the whole time I was watching. Yes, it's over. Talking heads now. Buh bye.
9:05pm: Obama wrapped up Iraq on the Bush timetable. He "surged" Afghanistan, amped up the drone war in Pakistan, launched a renewed covert war in Somalia, honchoed the takedown of bin Laden ... there's just no way to get around his "national security" flank from the hawk direction. But a bunch of these bozos are trying. As usual, the only one talking a lick of sense on foreign policy is Ron Paul.
9:07pm: Santorum notices that the Iranian people think America is cool -- then says what we need to do is keep trying to change that. Because the best way to overthrow an unfriendly regime is to do everything you can to keep its popular support level at the highest level possible.
9:13pm: Riffing on break commentary -- 53% of Americans support ending marriage apartheid. Republican candidates: "Fuck'em."
9:15pm: Newt Gingrich thinks that every issue is a "very big, very important topic." Ask him about his bunions and he'll roll out a plan for massive revisioning of NIH.
9:17pm: Mitt wants to get rid of all the "loopholes and deductions" that keep the poor politicians so destitute. Santorum wants to get rid of all the deductions except the ones that are actually there, so that it can be 1955 in Pennsylvania's factories again.
9:20pm: Mitt and taxes, sittin' in a tree ... Says we're "inches from not being a free economy any more." Because, you know, back in the days of Nixon's wage and price controls, things were so much freer.
9:21pm: Oh, shit, Paul's giving an economics lecture. Everything he's saying is absolutely right. He also sounds like he's about to scream "get off my lawn!" at any second.
9:23pm: That one guy from Texas, the other one, Rick somethin' or other, is flapping his gums. He's got the whole "get off my lawn" tone thing going, too. Someone plug in the shrill-meter.
9:24pm: Huntsman's glad someone's actually letting him speak this time. Mitt's rambling. He seems very much off his game tonight. He's worried he'll fall below 40% next Tuesday. He's right to be worried.
9:27pm: Newt thinks that Obama is a radical European socialist now. Quite a transformation from Kenyan anti-colonialist, huh? But now he's trying to make Romney into Obama, and I admit Romney looks more like Switzerland than Swaziland. Santorum looks ... lost.
9:28pm: Santorum will "use the language of bringing people together." As long as they're heterosexual and there's no contraception involved, of course.
9:30pm: Anonymous is ... China.
9:35pm: Huntsman: A trade war is a bad idea. Mitt: China will swerve first.
My partial impression (I came in way late): So far I'd say that Huntsman is picking up some points (that break into Chinese was gold), Santorum and Romney are cratering, Newt and Paul are holding their own, and Perry should have gone ahead and dropped out last Tuesday.
OK, wow, it's over. Or are there closing statements still to come? If that's it, I'm thinking the bloom came off Santorum's rose in a pretty big way already, but that the big loser was Romney. He sounded shrill and defensive, the whole time I was watching. Yes, it's over. Talking heads now. Buh bye.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Breaking: Obama Loses New Hampshire Democratic Primary
Yes, really.
New Hampshire election law required presidential primary candidates to submit delegate slates to the Secretary of State last November. President Barack Obama didn't bother.
Oops -- no backsies!
The beneficiary? Darcy G. Richardson.
Irony meter: Richardson managed the 1988 campaign of US Senator Eugene McCarthy, who brought President Lyondon Baines Johnson to grief in New Hampshire in 1968.
Here's the Richardson campaign's press release:
New Hampshire election law required presidential primary candidates to submit delegate slates to the Secretary of State last November. President Barack Obama didn't bother.
Oops -- no backsies!
The beneficiary? Darcy G. Richardson.
Irony meter: Richardson managed the 1988 campaign of US Senator Eugene McCarthy, who brought President Lyondon Baines Johnson to grief in New Hampshire in 1968.
Here's the Richardson campaign's press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 5, 2012
Contact: Darcy G. Richardson
(904) 874-2855
darcyrichardson@comcast.net
HAS OBAMA ALREADY LOST NEW HAMPSHIRE?
For obvious reasons, most news coverage of the 2012 New Hampshire presidential primaries focuses on the Republican contest. With rare exceptions, incumbent presidents seeking re-election enjoy a nearly insuperable advantage in their party's nomination process.
So it's business as usual in the Granite State, with only one candidate in the Democratic running. Or maybe not quite so usual -- because that one candidate isn't President Barack Obama.
Wait ... what?
Section 655:51 of the New Hampshire Election Code required candidates for their party's presidential nomination to submit slates of national convention delegates to the Secretary of State no later than November 18th, 2011. Only two Democrats did so, and one -- Aldous C. Tyler -- has since dropped out and endorsed the other, author and political historian Darcy Richardson.
At first blush, that means Obama appears to have surrendered New Hampshire's national convention votes for his re-nomination.
Unlike the incumbent Democrat, fifteen of the thirty candidates running in New Hampshire's crowded Republican primary on Tuesday, including all of the major GOP candidates, filed full or nearly complete slates of delegates and alternate delegates.
