Quote of the day – Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson gives us 10 reasons why we probably miss George Bush. Number 10 is great:

10. Bush was authentic. He mangled his words. A liberal industry grew up around both “nuclar” and its sometimes corrective “nucular.” He strutted and talked Nascarese-like “bring ‘em on.” Much of this was excessive, but we knew at least Bush meant it. We got worried when he extemporaneously expounded for long riffs about freedom at press conferences, as his eyes rolled and he drifted from topic to topic. He put his arm on Angela Merkel and cried out “Yo Blair.” The media told us he was a yokel; we might add: albeit an authentic one who could duck properly when under shoe attack.

But Obama? He cannot really speak off the teleprompter without pauses, repetitions, and constant self-referencing (as in “me,” “I,” “my,” etc.). He is stiff and not comfortable with himself off the court or golf course. Bush made decisions and stuck by them; Obama the professor offers a perennial “on the one hand”/”on the other hand” mish-mash and a sorta, kinda, almost answer. Americans would prefer to be in a foxhole with George Bush, who would swagger and announce as decider-in-chief at H-hour, “OK, pard, we’re going over the top together on this one.” They wouldn’t want to be with Obama, who would stutter and give a long-drawn out exegesis why race and class had condemned us to such an unfair predicament, whose only solution is to go into a fetal position and condemn “them” who did this awful thing to us.

Quote of the day – from those morons at Time

What economists know very well, but most of the rest of us do not is that the unemployment rate never hits 0%. Well duh! What a stupid statement! Of course it will never hit 0%. It never even gets close. It never even gets close? Read on: In fact, even in good times, the unemployment rate has been creeping up over time. During the 1960s, the unemployment rate was below 4% for nearly four years, going as low as 3.5%. During the amazing late-1990s-early-2000s economic boom, though, never got as low as that. The unemployment rate touched 4%, dipping below that only briefly for just a few months. I think that 3.5 or 4% or even 5% is pretty damned close to what we’d all like to see. Close enough for me, compared to almost 10% now, although many believe that number is much higher. In 2008, (still during the Bush administration) the rate dropped to around 4.5% and that was the best it got. The best it got??? How many Americans would like to see an unemployment rate like that right now? In fact, for most of the time during the housing market and credit boom that was the late 2000s, the unemployment rate stood at 5%-7%. Even this is better than what we are seeing now. Good Lord! How stupid do these people at Time think we are?

Read more: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/09/03/unemployment-rises-hurray/#ixzz0yUOIzuGz

Michelle Obama, spending our money in Spain – GM making political donations again

The Washington Post reports that GM has given $41,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus. Why didn’t they give that money back to the American people since it was us who bailed them and their UNIONS out? Why did the CBC even take the money in light of that fact? Why isn’t the CBC even a little concerned with the financial plight of the people they represent? (Isn’t there something a little racist about a congressional BLACK caucus, anyway? Try to develop a CWC and see what kind of outcry that will cause!)

(GM is not Government Motors. It’s really GUM – Government/Union Motors and  you will never catch me driving a Chevy or Buick.)

Nearly a half a million people are unemployed and today, Drudge reports that food stamp usage is at an all time high while Michelle Obama enjoys a fantasy weekend in Spain with a couple dozen of her closest friends. All the while, those in the WH and Congress are telling us that we will have to make sacrifices during this economic crisis.

Today on the web pages of The New York Daily News there are photo galleries with these headlines and pull quotes:

First Lady of style

Meet Michelle Obama – a superachiever who made it to the White House while keeping her family priority No. 1.

It must be love

The First Couple makes time for romance as well as politics.

Barack Obama: He’s just like us

He may be the President of the United States, but Obama is still just a regular Joe.

The photos made me so angry that I had to stop clicking through them.  I have never seen such tone deaf politicians in my life. They have absolutely no concern about how their extravagance appears to the American people, who are pinching pennies and trying to hold onto jobs and make mortgage payments – let alone take a vacation! And we are paying for all this fun in the sun that the Obamas and their friends are enjoying!

As Andrea Tantaros points out in her column today, why is Michelle spending money in Spain when we have an entire nation she could use as her playground? How about the gulf coast? What would a long weekend there, by Michelle and her buddies, do for the tourism industry that’s been hit so hard this summer?

Are any of you old enough to remember the uproar from the press when Nancy Reagan purchased new china for the WH, although she never used one tax dollar to pay for it? Or how Nixon had to proclaim to the entire nation that his wife “doesn’t wear a mink coat, she has a respectable Republican cloth coat.”

