Commentarama Readers Define Conservatism

Recently, we asked each of you to tell us how you define conservatism. The results are in and they’re rather interesting. Commentarama readers favor freedom and demonstrate strong support for federalism. You proved surprisingly nuanced on the most controversial issues, and you showed little support for the media’s version of conservatism as a theocracy waiting to happen. Let’s discuss. . .

First, a note about the poll. The purpose of this poll was not to get at basic beliefs; we know what those are. The purpose of this poll was to get you to explain what those beliefs meant. Put another way, anyone can say “I’m for smaller government.” The real question is, where do you think it should be smaller?

To that end, I strove to include questions that stood at the crossroad between policy and principle. I couldn’t include all the questions I wanted, none of you would have sat for that, but what emerged still gives us an interesting portrait of how Commentarama readers define conservatism. Here are the specifics:

Economic Issues

The greatest uniformity occurred on economic issues. Indeed, three of the top four vote-getters were economic issues. Yet, there were still many differences, and some surprising results.

For years now, the entire left and some on the right have turned against free trade. Few seem to be defending it. Yet, 91% of you thought that supporting free trade was a conservative principle. And half of you felt that a candidate who did not hold this view, could not be considered a conservative. I’m impressed. This response more than any other tells me that you are independent thinkers, who are not swayed by public opinion.

At the same time, only 21% felt that conservatives should end foreign aid. Apparently, we’re not the isolationists that some would have us believe.

Almost all of you (93%) said that ending government ownership of private business is a conservative value. And only 14% of you thought conservatives should support subsidies to achieve energy independence. So much for the age of big government.

A huge majority of you (89%) favored balanced budgets. But as several of you pointed out, you favor this only with a bias toward shrinking spending. This was no surprise, and I hope to delve deeper into spending priorities in future polls.

It was surprising that a strong majority of you (78%) thought conservatives should seek to eliminate the inheritance tax. Apparently, this tax upsets many of you. Indeed, this result can't be written off as merely being the product of an anti-tax sentiment, as evidenced by the tepid support given the two forms of tax reform that conservative think tanks often promote: repealing the income tax (27%) and replacing the income tax with a consumption tax (21%).

And few of you (25%) felt that conservatives should seek to eliminate the Federal Reserve.

All in all, this paints a picture of a group that supports fiscal restraint, smaller government, and capitalism, but doesn’t seem too interested in upturning the current system.

Social Issues

When it comes to social issues, everyone knows that conservatives are seething cauldrons of hate and intolerance, right? We all share the same social views, and we’re bent on remaking the United States into a theocracy, akin to a Christian version of Iran. Apparently not.

Despite the media contention that conservatives hate gays, only 54% of you thought conservatives should oppose gay marriage (that mirrors the vote tally in liberal Maine, by the way, so it can’t just be conservatives who believe this), and only 21% of you thought it was necessary for a candidate to share your view before you would consider them to be a conservative. That hardly makes us a strident group. Even more interestingly, only 6% of you thought conservatives should oppose civil unions. Moreover, only 38% of you oppose extending anti-discrimination laws to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. So much for gay hate.

Your responses on the abortion issue were definitely surprising. Despite the notion that all conservatives oppose abortion, only 52% of you think it is a conservative position to oppose abortion in most circumstances, and only 35% of you identified this as a make or break issue for you to define a candidate as a conservative. This one may deserve further elaboration in a follow up poll. In any event, one thing is completely clear, you don’t want the federal government deciding this issue. Only 6% of you agreed that conservatives should use federal law to ban abortions. That shows strong support for federalism.

When it comes to school prayer, 68% of you support allowing voluntary prayer in schools. But only 11% of you favored allowing schools to sponsor prayer. Again, this shows a very nuanced set of beliefs. While the vast majority of you support the freedom of religious expression in public, few of you want the government leading that expression. So much for the theocracy.