"I'm sure this was merely an oversight by President Obama's re-election team," says Richardson. "Like a bloated bureaucracy, in a billion-dollar campaign like President Obama's -- one that's literally drenched in Wall Street money -- it's easy to imagine that the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing."
Not that he's complaining, mind you. Richardson, 56, of Jacksonville, Florida, launched his anti-war, anti-Wall-Street, pro-Occupy campaign last fall after his pleas to more well-known progressives to run -- former Labor Secretary Robert Reich topped his list -- fell on deaf ears.
"The President has very obviously forgotten what the Democratic Party stands for," he says. "So I can't say I'm really surprised that he forgot he needs the help of real flesh-and-blood Democrats to get re-elected as well. I haven't."
Richardson is on the Democratic primary ballot in several other states, including Missouri, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas. "I'm happy to take all the delegates he wants to leave on the table," says the long-shot challenger. "We'll be waiting to have a talk with him when he gets to Charlotte next September."
-30-
about 375 words
Darcy Richardson 2012 campaign web site:
http://darcy2012.com
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Is Obama Campaigning for Paul in Iowa?
US president Barack Obama signed the Police State Enabling Act ... er, "National Defense Authorization Act" ... on Friday Saturday (thanks to Mark Laythorpe for catching that).
Um ... why?
Per the White House web site, the bill was presented to the president on December 21.
From that date, he had 10 days, excluding Sundays, to either sign it or "pocket veto" it (since Congress is not in session, not signing it within 10 days is an "automatic" veto; if they were in session, it would become law without his signature if he didn't actively veto it).
I could see him signing it immediately, to get it done and have it over with.
I could also see him waiting the full 10 days to express displeasure, but not displeasure strong enough to warrant a veto.
Instead, he signed it onFriday Saturday -- more than a week after passage but with three two days left before the deadline.
One obvious reason to sign it onFriday Saturday was to insert it into the weekend news cycle. But is there any particular reason why he would want to do that?
My pet theory is that he thinks the news coverage will benefit Ron Paul -- the only Republican candidate whom anyone really believes has a problem with the "indefinite detention" language in the NDAA -- in Tuesday's Iowa GOP caucus, and that he also thinks Paul doing well in Iowa helps Obama himself defeat the eventual Republican nominee next November.
Um ... why?
Per the White House web site, the bill was presented to the president on December 21.
From that date, he had 10 days, excluding Sundays, to either sign it or "pocket veto" it (since Congress is not in session, not signing it within 10 days is an "automatic" veto; if they were in session, it would become law without his signature if he didn't actively veto it).
I could see him signing it immediately, to get it done and have it over with.
I could also see him waiting the full 10 days to express displeasure, but not displeasure strong enough to warrant a veto.
Instead, he signed it on
One obvious reason to sign it on
My pet theory is that he thinks the news coverage will benefit Ron Paul -- the only Republican candidate whom anyone really believes has a problem with the "indefinite detention" language in the NDAA -- in Tuesday's Iowa GOP caucus, and that he also thinks Paul doing well in Iowa helps Obama himself defeat the eventual Republican nominee next November.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Dumb Idea of the Day
In today's Wall Street Journal, Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen call on US President Barack Obama to forgo a re-election campaign and step aside in favor of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Their arguments for the proposition are preposterous. Let's have a look.
Neither Truman nor Johnson stepped down because they anticipated an inability to "effectively govern" if re-elected. Both withdrew their re-election bids only after it became clear that they had a tough row to hoe to get re-elected, and possibly even to get re-nominated.
Truman withdrew after Estes Kefauver beat him in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, and after Dwight D. Eisenhower won the Republican primary in that same state as a write-in candidate. At that point, re-nomination seemed difficult and general election victory impossible. So he got out.
Johnson withdrew after Eugene McCarthy polled 42% to Johnson's 49% in New Hampshire, and moreover, due to better organization in that state, captured 20 of the its 24 convention delegates, and after Robert F. Kennedy entered the ring. Running weak as an incumbent versus an insurgent in the Granite State, LBJ knew damn well that the popular brother of a popular, recently assassinated president would clean his clock in the nomination campaign. So he got out.
As much as I like to think that Darcy Richardson -- who, as it happens, was Eugene McCarthy's 1988 campaign manager (and for whom I hope to do a little volunteer campaign work) -- can give Obama a New Hampshire surprise, it's premature to suggest that Obama is anything short of unstoppable for re-nomination absent several things that haven't happened yet.
Truman and LBJ bowed out after opponents of stature made the first move. Caddell and Schoen are asking Obama to get on his knees for Hillary Clinton without requiring her to first kick him in the nuts.
Caddell and Schoen:
An interesting number, except for one thing: "Generic Republican Challenger" isn't on any GOP primary ballot. In polls, voters tend to put the face of their preferred candidate on "Generic Republican Challenger," and are therefore more prone to support him or her. But the actual candidate will be a real person, and there's a very good chance that that real person will not look anything like most voters' imaginary "Generic Republican Challenger." The real candidate will alienate, or at least fail to energize/mobilize, a number of people who indicated an intent to vote generic Republican.
