Wednesday, November 11, 2009

How To Win The Culture War. . .

Yesterday, I tried to point out why it’s so important that conservatives “take back” the culture. If we leave things as they are, we will continue to face a massive uphill battle in getting conservative ideas put into practice. As the culture now stands, our views are ridiculed and mischaracterized by media outlets; movies, books and songs instill a fundamental pro-leftist/anti-conservative theme into all of our entertainment, to the point of making such beliefs a reflex response; and the constant assault creates a visceral anti-conservatism. This must end.

How to end that is the question. Before we discuss that, however, let’s talk about what our goals should be.

Many argue that because the left controls the levers of cultural power, we would be best served creating an alternative, “conservative” cultural structure. Presumably, the conservative product turned out by that structure would appeal to so many people that the current structure dominated by leftists would collapse.

I think this plan works for newspapers and it works for political publishing, because people today look to the news and political books largely to have their own views confirmed. But this won’t work to change the culture. In fact, I think this would be dangerously counter-productive.

Indeed, while replacing leftist propaganda with conservative propaganda has a certain appeal, it’s still propaganda. It is a fact of human nature that when someone with a stated bias makes a statement, we dismiss their comment as being shaded to reflect that bias. Affirmatively creating “conservative work” would run headlong into that wall. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that people would consider “conservative work” to be any better than what comes out of Hollywood now. Even worse, so long as the establishment continues to insist that they aren’t political, this new “conservative work” might even find itself rejected for being the only “real” propaganda out there. Thus, at best, this approach leads to an unhelpful “he said, she said” situation (which gives the left an equivalence it does not deserve). But, more worryingly, it also runs the risk of ending up in a “we-biased, them-not” situation that could prove disastrous.

Secondly, this is a war over credibility. And frankly, I doubt that there is sufficient conservative talent to create an alternative structure that could generate product that is on a par with what is currently being produced by the leftist establishment. First, they have access to resources that would take us decades to duplicate, and they have the advantage of existing contractual relationships with retailers and distributors (often exclusive relationships). Secondly, it’s fairly obvious that leftists far outnumber rightist in the culture industries, not to mention that with the likely blacklisting of anyone who associates with this new conservative alternative, it will be a huge risk for talent to shift over. Thus, we will be hard pressed to find talent. And that lack of talent is likely to lead to poor product, which will only strengthen the damaging stereotype that conservatives have nothing to offer when it comes to culture.

As I said in one of the comments, if you lined up the talent that would be available to the right against the talent currently available on the left, it would appear (using a military analogy) that the left is the United States military and the right is a local police force. That’s a battle we can’t win, nor should we try -- a poor start could permanently damage credibility, leading to a destructive downward spiral. Instead, we need to fight asymmetrically.

So what do I recommend? Well, for starters, I think the problem isn’t the lack of conservative product in the culture, the real problem is that our culture is too political.

For thirty years now, the left has struggled to make everything into a political issue. There aren’t enough women bosses on television? Protest. Kids shows don’t have positive gay stereotypes? Protest. Do you ever wonder why the only people who can be made fun of in advertising are white males? It’s because white males are the only interest group that won’t flood the sponsor with angry mail. It’s all about path of least resistance for sponsors. Do you want to know why a collection of 32 mostly-Republican NFL owners made it clear they didn’t want Rush to own an NFL team? It’s not that they don’t like him, but they feared the protests they knew would come.

Ok, so what does this mean for a solution?

First, I think it means that our goal should be to “de-politicize the culture,” meaning we should strive for a balance, where the political left and the political right can both do their advocacy pieces, but with the vast majority of cultural product remaining apolitical. In other words, we should strive for a world where the political is clearly marked as such, and the rest is silent on political issues.

How do we do that? Well, that’s the interesting part. While these industries are dominated by leftists (who don’t tolerate dissent), they are all public corporations with shareholders (who don’t tolerate poor economic performance). That gives us a range of options:
1. Stop spending money on product with leftist messages. If a movie or television show includes leftist messages, don’t pay to see it, don’t buy it, and don’t buy any associated merchandise. It if becomes unprofitable to include these messages, the moneymen who run these companies will put an end to them.

2. Attack the sponsors. Let every single sponsor of these shows or movies or magazines know that this is unacceptable. Be vocal. But be clear in your complaint. Explain to them exactly what you object to. Make it clear that you will hold that view against the sponsor’s product and will extend your boycott to that sponsor. And band together for maximum effect.

3. Support products that don’t include these offending messages. I’m not talking about products that also include conservative ideas (or what someone claims is a conservative idea), I’m talking about supporting only products that entirely disclaim leftist propaganda.

4. Start looking at the idea of minority shareholder suits. The left has been attacking corporations for years over anything they haven’t liked. If a company uses animal testing, supported South Africa, or didn’t do enough leftist charity, the left organized minority shareholder suits to attack those policies. Do the same.
In this regard, it might even be smart to set up a conservative boycott network where conservatives can identify which products to support and to boycott, and the reasons for that. This could help average conservatives know what products to avoid -- just as the left passed the word to avoid things like dolphinated-tuna. This could also help people refine their complaints. Many people simply don’t know how to construct a criticism that will make sense and be effective, and if you can’t tell a sponsor exactly what you didn’t like, they won’t know how to correct their behavior in the future. This network (particularly if it's on line) could also serve as a warning (guidance) to potential sponsors.

However, I would give two words of caution in the creation of such a network. First, it needs to avoid the confrontational boycott style pursued by many church groups. That only boosts the public’s interest and can be exploited by producers to improve the marketing of their products. I would suggest specifically declining all interviews intended to address individual products. Secondly, whoever runs such a network must really understand when something truly deserves to be criticized. Too much criticism these days is reflexive (aimed at undeserving targets) or heavy handed (turning molehills into mountains) or scattershot (hitting so many targets that it comes to appear paranoid). Some people mistake conservative messages for liberal ones (and vice versa) and others confuse their own tastes with conservative principle (see my article on conservative films to see what I’m talking about). That needs to be carefully controlled to keep the message from being muddied. Less is more in this instance.

Finally, I would also say that conservatives as a group need to change their thinking about culture. Infiltrate my friends, infiltrate:
1. Conservative creative types need to learn to network and to help each other out. That’s the oldest recipe for success. Follow it. And work to change the industry from the inside, even if you have to pretend to be a liberal to do it.

2. Hone your craft. Too many “open” conservatives rely on the public’s thirst for conservative material to get away with producing crap. Shape up or shut up.

3. Conservative moneymen need to start investing in conservative creative types, even when they aren't working on overtly conservative projects. Remember, networking is about long term gain.

4. The rest of us need to drop the idea that somehow the culture is insignificant or unworthy of pursuing as a profession. We need to encourage conservative kids to go into culture just as much as we encourage them to go into business or science.

5. Finally, reject the people who offer criticism after proudly proclaiming their ignorance. "I ain't never seen a movie, but here's what I think. . ." only discredits our cause.
Thoughts?


[+] Read More...

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Democratic Administrations Seem Less Stressful

Ever notice that life is less stressful when the Democrats hold the White House? Actually, I’m serious. I’ve lived through several now and I can honestly say that the country seems much more at ease when the Democrats are in charge. Bear with me as I try to figure this out (or bare with me if you prefer).
Honest Jimmy Carter
My first real experience with a Democratic President was Honest Jimmy Carter. Good times, let me tell you.

Sure, we had 7.6% unemployment, 13.5% inflation, falling incomes, gas lines, labor strikes and the such, but that’s part of life. Anyone who says differently is just expecting too much. . . or so the media constantly assured us. Besides, Jimmy was such an honest man that you couldn't fault him. At least, that was the standard media motif.

With nothing to worry about, there were no nasty movies about Carter either. In fact, if I remember correctly, Hollywood was largely apolitical at the time, except for the occasional movie attacking Nixon. Oh, and the music. . . the apolitical music?! Great stuff!
The Evil Ronald Reagan
Then came Reagan. Man, the Reagan years were tense. The economy was crap. Sure, he got unemployment down to 5.2% and inflation down to 1.9%, but those weren’t real jobs. The real jobs were vanishing at an alarming rate, leaving us to sell hamburgers to each other. . . and our Japanese masters.

What caused all of our jobs to vanish? Greedy corporate types, all personal friends of Reagan, would forcibly buy our prosperous companies and part them out just to make a quick buck. I remember seeing a film about this. In fact, I recall a bunch of films attacking this horrible thing called mergers and acquisitions, and vulture..., er, venture capital.

And don’t forget what Reagan did to us with his debts! He sold our futures! Deficits of around 3% of GNP?! What was he thinking? (For cynics who note that Obama’s deficit is 12.6% of GNP, all I can say is that it was a different time and 3% meant more than it does today.)