On immigration too, the nuance was through the roof. Sixty-three percent of you want our borders sealed (you’ll be happy to know that Janet Napolitano has now achieved that ** rolls eyes **) and 63% of you want illegal aliens deported, BUT only 9% of you thought conservatives should strive to lower legal immigration. So much for hating immigrants. . . won’t MSNBC be disappointed? Moreover, while 75% of you want employers punished if they hire illegal aliens, only 11% of you thought conservatives should oppose guest worker programs that bring foreigners to the United States to fill certain jobs. So what’s the message? Apparently, you aren’t anti-immigrant, you’re just opposed to law breakers.

The same is true for unions. Fifty-seven percent of you said that conservatives should support right to work laws. So we’re anti-union right? Actually, no. Apparently, we’re pro-right-to-choose. Indeed, when we asked if conservatives should promote policies that actively discourage unionization, only 14% of you agreed.

One area where there was near unanimity was the 97% of you who claimed that conservatives should protect firearm rights. This issue received the highest percentage of votes. It also had the strongest support in the make or break category, with 78% of you saying that a candidate must share your view on this issue to be considered a conservative. That said, however, support crashed to only 15%, when we asked if you thought conservatives should oppose all gun control laws.

As a group, you were also strongly, strongly (88%) opposed to judicial activism. And this was principled opposition, because when offered the chance to use the courts to impose a conservative agenda, all but 4% of you rejected that. Further, 66% of you felt that opposition to judicial activism was a make or break issue before you would consider a candidate to be a conservative. There is a strong lesson here.

You were also strongly opposed (65%) to hate crimes legislation. And you seem strongly opposed to drug legalization, with only 15% stating that conservatives should support drug legalization.


Finally, click on the chart below to see the generic Commentarama Platform. The blue bars show the positions that received a majority of support as being conservative views. The red bars show the number of people calling that issue a make or break issue. Would you support this platform?

(click to enlarge)



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama, Act I

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Shakespeare were alive today? Would he write sitcoms? Probably. But let’s assume he felt inspired to write drama. And let us suppose that within the walls of the White House, gather Obama and his courtiers, Bidenio, the Mountebank of Delaware, and Rahm, the good Lord Chicago. They ruminate upon palpable bad news. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Tragedy of Obama, Act I.


Enter Obama from the balcony, having orated a gathered crowd. Restless voices murmur below.

Obama (boastful): All the world’s a stage, and all the men merely players, and I, a man, who plays many parts in his time. Give every man thy voice, but few thy ear, my good sirs.

Rahm: My Lord, the people are disquiet. Now is the winter of their discontent.

Obama (angry): How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is, to have thankless children!

Rahm: I fear, in their anger, they may seek the comfort of Republicans.

Obama: Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellow, my Lord Chicago, but fear not, for love is blind and lovers cannot see the petty follies that we may commit.

Bidenio: Sire, we have most horrid news. Friend Stimulus failed his appointed task, and has perished.

Obama: Alas, poor Stimulus! I knew him Bidenio, a fellow of near infinite proportions, of most excellent fancy. He hath borne my ratings on his back a thousand times, and now, how abhorred in my imagination he is!

Bidenio: Neither a borrower nor a lender be.

Obama: There are more things in Heaven and earth, Bidenio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Rahm: Hark, Lady McNan approaches, and with her McReid, Harold of the Senate. My, but there is a foul air about her. She will be incensed for the recent vote.

Obama (to self): By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes.

Obama (to Rham): Something is indeed rotten in the State of Denmark.

Bidenio: Denmark? Is that perchance one of the missing seven?

Rahm: Be still they tongue fool.


Enter Lady McNan and McReid the Harold.

Obama: Hail Harold, how goes the health care bill?

McReid: The attempt and not the deed confounds us. I sent you a copy.

Obama: It was Greek to me.

Lady McNan (angry): Sire, you must cry “Havoc” and let slip the dogs of war! Appeal to the people, let them know this is thy will!

Obama (to self): Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle toward my hand? I shall decline this danger.