At this point in time, it doesn't look like the GOP is set to nominate anyone who might seriously contest the 2012 presidential election.
Truman especially, but also LBJ, bowed out in the face of likely general election defeat if re-nominated. Caddell and Schoen are asking Obama to forgo likely victory, not likely defeat.
Caddell and Schoen:
I don't know what planet Caddell and Schoen live on, but the idea that Clinton -- who lost the 2008 Democratic primaries to, um, Barack Obama -- could become the Democratic nominee "by acclamation" or anything close on this planet is just plain silly.
The same party fragmentations that hurt Obama -- the chasm between the Democratic Party's "left" and "right" wings -- are multiplied with respect to Clinton, who has a much longer and more distinquished record as a foreign policy hawk, a waffling "centrist," and a backroom dirty-dealer. She was unable to defeat the junior US Senator from Illinois in 2008, but now she'd be nominated by acclamation to replace that same guy, now the sitting President of the United States? Put down the crack pipe.
Obama standing aside for Clinton may not be dumbest political idea I've ever heard, but it certainly makes the short list.
Read more about this dumb idea at memeorandum.
Their arguments for the proposition are preposterous. Let's have a look.
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
Neither Truman nor Johnson stepped down because they anticipated an inability to "effectively govern" if re-elected. Both withdrew their re-election bids only after it became clear that they had a tough row to hoe to get re-elected, and possibly even to get re-nominated.
Truman withdrew after Estes Kefauver beat him in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, and after Dwight D. Eisenhower won the Republican primary in that same state as a write-in candidate. At that point, re-nomination seemed difficult and general election victory impossible. So he got out.
Johnson withdrew after Eugene McCarthy polled 42% to Johnson's 49% in New Hampshire, and moreover, due to better organization in that state, captured 20 of the its 24 convention delegates, and after Robert F. Kennedy entered the ring. Running weak as an incumbent versus an insurgent in the Granite State, LBJ knew damn well that the popular brother of a popular, recently assassinated president would clean his clock in the nomination campaign. So he got out.
As much as I like to think that Darcy Richardson -- who, as it happens, was Eugene McCarthy's 1988 campaign manager (and for whom I hope to do a little volunteer campaign work) -- can give Obama a New Hampshire surprise, it's premature to suggest that Obama is anything short of unstoppable for re-nomination absent several things that haven't happened yet.
Truman and LBJ bowed out after opponents of stature made the first move. Caddell and Schoen are asking Obama to get on his knees for Hillary Clinton without requiring her to first kick him in the nuts.
Caddell and Schoen:
President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%).
An interesting number, except for one thing: "Generic Republican Challenger" isn't on any GOP primary ballot. In polls, voters tend to put the face of their preferred candidate on "Generic Republican Challenger," and are therefore more prone to support him or her. But the actual candidate will be a real person, and there's a very good chance that that real person will not look anything like most voters' imaginary "Generic Republican Challenger." The real candidate will alienate, or at least fail to energize/mobilize, a number of people who indicated an intent to vote generic Republican.
At this point in time, it doesn't look like the GOP is set to nominate anyone who might seriously contest the 2012 presidential election.
Truman especially, but also LBJ, bowed out in the face of likely general election defeat if re-nominated. Caddell and Schoen are asking Obama to forgo likely victory, not likely defeat.
Caddell and Schoen:
He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
I don't know what planet Caddell and Schoen live on, but the idea that Clinton -- who lost the 2008 Democratic primaries to, um, Barack Obama -- could become the Democratic nominee "by acclamation" or anything close on this planet is just plain silly.
The same party fragmentations that hurt Obama -- the chasm between the Democratic Party's "left" and "right" wings -- are multiplied with respect to Clinton, who has a much longer and more distinquished record as a foreign policy hawk, a waffling "centrist," and a backroom dirty-dealer. She was unable to defeat the junior US Senator from Illinois in 2008, but now she'd be nominated by acclamation to replace that same guy, now the sitting President of the United States? Put down the crack pipe.
Obama standing aside for Clinton may not be dumbest political idea I've ever heard, but it certainly makes the short list.
Read more about this dumb idea at memeorandum.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Iraq: The Never-Ending Story
From my latest piece at C4SS:
Speaking of C4SS, its two-month fundraiser is not quite halfway to goal with 17 days remaining. Thanks to those of you who've pitched in, and pretty please to those who haven't yet. See here for more info.
“Tonight,” US President Barack Obama said in a nationally televised speech on Tuesday, “I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended.”
That claim was about as accurate as former US President George W. Bush’s announcement more than seven years ago on May 1st, 2003: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
At the time of Bush’s victory lap on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, only 139 US military personnel had died in the project of invading and occupying Iraq.
Even as Obama put the final touches to his own gloss on the same speech, the 4,278th American to die in Iraq since that speech fell to a sniper’s bullet in Tikrit.