Fortunately, there was strong oversight. The media kept on him day. . . after day. . . after day! He may have been made of Teflon, but that wasn't going to stop them. And who can forget all those Congressional hearings to investigate every single thing Reagan or anyone in his administration did (or didn’t) do! Even Hollywood and the music industry strove to point out how horrible Reaganomics was over and over again.

Oh (almost forgot), Reagan was dangerous too. He dreamed of getting us killed. He wanted to start a nuclear war! At least, that’s what a dozen movies (like Dreamscape) told us. . . and the protesters chanted. . . and a few Congressional Democrats proclaimed. . . and a bunch of singers sang about. It is any wonder things were so damn tense!
Heartless George Bush
Then we got Bush. He wasn’t Reagan, but he wasn’t much better. Bush brought us the wars that Reagan always wanted. He attacked Iraq to get its oil. In fact, I remember protestors screaming this daily, and of course Hollywood and the music industry backed this up in their films and music. The media did a great job of investigating this too. . . constantly. As I recall, they really dug into the idea that he sold Iraq the very weapons they would use to kill so many American soldiers and he encouraged Iraq to attack Kuwait, a ruthless dictatorship of the kind that Bush favors, just to cause the war. True evil there.

Man, wasn’t it funny when he threw up in Japan? How many times did I see that on television!

Bush also gave us junk bonds, increasing the pace of jobs disappearing, and the S&L crisis -- caused by his nephew Neil Bush! He brought us the age of the never-ending Independent Counsel. And he created homelessness to kill poor people. Robert Redford told us so himself (Sneakers anyone?). I’m pretty sure the media backed Redford up on that. I don’t recall exactly, because there were so many stories about the 200 million homeless that it got a little confusing, but I think they did confirm it.

Very tense times.
Good-Natured Rogue Bill Clinton
Bush gave way to Clinton and things changed. Sure, Clinton loved women, but man was he a good guy. He was the Great Communicator II, the greatest politician of our time!

Let’s see, great economy, budget surpluses, nothing happened overseas. He ended homelessness. Sure, there were more mergers during the Clinton years than the Reagan/Bush years, but those were good mergers. They made America efficient.

Unlike Bush, Clinton never sold any influence. At least, I don’t recall hearing about that in the media.

Strangely, the number of films about presidents dropped off to almost nothing during his term. In fact, Hollywood largely went apolitical again, hmm. But that’s not to say they were playing favorites just because they were all FOBs. . . we got their word on that. Plus, don’t forget, they did do that one film about Clinton being a good-natured rogue who loves McDonalds. I remember a good deal of consternation in the media over that.

I don’t recall any protest music. But then what would you protest? He only used the military where it was absolutely necessary -- when the safety of the United States was at issue. . . like in Yugoslavia, and Somalia, and Haiti. And unlike Bush, whose failures led to a second Gulf war, Clinton solved the Somalia and Haiti problems completely -- or if he didn't, we never heard about it. He would have solved that Al Qaeda problem too, if the Republicans had let him. And you can't really blame him for Rwanda, no one knew what to do about that.

All in all, it was a very tension free time.
Bushitler
But all that changed when Bushitler stole the election and imposed himself upon us. I don’t even know where to begin with Bushitler.

Look at the problems he didn't solve in Rwanda, Somalia, and the genocide in Darfur!

And I’m not saying he caused 9/11, but I read that he knew about it and he didn’t call the airport to stop those guys because he wanted to create an incident to let Dick Cheney’s firm take Iraq’s oil. I don’t have any facts to back that up, and neither does the media, but I seem to recall reading that daily in real newspapers. I guess, sometimes the truth transcends the facts.

Seriously, was there anything he did right in Iraq or Afghanistan? Not according to the media, or Hollywood, or the music industry, or the protestors, or Democratic Congressmen, or Senators, or governors. And wow was Hollywood busy with movies about Bush and Iraq. The music industry too (how unfair to attack the Dixie Chicks for saying what everyone in the media was already saying).

And that was just the beginning. He tried to kill black people when he caused Katrina. He destroyed our economy, causing an unemployment rate that reached almost 7% -- no economy can survive with an unemployment rate that high, and the President is directly responsible for unemployment. . . except Obama and his 10.5%, that’s not his fault.

Bushitler also generated a massive deficit of around $200 billion! And don’t even think of comparing Obama’s $1.4 trillion deficit to Bushitler’s, they just aren’t the same thing. In fact, they're so different that the media doesn't even bother making the comparison.

Don’t forget Bushitler forced an entire generation of soldiers to develop mental illness and to become homeless. Everybody lost their homes! He let AIDS run wild in Africa, and, let’s be honest, he was stupid. How many times did I hear that! Probably every day. And didn’t he cause a school shooting?

Thank God he’s gone. Too tense.
Barack “The Messiah” Obama
Finally, we have the Obamatopia of today. What pleasant times. Sure there’s 10.5% unemployment, but that’s to be expected -- employment always lags in a recovery. We have $1.4 trillion deficits, but that’s Bush’s fault too, and those should drop again in 5-10 years. The dollar is falling, but that’s good for the stock market.

We’ve had no mass shootings and no terrorist attacks that have made the news. We have no homeless, and all of our soldiers are fine again. Foreclosures have stopped. We have no racial strife, except that racist cop. AIDS in Africa has ended. He solved Darfur. Obama brought peace to South America, I don’t think we’ve heard a peep out of Chavez in some time. . . certainly no criticism from him. Our relations with the Middle East are great, or so we're told.

What’s not to like? In fact, times are so good that most journalists have little to do except report what Obama tells them. I don't think I've heard a body count since Bush left office? And I guess the media dropped their demand to film caskets coming home. Who needs the stress of seeing that!

Hollywood too seems to have become apolitical again, except for the few films honoring Obama. Of course, the television industry also has worked hard to help Obama out with bringing us together and doing a few good things.

All very stress free.
My Point
Ok, enough. I think you get my point. I am actually being quite serious when I say the world seems less dangerous and less contentious when the Democrats are in power. For most people, it does. And there is a reason for that: the Democrats’ fellow travelers in the media and in the culture industry work to generate that perception.

They will savage Republicans on a 24/7 basis, including making things up when there is nothing to complain about. Angry films get cranked out, personal attacks are made nightly on television or in songs, Congressional investigations are held, and a chorus of hate arises all to keep the public on edge.

Why? Because the perception that life is contentious when the Republicans are in charge can be a powerful force to wear people out under Republican regimes, to get them to give Democratic another chance, and to keep fence-sitters voting for Democrats.

This is why it’s so important that conservatives reinsert themselves into the culture -- from Hollywood, to Madison Avenue, to the music world, to the media. We cannot allow this perception to continue unchallenged. It's like letting your competitor send people to your restaurant to bother the customers.

By the way, lest anyone suggest that the left is merely acting on principle, explain to me why they suddenly go silent on those same principles, and will ignore or forgo them, when the Democrats win the job? It’s all for show folks.

[+] Read More...

Monday, November 9, 2009

Honduras Update -- Zelaya Will Not Be Reinstated!

The Honduran Congress has decided not to schedule a vote to reinstate Zelaya, after Thomas A. Shannon, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, twice confirmed on the record that Obama will recognize the election even if Zelaya will not be reinstated.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) also has confirmed that he obtained a private assurance of this from Hillary Clinton and Shannon before he agreed to lift his stay on Shannon's nomination.

An angry Zelaya is blaming Obama and Shannon. Said Zelaya supporter and member of Congress Elvia Valle: "The United States is no longer interested in punishing a coup-installed government. [This] has left a bitter taste in our mouths."

Yeah, Kool-Aid will do that. . .


[+] Read More...

The Economist Reads Commentarama

Ok, that’s a bit facetious. . . they probably just skim. Still, in the past couple weeks, The Economist has finally discovered what Commentarama readers already knew about China and Honduras. Good for them. Interestingly, as a result of their realizations, they’ve turned on Obama on both issues.

The Economist, for those who don’t know, is a center-left European magazine that was once center-right. But its center-right days are long behind it and its economics focus is shaky at best. Still, it’s one of the best sources of world news in a media world that runs from foreign news like vampires run from sunlight. . . or Democrats run from voters.

So what did The Economist finally discover? Let’s take a look at their recent article on China, and then we’ll discuss their shock that things are not as they thought in Honduras. Oh my!
China: Not An Economic Giant? Military Threat?
As Commentarama readers will recall, last August we debunked the idea that China was about to replace the United States as the world’s dominant economic power. We noted that their economy is actually quite small compared to ours, and that they aren’t even the second largest. We’ve also mentioned that China’s holding of United States debts does not give China any real power over America (except to the extent that we want them to loan us more money). Now it appears, The Economist has caught on:
There is now talk of a G2 of China and America, implying that their global weights are nearly equal. In fact, as our special report argues, this is a misperception, and a dangerous one.