Obama (to McNan): The better part of valor is discretion, in the which better part I have saved my political life. To be, or not to be: that is the question. Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of opinion.

Lady McNan: Cowards die many times before their deaths.

Obama: There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

Lady McNan (to McReid): The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. He knoweth not.

McReid (to McNan): Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.

Lady McNan: My lord. . .

Obama: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Lady McNan: This will raise the ire of my caucus!

Obama: I must be cruel, only to be kind. This is the short and the long of it.

Rahm: But soft! What light from under door breaks? It is the east wing, Lady Obama approaches.


Enter Lady Obama.

Lady Obama (singing): This throne of kings, this sceptred chair, this earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, this other Eden, demi-paradise, this fortress built by Nature for us, how goes it my husband.

Obama: My wife, perchance you recall Lady McNan and Harold.

Lady Obama: Of course, I come to say good night, good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow, that I shall say good night till it be morrow. And Air Force One. . . I may borrow?

Obama: I see you wear your heart upon your sleeve.

Lady Obama: Would that I wear sleeves.

Obama: What’s mine is yours, and what is yours is mine.

Lady Obama: Good night sweet prince.


Exit Lady Obama.

Obama (turns to address Lady McNan and McReid): To what issue will this come?

Lady McNan: That which we call a vote, by any other name would smell as defeat.

Obama: I shall shower you with my wishes, but I will not speak on thy behalf.

McReid: Fie, my lord, fie! A ruler, and yet a feared? What need we fear who know it, when none can call our power to account? Think of this good peers.

Obama: Be contented with my gifts.

Lady McNan (angry): Rich gifts, wax poor. Betrayal comes easy for some.

Obama (angry): Out, damned spot! Out, I say! A plague on both your houses.

Lady McNan: I implore you. Speak my lord, or thou art slain; no medicine in the world can do thy administration good. In thee, there is not three years life, never to rise again, lest you speak.

Obama (to himself): I sense a treachery, but also opportunity to rid myself of this petulant Lady, for ‘tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with her own petard.

Obama (to McNan): Very well. I shall lend mine voice to yours.

Obama (to Rahm): Lord Chicago, a teleprompter! A teleprompter! My kingdom for a teleprompter.


Exeunt.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Should We Leave Afghanistan?

Time for more controversy. I have been thinking about Afghanistan for some time now, and I’m seriously starting to doubt the wisdom of staying. Unfortunately, I do not believe that our current strategy (or any strategy that we would employ) can succeed because our policies are promised on fallacies. If we don't reconsider our premises and change our strategy accordingly, we need to stop endanger any more American lives.

Before I delve into this issue, let me be clear -- this is not about Obama. I don’t believe that Obama is doing anything significantly different than Bush did or than McCain would have done. And in all honestly, it is difficult to fault him for doing what the entire establishment advocates.

Secondly, I do not think going into Afghanistan was a mistake. Far from it, it was a necessary act. Al Qaeda, a terrorist group bent on the death or forced conversion of all non-Muslims, was using Afghanistan as a base of operations against the United States. They had direct ties within the government itself and were using Afghan territory to train and equip terrorists who would attack the United States and other Western countries. Destroying that ability was the key reason to go into Afghanistan, and it was a worthwhile goal.

So what's the problem? The problem is that there is no exit strategy. . . there can be no exit strategy under our current thinking. And that is because we are working under the illusion that Afghanistan is a country. Every strategy put forward by the left or right begins with this assumption, and it is faulty.

Afghanistan the country is a fiction, like many countries in that part of the world. When the British arrived during their empire building phase, they found thousands of small fiefdoms, each ruled by a local prince or potentate. The British co-opted or conquered them all. When the British left, they drew arbitrary lines that bound groups of these fiefdoms into single countries. These new countries lumped together different ethnic groups, tribes, clans and religions, each of whom hated the others, and they’ve been fighting ever since.