Speaking of C4SS, its two-month fundraiser is not quite halfway to goal with 17 days remaining. Thanks to those of you who've pitched in, and pretty please to those who haven't yet. See here for more info.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Pants on fire
Politicians lie -- heck, lying seems to be part and parcel of the very definition of "politician." How and why they lie, though, may offer us insight into their thought processes. And of course the central figure as politicians go these days is Barack Obama.
Over at Reason, Jacob Sullum and David Harsanyi plunk down two pieces of the puzzle.
Sullum:
In other words, Obama carefully constructs his lies as part of his pre-game strategy. He sets his strawmen up and soaks them in kerosene, stocks the pond with red herring, etc., before he ever goes forth to do battle. He uses falsehood to fortify his castle before his first sally forth.
Harsanyi:
Having pre-savaged his prospective opponents before making his argument, Obama now attempts to strengthen that case by denying the actual existence of those opponents. It's one of his patented lie types -- "you're either with us or against us" with a twist of "and there's nobody against us."
A third important piece of the Obama lie puzzle turns up in an interview with the Washington Post yesterday:
Except, of course, that he did exactly that:
So now we know that Obama is willing to flagrantly lie about what he's said and done in the past, even in the certain knowledge that the evidence is there to demonstrate that yes, he's lying.
I always thought of Bill Clinton as a narcissistic liar -- he thought he wouldn't get caught because he was Bill Clinton.
George W. Bush, I never did quite figure out. It was a tossup between "he's crazy enough to actually believe the stuff he's reading off the telemprompter" and "he just really doesn't care whether we know he's lying or not ... he's the decider and the whole talking bit is just a way to pass some time with his subjects, not anything to be taken seriously or referred to later."
Obama's a liar of a different sort. His lies don't seem to be based on his own self-image, as inflated as that self-image may be; nor is he, to all appearances, shithouse rat insane; nor does he take the "decider" tack -- he strives to create a "consensus" by preemptively claiming that one exists, which must mean that he places at least some importance on the idea of consensus.
As far as I can tell, Obama's lies are based on his impression not of himself, but of you. To put it bluntly, he thinks you're stupid. He believes that you'll believe whatever he says, even if he was saying something different a year ago and even if what he's saying now is obviously and demonstrably false. I guess that was true of a majority of American voters a year ago, but it seems to be getting less and less so.
Over at Reason, Jacob Sullum and David Harsanyi plunk down two pieces of the puzzle.
Sullum:
For connoisseurs of Obama-speak, the address featured a trifecta, combining three of his favorite rhetorical tropes. There was the vague reference to "those who” question his agenda, the "false choice" they use to deceive the public, and the determination to "be clear" and forthright, in contrast with those dishonest naysayers. These devices are useful as signals that the president is about to mislead us.
In other words, Obama carefully constructs his lies as part of his pre-game strategy. He sets his strawmen up and soaks them in kerosene, stocks the pond with red herring, etc., before he ever goes forth to do battle. He uses falsehood to fortify his castle before his first sally forth.
Harsanyi:
Holy burning bushes! Did you know that everyone — and I mean everyone — agrees with the president? Obama stressed this week that you can "talk to every health care economist out there and they will tell you that ... whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses and government, those elements are in this bill."
Not "some" or "most" or "Peter Orszag on a two-day bender" but "every" health care economist in the entire world would tell you as much.
This sort of exaggeration reminds us of another whopper the president unloaded. While promoting the stimulus plan in January, he claimed that "there is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy."
Having pre-savaged his prospective opponents before making his argument, Obama now attempts to strengthen that case by denying the actual existence of those opponents. It's one of his patented lie types -- "you're either with us or against us" with a twist of "and there's nobody against us."
A third important piece of the Obama lie puzzle turns up in an interview with the Washington Post yesterday:
Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill. ... I didn't campaign on the public option.
Except, of course, that he did exactly that:
THE OBAMA PLAN ... Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.
So now we know that Obama is willing to flagrantly lie about what he's said and done in the past, even in the certain knowledge that the evidence is there to demonstrate that yes, he's lying.
I always thought of Bill Clinton as a narcissistic liar -- he thought he wouldn't get caught because he was Bill Clinton.
George W. Bush, I never did quite figure out. It was a tossup between "he's crazy enough to actually believe the stuff he's reading off the telemprompter" and "he just really doesn't care whether we know he's lying or not ... he's the decider and the whole talking bit is just a way to pass some time with his subjects, not anything to be taken seriously or referred to later."
Obama's a liar of a different sort. His lies don't seem to be based on his own self-image, as inflated as that self-image may be; nor is he, to all appearances, shithouse rat insane; nor does he take the "decider" tack -- he strives to create a "consensus" by preemptively claiming that one exists, which must mean that he places at least some importance on the idea of consensus.
As far as I can tell, Obama's lies are based on his impression not of himself, but of you. To put it bluntly, he thinks you're stupid. He believes that you'll believe whatever he says, even if he was saying something different a year ago and even if what he's saying now is obviously and demonstrably false. I guess that was true of a majority of American voters a year ago, but it seems to be getting less and less so.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
The Obama "birth issue" resolved!