China’s economy is still less than a third the size of America’s at market exchange rates. Its GDP per head is one-fourteenth that of America. The innovation gap between the two countries remains huge. America’s defense budget is still six times China’s. As for the [$800 billion in] Treasury bills, dumping them is not an option for China: a tumbling dollar would hurt its own economy.
But that’s not all The Economist has discovered. They’ve also discovered that China is becoming a military and geopolitical threat:
China has engaged in a rapid military build-up that could challenge America as the defender of Asian peace (and Taiwan’s sovereignty). Unannounced, China is building its first aircraft carrier, yet its generals often refuse even to talk to their American peers.

Underlying the strategic competition is China’s economic rise. Its companies are “colonizing” swathes of Africa and Latin America, cozying up to regimes Westerners shun.
Sound familiar? Perhaps you recall reading about China’s military build up and the problems this could cause for the United States in the region, as well as China’s troubling creation of “bamboo republics” throughout the world in our September article describing why China is becoming a danger to us today. Welcome aboard Economist.

Interestingly, having now discovered both of these issues, The Economist is becoming critical of Obama’s China policy. They particularly argue that Obama has pushed China too hard economically (out of mistaken fear of a co-equal China), but has failed to push China hard enough regarding human rights, which The Economist sees as something the United States must do to turn China into a more responsible international power. I see that as a misreading of the Chinese mindset -- which struggles against an inferiority complex that makes outside advice more than just unwelcome. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see an enthusiastic endorser of Obama become so openly critical of Obama’s brilliant foreign policy.
Honduras: This Was No Boating Accident
The Economist also is now critical of Obama’s Honduras solution. Indeed, after initially declaring the negotiated agreement between Zelaya and Honduras to be a victory for Obama over the evil coup, The Economist has suddenly discovered that the agreement doesn’t do what they thought it did. What do you mean he doesn’t automatically get reinstated? Left to Congress? Obama going to recognize the elections regardless? Who could have known this? No one. . . except, apparently, Commentarama readers.

Time Magazine also has discovered that they’ve been had. Check this out:
When the U.S. last week finally brokered a deal between ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and the man who replaced him following the June 28 coup, de facto President Roberto Micheletti, observers wondered how the Obama Administration had won Micheletti's agreement. That's because the pact allowed for Zelaya to be restored to office before Honduras' Nov. 29 presidential election — a prospect Micheletti had fiercely opposed. But as the dust settles, the more common question this week is, What was Zelaya thinking when he signed this accord?

The Oct. 30 agreement, in fact, leaves it to the Honduran congress to decide whether the leftist Zelaya should be restored before the presidential vote (in which he's not a candidate). But Zelaya, still holed up in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa since sneaking back into the country from exile in September, appears to have grossly miscalculated the odds of the legislature voting in his favor, and that leaves a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the accord. On Friday, Zelaya told Radio Globo that the accord was "dead," adding that there was "no sense in deceiving Hondurans."
Ok, so the Hondurans broke the agreement and we need to crush them to maintain Obama’s honor, right? Strangely, no. Get this. . . Time notes that it should have been “apparent to Zelaya” that the Congress would not back him. Funny, it wasn’t apparent to anyone else at the time, except for Commentarama readers. Sounds like they’re ready to abandon Zelaya, just like Obama has abandoned him.

Indeed, while Zelaya is now arguing that his restoration should be a precondition for international recognition of the result of the November 29 election, that is being described as “naive.” According to chief U.S. negotiator Thomas Shannon, the United States will recognize the election results even if Congress declines to restore Zelaya. Really? Those are the sounds of abandonment you're hearing, right there. No one could have seen this coming!

Equally interesting, Time points out just how naive Team Obama was in this matter. Apparently, they actually thought the Honduran Congress (the one that voted 5-1 against Zelaya on two occasions, the one that listened to Zelaya threaten invasion or insurrection, the one that watched the world crap on their constitution) would actually have a change of heart! Said Time:
U.S. officials say they hoped that four months after the coup, the congress would be less of an anti-Zelaya hothouse and therefore more amenable to letting him finish the last three months of his term as the democratically elected President.
Wow, that is naive. Or is it? Was this really just wishful thinking or did Team Obama just wash their hands of Zelaya? You and I know the answer because we've already discussed this. Now, apparently, Time is figuring this out too. Indeed, taking a surprisingly critical stance against Obama, Time now suggests a certain cynicism on the part of Team Obama in this whole affair:
The Obama Administration is technically correct when it argues that last week's pact allows it to recognize the Nov. 29 election even without Zelaya's restoration — a result that would let Obama wipe his hands of the Honduras mess while getting U.S. conservatives off his back. But. . . it could certainly have negative implications for Obama's credibility in the region if he is perceived to have brokered a deal that allowed a military coup to succeed. Then again, the U.S. President could always shift the blame by pointing out that it was Zelaya that signed the deal.
Can’t you just feel the love. . . fading?


** Update: The Honduran Congress has now decided not to schedule a vote to reinstate Zelaya. Zelaya is blaming Obama and Asst. Sec. Shannon. Said Zelaya supporter Elvia Valle, "The United States is no longer interested in punishing a coup-installed government. [This] has left a bitter taste in our mouths."


[+] Read More...

Sunday, November 8, 2009

PelosiCare’s Pyrrhic Victory

Once again, the MSM has it wrong. The House voted 220-215 to pass PelosiCare and today the media is busy celebrating Nancy Pelosi’s “victory.” But I wouldn’t buy the confetti just yet. As I see it, last night made it much more difficult for the Democrats to pass any version of ObamaCare. What a shame. Consider the following. . .
1. The Senate Problem
Passing the Baucus bill was already going to be a challenge. As we discussed before, the Democrats lacked the support of two key Senators -- Snowe and Lieberman, with several more sitting on the fence.

The House bill goes much further than the Senate bill. Indeed, even noted RINO Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Reid’s Lap) stated today that: “The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. It was a bill written by liberals for liberals.”

Joe Lieberman likewise re-confirmed that he would not allow any bill that includes a public option to reach a vote in the Senate:
“If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today.”
If Lieberman is to be believed, he will not let a bill pass that could result in a public option after the bill is reconciled with the House bill. But the House lacks the votes to pass anything that doesn’t include a public option. Basically, it’s a stand off.

Moreover, seeing that the House does not have the votes to move toward the center, and the Senate will not move left to meet the House, one should expect opposition to grow in the Senate to even putting this thing to a vote. Why vote on something that cannot pass? Indeed, I’m suspecting that several Democrats are quietly sending thank you letters to Snowe and Lieberman as we speak.

Thus, Pelosi’s inability to play well with others, her unwillingness to compromise and her inability to seek consensus before acting, may have just made a Senate vote much less likely. . . which would kill ObamaCare.
2. Unresolved House Problems
Even aside from the Senate problem, passage in the House actually still remains in doubt. Indeed, this vote solved nothing, it just put off the moment of decision:
• The Abortion Problem
Abortion has been a serious problem throughout this entire process. As we stated before, there are a group of 40 or so House Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) who have stated that they will not vote for any bill that allows the use of public funds to pay for abortion. On the other side are a group of about 190 pro-abortion Democrats who will not vote for this bill if it does not cover abortion. Another stand off.

Pelosi “resolved” this dispute with a stupid bit of double-dealing. She let the anti-abortion group insert language (tougher than they even demanded originally) into the bill, but she simultaneously promised the pro-abortion group that this language would not be in the final bill. Indeed, Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-Planned Parenthood) has already stated that if the restrictions imposed by Stupak make it into the final bill, “many of us couldn’t support it at the end of the day.” Rep. Diane DeGette (D-NARAL) called this “the greatest restriction of a women’s [sic] right to choose passed by Congress in our career. [sic]”

So the problem remains. Both sides have the power to kill the bill, and neither side will budge. And even if this can ultimately be resolved, do nervous Senators take that chance and put their votes on record?

By the way, let me credit the Republicans with backing the Stupak amendment and thereby keeping this controversy alive. Brilliant tactical move.
• Illegal Aliens
Both the House and the Senate bill explicitly prevent illegal aliens from using the new system. This is a requirement for the bill to pass. But then. . . Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Mexico) said that Hispanic lawmakers got a pledge from the House leadership “to defeat” any attempts to insert language that bars illegal aliens from participation, and they would oppose the final bill if it contained such language. Hmm.
3. Why Support Will Fall, Not Rise
Further, don’t expect support for this bill to grow, as usually happens after a bill passes. Normally, Americans give the benefit of the doubt to bills after they pass, and give them a chance to work. But support for this bill will not rise, it will fall as more and more negative details keep slipping out. Take a gander at these. . .
• Insurance Is Too Expensive
Section 224 of the bill requires the HHS Secretary to decide what constitutes a qualified plan within 18 months. On November 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what these “qualified plans” would likely cost. An individual who earns $44,000 will need to pay $7,300 a year -- 17% of their pre-tax income. A family earning $102,000 will need to pay $20,300 -- 20% of its pre-tax income. That will go over like a lead balloon.