Afghanistan is a collection of different ethnic tribes (see map above). They do not get along. They will form alliances with other tribes where it is in their interest, but they break those alliances the moment their interests change. They have no common beliefs to hold them together. To the contrary, they hold many ancient grudges that tear them apart. And even apart from the grudges, the influence of Iran and Pakistan tear the country apart.

Yet, all of our strategies assume not only that this collection of waring tribes can be turned into a single country if we only impose a democracy. But there is nothing about Afghanistan that tells me that they are ready for democracy.

And this is the core of the problem. Liberals and neocons naively believe that the rest of the world is “just like us, waiting to happen.” All we need to do is stick a ballot box under their noses, find a George Washington proxy, and they will suddenly become committed democrats. But that’s simply not true. There are people in this world who worship strength, who find lying to be an acceptable form of behavior, and who savor revenge for grievances that began thousands of years before they were born. These societies function on the same level as a fifth grade schoolyard. . . power is privilege.

From ethnic cleansing/revenge in the Balkans, to ethnic slaughters in Rwanda (and a half dozen other African countries), to the anti-Christian genocides in places like Somalia and Sudan, to clan on clan violence throughout the Middle East, the evidence is clear -- the Western model of civility and constitutional democracy is the outlier.

It took us 2000 years to get to the point where we are. Two thousand years to develop a legal system that prizes truth and clear rules. Two thousand years of overthrowing dictators for us to learn how to govern without force and accept rule of law. Two thousand years of church, and state, and educational institutions, and culture working together to instill in us the beliefs that are needed for a democracy to work. And even now, those beliefs are precariously balanced and sometimes fail us.

Afghanistan has no history akin to ours. They have no real educational system, and no culture of freedom or democracy. They have no shining government to look up to, no history of increasing freedoms. They have no independent courts. And, ominously, they have a religion that preaches hate and division, not unity and peace. For all practical purposes, it is a society of feral children grown old, all suffering from stunted intellectual and emotional growth.

There is nothing about Afghanistan (or anywhere else in the world) that tells me that democracy can be imposed by outsiders where it does not have strong roots already. Their culture is destructive and is simply not suited for any form of cooperative government. Yes, we can create a pretend democracy as long as we occupy the country. But the moment we leave, they will revert to their natural instincts. Thus, our plans to create a stable Afghanistan by imposing a democracy on these people are doomed to fail. The moment we leave, everything will evaporate.

Indeed, unless we impose democratic values on the Afghan people, any democracy we create will be a hoax. And therein lies the rub. Not only do I doubt that it is possible to impose such values on a backward people, but our policy makers would never even attempt it. To achieve that, we would need to reform their government, their educational system, their culture, and their religion, much like we did in Japan, and that would need to be imposed upon them. But that would make us “cultural imperialists,” and it would bring immediate cries that this is a war against Islam. This is unacceptable to our policy makers.

That leaves us with only one other viable strategy. Break Afghanistan into parts along ethnic lines (like what solved the Yugoslavia problem), and install favored strongmen in each enclave to ensure stability. But our policy makers won’t do this either because they can’t stomach the idea of abandoning the fiction that Afghanistan is a country. . . not to mention they refuse to be seen supporting dictators or warlords. So we are an impasse.

Thus, rather than correcting our strategy, we keep muddling through with the current strategy, hoping that somehow the house of cards we call the Afghan government suddenly morphs into a creature so wonderful that the Afghan people skip over 2000 years of cultural development, abandon everything they truly believe, and suddenly fall deeply in love with the concepts of democracy, rule of law, and clean government.

I see this as a fool’s errand.

Thus, I also question the desire to send more soldiers to Afghanistan. We are told they are needed to control the country (we’ve given up on the idea of destroying the Taliban) until the Afghan government and military can stand on their own feet. But the government will never stand on its own feet without a Western army to prop it up, and the Afghan army suffers the same lack of cohesion as the country. Indeed, they are beset with ethnic tensions, they are not trusted in most parts of the country, and they suffer a desertion rate in excess of 20%. And this is after we spent billions of dollars training them since 2002 -- a longer period, by the way, than World War II lasted from start to finish (1939-1945).