Compare the austerity of George and Laura Bush to what we’ve seen out of the Obamas, in just less than 2 years.  Barry is trying to outdo JFK in glamour and glitz. Remember those concerts and poetry readings that Jack and Jackie held in the WH? The Obamas are sponsoring a monthly concert series of their own. The difference is that during the Kennedy years, our economy wasn’t in the dire situation it’s in today. Barry and Michelle are trying to recreate the Camelot atmosphere of the Kennedy years and they just aren’t pulling it off.

The extravagance of the Obamas will not play well this fall with the democrats who are trying to win or hold onto their congressional and senatorial seats. We have to vote these people out and that will send a resounding message to Barry – well, we can hope so, anyway.

Our leader suffers from an STD (Short-Timers Disorder)

I was too young to remember this devastating ad:

But from all historical accounts, it was definitely an election changer. It’s been shown many times over the years for that reason and I can see why it was a real game changer. During the last election, I saw the maker of this ad on a news show and this is one political ad that hit a home run and will live on in history for how it affected the electorate.

Which brings me to this ad:

Even though Hillary lost, this is another high impact ad. It reinforced my opinion, when I saw it that Obama was not the right guy to sit in the oval office. It gives you pause to think: Who do you want taking that call? Who do you trust to do the most right thing?

Even his running mate gave reason for voters to question the decision to elect Obama:

Obama’s been tested from all sides and he shows nothing but annoyance (or naivety or downright incompetence) to events, not decisiveness or a vision of purpose during any critical event that he has faced. The only time he shows determination in a purpose is when it’s a crisis he has generated (remember the “health care crisis”?)

In the book Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, at a time while Obama was still debating his run for president, he asks his handlers if he can be home every weekend during the campaign. When I read this little paragraph in the book, I was astounded. Is it just me, or does this sound a little naive? Did he think that running for president of the United States was going to be a 5 day work week, 9-5 job? Did he think this was a day job? And does he think that while he’s president, he can close shop at 10pm and turn out the lights?

I think he does. And I think that anything that happens while he’s “indisposed” will be nothing short of an annoyance and a distraction. I just do not believe that he ever had a clue what this job entailed, what level of responsibility living in the White House requires. (It was reported that during the transition, and after Bush had met with Obama, Bush told one of his aides that “this cat is clueless.”) As I’ve said before, I think he knows he’s a one-termer and he’s going to get all the perks he can get from this job – traveling the world, seeing everything, hosting glittering parties for celebrities, enjoying private concerts and flying in chefs from all over the country.

All the while, he’s standing back and letting his underlings write policy, draft bills and generally run the country and the world. (If he knows nothing else from community organizing, he knows how to delegate. Hence, all the czars in this government.)

All of this rambling brings me to this column by Alex Pappas in today’s Daily Caller.

When even Fox isn’t getting it, we have a message problem

Going forward, the [Tea Party] movement will face some challenges. Will it become a legitimate third party or will it stay as an anti-Obama protest group? For now, these folks are scaring liberal America big time.  Bill O’Reilly

Tax day Tea Party in Phoenix

Why do these people all believe that the Tea Party is strictly an anti-Obama movement? When even Fox doesn’t get it, we have a message problem.

I’m no Tea Party expert and I’ve been on the fringes of the movement – attending a few events and not joining or volunteering for any one close to home – but from what I have seen and read, the party has multiple issues and grievances with many politicians in both parties. The biggest issue is a return to the Constitution and rule of law. If Obama is guilty of not upholding his oath, then yes, he’s one of the party’s problems.  There are dozens of republicans and democrats in office who have not stood by their oaths, as well.

Read the Contract From America and while you’re there, sign it. It spells out, in 10 points, very clearly what the Partiers want to see addressed and made right again.

There’s no denying that Obama is a big issue for them (us). He is unquestionably the most left president we have ever had. Yes, we had 8 years of Bush and too much spending and yes, it should not have happened and our Republican congress is heavily to blame for it. But we have been pushed to the left so far and so fast – and Obama has done this –  that we are awake and not going to stand for it.