But the public option or the exchanges will save us right? Actually, no. According to the CBO the public plans “would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums” for private plans.
• Options? You Don’t Need No Stinking Options
Under Section 303, the bill appears to provide for three options -- basic, enhanced and premium levels. But those levels refer only to the co-pays and deductibles (and you thought those would go away?). The plans themselves will be “one size fits all” in terms of coverage.
• The Jail Thing
The House Joint Committee on Taxation has confirmed that Pelosi can send you to prison if you don’t get coverage. Anyone who does not get acceptable health insurance coverage and who refuses to pay the fine (2.5% of income) is subject to a fine of $250,000 and imprisonment up to five years -- about what you get for armed robbery.

Interestingly, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-FascismLand) notes that: “There’s just going to be some people who choose rather to pay the fine than to pay for health care. There’s going to be some people that just philosophically don’t want to buy health care.” And if they don’t, we make them political prisoners. . . for the good of the American Volk!
• The Uninsurable Problem
The biggest supporters of this bill are the five million uninsurable Americans who think they’re going to be covered. But they’ve just learned that they need to wait six months to be considered uninsurable. Said the American Cancer Society, “if you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can’t wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death.”

Moreover, they won’t be able to afford their insurance. PelosiCare lumps these people into pools with other uninsurables, which pools are supposed to be self-sustaining. Translated into English, your premiums will be thousands of dollars a month.

To cut this cost, the Democrats have allocated just $5 billion dollars. That works out to $1,000 subsidy per participant over a ten year period -- less than $10 a month. Any chance that’s all it takes to help pay for someone with an uninsurable condition? And if that’s all it takes, why not just get Sally Struthers to beg rich foreigners for $10 a month. . . “33 cents a day can change a life.”
• The Funding Problem
Even leaving aside who the Democrats plan to tax to pay for this -- currently an impassable point of contention between the House and Senate -- this bill contains a bizarre contradiction: it relies on people refusing to participate to pay for the bill. Indeed, the House assumes that millions of Americans will rather pay the fine than buy the health care, to the tune of $167 billion. If these people fool us and sign up for the bill, this money vanishes. Chaos ensues.
• The End of Medicare As You Know It
The bill also cuts $500 billion from Medicare, a program that already bankrupts doctors. But what’s worse, the bill fundamentally changes the way Medicare works by allowing Pelosi to dictate your treatment decisions.

Section 1302 of the bill introduces something called a “medical home,” which is euphemism speak for an HMO. Right now Medicare lets you choose your own doctor and the doctor is paid for each service provided. This new plan requires primary care providers to determine whether or not you can see specialists or get specific tests. The CBO says these medical homes will resemble “unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago.”
• Interest Group Payoffs
Finally, the bill is crawling with giveaways to left wing interests. For example, Section 299V gives money to community groups. Section 222 provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. ¿Qué es eso? And Sections 2521 and 2533 establish racial and ethnic preferences in nurse training.
4. Democrats Exposed
This has all the makings of a pyrrhic victory. How pyrrhic? To give Pelosi her moment in the sun (not literally of course, because that would kill her. . . but figuratively), the Democrats have now exposed themselves to the American people.

The public hates this bill. Poll after poll shows support dropping like a stone in a lake -- 42% at last check. And the elections in Virginia and New Jersey demonstrated the level of anger the public holds. Even Owens in New York had to promise to oppose PelosiCare to get elected, a promise he promptly broke.

With this vote, the public now sees the Democratic Party laid out in all of its public-ignoring, healthcare-system-seizing, petty-tyrannical glory. Leftist bastards. There is no hiding anymore. No one who voted for this monster can claim to be a moderate. . . and, best of all, they exposed themselves for the sake of a bill that will never pass!

And let’s not forget the “Blue Dogs” who voted against this thing. They aren’t blameless. They could have stopped this thing long ago on numerous procedural votes. They also could have joined with Republicans to create real reform. . . but they didn’t. They are as complicit in this assault on America as if they had loaned Pelosi the crowbar.

Moreover, their vote was nothing but self-preservation. Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the bill, 31 represent (and I use that term loosely) districts that voted for Old Man McCain over Menthol Smooth B. Obama. Of the remaining eight, three are freshmen who defeated Republicans in 2008. One Democrat, Rep. Betsy Markey (D-FingerInTheWind) only voted “no” after it was clear the Democrats had the votes to pass the bill.

So in the end, while the left trumpets this as a victory, this could well turn out to be the most pyrrhic victory in the history of pyrrhic victories.

[+] Read More...

Saturday, November 7, 2009

The Weekly Bidenism

When last we left our brainless Vice President, he was busy lying about his educational background while slapping down a questioner at a campaign stop. You may recall that Biden tried to explain his lying outburst as mere exaggeration. . . apparently, in Joe’s world, exaggeration isn’t lying, and he exaggerates when he gets angry. So today, we test just how deep his untruthfulness goes. Get ready for The Weekly Bidenism.

It is August 23, 1987. Slow Joe is in the middle of a debate (with reality) when he whips out this little family history:
“Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? . . . Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest? Was it that they didn't work hard, my ancestors who worked in the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand.”
But Biden wasn’t the first person in his family to attend college. Nor were his ancestors coal miners. So where did this come from? Check out the words from a political commercial by British Labor Party Leader Neil Kinnock:
“Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because our predecessors were thick? Was it because they were weak, those people who could work eight hours underground as coal miners and come up and play football, weak? It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.”
Yikes. So not only did Biden plagiarize this speech without attribution, but he tried to pass off Neil Kinnock’s personal history as his own!!

Following this incident, Biden was caught plagiarizing speeches from Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphries, as well. He withdrew from the race for the Democratic nomination on September 23, exactly one month after channeling Kinnock.

A bitter Biden would later state, “All I had to say was ‘Like Kinnock.’ If I’d just said those two words, ‘Like Kinnock,’ and I didn’t. It was my fault, nobody else’s fault.” It was indeed your fault Joe, but it goes well beyond simple plagiarism. In fact, adding “like Kinnock” would do nothing to change the fact that you fabricated your family history.

Joe, however, never understood how sick it was for him to fake his family history. Indeed, he found the whole thing amusing, as evidenced by his handing Kinnock a bound copy of Biden’s speeches in January 1998, and jokingly telling the assembled reporters that Kinnock “was welcome to use [any of Biden’s speeches] whenever he liked, with or without attribution.”

He also introduced Kinnock to his Senate staff in August 2008 by saying: “Hey, you people! Do you know this guy? He used to be my greatest speechwriter.”

So much for remorse.


BONUS BIDENISM

With the election on Tuesday resulting in Republican Robert McConnell crushing Democrat Creigh Deeds by 18% in Virginia, it’s worth pointing out this little puzzler from Slow Joe on October 8, 2009, wherein Joe seems to accuse Creigh of lacking faith. . . a great thing to say at a fundraiser for Deeds:
“I hope to God you understand this race is winnable.”
Maybe not.


[+] Read More...

Friday, November 6, 2009

Republicans Getting It, Pelosi Not. . .

Virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media, thousands of protestors descended on Capitol Hill Thursday to express their outrage over PelosiCare. And this time, the Republican Party was onboard. In fact, it was a Republican, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) who invited them!

It is telling when thousands of people show up in DC. It is more telling when they show up on a Thursday. It’s even more telling when they show up only one week after being asked to come. It’s true. This entire rally happened because Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann extended an invitation on October 30, while speaking on Fox News. She said:
“I’d love to have every one of your viewers join me so that we can go up and down through the halls. Find members of Congress, look at the whites of their eyes and say, 'Don't take away my health care.'”
And more interestingly, this time the Republicans got it. Not only did they attend the rally, but they spoke. . . and they spoke well! Let’s grade them:
• House Minority Leader John Boehner told the crowd: “This bill is the greatest threat to freedom that I have seen in the 19 years I've been here in Washington, taking away your freedom to choose your doctors, the freedom to find health insurance on your own. It’s an illegal government takeover of our health care system.”

Excellent. This is no “we are not amused” speech of the kind we’re used to hearing from Republicans. This is red meat. Note the repeated references to “freedom”, note the very-un-Republican claim that this is “illegal”, and note that he described it as “our” health care system -- this is not just an intellectual exercise. Thumbs up. Grade: A

• Eric Cantor (R-Va), the House Minority Whip, promised that: “I will guarantee you that we are committed to making sure that not one Republican will vote for this bill.” The sentiment is right, even if the words are uninspired and tepid. Keep learning Eric. Grade: C

• Mike Pence (R-Ind) blasted Pelosi’s plan as “a freight train of runaway spending, bloated bureaucracy, mandates and higher taxes.” Bravo! Succinct, clear imagery. Well said (9 out of 10 trainsmackers agree)! Grade: A+

• Steve King (R-Iowa) promised: “We’re not going to leave this Hill until we kill this bill.” That’s not a realistic promise, and thus loses points, but King gets points for enthusiasm! Grade: B
But the real star of this show. . . no, not Jon Voight or John Radcliffe (Cliff from Cheers), both of whom attended as well. . . the real star was Michele Bachmann, who made the initial invite.