It strikes me that it’s time to face reality. There is no point to wasting American lives trying to prop up a government that will evaporate the second we leave. We either need to seriously remake their society from top to bottom, or we should admit that Afghanistan is a fiction and set about creating smaller, more stable fiefdoms and pairing them off with larger partners (like Pakistan or Iran) to keep the Taliban from returning. If we won't do that, then I don't think we should risk another American life.

At least, that’s how I’m see it.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Copenhagen Treaty Collapses

It is ironic that the very week NBC has decided to insert environmentalist propaganda into its programming, their lord and savior, the Obamassiah, has decided to terminate the Copenhagen Treaty with extreme tardiness. So much for environmental dreams.

For those who don’t remember, the Copenhagen Treaty is intended to replace the Kyoto Treat, which expires in 2012. Kyoto is the utopian treaty created by the rabid enviro-socialists at the United Nations with the intent of crippling first world economies to stop “anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Translated, that means that they want to shackle Western economies to stop evil man from interfering with the environment. Why only Western economies? You know the reason.

In any event, Kyoto was a nightmarish treaty that no rational American wanted to see signed. Which is not to say it wasn’t popular. The third worlders all signed up with glee, because they had to do nothing under the treaty except open bank accounts and wait for Western guilt money to start flowing. The Western Europeans signed up for it because they are led by retarded baboons who despise their own people. American leftists wanted us to sign up for it because they had visions of recreating the paradise that was East German dancing in their heads. . . see if you want a wall between us and Mexico then!

But our politicians knew better. . . they refused. Evil Bush right? Not so fast. Evil Clinton was the first to refuse to send it to the Senate. And polar bears died. After evil Clinton left office, evil Bush too refused to submit it to the Senate. And while he was much pilloried by the Democrats for making the world hate us by keeping us out of their economic suicide club, evil Obama too refused to submit the Treaty to the Senate when he took over.

But evil Obama did something quite clever. He told his less-than-bright supporters that he wanted to submit it to the Senate, but with Kyoto expiring in 2012 and soon to be replaced by Kyoto, it just made more sense to forget about Kyoto and to instead focus on getting Copenhagen signed. They bought it.

Yet, something was rotten in Copenhagen, as we pointed out in THIS October 20 article that you all should have read. . . it will be on the test. Based on comments made by Obama’s chief negotiator, we warned you that it looked like Copenhagen wasn’t going to happen. Not only did Obama demand more cuts from the third worlders than they were expecting -- (and they were not happy about it, let me tell you! It’s one thing to join a suicide club as an observer, it’s another to be expected to participate!) -- but the Westerners were grumbling that they didn’t like the idea that they had to pay the third worlders in exchange for their participation.

We also noted that Obama has refused to agree to the limits the treaty proponents wanted on emissions. And this made everyone sad.

Well, this weekend, our dire prediction came true. Copenhagen went down in non-fossil-fuel flames when a group of Asian world leaders (and Obama) agreed that the Copenhagen Treaty could wait until 2010. . . or even later.

Said U.S. negotiator Michael Froman:

"I don't think the negotiations have proceeded in such a way that many of the leaders thought it was likely that we were going to achieve a final agreement in Copenhagen. . . There was an assessment by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full, international legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days."

Le French, however, weren’t buying it. They blame Obama. Whined French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo: “The problem is the United States, there’s no doubt about that. It’s the world’s number one power, the biggest emitter, the biggest per capita emitter and it’s saying, ‘I’d like to but I can’t.’ That’s the issue.” Sacre bleu! Sounds like somebody wants to smack Obama with his purse!

Of course, I don’t know what the French are crying about. If they really want to shut down their economy, they can start without us.