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, they say; and it would explain a lot, including his latest war crime.
C'mon, think about it ... have you ever seen them together?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Spare me the pretense of surprise
Here's a quote for those who claim to be surprised at President Barack Obama's announcement of a "surge" in Afghanistan:
That's Barack Obama -- more than a year ago, before he was elected, in debate with GOP presidential nominee John McCain.
And no, that statement wasn't an anomaly, a miscue or a stumble. It was fully in line with his position as of July 2008:
In other words, the difference between Obama's words then and his actions now are that it took him a little longer to get to it than he expected it would in July of 2008, but not quite as long as he expected it to by that October.
Anybody who voted for -- or against -- Barack Obama last year because they thought of him as "the peace candidate" simply wasn't paying attention. The 2008 presidential election, as fought out between the "major party" nominees, was a contest in who could be the most bellicose and the most convincingly hawkish. Obama won that contest, and he's keeping the promises he made while winning it.
What will be the ultimate impact of Obama's "Afghan surge?" I have to concur with the assessment of Victor Yermakov, a former Soviet general who commanded the USSR's 40th Army in Afghanistan:
We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. Senator McCain, in the rush to go into Iraq, said, you know what? We've been successful in Afghanistan. There is nobody who can pose a threat to us there.
This is a time when bin Laden was still out, and now they've reconstituted themselves. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself acknowledges the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there.
But we can't do it if we are not willing to give Iraq back its country. Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put -- provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.
And right now, the commanders in Afghanistan, as well as Admiral Mullen, have acknowledged that we don't have enough troops to deal with Afghanistan because we still have more troops in Iraq than we did before the surge.
That's Barack Obama -- more than a year ago, before he was elected, in debate with GOP presidential nominee John McCain.
And no, that statement wasn't an anomaly, a miscue or a stumble. It was fully in line with his position as of July 2008:
If elected, Obama says, he would immediately withdraw thousands of ground troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to help undermanned US forces defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
"It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan," Obama said in a speech last week.
In other words, the difference between Obama's words then and his actions now are that it took him a little longer to get to it than he expected it would in July of 2008, but not quite as long as he expected it to by that October.
Anybody who voted for -- or against -- Barack Obama last year because they thought of him as "the peace candidate" simply wasn't paying attention. The 2008 presidential election, as fought out between the "major party" nominees, was a contest in who could be the most bellicose and the most convincingly hawkish. Obama won that contest, and he's keeping the promises he made while winning it.
What will be the ultimate impact of Obama's "Afghan surge?" I have to concur with the assessment of Victor Yermakov, a former Soviet general who commanded the USSR's 40th Army in Afghanistan:
Asked what difference the latest troop surge will make, the 74-year-old former deputy defense minister says, "I can see only one: Obama will be more often going to the airport to pay his last respects to the [airlifted U.S.] soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
"That's the only difference that I can see, whatever the size of the task force."
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Couple of questions for Obama "birthers"
Setting aside the fact that every last iota of credible evidence says Barack Obama was born in Hawaii ...
1. Where were the "birthers" in 2000 and 2004 when Texas's electors illegally cast their votes for two inhabitants of Texas, thereby making either George W. Bush's presidency, or Dick Cheney's vice-presidency, constitutionally illegitimate? If constitutional qualifications for election to office didn't matter then, why do they matter now?
2. Why are military "birthers" so concerned that their Commander in Chief may be constitutionally unqualified? They've been fighting two constitutionally unqualified, i.e. undeclared, wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) since 2001 and 2003 respectively. If the Constitution doesn't matter when it comes to sacrificing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives on the altar of the military-industrial complex, why is it suddenly of paramount importance when the issue is which yahoo (from among a rigged selection of thereof) gets to hang out at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for four years?
Bonus Question: Can "birthers" name a president since, say, Grover Cleveland*, who hasn't treated the Constitution as at best an annoying inconvenience to be circumvented at every turn, and at worst as low-grade toilet tissue to be used thusly and then disdainfully discarded? Why the double standard for Obama?
--
Cleveland's predecessor in office, by the way, was Chester A. Arthur, a dual (US-British) citizen by birth. A few years later, America elected a president (Woodrow Wilson) who had been born in the US, but who had subsequently been a citizen of another nation (the Confederate States of America) for four years, being re-"naturalized" at the end of the Civil War. And John McCain was born in Panama. Nothing new under the sun in terms of the "natural-born citizen" controversy.
1. Where were the "birthers" in 2000 and 2004 when Texas's electors illegally cast their votes for two inhabitants of Texas, thereby making either George W. Bush's presidency, or Dick Cheney's vice-presidency, constitutionally illegitimate? If constitutional qualifications for election to office didn't matter then, why do they matter now?