As the crowd cheered “Kill the Bill,” Bachmann issue another call to arms (figuratively): “Speaker Pelosi is poised with her healthcare bill to take over 18 percent of the American economy. The Republicans don't have the votes to kill this bill, but what we knew was unlimited was the voice of persuasion of the American people.”

And people did take her up on this. Many carried signs saying: “Free health care isn’t free”... “Ken-ya Trust Obama”... and “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy.” Others used the opportunity to visit their representatives. For example, one family of ten from North Carolina, the Kaufmans, visited their representatives. Said Paul Kaufman, “I feel like I’m defending my freedom. I’m defending my rights. I love my country, but I’m afraid of my government.”

As usual, the White House showed nothing but disdain for the public. It spent the day trumpeting endorsements by the AMA and AARP, as if anyone in the country didn't know that neither group ever failed to endorse a far left Democratic plan. When asked about the rally, Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary Extraordinaire, dismissed the public: “There’s a rally going on without a solution on their side.” He did not add “let them eat cake,” but he probably should have.

Meanwhile. . . in a dark tower in a hidden valley, shrouded by dark, sulfuric clouds, Nancy Pelosi continues to show that she has lost touch with reality. Speaking from her bunker, Pelosi incredibly declared “we won. . . my pretties,” when asked about the smackdown voters delivered the Democrats on Tuesday. She then insisted that the House would go forward with the vote on PelosiCare Saturday despite the terror that has gripped her delegation. She assured us that she had the votes to force the bill through.

But as she spoke, another winged monkey bolted the monketorium: Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) has announced that she will not support this bill.

And they still haven’t solved the abortion (winged)monkey wrench that Rep. Stupak tossed into Pelosi’s finely tuned machine of evil.

Even Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Pelosi's Basement) has acknowledged that the Democrats lack the votes to pass the bill and has signaled that they may need to push the vote off. Interestingly, Hoyer tried to blame the Republicans for the delay. But Minority Leader Boehner met this laughable attempt to deflect blame with derision: “Nice try Rep. Hoyer, but you can't blame Republicans when the fact is you just don't have the votes.”

Might I suggest, Comrade Hoyer, that perhaps you've been betrayed? Not that you should start a purge or anything. . . I'm just saying is all.

[+] Read More...

Thursday, November 5, 2009

News Round Up

We at Commentarama like to keep our audience well informed of all things, not just politics. So today we’re going to cover some non-political news you may have missed (unless you count a speech by some German woman to Congress as “political”).


News Flash: “German Tree Falls In Congress. . . No One Hears.”

According to a British news organization, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made an “historic” address to the United States Congress sometime this week, though no one in America knew about it. . . other than three Congressmen who happened to be buying drugs from pages on the floor of the House at the time.

Merkel, only the second German chancellor to address Congress since Konrad Adenaur in 1957, praised America’s efforts in World War II and playfully suggested they would win the next one.

She then went on to state that Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and she reiterated Germany’s intentions to do nothing about it.

Before her address on Capitol Hill, President Obama praised her as an extraordinary leader. “Germany has been an extraordinarily strong ally on a whole host of international issues,” said Obama before adding “if you don’t count all that World War stuff. . . or the fact they are too frightened to leave their own borders now.”

He also implored Merkel to send German troops to Afghanistan, which elicited a “not on a bet” response from Merkel.

Obama could not attend the speech in person, as his favorite soap opera was on at the time.

Merkel then warned that the United States needed to join the Europeans in their environmental suicide pack, noting that there was “no time to lose,” bringing snickering from the Wisconsin delegation, noted fans of Monty Python (at 2:40).

Merkel finished her speech by recounting her days as a child in East Germany, torturing dissidents.


News Flash: Trainsmacking

In a recent case of an unstoppable force meeting a soft squish object, the naked man lost.

James Lampiris, 18 and stupid, of Stafford, Virginia gained public notoriety this week when he “ate” mushrooms, which caused him to strip naked, run around, scream at passersby, and then, believing he had super powers, smack right into a CSX train. The train won.

But God does look after drunks and fools, and Lampiris was both. The train was only traveling at 9 mile per hour when Lampiris first spotted it and it slowed significantly before his attack. After the collision, the conductor found Lampiris sitting near the train. He ran off before the police arrived.

The mushroom industry would neither confirm nor deny that mushrooms give train stopping powers, though industry expert Bill Wilson, speaking on condition of anonymity, claims that Lampiris simply failed to eat enough mushrooms for the special powers to kick in.

CSX reports that the train has been placed into therapy.

Congressman Barney Frank has sworn to personally investigate this incident.


News Flash: And the horse you rode in on. . .

Send the kids out of the room, this one’s. . . different. Meet Rodell Vereen. Vereen was sentenced to three years in prison this week after pleading guilty for a second time in two years to having sex with a horse. The same horse. And it’s not even his horse.

Vereen was caught by the horse’s owner, who held him at shotgun point until authorities could arrive. The “Horry County Court” (no kidding) also ordered Vereen to never again go near that particular stable. Though if he sees the horse out in public, he’s free to renew his relationship.

Said Vereen, “I didn’t mean to do it.” WTF?!! This is not something that happens by accident like dropping a sandwich or launching a Russian nuclear missile! This was a conscious act. You don’t just suddenly find yourself have sex with a horse. . . for the second time!!!

He then admitted, “It’s my fault.” A stance he took only after his attorney advised him that his initial claim, that “the horse entrapped me,” wasn’t going to work.

Fortunately, he was charged with buggery, which allowed for the higher sentence than would have been imposed if he’d been charged with simple horseplay.

Congressman Barney Frank has sworn to personally investigate this incident.


News Flash: “Dead Man Walking. . . Drinking.”

Finally, this little gem from Brazil. A noble country. . . a lofty country. They do things differently in Brazil. Indeed, just the other day, they laid to rest Ademir Jorge Goncalves, a bricklayer. But as is so common with Southern countries where VooDoo priests regularly offer zombification services, he wasn't dead. But he wasn't a zombie either. Instead, he had spent a long night drinking rum. . . and trainsmacking. The family was quite surprised when he appeared at the funeral. Undeterred, they went ahead with the funeral. No word on who they buried.


[+] Read More...

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Elective Thoughts

Just some random thoughts on the Election. . .

Obama: Obama is the biggest loser last night. He put his credibility on the line in each of these races, and he showed that the public has turned on him. He also showed he couldn’t bring out his base.

New Jersey: New Jersey was the biggest disaster for Obama last night. New Jersey is the football that Lucy keeps offering the Republicans. Election after election we try to kick it, and it always gets pulled away. This time it wasn’t, and that’s a huge indictment on Obama.

Independents: Independents swung hugely in the direction of Republicans -- including the “evil extreme right winger” in Virginia. The Democrats want to claim this was simply anti-incumbency, but I didn’t hear any “throw the bums out” language, I heard anger about the left wing direction of the country.

Virginia: McDonnell in Virginia, “an evil right winger with unacceptable hard cored, evil, hateful right wing views”, pulled in independent voters at a 2-1 clip. He did it by running a positive, clear conservative campaign. Look for his campaign to become the Republican template nationwide.

New York 23: The blame for NY23 lies with two groups. By choosing a RINO (not a loyal moderate, but an obvious RINO) local Republican officials gave Scozzafava a platform from which to betray the party. Nice work jerks. Secondly, national figures who poured into NY trying to make this election bigger than it was energized the Democratic based in a way that local candidates could not have.

Blue Dogs: Get your resumes ready.

Health care: Interestingly, just as the voting began Harry Reid announced that they might not act on ObamaCare this year. The reason? Voters told pollsters that they did not see the reason to act hastily. Sorry Harry, too late.

Gay Marriage: Gay Marriage lost in liberal Maine. That means that it has lost in each of the 31 states where this issue has been put to the people. Somebody’s trying to tell you something.

RINOs: Expect the usual RINOs to run around today claiming that New York is evidence that conservatives can’t win. Look for words like “alienate voters,” descriptions of the party as “angry, white, male,” and the hand-wringing claim “no place for moderates in the party.” That said, don’t expect anyone to listen. The RINOs had their chance. Also, Virginia and New Jersey put the lie to these claims, and NY23 was the aberration -- influenced by a RINO betrayal. And don’t believe these claims anyway. There’s plenty of room for moderates in the party, just not moderates who accept every far left proposition and then endorse the Democrats when they don’t get what they want. Sorry RINOs, no sale.