In the end, Obama’s historic unemployment rate has convinced him that now is not the time to mess around with leftist thinking. Obama has managed to lose or not save an additional 5.2 million jobs beyond those Bush already managed to not save. And unemployment hasn’t peaked yet. So, apparently, sometimes, saving the world can wait.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Weekly Bidenism

When last we left our Pinocchio of a Vice President, he had lied about his family background and his education, and shown neither an understanding that he did anything wrong, nor remorse. So does that mean Slow Joe doesn’t understand the difference between right and wrong? No, he understands quite clearly, as you will see in this week’s. . . The Weekly Bidenism.

On September 3rd, of this year, Slow Joe was busy explaining Team Obama’s efforts to work with state and local governments to distribute stimulus money. Joe and the boys wanted to make various states and local governments cooperate on their spending to get some big regional projects started. Sadly for Joe, a little thing called the Constitution prevents the federal government from forcing cooperation between states or between states and their own municipalities.

And Joe recognized this fact. Indeed, Joe explained to a friendly crowd at the leftist Brookings Institute that he knew he had no authority to dictate how state governments, counties and municipalities work together to spend the money given under the stimulus. But he then admitted that despite this, he went ahead and “encouraged” the governors, mayors, and others with whom he spoke (on a weekly basis) to work together. Was he doing anything wrong? Well, let’s let Joe explain:

“I have not bent the law, but I have let imagination take hold in some places where I think it’s consistent with the spirit of the law. . .

Is that the best way of saying that?

Yes. . .

I should stop.”

You’re right Joe, you should stop, though it’s a little late. Most juries would call what you just did an admission of guilt. Not only that, you’ve just proven what lawyers call scienter, or knowledge of the wrongness of your act.

So not only does Joe have no respect for the law his boss made, or the Constitution, but he brags about it. Nice Joe. . . real nice.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama's Stimulus Delusion

With unemployment jumping to 10.2% in October, the highest level since 1983, underemployment reaching 17.5%, and the average weekly work week falling to a record low of 33 hours, the Obamaconomy is sputtering. Thus, it will come as no surprise that Obama is promising “to pursue further measures to create jobs.” Uh huh. Let’s talk about why the stimulus didn’t work and why Obama’s second stimulus will fail as well.

Why Stimulus Spending Never Works

Stimulus bills rarely work. Massive stimulus spending in the 1930s, 1960s, 1970s, and under Bush/Obama all failed to increase economic activity. Yet, liberals continue to love them. Indeed, it is a matter of faith among liberals, that federal spending can ignite the private economy by spurring demand. But you just can’t spend yourself to prosperity.

Liberals subscribe to something called Keynesian Economics. This theory, developed by John Maynard Keynes, holds that every dollar spent will result in a fivefold increase in GDP. For short term thinkers, which liberals are, this theory is manna from Heaven. But, as usual, they’re wrong.

Keynes’ economic theory relies on a little fiction called ceteris paribas, Latin for "all other things remaining unchanged." But in the real world, actions cause reactions, and it’s those reactions that Keynesians fail to consider.

Stimulating Consumer Spending ("Demand") Is A Bad Idea

The first goal of all Keynesian advocates is to stimulate consumer spending, i.e. demand. But this is a bad idea. If you stimulate spending by encouraging people to spend more than they otherwise would, you can get a short term boost -- Keynes is right about that -- but you create longer term problems. Indeed, every dollar a person spends today is a dollar they cannot spend in the future. So you are robbing the future to pay for the present. Moreover, if they borrow the money they spend, their overall ability to spend decreases by the amount of interest they must pay to get the loan.

So what you ask? Well that's what caused the current economic problem. The easy credit of the last decade allowed people to spend their future income at an alarming rate. Consumers were willing to do this because they believed they could tap the equity in their homes to cover their debts. Then housing prices fell. In response, consumers stopped spending because they became desperate to pay off their suddenly over-sized debts. Asking them to start spending again, simply will not work. It's irrational. . . it's like trying to avoid a hangover by staying drunk.

This, by the way, is why consumers used the Bush tax rebates to pay off debts, and why not all tax cuts generate a stimulus effect -- one time rebates (the only tax cuts Democrats like) are a bad idea.