We need to reframe the message and make sure that it’s not all Obama, all the time. The left is writing the narrative and just like the Constitution, we need to take the story back!

~~~ooOoo~~~

A great audio at BigGovernment.com

The Soft Bigotry of the Democrats abortion legislation

[Congressman Bart] Stupak offers an interesting take on why [democrat] party leaders don’t want his effort to succeed.  “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue – come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

If this quote doesn’t say it all about the purpose behind this health care bill, nothing does. If this statement does not make it clear that this party is dominated by a culture of death, nothing does. But more still, it really paints the democrats as a party of bigotry and racial controls.

Whose abortions do the Dems want us to pay for? That would be the poor. They want to control the population of the “poor.” Who are the poor in this country? Mostly minorities: the very people the dems claim to be protecting and helping are the very people they want to eliminate. By funding and making abortions easier, more accessible and paid for, they will be aiding in the elimination of the very people whose votes they court.

From The Center for Bio-Ethical Reforms: “Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.” Nearly 49% of all abortions are obtained by women whose family income is less than $30,000/year, only 14% by those whose family income is over $60,000.

This is the “soft bigotry” that George W. Bush talked about. And what’s more perplexing is that this legislation is supported by… MINORITIES and their messiah, Obama – a half-black man! It’s astounding that the statists have convinced minorities that they are “looking out for them” when in truth they are covertly producing legislation that will slowly eliminate them!

And the very organization that assists with “women in need” is “excited” to be taking money to abort minority babies!

Wanna make the angry voter angrier? Keep blaming Bush.

“One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven’t kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We’ve tried too hard to do that right thing, and that’s to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place.” Rep Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) after the president’s stump speech for “Marcia” Coakley.

Read more here. It’s a good one!

Yes. Yes, I do Mr.President

Liz Peek: Who’s pulling Obama’s stings?

As the public starts to question how much time the president is spending on fund-raisers (26 events since taking office compared to only 6 for G.W. during the same term in office) or on his golf (24 rounds so far– tying G.W.’s entire presidency), they may also ponder who’s doing the real work when the president goes AWOL.

Obama fans are in a tight spot. As the White House turns ever harsher and more divisive, supporters are scrambling to explain why President Obama sounds so very different from Campaigner Obama. There are two possible explanations, neither of which is flattering. The first is that Obama was insincere on the campaign trail. The second is that his advisors – David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel — are in control. The latter view is bound to take hold and it will not boost the president’s flagging popularity ratings.

Many who voted for President Obama feel deceived. When he said in Florida last year “we cannot afford the same political games and tactics that are being used to pit us against one another,” people believed him. When he extolled “rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose,” people believed him. When he said on election night “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree,” people believed him.

Why has the president left those admirable promises behind? Why is his administration going after Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, insurance executives, AIG management, the drug industry, the Chrysler bondholders and any and all who oppose his policies?

Many believe that Obama is being manipulated by his political adviser David Axelrod and his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The aura of Chicago politics drifts over the capital like a smog. Ironically, the nasty assaults may be calculated to offset a growing view that the president is not tough enough to stand up to his detractors. He already looks weak as he “dithers” on Afghanistan, repeatedly blames George Bush for his problems and kow-tows to foreign leaders while apologizing for our nation’s past. Surely, though, it will not help Obama if the country begins to suspect the president is not his own man. Being seen as a follower in his own White House will surely magnify an unhealthy aura of inconsequence.

In other words, Obama risks inheriting yet another problem left behind by President George W. Bush. — For years, those on the left portrayed Bush as the willing puppet of political advisor Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney. The image of Rove and Cheney directing traffic for an inadequate president was one of the most enduring of Bush’s presidency. Their power undermined Bush’s authority and worse, made him look simple.

Nothing could be more damaging for Obama, who is assumed by his fans to be an intellectual giant when compared to George W. As the public starts to question how much time the president is spending on fund-raisers (26 events since taking office compared to only 6 for G.W. during the same term in office) or on his golf (24 rounds so far– tying G.W.’s entire presidency), they may also ponder who’s doing the real work when the president goes AWOL.

For a host of reasons, the narrative will build. A March piece in The New York Times described the Wednesday Night Meetings of the Obama varsity conducted by David Axelrod. The piece asserted that Axelrod “helps decide which fights to pick and which to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington.” The Times reported that Axelrod had “hoped to keep (the meetings) under wraps so he would not suddenly be overrun by requests from people hoping to dispense advice.” Perhaps his political antennae also anticipated that he would begin to emerge as Geppetto to Obama’s Pinocchio.