Your thoughts?

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Conservatives: A Warning

This article is not an attack on conservatism. It is a warning.

Nor is this a suggestion that conservatives should moderate.

In fact, each of you knows that I’m solidly conservative in my views. I believe not only that conservative principles are the only political principles that will make the world a better place, but also that they are the only truly moral principles one can hold. Only conservatism respects the rights and dignity of man, while liberalism seeks to make us slaves of others’ charity. And while we occasionally make mistakes, it is usually more the result of poor execution or demagoguery from opportunists than it is the result of our principles.

Thus, take it in good faith when I warn you that conservatives are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Good News
Obama is this generation’s Jimmy Carter. He is discrediting liberalism to an entire generation, and quickly demoralizing the left flank of his party. These should be good times for conservatives.

These should be good times for conservatives within the Republican Party as well. McCain the RINO King convinced everyone that we had to be moderate to succeed. His crushing defeat discredited the RINO cause. They still scream “moderation,” but no one is listening anymore. The RINO philosophy is dead and buried within the party. . . for now.

Indeed, while the Republicans are blowing the Democrats away in fund raising (with Blue Dogs having a particular problem), the RINOs are finding their easy support within the party vanishing. Remember McCaindidate Van Tran (Cal.)? He’s been out raised by another Republican Vietnamese challenger. Trey Grayson, a neocon who supported Clinton, is being blown out by Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) in Kentucky. Even RINO Charlie Crist (Fla), another McCaindidate, who out raised his Democratic opponent 3-1, is suddenly facing a surging conservative Republican challenger in the primary who has raised more than one million dollars.

Now in New York 23, conservatives have forced the Democratic far left Republican to withdraw from the race so that an actual conservative can win the seat.

Sounds like good times for conservatives, right? Actually no. Conservatives are in danger of turning stunning victory into crashing defeat. Here’s why.
The Problem
Conservatives have the momentum. The Republican Party lies open, ready to be reshaped into the vehicle that brings the great rebirth of conservative America. But at the very moment conservatives should be streaming into the party, filling every empty chair, and seizing control of all levels of power, conservatives instead are throwing a tantrum. Rather than seizing the party, conservatives are talking vaguely of forming a new party. Rather than building and guiding the party, conservatives are destructively tearing it down. This must end lest we squander this victory.
Drop The Third Party Idea
Let’s start with something a lot of people don’t want to hear. Forget the idea of forming a conservative party. First, it can’t be done. Secondly, even if it could, it will only hurt conservatives.

The fact of the matter is that America is a two party system: Republicans and Democrats. Our electoral system and human nature mean that won’t change. A third party can briefly hurt one side or the other, but that’s about it. The only real power that a political movement can achieve is in using the threat of withholding its support to hurt one side or the other. If that threat is great enough, the movement can pull one party into the direction that the movement advocates.

Right now, conservatives have the attention (and fear) of the Republican Party. That is the path to conservative victory, to seize and shape the Republican Party. To fail to do this, because conservatives have utopian dreams of creating a new party, would irresponsibly squander our victory.

Moreover, let’s assume a conservative party of some size did appear. What do you think would be the effect on the country? Would the Republicans move to the right? No. Why should they? Everyone within the GOP who would advocate a turn to the right would have left. Would the Democrats move to the right? Hardly. With the right split in half, they’d be free to move as far left as they wished, knowing they no longer needed even the support of 50% of the population. Would the conservative party become the new majority party? No. If that were likely to happen, the Republican Party would represent 60% of the population today because they are closer to the right than the Democrats, but they don’t. If that were likely to happen, the Conservative Party in New York (where you can be a conservative without hurting the Republican Party because of fusion voting) could attract more than 155,000 registered members compared to 3.1 million Republicans.

Also, New York has had a Conservative Party since 1962, would you say that they have helped move New York politics to the right? Why should the result be different on a national level? And lest you think that New York is somehow just unique, keep in mind that the Libertarian Party has been a national party for decades, but hasn’t managed to move the Republicans or the Democrats one degree toward their cause.

The truth is that parties don’t listen to outsiders, and separating yourself from the inner workings of a party makes you an outsider. Outsiders are the people who refuse to join the committee that selects the location of a banquet and then wonders why they never choose their favorite restaurant. If you want the Republican Party to bend to your will, you must participate within its structures.
Stop Destructive Attacks
And that brings me to the second problem. Conservatives need to stop making destructive attacks on the GOP. Not only do you not want to damage the brand of something you are looking to own, but ill-informed, blanket attacks are not constructive. They do not help what we are trying to achieve.

Criticism that is not constructive is destructive. Criticism that overstates a problem, that falsely accuses, or that fails to give the accused an understanding of what you want changed, is not constructive. Conservatives right now are guilty of all of this. And since the Republican Party is the vehicle we must use, this must stop.

For starters, we need to stop making blanket attacks. Not all Republicans are bad and not everything they do is wrong. If you have a restaurant that you generally like, but you don’t like their hamburgers, does it make sense to categorically trash the restaurant? The same analogy holds for political parties.

People claim that the Republicans aren’t conservatives. But is this true? Do those people who complain know what the leadership believes? Do they even know who the leadership are? Did you know that the House leadership have all earned extremely high lifetime ratings from the American Conservative Union?
• House Minority Leader: John Boehner (ACU rating 93.89)

• Minority Whip: Eric Cantor (ACU rating 96.25)

• Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Thaddeus McCotter (ACU rating 84.5)

• Republican Policy Committee Vice-Chair: Dr. Michael Burgess (ACU 93.83)
The Senate leadership is less conservative, but still firmly conservative:
• Senate Minority Leader: Mitch McConnell (ACU rating 89.4)

• Minority Whip: John Kyl (ACU rating 96.96)

• Republican Conference Chairman: Lamar Alexander (ACU rating 80.83)

• Republican Conference Vice Chair: Lisa Murkowski (ACU rating 70.56)

• Republican Policy Committee Chairman: John Thune (ACU rating 86.77)
Compare these ratings to Olympia Snowe’s 47 rating and Susan Collins’ 49 rating, and Democrats in the teens. Do you still think it’s fair to say these aren’t conservatives?

Ok, you say, they may be conservatives, but they sure haven’t acted like it. Under Bush certainly, but let me point out what they’ve done since the election:
• Only eight House Republicans out of 178 voted for Cap and Trade.

• Only nine Senate Republicans out of 40 voted to confirm Sotomayor.

• Only one Republican in the Senate has voted for ObamaCare.

• No Republicans in the House voted for ObamaCare.

• No Republicans in the House voted to support Obama’s stimulus.

No Republicans supported Obama’s budget in the House or the Senate.

• The Republicans in the Senate held up two of Obama’s State Department Appointments in protest over Honduras.

• And lastly, they announced last night that they will unveil, this week, their own health care plan. It’s not CommentaramaCare, but it’s not just handing out more money to insurance providers.
What part of that don’t you like? And if you don’t like it, what did you do to make it better?

When conservatives continue to whine that the leadership isn’t conservative and they haven’t acted like conservatives, you’ve unfairly failed to credit them with a fairly resurgent form of conservatism. You’ve also made it impossible for them to know how to please you because your feedback is nonsense.

And that’s a critical point. Conservatives must outline what they want from the party. Conservatism means different things to different people. Some see it as only a strong foreign policy. Some see it as purely an abortion issue. Some see it as a smaller government issue. Some see it about personal freedom, others about law and order. And these groups often disagree.

Thus, when you complain: “I want conservatism,” that doesn’t help because the term is largely ambiguous. In other words, if you want your criticism to mean anything, i.e. to be constructive, you need to go further and tell us exactly what conservative policies you want. Just demanding “conservatism” is like taking hostages and then demanding “stuff."

Look beyond the buzzwords and be wary of politicians who wrap themselves in them, and hide behind their ambiguity. Look at people's real records, not just their words (FYI, after the new year, we're going to start looking at the records of possible presidential candidates). Ask yourself, what does "traditional values" mean, what does "conservative" mean, what does "smaller government" mean?
In Conclusion
Conservatives stand on the crest of a dramatic victory. But to complete that victory, they need to recognize it for what it is (it is victory over the Republican Party, not the birth of a new party). They must act accordingly by seizing the Republican Party at all levels. . . participate. They must stop tearing down the party, they must build it up. And they must focus their criticism: aim it at the people and policies that deserve it, and tell us what specifically you want done differently.

Now is the time. We must stop complaining and start instructing. We must recognize the victory that lies before us, and seize it, lest we squander this moment and thereby allow the RINOs to continue on happily, ruling a minority party as Democratic majorities continue to strip away the America that we love.

[+] Read More...

