Obama Donors Get Clinton-Era Perks: White House 'Transparency' Spin Begins

Dana Loesch has the background, "Democrat Donors Awarded with White House Perks."

But here comes the White House cover up, from Fox News, "White House Fires Back at Report Claiming It Gave Special Access to Donors":

The White House on Wednesday fired back at a report claiming President Obama gave special access top Democratic donors, claiming it has "instituted the toughest ethics and transparency rules of any administration in history."

While the administration acknowledged that it allowed the Democratic Party to distribute tickets to White House events among supporters and contributors, it downplayed a Washington Times report that said Obama had "rewarded" donors with "VIP access."

Fundraisers who pledged to individually donate $30,400 or to bundle $300,000 in contributions toward the 2010 congressional elections were promised access to senior White House staff, according to The Washington Times.

That access also covered VIP privileges ranging from a birthday visit to the Oval Office to use of the White House bowling alley to a golf outing with the president in Martha's Vineyard.

"We're the first administration in history that will soon provide a list of each and every person that visits the White House -- something that's never been done before," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters during his daily briefing.

"The Democratic National Committee does not accept contributions from registered federal lobbyists or political action committees and hasn't done so since President Obama became the party's nominee last year. I think as the statement that we issued said, a contributor -- contributing doesn't guarantee a visit to the White House, nor does it preclude it," he said.

Mocking a question about whether the White House has engaged in quid pro quo, Gibbs quipped about his son, "I can report to you that Ethan Gibbs, with the bumpers down, bowled a couple of games while eating chicken fingers.

Actually, this just continues a long pattern of deception and cover-ups. See my report from last year, "Obama’s Fundraising Fraud."

RELATED: From the Washington Post, "White House Rebuts Allegation That Big Donors Get Special Perks" (via Memeorandum).

Image Credit: Voting Female Speaks, "Barack Obama, a Kamikazi Communist; All In, Win Lose or Draw."

Swine Flu Hysteria: Perfect Timing for Democrats' National Health Emergency

From Fred Burks, "Swine Flu Cases: CBS Reports CDC Deception on Swine Flu Cases":

President Obama has declared a national emergency for the swine flu, noting a "rapid increase in illness." A recent CNN article covering this critical topic goes on to quote CDC director Dr. Thomas Frieden, "since the H1N1 flu pandemic began in April, millions of people in the United States have been infected, at least 20,000 have been hospitalized and more than 1,000 have died."

Yet excellent investigative reporting by CBS News shows that the number of swine flu cases is being significantly exaggerated. The lead paragraph of this CBS article states, "If you've been diagnosed 'probable' or 'presumed' 2009 H1N1 or swine flu in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn’t have H1N1 flu. In fact, you probably didn’t have the flu at all. That's according to state-by-state test results obtained in a three-month-long CBS News investigation."

The CBS report goes on to point out that the CDC strangely advised states to stop testing and to stop counting the number of swine flu cases last July. The CDC website explains that states are no longer differentiating between the regular flu and the swine flu, reporting instead all influenza and pneumonia-related hospitalizations and deaths in one count.

Naturally, then, from Bloomberg, "Swine Flu Vaccine Scarcity Stirs Anger in U.S. Cities."

And see, "Swine Flu Emergency: What Obama's Declaration Means":

While illnesses are normally designated public-health emergencies, in which hospitals and medical personal are subject to various procedures for providing information and disposing of bodies (among other things), President Obama’s motivation for escalating H1N1 to national-emergency levels can be found in his formal declaration: “The rates of illness continue to rise rapidly within many communities across the nation, and the potential exists for the pandemic to overburden health care resources in some localities.” This parallels the World Health Organization’s June upgrade of H1N1 from phase 5 to a phase 6 pandemic (the WHO’s highest level), meaning that while swine flu may lack the drama and spectacle of terrorism, it does constitute a real risk to the American public.

Although conditions like martial law (which would be allowed under any state of emergency) are still possible, the governmental changes invoked by Obama’s declarations have a far more benevolent intent. Hospitals are given the power to set up care sites outside of hospitals—in parking lots, schools, and the like─without federal interference. This not only slows the spread of the speedy virus but allows additional space for treatment and frees emergency rooms for more severe cases. While hospitals are generally limited to setting up alternate treatment centers within 250 yards of the hospital to qualify for federal funding, reimbursements for vaccinations will be given where they would otherwise be restricted. In some cases, hospitals can modify patient check-in procedures, minimizing paperwork and other time-consuming practices to allow faster treatment during busy times. Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance program requirements that might interfere with treatment, including seasonal rules and one-time vaccination coverage, can be changed or waived for the length of the emergency. Simply put, hospitals are given the ability to fight swine flu without getting wrapped in the red tape of federal procedure and, in turn, Americans will have faster treatment for and defense against the spread of the virus.