Similarly, The Times has described Emanuel as “more chief than staff” and the author of Obama’s “do-everything-at-once strategy”. With his Rottweiler reputation, he is thought especially responsible for the increasingly belligerent White House sound bites.

Those who see history repeating itself can draw parallels between Axelrod and Karl Rove. Like Rove, Axelrod worked on numerous political campaigns and dreamed of someday landing in the White House. He was involved in the campaigns of John Edwards, Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Rahm Emanuel and, like Rove, is well known on Capitol Hill. Both men are driven by ideology as well as the urge to win. Similarly, both Cheney and Emanuel served in Congress, occupied important positions in former White Houses and have sizeable rolodexes.

A 2001 Time magazine article described Rove as “the busiest man in the White House… It was Rove who shaped the agenda, message and strategy that got Bush – the least experienced presidential nominee of modern times – into the White House.” They might want to reprise that story; Obama’s credentials set new records.

Liz Peek is a financial columnist and frequent Fox Forum contributor.

More to the point – Has the Conservative moment arrived?

Has the liberal moment come and gone?

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/30/09 7:16 AM EDT

A new Gallup poll shows a sharp increase in the number of people who say they want the government to promote “traditional values.”

Gallup’s question was simple: “Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?” In the new poll, taken in the first days of September, 53 percent of respondents say they want the government to promote traditional values, while 42 percent say they do not want the government to favor any particular set of values. Five percent do not have an opinion.

The results are a significant change from recent years. For most of the last two decades, a majority of people have been in favor of the government promoting traditional values. But that number began to decline in 2005, and the number of people who believe the government should not favor any particular set of values began to rise. Last September, when Gallup asked the same question, the public was split down the middle on the issue, 48 percent to 48 percent. Now, opinion has rather abruptly gone back to the old position, and there’s an 11-point gap between the two, in favor of traditional values.

By the way, the Gallup pollsters did not define “traditional values” when asking the question. “Thus, respondents answer in light of their understanding of the term,” Gallup writes. But Gallup adds that “the results by party and ideology…suggest that respondents understand traditional values to be those generally favored by the Republican party.”

The recent change in favor of traditional values has been most pronounced among independents, among whom Gallup says there has been a “dramatic turnaround.” Last year, independents were overwhelmingly in favor, by 55 percent to 37 percent, of the government not favoring any set of values. In the new survey, those numbers are almost reversed, with 54 percent saying the government should promote traditional values and 40 percent saying it should not. Gallup did not find similarly striking changes among Democrats and Republicans, although Democrats have also moved a little bit in the direction of wanting the government to promote traditional values.

But it is the turnaround among independents — Gallup also found similar numbers among people who called themselves moderates — that put a screeching halt to the shift that had been taking place in the last few years. “Americans’ views of the proper government role in promoting traditional values had moved in a more liberal direction since 2005, to the point that last year, as many said the government should not promote traditional values as said it should,” Gallup writes. “If that trend had continued, 2009 would have marked the first time Gallup found more Americans preferring that the government refrain from actively promoting traditional values. Instead, Americans’ attitudes reverted to a more conservative point of view on the matter. Now, Americans favor the government’s promoting traditional values by an 11-point margin, similar to the double-digit margins favoring that view through much of the prior two decades.”

There’s no way to know precisely what this means. But here’s one theory. In the last few years, public opinion on the role of government was driven by the intense unpopularity of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Unhappy with Bush and the GOP, voters recoiled from the image of Republicans as the party of traditional values — even though they basically held to those traditional values in their own lives. Now, however, with a government completely controlled by Democrats, that is, by the anti-traditional values party — in last year’s poll, Democrats were 60-37 against the government promoting traditional values — the public has abruptly returned to its basic pro-traditional values position.

But that period of revulsion at Bush and Republicans from 2005 to 2008 left a legacy: a Democrat in the White House and large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, at least until 2010. That is why you see Democrats racing to enact their agenda, even as they see the political conditions around them changing. They have the majorities, based on the public’s very temporary mood of 2005-2008, and they are determined to put their preferred policies in place no matter what the public thinks now.

The Gallup numbers also suggest that Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate have fundamentally misread their own victories. Did voters elect Democrats because they desperately wanted national health care? Sprawling and expensive environmental regulation? Federal deficits triple the size of just a few years ago? No. The voters elected Democrats because they were sick of Bush and Republicans. Now Bush and the GOP are gone and out of power. Democrats are doing what they thought the voters wanted. And it turns out the voters didn’t want that at all.