Monday, November 2, 2009

Obama Agenda: Foreign Policy

Let’s continue our tour through Obama’s agenda. With the resolution of the Honduras situation this week and Obama continuing to dither over Afghanistan, now is a good time to examine Obama’s foreign policy agenda.

Obama was a big critic of Bush’s foreign policy. He claimed it was arrogant and made it harder to “rally international support for our leadership.” He also claimed Bush used foreign policy “as a political wedge” issue to divide Americans -- even though it was actually the Democrats who did that. In the end, Obama promised to “meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe” to get the world to rally behind American leadership.

It is, therefore, no small irony that Obama has angered the French by snubbing Sarkosy, angered Britain by snubbing Gordon Brown and by dealing behind Whitehall’s back with Bermuda about terrorists, snubbed the Poles in their commemoration of the invasion of Poland by the Nazis (and by telling them on that same day he would abandon them on the missile shield), started a trade war with Canada, and spat on just about everybody else. Not to mention his indiscriminate giving of gag gifts and his penchant for giving back diplomatic gifts.

In any event, let’s go through his goals and plans:

1. World Liberalism. Right out of the gates, Obama promised a thorough adoption of a number of liberal sacred foreign policy cows. Strangely, things haven’t gone as planned:
Debt Forgiveness. Obama promised to cancel 100% of the debt of the world’s heavily-indebted poor countries. No action.

Fight Global Poverty. Obama promised to spend $50 billion in foreign aid to cut “extreme poverty” around the world in half by 2015. He mentioned this in his 2010 budget as a “goal”, but took no real action.

World Health Aid. Obama promised to launch a Health Infrastructure 2020 to give aid targeted at developing countries health care systems. No action.

Small Business Aid. Obama promised to create an agricultural initiative to create a fund that will provide seed capital and technical assistance to small and medium enterprises. No action.

Tax Havens. Obama promised to create an international tax haven watch list of countries that do not share information returns with the United States. No action.

Climate Change. Obama promised to bring the United States into the suicide pact that is climate change theology. But he disappointed the world by not submitting Kyoto the Senate, and now it looks like the Copenhagen Treaty is in trouble because the Senate hasn’t passed a cap and trade law, and China and India won’t participate in a new treaty until we agree to cut our emissions. No action.

Nuclear Weapons/Proliferation. Obama made several promises vis-a-vis nuclear weapons:
• He promised to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, one of Obama’s first acts was to authorize the transfer of nuclear equipment to India in violation of the treaty. . . an evil for which Bush was roundly criticized. He then poured salt (or is it SALT 2?) into the wound by letting Hillary state that this arrangement (which violates the Treaty) can “serve as the foundation of a productive partnership on non-proliferation.”

• He promised to seek reductions in US and Russian stockpiles. On April 1, Fools Day, Obama and Medvedev agreed to pursue a new agreement by the end of the year to reduce the number of strategic warheads from 2,200 to around 1,600. Woo hoo, an agreement to agree on an insignificant reduction.

• He promised to stop the development of new nuclear weapons. No action.

• He promised to work with Russia to take US and Russian missiles off “hair trigger alert.” No action. In fact, Russian Presidential Security Council Chief Nikolai Patrushev recently declared that Russia reserves the right to use pre-emptive nuclear strikes on both a “large, regional and even local” scale to safeguard Russia from aggression, and he singled out Obama’s United States and NATO as foes who still pose threats to Russia.

• He promised to institute a global ban on intermediate-range missiles. No action.

• He promised to secure all loose nuclear material within four years and to negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear material. No action.

2. War On Terror. Obama promised to refocus the war on terror (in fact, he has even informally banned the phrase).
End The Use of Torture & Extreme Rendition. Obama promised to stop both torture and extreme rendition. He signed an executive order on January 22, 2009 that claims to end these practice, but really doesn’t. It did however, establish a task force to study these issues. Yipee!

Guantanamo. Obama promised to close Guantanamo and to ensure that the terrorists housed there receive all the rights afforded by international law. On his second day in office, he signed an executive order that promised to close Guantanamo within one year. That won’t happen. White House counsel Greg Craig has been offered as a scapegoat for this failure.

On May 15, Obama also announced that he would keep the current system in place for handling the inmates. In fact, he even tried to strip them of more rights.

Iraq. Obama promised to remove American troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010. There appear to be about the same number of troops there right now as before the surge, and Obama has stated that he plans to keep 35,000 to 50,000 troops in Iraq through 2011.

Afghanistan. Calling Afghanistan the “good war,” Obama promised to send two more brigades to conduct a non-surge surge. He did that and it didn’t work. So now his generals are very publicly asking for 40,000 more troops, and Obama seems incapable of coming up with a plan -- largely because his own party is split on whether or not to continue the war.

Obama also promised to use his messianic powers of persuasion to get the Europeans to contribute more forces and to remove the restrictions those countries placed on the troops they did send. Most of the Europeans right away ruled out sending more troops, and some are discussing pulling out entirely. On September 29, 2009, Obama finally met with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He achieved nothing.

Pakistan. Obama promised to condition US military aid to Pakistan on their shutting down training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base to strike into Afghanistan. Obama did sign a law placing such conditions on Pakistan’s aid for the next five years. Whether or not this is verifiable remains to be seen.

Anti-Extremist Schools. Obama promised to establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund to “offer an alternative to extremist schools.” No action.
3. Russia. Obama promised to “address the challenge posed by an increasingly autocratic and bellicose Russia” by (1) supporting democratic partners in the region and upholding principles of sovereignty in Eurasia; (2) strengthening the transatlantic alliance so that it speaks with a unified voice to Russia; (3) decreasing the dependence of Europe on Russian energy; and (4) engaging directly with Russia on issues of mutual interest. Um, fail. He slapped down Poland and abandoned Georgia, thereby ensuring that no alternative to Russian gas would be available to Europe. He has done nothing to stop Germany and England from becoming Russian natural gas addicts. And he’s pandered and kowtowed to the totalitarian Vladimir Putin.

4. Middle East. Obama promised a realignment of United States policy in the Middle East. Good luck with that.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Obama promised that resolving this conflict would be a key diplomatic priority. He also promised to “never distance” the United States from Israel and to support Israel’s right to self defense (including continuing US cooperation with developing an Israeli missile defense system). So far, his diplomatic efforts have lost the good will of the Palestinians: “All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated.”

He also promised to continue military and economic aid to Israel ($30 billion over the next decade). No action to date.

Iran. Obama planned tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Obama promised to offer Iran (1) membership in the World Trade Organization, (2) economic investments, and (3) normal diplomatic relations, if Iran abandons its nuclear program and its support for terrorism. If Iran refused, Obama promised increased economic and political pressure. Iran rebuked Obama’s offer before he made it. He has since ignored Iran. He ignored the uprising by the Iranian people. He has been unable to stop Russia from adding to Iran’s nuclear capability. And now even the French are upset that he's been so weak.

The Arab World. Obama promised to use his unique talents to explain to the Arab world that we “are not at war with Islam.” So far he’s given one speech in Egypt and one in Turkey, claiming that the United States is a Muslim nation. Only 19% of Americans think this will improve our relations with the Muslim world.
5. Asia. Obama plans to seek new partners in Asia, while maintaining strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia, and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.
Japan. Japan’s recent elections have resulted in a new government that wants United States military bases removed from Japanese soil.

China. Obama promised to use all tools available to demand that China (1) respect human rights, (2) fight intellectual piracy, (3) end their suppression of Tibet, (4) improve the safety of their products, (5) end their currency manipulation, which “contributes to massive global imbalances and provides Chinese companies with an unfair competitive advantage,” and (6) to end their support of repressive regimes in Sudan, Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe. Other than sending Geithner to beg the Chinese to buy American debt, no action to date.

North Korea. Obama promised to use “sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy” to handle North Korea, promising to impose “strong international sanctions” against North Korea for any violation of United Nations resolutions. They’ve been shooting rockets into the Pacific ever since. No action.
6. Africa. Obama promised to make Africa a top diplomatic priority. He promised to open consulates in “hopeless corners” of Africa. He promised to immediately take steps to end the genocide in Darfur by “increasing pressure” on Sudan. And he promised to create a Global Energy and Environment Initiative to ensure that African countries have access to low cost energy. No action to date.

7. Latin America. Obama promised to rebuild diplomatic links throughout the hemisphere through aggressive, principled and sustained diplomacy. He promised to promote democracy in Cuba by allowing unlimited family travel and remittances, which he has done. He also promised to offer Cuba normal relations and a lifting of the embargo if Cuba takes significant steps toward democratization, which hasn’t happened.

He also promised (threatened) to rethink trade agreements, saying he will stand firm against agreements that “undermine our economic security” and promised to use trade agreements to “spread good labor and environmental standards around the world.” No action to date.

Finally, he promised to foster regional security through an initiative to cooperate in combating drug gangs. No action to date.


That’s it. Not much to write home about, is it?