See also, "Swine Flu Increases State Power." And, "Why You Can't Get the Swine Flu Vaccine."

Cartoon Credit: William Warren at Americans for Limited Government.

Damn! Too Bad Schwarzenegger's RINO

For all of "Ahnold's" disappointments since 2003, he's always been good for a kicker or two.

Jules Crittenden's got the story, "Live & Learn":

It’s about that partisan civility thing. Turns out, if you yell “You Lie!” and say things like “Kiss my gay ass!” there can be consequences. Not just consequences, but cleverly embedded snark! It’s Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s two-fer response to California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s request for help and his rude outburst.

See also, "Schwarzenegger Gives California Legislature a Hidden Finger."

McCain to Obama: Make Afghanistan Decision Now!

From the Boston Globe, "McCain to Obama: Send Troops Now":

Senator John McCain, President Obama's Republican foe last year, has largely supported his rival since the election.

But now, the Vietnam War hero and Iraq troop surge supporter is putting increasing pressure on Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan -- and do it soon.

The president has held six war councils and counting to decide the strategy going forward, and some expect him to wait on deciding on his top commander's request for as many as 40,000 additional troops until after the Nov. 7 Afghan presidential run-off election.

But McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS this morning that the war policy in Afghanistan "has been reviewed time and again" and it's time to act because the long delay "is not helpful to our effort" and is frustrating military commanders and making allies nervous.

And in an op-ed posted online on CNN today, McCain calls on Obama to move as quickly as possible to grant General Stanley McChrystal's request for additional troops.

McCain notes that he supported the Afghanistan strategy that Obama laid out in March, when he announced his decision to dispatch 21,000 more US troops. And the senator also stresses that he backed Obama's appointment of McChrystal as the top US commander on the ground -- so the president should listen to the general now.

See McCain's article at CNN, "Why We Can — And Must — Win in Afghanistan."

RELATED: Common Sense Political Thought, "Is President Obama's Foreign Policy Making a Difference Yet?"

Car Bomb Kills Dozens in Pakistan: Hillary Clinton to Islamabad, 'No Biggie, Our Relationship Goes Beyond Medieval Slaughter of Innocents'

From London's Guardian, "Bomb Kills Dozens in Pakistan as Hillary Clinton Arrives":

The deadliest Taliban bombing in two years ripped through a women's market in the Pakistani city of Peshawar today, killing almost 90 people.

The attack happened as the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, began a three-day visit to Pakistan.

The blast ripped through cosmetics stalls and clothes shops in Peshawar's old city, filling the narrow streets with burning debris and trapping dozens of victims under wreckage and charred roof beams. A two-storey building collapsed as firefighters doused it with water.

Television footage showed wounded people sitting amid debris as others attempted to rescue survivors and get them to hospital.

A spokesman for the Lady Reading hospital said it had received the bodies of 87 victims, many of them women and children. Provincial officials said over 200 people were injured ....

Clinton said the US was turning a "new page" in the decades-old relationship to include more than just security-related issues.

"Our relationship goes far beyond security... the terrorists can destroy but they cannot build. That is where we have an advantage," she said, pledging funds to rebuild the dilapidated electricity infrastructure that has led to large-scale power rationing in recent years.

The US has for years pressed Pakistan to hunt al-Qaida militants hiding in its tribal belt.

Earlier, Clinton admitted relations between the two countries had developed a lot of "scar tissue" and said: "We also recognise that it's imperative that we broaden our engagement with Pakistan."

Great. Blame the U.S. for a "deterioration" in relations. That'll send a message to the barbarians!

See also, the Los Angeles Times, "Car Bomb Kills More Than 80, Wounds 200 in Pakistan":

Video Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit, "Massive Car Bomb Kills 80 In Peshawar, Pakistan."

Obama Tees-Up, Leaves Troops Hangin' in Afghanistan

From Cold Fury, "'I Will Never Rush the Solemn Decision of ... Hand Me the 5-Iron, Would You?'"

AN ADDRESS TO THE TROOPS, GOOD SPORTS THAT THEY ARE

"At ease, team.

I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way … or of sending you reinforcements once you’ve already been sent.

Nor will I rush through the sandtraps to send more equipment even though I’ve consistently said we must win this war. I shall not be hurried through the water hazards to have more helicopters; I will not–no, must not fly through my fairway game to approve more F-22s. That is my pledge to you...

And, from Andrew Klavan, "Obama Hits the Golf Course, Dithers over Afghanistan."

Also, Allahpundit, "Obama to Troops: 'I Will Never Rush the Solemn Decision of Sending You Into Harm's way'."