Moreover, stimulus typically causes a misallocation of resources that can be catastrophic. For example, if we encourage people to buy cars today (see cash for clunkers), they will be less likely to buy cars in the future. If carmakers don’t understand this, they will respond to the increased demand today by ramping up production (like GM did). But when the sales fall again in the future, all of that extra production becomes a weight around the company's neck, which drags it down and can lead to a double dip recession following the second round of layoffs.

Further, by getting consumers to buy cars, government causes them to forgo other products that likely represent a better use of their money for them and for society. Indeed, whenever the government gets into choosing winners and losers, the result is always harmful.

Thus, while encouraging consumer spending (demand) can lead to a short term economic boost, the long term effects are quite harmful.

Government Stimulus ("Spending") Is An Even Worse Idea

It's even worse to have the government try to take the place of “missing” demand by going on a spending spree. In the example of a consumer spending a dollar, that dollar is something the consumer earned. But the government does not earn money, it takes it. Indeed, every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken from a consumer. Thus, while the government’s dollar can cause the same Keynesian effect as consumer demand, the act of taking the dollar from the consumer in the first place causes an inverse-Keynesian effect, as the dollar is taken out of the economy. In other words, by taking the dollar from the consumer, the government is cancelling out the stimulus effect it hoped to achieve.

Moreover, studies have shown that the government is simply not as effective in generating a stimulus effect as consumers are: it takes too long to spend the money and it goes to the wrong places. Which brings us to the Obamulus.

Why Obama’s Stimulus Was Worse Than Most

When the government spends money hoping for a stimulus effect, it usually aims for infrastructure projects. This is in part a nod to history, when our economy was based on such activities, a nod to unions, as such work is often unionized, and a nod to the idea that infrastructure is the one thing the government can buy that will benefit the greatest number of Americans.

Consistent with this, Team Obama promised massive amounts of infrastructure spending. In fact, the word “infrastructure” became almost a reflex to them whenever they mentioned the stimulus. Even now, when discussing the new "second stimulus" (actually third), Obama keeps hitting the “infrastructure note”:

“My economic team is looking at ideas such as additional investments in our aging roads and bridges, incentives to encourage families and business to make buildings more energy efficient.”

But the reality is rather different. Of the $787 allocated by the Obamulus, only $195 billion is targeted at what you or I would consider “infrastructure” projects, and most of those are boondoggles. The rest form a mixture of social spending and tax rebates, with the social spending going primarily to plug gaps in state budgets. None of that will generate any stimulus effect.

This point was highlighted when it was revealed that Obama’s “jobs created or saved” numbers were fraudulent. Remember Obama admitting that his jobs claim had been overstated -- that it wasn’t 750,000 as he claimed, it was really 30,383? There's more.

After this admission, Obama supporters conducted a new study, which they used to claim that actually 640,000 jobs had been saved. But the numbers don’t come anywhere near adding up. And many of these jobs were not actually saved. More than half of these jobs (325,000) were education jobs that were in no danger of being cut. For example, it was revealed the other day that 26,156 of the 100,000 jobs California claims were saved by the stimulus were California State University jobs that would not have been terminated even without the stimulus money. Those 26,156 jobs, by the way, are more “saved” jobs that were reported by 44 other states.

The Associated Press found that in one federal agency, pay raises for more than 7,000 jobs were counted as jobs saved. Many other “saved” jobs have been similarly exposed as falsified.

Moreover, as with all things political, the money was poorly distributed, going largely to the states that needed the least help. Indeed, a Wall Street Journal study found that states with the highest bankruptcy, foreclosure and unemployment rates got less money than better-off states. The study also found that higher income states received more money.

Thus, the money was not even spent where it would do the most good.

Is there reason to believe that a second stimulus would be any better? No. The problem here is that the Democrats fundamentally misunderstand the nature of economics.

Soon, I’ll outline a better way to do a stimulus plan.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...