[+] Read More...

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Honduras Explained

With the details of the deal in Honduras finally coming out, it’s time to analyze why Honduras became so important to the international community, what this deal really means, and why this is anything but the “historic” victory that the internationalists claim. This deal has, in fact, exposed the emptiness of the “rhetoric and peer pressure” approach to foreign policy. Expect the world to become a more dangerous place.

Why Honduras Mattered To The International Community

First, let’s explain why Honduras became such a big deal for the international community, and why they chose to support Zelaya despite his attempts to remake himself into a dictator.
South/Central Americans. All of the Americas panicked when they heard that the Honduran military had tossed President Zelaya out of the country. The reason is simple. Central and South America were dominated by military coups for decades, Honduras included. In the past twenty years, they believed they had finally broken that cycle and become stable democracies. The prospect of a new military coup in Honduras reigniting that cycle scared the entire region. That’s why both left and right condemned “the coup.” This is also the reason they kept insisting that “the negotiations must not reward a coup.”

The Internationalists. The internationalists, i.e. the effete Europeans who dominate the international talk shop, became involved because they saw this as their first chance to show that their brand of “international peer pressure without resorting to military means” could solve a crisis. In other words, this looked like an easy victory and they needed one badly since they can’t seem to solve anything else (Middle East, Iran, North Korea, Georgia, etc. etc.).

Some have attributed the support for Zelaya by the international community to being simply the support of leftists for a leftist. But that's not correct. Indeed, across the international community (and particularly in South/Central America), both left and right condemned “the coup.” Moreover, despite the MSM rebranding Micheletti’s government as “conservative” (which they always do with their perceived bag guys), Micheletti and Zelaya are both from the same leftist party (the Partido Liberal de Honduras).

In reality, the internationalists needed to support Zelaya because their theory of foreign policy requires that they maintain the unanimity of the international community, and with the South/Central Americans already choosing to support Zelaya, they had little choice. Nevertheless, this choice suited them because it also fit with their instinctual opposition to unilateral action, like throwing out a president, and with their desire to avoid disruption of the international order, i.e. they don’t like change, especially forced change. Not to mention that public perception is everything to the talkers, and supporting the government would have put them on the side of what appeared to be a military coup, which is unacceptable in their circles.

Team Obama. Obama, who was late to the party, saw this as his first chance to let multilateralism work in South/Central America, with the United States taking a back seat to Brazil and other emerging powers. He thought this was a good way to show that the United States had changed since the end of the Bush administration, and would treat the South/Central Americans as more equal partners.

This is why Hillary Clinton has stressed that this “victory” was the result of diplomatic talk shops set up by Central/South Americans, and why they relied for so long on Costa Rica’s President to negotiate a resolution. Said Clinton: “This is a big step forward for the Inter-American system and its commitment to democracy as embodied in the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”

This “follow the crowd policy” also fit with his seeming utter disinterest in foreign affairs. However, this approach has brought on significant criticism of Obama from that same community, with Brazil’s Foreign Minister Celso Amorim grousing that these negotiations were taking too long. And more recently, Julie Sweig, Latin American Director of the Council on Foreign Relations complaining: “Why didn't they go down there four months ago? I have no idea why we didn't just do this to begin with, other than the fact that we wanted to give others a chance.” Also, Peter Hakim, President of the Inter-American Dialogue, asserts that Obama “made the mistake that multilateralism doesn't mean letting others do the work.” Instead, he argued, the situation needed “intense U.S. engagement.”
These are the reasons why this became important and how the sides were chosen. And while this was not a coup, see prior article, the Honduran government admittedly handled this poorly from a public relations perspective. Given the touchy nature of military coups in the region, they should not have sent the military to arrest Zelaya. They should have sent their equivalent of the United States Marshalls. Secondly, they should have voted to impeach him in their Congress before sending anyone to arrest him. Since their Congress would have done so easily, and it is dominated by members of his own party, few in the international community would have raised an objection (other than Chavez).

Position Of The Parties

Now, let’s explain the position of the international community versus the position of the Hondurans:
• The international community wanted Zelaya restored immediately to serve out his full term -- no restrictions. From their perspective, this was about undoing a military coup, and there could be no compromise. Thus, they took the position that they could not allow any part of that coup to succeed.

• Honduras wanted Zelaya removed from office until he could be replaced by the winner of the November 29 election. Though, in reality, all they really wanted was to stop him from holding a referendum to change the constitution to allow himself to remain in power. This was identical to the process used by the quasi-dictators in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, to gut their own constitutions.

The Honduran constitution forbids even the attempt to amend the constitution to allow the president to serve a second term. And not only had Zelaya done that, but he'd acted illegally in attempting to pull it off:
• Zelaya supporters told people to sign the petition to hold the referendum under threat of being denied health care or other government benefits.

• Zelaya violated a Supreme Court order not to attempt to hold the referendum.

• Zelaya illegal fired General Romeo Vasquez, who refused to carry out the illegal order to distribute the ballots and the Supreme Court order to reinstate him.

• Zelaya led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots were stored, and told his supporters to distribute them.
Zelaya also was accused of other crimes, though these were not the reason he had been deposed:
• Zelaya’s government was accused of accepting kickbacks and of being involved in the drug trade.

• Zelaya was accused to taking several million dollars from the Honduran Central Bank.

• Zelaya forced all radio and television stations to broadcast his daily speeches.

• Zelaya’s government began monitoring private phone conversations in the country.
The Deal

This entire matter settled late-Thursday after some last minute diplomacy by Thomas A. Shannon, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. The deal will be signed Monday. Here is what Honduras got under the deal:
• Zelaya must drop his attempts to amend the constitution.

• The international community will recognize the results of the November 29 election.

• Financial aid would be restored to Honduras.

• The visas of the Honduran leaders are to be restored.

• The international community will send poll workers to help perform and monitor the fairness of the November 29 election.

• A truth commission will be established to investigate the events leading up to and following “the coup.”
That’s everything Honduras wanted.

In exchange, the Internationalists got a promise that a national unity government would be installed by November 5. That sounds like everything the Internationalists wanted, except. . .

Whether or not Zelaya gets restored to the presidency has been left to the Honduran Congress, after a review by the Supreme Court. (According to Shannon, the “when, if and how” will be left to the Congress.) While the Congress backed his ouster five to one, they have signaled that they “will not stand in the way” of this agreement. And there's really no reason they should stand in the way, because they will be defining his power for the last month of the term. For example, it is clear already that control of the army will be transferred from the office of the President to the Supreme Court. Also, his term will not be extended to make up for the six months he lost.

Summing this up, even assuming that Zelaya is returned to “power,” Honduras got everything it wanted. Zelaya was kept out of power from June until mid-November. He must drop his attempts to change the constitution, and he will be stripped of any real power by the Supreme Court and the Congress. There is no mention of any amnesty that would cover the allegations against him. Moreover, Honduras gets its aid restored and returns to the international community none the worse for wear.

Internationalists Try To Claim An Historic Victory

Not surprisingly, the internationalists are calling this a huge victory for international pressure of the talking variety:
Gushed Hillary Clinton: “I cannot think of another example of a country in Latin America that, having suffered a rupture of its democratic institutional order, overcame such a crisis through negotiation and dialogue.” Yes, the Hondurans won a great victory over you.

• Daniel Restrepo, senior director for Latin America at the White House National Security Council attributed this grand victory to the “recognition throughout Honduran society that, for Honduras to move forward in a sustained way, the election had to be accompanied by international support.” Uh huh, and the fact they got what they wanted and gave up nothing had nothing to do with it?

• Sen. John Kerry (D, Masshole) said this was “an historic accomplishment.” Worthy of a Nobel Prize perhaps?
Yet, it's a phony victory at best. They wanted Zelaya restored to serve out the entire remaining six months of his term. That won’t happen. They wanted him restored unconditionally, that won’t happen. Instead, assuming he is restored, all they got was that he would be re-installed as a figure head for the remaining month of his term. If that’s a victory, I’d hate to see what it takes for them to admit defeat.

In the end, these fools can delude themselves into thinking that they’ve “won,” but troublemakers around the world will see through this Orwellian doublespeak and self-delusion. The lesson here is that the international community was unable to push around a country of 7.5 million people. Their peer pressure strategy crashed and sank against the rocks of an opponent who simply refused to be swayed. Out of ideas, the internationalists did what they always do, they surrendered and then lied to themselves for comfort, declaring their surrender to be what they really wanted from the get-go.

And you can be sure that the lessons of Honduras will not be lost on countries like Iran and North Korea, or on future coup plotters everywhere, who will see this as confirmation of the international community’s weakness. Anyone who declares a total surrender as an historic victory is ripe for the plucking.


** Thanks to Joel for pointing out that my analysis the other day beat the Wall Street Journal, which apparently agrees, by a day.


[+] Read More...