2. Why are military "birthers" so concerned that their Commander in Chief may be constitutionally unqualified? They've been fighting two constitutionally unqualified, i.e. undeclared, wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) since 2001 and 2003 respectively. If the Constitution doesn't matter when it comes to sacrificing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives on the altar of the military-industrial complex, why is it suddenly of paramount importance when the issue is which yahoo (from among a rigged selection of thereof) gets to hang out at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for four years?
Bonus Question: Can "birthers" name a president since, say, Grover Cleveland*, who hasn't treated the Constitution as at best an annoying inconvenience to be circumvented at every turn, and at worst as low-grade toilet tissue to be used thusly and then disdainfully discarded? Why the double standard for Obama?
--
Cleveland's predecessor in office, by the way, was Chester A. Arthur, a dual (US-British) citizen by birth. A few years later, America elected a president (Woodrow Wilson) who had been born in the US, but who had subsequently been a citizen of another nation (the Confederate States of America) for four years, being re-"naturalized" at the end of the Civil War. And John McCain was born in Panama. Nothing new under the sun in terms of the "natural-born citizen" controversy.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Some of their best friends are gay
Quoth AllahPundit (hat tip -- Little Miss Attila):
And his veep? Six figures for the DNC war chest, baby.
Question for my LGBTQ friends who keep voting for Democratic candidates and writing checks to the Democratic Party and waiting/hoping for the payoff: How's that working out for you?
There's a better way of going at this.
What does a president get from a gay audience when he's publicly against gay marriage, unwilling to take bold action to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," and so terrified of the political consequences of challenging the Defense of Marriage Act that he'll actually defend it in court? Why, he gets "thunderous applause," of course — if he's a Democrat.
And his veep? Six figures for the DNC war chest, baby.
Question for my LGBTQ friends who keep voting for Democratic candidates and writing checks to the Democratic Party and waiting/hoping for the payoff: How's that working out for you?
There's a better way of going at this.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Barack Obama's definition of "fiscal responsibility"
As best I can tell, that definition comes down to "after four years in office, I intend for the enterprise I head to only be spending half a trillion dollars more than it takes in each year, instead of a full trillion."
Thanks to handy Internet acronyms, I'm not left speechless: WTF?
I watched the president's speech last night. As always, he can be counted on to give good speech. He got in a good zinger about those CEOs and their private jets. For some reason, he decided to hold off on announcing that he'll be giving up his personal jet -- you know, the one he used last week when he flew all the way to Denver to sign a bill he could just as easily have signed on the top of Teddy Roosevelt's old desk in the Oval Office.
Make no mistake here: Barack Obama is a CEO, just like the ones he's chewing out.
Among the perks he gets as CEO of the US government -- perks he's evinced no intention of giving up to set the example for those he's scolding -- are a $400k annual salary, free residence in a palatial home (complete with groundskeepers, cooks, doormen, etc.), a 24/7 personal security detail, transportation to wherever he desires via limousine, helicopter or personal jet, and a "golden parachute" which includes a pension of nearly $200k per year for life, continuation of that security detail (and the costs of any accommodations required for it to fit into his lifestyle), and his own library.
What do we get for the millions of dollars we annually lavish on our golden boy CEO? A definition of "fiscal responsibility" that comes to a $1,600+ annual loss for each and every one of his company's 300 million "investors." This, from the guy who assures us that he's the one who can "fix" the economy. Jee. Zuz.
Thanks to handy Internet acronyms, I'm not left speechless: WTF?
I watched the president's speech last night. As always, he can be counted on to give good speech. He got in a good zinger about those CEOs and their private jets. For some reason, he decided to hold off on announcing that he'll be giving up his personal jet -- you know, the one he used last week when he flew all the way to Denver to sign a bill he could just as easily have signed on the top of Teddy Roosevelt's old desk in the Oval Office.
Make no mistake here: Barack Obama is a CEO, just like the ones he's chewing out.
Among the perks he gets as CEO of the US government -- perks he's evinced no intention of giving up to set the example for those he's scolding -- are a $400k annual salary, free residence in a palatial home (complete with groundskeepers, cooks, doormen, etc.), a 24/7 personal security detail, transportation to wherever he desires via limousine, helicopter or personal jet, and a "golden parachute" which includes a pension of nearly $200k per year for life, continuation of that security detail (and the costs of any accommodations required for it to fit into his lifestyle), and his own library.
What do we get for the millions of dollars we annually lavish on our golden boy CEO? A definition of "fiscal responsibility" that comes to a $1,600+ annual loss for each and every one of his company's 300 million "investors." This, from the guy who assures us that he's the one who can "fix" the economy. Jee. Zuz.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Same as the old boss, part 4: What's in the black bag, Barack?
As is so often the case, JD Tuccille hit this one before I got to it, and with more juicy detail.
Summary: Obama's pre-election posturing about "transparency" was, well, pre-election posturing. His administration is fully committed to keeping its dirty laundry, as well as the very dirtiest laundry of its predecessor administration, shut tight in a black wicker hamper under seal of "national security."
I wonder if the blueprints for Spandau are still extant. They'd make for a fine and foresightful addition to the "public works" portion of the "stimulus" scam. Just outside Nuremberg, Pennsylvania sounds about right.