Democratic Values: Carol Shea-Porter Extols Alan Grayson's 'Moral Compass'

Representative Carol Shea-Porter illustrates once more the total bankruptcy of today's Democratic Party. From Big Gov't, "Rep. Shea-Porter: I Love Alan Grayson and His Moral Compass Is Wonderful to Behold":

“I love both of these men and I will tell you that they are both driven by a moral compass that is just wonderful to behold,” said Shea-Porter while appearing with Rep. Grayson on a panel at the Netroots Nation summit in August. “And we share almost all the same kinds of goals and values and Alan and I do as well.”

Also, from Kim Priestap, "Democrat Alan Grayson Calls Federal Reserve Senior Advisor a 'K Street Whore'":

What a pig. I mean, really, does he kiss his mother with that mouth? That he refers to anyone in such a disgusting manner is unbecoming language from a member of the United States House of Representatives.

Where does Nancy Pelosi stand on Grayson's calling a female Federal Reserve senior advisor a whore? More importantly, where do his constituents stand?

Actually, Speaker Pelosi blew off Grayson's "die quickly" smears from the House floor, so no doubt she'll be standing up for him again. See, "Pelosi Plays Down Grayson Remark."

Plus, Grayson's not apologizing, "Alan Grayson Stands by "K Street Whore" Comment" (via Memeorandum).

Fred to Newt: STFU

I'm impressed with the way Fred Thompson's getting organized for the 2012 primaries. He's definitely on the right track with his dissing of Newt Gingrich's RINO defense campaign. From the Politico, "Fred to Newt: We're Not 'Deaf, Dumb'" (via Memeorandum):

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson brushed back former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday over Gingrich’s warning that the Republican Party is wrong to thrown in its lot with the Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman over Dede Scozzafava, the GOP’s candidate, in the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district.

Gingrich has called the many prominent national Republicans – including Thompson – who have endorsed Hoffman over Scozzafava in recent days “misguided,” arguing they are making a “mistake” to back a third-party candidate over the party’s nominee.

The conservatives who back Hoffman point to Scozzafava’s support for abortion right and ties to local union leaders ....

Thompson, a 2008 GOP presidential candidate ... asked of Gingrich: “Who’s applying the litmus test here?”

“Are we saying that as Americans you’ve got to have an ‘R’ by your name before you vote for them? Where do you draw the line?” he continued. “If somebody with a record like this gets our seal of approval, regardless, only because she’s got an ‘R’ by the name… You know, just because we’re Republicans doesn’t mean that we’re deaf, dumb, and blind.”

Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace; or, Pro-Palestinian Destruction of the Jewish State...

Sorry for the French again (or British urban, be that as it may), but Spencer Ackerman's just an bleeding-asshole here, a concern troll par excellence who couldn't care one goddamned bit about Israel's right to exist:

If Israel doesn’t get out of the West Bank soon, demographic realities will force Israel to make the most painful existential choice of its life: whether to abandon Jewish democracy or whether to abandon Jewish statehood in favor of a binational homeland. Both of these options, in fundamental ways, represent the end of Israel. Not from an Iranian nuclear weapon. Not from a super-empowered Palestinian intifada. But from political failure and international diplomatic failure, the end of Israel can, actually, be achieved.

In question is Matthew Yglesias' post, "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace." It turns out that Yglesias debated Jonathan Chait during an Israel panel at the J Street conference (the one where no one who is anyone of the big-name attendees ending up attending in the end). I've long identified Yglesias as one of the most hardline leftist foreign policy commentators around, and he's actually pulling some punches above, considering his propensity for Hamas-Intifada Halloween costumes:

Yglesias' proxy demonization for Israel is the "nation-state" - if we didn't have them, we wouldn't have Israel. He can only go so far in this, for in getting rid of the nation state one doesn't stop at Israel, but the entire international system (and its most important actor, the United States). So, in his roundabout way Yglesias can condemn Israel to destruction without actually saying so, and he can in fact say he's pro-Israel when he's really not:

Readers will know that I’m not a big fan of nationalism and I am a big fan of trans-national projects like the European Union and the United Nations. And it’s even true that I really kind of hope that hundreds of years from now there won’t be national states at all, instead we’ll all be lumped in with the Vulcans and the Andorians in a United Federation of Planets and off we’ll go. But there’s clearly no prospects for the abolition of the nation-state in the short-term. And the Jewish people’s claim to a nation-state is just as strong as the Finnish or Dutch or Thai claim. Or, for that matter, as the Palestinian claim. By far the best way to secure a just resolution of those conflicting claims is through a two-state solution—an independent Palestine, and a democratic Jewish Israel.

As you can see, it's quite smooth to elevate Palestinian aspirations to the existentialism of Israel's future. Either way, it's about destroying the Jewish state, for folks on the left simply don't stop with the "two-state" solution: In the end, they always demand the "right of return," and that of course is the direct path to Jewish annihiliation. The slow path is Ackerman's demographic time bomb of legitimizing a multicultural Israeli state that ultimately becomes non-Jewish. Yglesias is silent on this eventuality, but Ackerman's lobbying for it, demonically - and remember, Ackerman's one who peppers his commentaries with Arabic prayers for jihadi success: insh'allah (God willing).