Summary: Obama's pre-election posturing about "transparency" was, well, pre-election posturing. His administration is fully committed to keeping its dirty laundry, as well as the very dirtiest laundry of its predecessor administration, shut tight in a black wicker hamper under seal of "national security."
I wonder if the blueprints for Spandau are still extant. They'd make for a fine and foresightful addition to the "public works" portion of the "stimulus" scam. Just outside Nuremberg, Pennsylvania sounds about right.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Same as the old boss, part 3: The apparatchiki strike back
I see that I'm not the only one thinking: Where's Howard?
As a libertarian, I don't support President Barack Obama's healthcare nationalization/socialization goals, but if I did, Dean would be the obvious guy to try to achieve those goals as Secretary of Health and Human Services. He's a doctor. He's a former governor who accomplished some of the very same things in Vermont that Obama wants to accomplish nationwide. He's popular with the grass roots of the Democratic Party (for very good reasons) ...
... Ah, wait. That's it. He's popular with the grass roots of the Democratic Party (for very good reasons) ... and that drives the party's Dinosaur Caucus -- the ones who connived to lose the 2004 presidential election by backing John Kerry instead of Dean, the ones who fought tooth and nail to keep Dean away from the DNC chairmanship, the ones who lost Congress to the GOP in 1994 and who are pissed off that Dean's strategy won it back for the Democrats in 2006 and paved the way for Obama's election last November despite their pouty obstructionism -- batshit insane.
Whether from true personal inclination or because he felt forced to for some reason, Obama started handing out office keys like so much candy to the old Democratic apparatchiki before he even took the oath. Membership in The Gang of Old Folks That Won't Shoot Straight is apparently a required resume item for appointment to a cabinet office in the Obama administration. Unless the Obama administration is notably leakproof, Dean's name isn't on the short list for HHS or for anything else.
At the moment of truth, Obama seems to have choked. The Democratic Party that Bill Clinton left wasn't able to get the job done in the age of Bush ... but now that tired, discredited Democratic Party is attempting to seize back control from the other Democratic Party, the energized, victorious Democratic Party built from the ground up by Howard Dean and a few million real Americans, the Democratic Party that returned control of Congress to the Democrats in 2006 and put a Democrat in the White House in 2008. And they're apparently succeeding.
Leave it to the Democrats to snatch long-term defeat from the jaws of short-term victory. Of course, in some respects that's a good thing, I guess.
As a libertarian, I don't support President Barack Obama's healthcare nationalization/socialization goals, but if I did, Dean would be the obvious guy to try to achieve those goals as Secretary of Health and Human Services. He's a doctor. He's a former governor who accomplished some of the very same things in Vermont that Obama wants to accomplish nationwide. He's popular with the grass roots of the Democratic Party (for very good reasons) ...
... Ah, wait. That's it. He's popular with the grass roots of the Democratic Party (for very good reasons) ... and that drives the party's Dinosaur Caucus -- the ones who connived to lose the 2004 presidential election by backing John Kerry instead of Dean, the ones who fought tooth and nail to keep Dean away from the DNC chairmanship, the ones who lost Congress to the GOP in 1994 and who are pissed off that Dean's strategy won it back for the Democrats in 2006 and paved the way for Obama's election last November despite their pouty obstructionism -- batshit insane.
Whether from true personal inclination or because he felt forced to for some reason, Obama started handing out office keys like so much candy to the old Democratic apparatchiki before he even took the oath. Membership in The Gang of Old Folks That Won't Shoot Straight is apparently a required resume item for appointment to a cabinet office in the Obama administration. Unless the Obama administration is notably leakproof, Dean's name isn't on the short list for HHS or for anything else.
At the moment of truth, Obama seems to have choked. The Democratic Party that Bill Clinton left wasn't able to get the job done in the age of Bush ... but now that tired, discredited Democratic Party is attempting to seize back control from the other Democratic Party, the energized, victorious Democratic Party built from the ground up by Howard Dean and a few million real Americans, the Democratic Party that returned control of Congress to the Democrats in 2006 and put a Democrat in the White House in 2008. And they're apparently succeeding.
Leave it to the Democrats to snatch long-term defeat from the jaws of short-term victory. Of course, in some respects that's a good thing, I guess.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Same as the old boss, part 2: Civil liberties
When speaking with libertarians who supported Barack Obama for president, I've generally heard two arguments:
First, that the Republican Party needed to be soundly spanked for its misrule. Check -- that certainly got done.
Secondly, that while the GOP and the Democrats have become virtually indistinguishable when it comes to economic policy (the only difference being that the Republicans "borrow and spend" while the Democrats "tax and spend"), Obama is likely to roll back the Republican war on civil liberties. So far, not so good.
Two key leaked/announced/prospective appointments -- Eric Holder for Attorney General and Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security -- paint an ugly picture of our likely future. Obama seems far more likely to hitch the anti-freedom agenda of the Clinton administration to the rogue wagon of Bush "unitary executive" doctrine than to substantially change the US government's approach to habeas corpus, detention without trial, torture and illegal wiretaps. And on the "it may get even worse" side of the ledger, scratch in the War on Drugs, immigration and the Second Amendment.
The matter of the War on Drugs is particularly saddening, because the indicators were there for anyone who cared to look. Obama supported bogus "anti-meth" legislation in the US Senate. Among his promises as a presidential candidate was the establishment of a new DEA office in New Orleans. And he picked Joe Biden, author of the noxious RAVE Act, as his running mate. Sure, he made some weak gestures in the direction of easing up on medical marijuana (arresting doctors and patients would "not be one of [his] highest priorities") ... but he didn't go out on any limbs.
There's no reason to be surprised, therefore, that he'd pick an advocate of tougher marijuana sentencing and returning to "mandatory minimums" for the AG slot.
As for immigration, well, Napolitano is the Arizona governor who signed legislation requiring all Arizona business owners to work as uncompensated Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. If she takes the DHS post, it's probably because she wants to get the hell out of the American southwest before her handiwork finishes the job of collapsing its economy.
Holder and Napolitano are both gun-grabbers -- Napolitano less so from necessity, given her state, but the tendency is pronounced enough to notice. For example, she vetoed a bill which would have ended prosecution of citizens who displayed (not fired, just displayed) a firearm in self-defense. Holder is more brazen -- he even signed an amicus brief in support of the draconian DC gun ban overturned earlier this year in DC v. Heller.
I suspect we'll see some cosmetic changes in the "war on terror" component of the overall anti-freedom package. Gitmo may be closed ... but its abductees will find themselves trapped in some new kangaroo court maze rather than being released or charged in the regular US criminal system with the full panoply of constitutional protections. Torture will be roundly condemned (and the CIA will continue it while moving it deeper into black bag territory). Instead of just asserting the authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant," Obama may well seek unconstitutional "preventive detention" authority from Congress.
Real change? Unlikely. As a matter of fact, America versus its government is in a position not unlike that of an animal trapped in the embrace of a boa constrictor. The desire to breathe a sigh of relief after this election is entirely natural ... but remember, the snake is going to clamp down tighter when that happens, and the process will repeat until the victim suffocates.
First, that the Republican Party needed to be soundly spanked for its misrule. Check -- that certainly got done.
Secondly, that while the GOP and the Democrats have become virtually indistinguishable when it comes to economic policy (the only difference being that the Republicans "borrow and spend" while the Democrats "tax and spend"), Obama is likely to roll back the Republican war on civil liberties. So far, not so good.
Two key leaked/announced/prospective appointments -- Eric Holder for Attorney General and Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security -- paint an ugly picture of our likely future. Obama seems far more likely to hitch the anti-freedom agenda of the Clinton administration to the rogue wagon of Bush "unitary executive" doctrine than to substantially change the US government's approach to habeas corpus, detention without trial, torture and illegal wiretaps. And on the "it may get even worse" side of the ledger, scratch in the War on Drugs, immigration and the Second Amendment.
The matter of the War on Drugs is particularly saddening, because the indicators were there for anyone who cared to look. Obama supported bogus "anti-meth" legislation in the US Senate. Among his promises as a presidential candidate was the establishment of a new DEA office in New Orleans. And he picked Joe Biden, author of the noxious RAVE Act, as his running mate. Sure, he made some weak gestures in the direction of easing up on medical marijuana (arresting doctors and patients would "not be one of [his] highest priorities") ... but he didn't go out on any limbs.
There's no reason to be surprised, therefore, that he'd pick an advocate of tougher marijuana sentencing and returning to "mandatory minimums" for the AG slot.
As for immigration, well, Napolitano is the Arizona governor who signed legislation requiring all Arizona business owners to work as uncompensated Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. If she takes the DHS post, it's probably because she wants to get the hell out of the American southwest before her handiwork finishes the job of collapsing its economy.
Holder and Napolitano are both gun-grabbers -- Napolitano less so from necessity, given her state, but the tendency is pronounced enough to notice. For example, she vetoed a bill which would have ended prosecution of citizens who displayed (not fired, just displayed) a firearm in self-defense. Holder is more brazen -- he even signed an amicus brief in support of the draconian DC gun ban overturned earlier this year in DC v. Heller.
I suspect we'll see some cosmetic changes in the "war on terror" component of the overall anti-freedom package. Gitmo may be closed ... but its abductees will find themselves trapped in some new kangaroo court maze rather than being released or charged in the regular US criminal system with the full panoply of constitutional protections. Torture will be roundly condemned (and the CIA will continue it while moving it deeper into black bag territory). Instead of just asserting the authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant," Obama may well seek unconstitutional "preventive detention" authority from Congress.
Real change? Unlikely. As a matter of fact, America versus its government is in a position not unlike that of an animal trapped in the embrace of a boa constrictor. The desire to breathe a sigh of relief after this election is entirely natural ... but remember, the snake is going to clamp down tighter when that happens, and the process will repeat until the victim suffocates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)