But let's not forget Robert "Moral Abomination" Farley. He too wants his cake and to eat it too, claiming to be pro-Israel while also condeming the establishment of the Jewish state as "brutal, murderous work," just like the founding of the United States and the European democracies. You see, there's nothing special (that'd be American exceptionalism) about the United States for Farley (and Yglesias and Ackerman, for that matter). He'll condemn the U.S. and the whole lot of great power national states, and let them perish. That'll clear the way for the heavenly neo-communist utopia that's the real end stage of history for these pro-Palestinian airheads.

It's pretty convoluted, but not hard actually, once you figure out where these fools are coming from.

See also, Michael Goldfarb (a near-somebody who went ahead and attended J Street after all), "The Space Between Pro-Israel and Anti-Israel."

More at Mememorandum.

Hoffman, Palin at Center of GOP Future

It's not a big deal for anyone who's been toiling away all year in the trenches of conservative activism. But for the press, the ideological insurgency against the Republican Party in New York's 23 congressional district is political apostasy.

Here's a look at the headlines:

* Chris Cillizza, "NY-23 as 2012 Litmus Test?"

* The New York Times, "Right Battles G.O.P. in a Pivotal Race in New York."

* The Politico, "Gingrich: NY-23 'Purge' 'Guarantees Obama's Reelection'." (Via.)

* The Washington Post, "Ideology Trumps Party for Palin."

But Janet Hook's piece at the Los Angeles Times really captures how different establishment thinking is from conservatives on the ground and in the know, "New York Race at Epicenter of a GOP Mutiny":

Silvan Johnson adores Sarah Palin, belongs to a conservative discussion group and fumes at President Obama's spending policies. But when it comes to picking a new congressional representative for her upstate New York district, she is in no mood to help the Republican Party.

In fact, Johnson and many other conservatives want to use a Nov. 3 special election to teach the GOP a lesson about sticking to conservative values -- even though that lesson could mean the party loses a House seat it has held for decades. The conservatives are backing a third-party candidate, splitting the Republican vote and giving the Democrat a lead in some recent opinion polls.

"Both parties seem to be more for big government," said Johnson, a probation clerk in Fulton, N.Y. "The Republicans need to learn that the people they are running [for office] do not represent the views of the people."

The conservative rebellion in northern New York is showing that the anger among disaffected voters, which became prominent this summer during the "tea party" anti-spending rally in Washington and at town hall meetings on healthcare, has become a baffling political force that even Republicans are having a hard time harnessing.

The fight on the right has also made this district the epicenter of a national debate about the future of the Republican Party -- leaving party leaders to ask whether they are better off emphasizing the GOP's small-government and socially conservative values, or trying to broaden their appeal to reach independent and moderate voters.

That part about a "third-party candidiacy" is factually correct, but it misses so much of the reality at issue. Dede Scozzafava's RINO. Virtually the entire modern conservative establishment - including top personalities in the Republican Party - has backed Doug Hoffman in the race. Newt Gingrich - whoa to him - continues to berate the right-wing; but from California to New York, activists are telling the GOP where to put it.

Frankly, for conservatives, winning office in 2010 and 2012 will be less important than upholding moral values of protecting life, limiting government, and securing ethics and competence. Dede Scozzafava's the exact opposite for anyone with a brain in partisan politics today. If there's any lesson for the GOP from last year's presidential race, it's that Sarah Palin was the necessary ingredient to McCain's campaign; her addition to the ticket prevented a Democratic rout of genuine landslide proportions.

It's mindboggling today that folks like Newt Gingrich have forgotten how utterly wrenching were the Republican primaries last year. Perhaps the Democratic drama of identity politics overshadowed the shakeout on the right. But the right's ideological fissues were bright and lasting, particularly when it became clear that the Arizona Senator would be the party's standard-bearer. There's simply not going to be room in the GOP coalition for half-hearted big-government, open-borders Republicans. Someone like Olympia Snowe - who's currently enjoying fleeting power as a swing-vote Republican on health - is the last of a dying breed. It's totally inconceivable that a pro-ObamaCare, bailout-backing Republican today will have any truck with the tea-party/town hall base. Folks on the ground have seen the enemy, and he's both Blue and Red.

But check out J. Robert Smith for more on that, "A Conservative Earthquake, in New York and Beyond":

Smug GOP establishmentarians are proving again that their political seismographs are badly calibrated. The GOP has lined up behind the wrong candidate at the wrong time. Conservatives aren’t going to follow their lead, in New York or elsewhere, anytime soon. Party bosses need to get back in touch or risk hard-to-fix ruptures with conservatives in 2010 and beyond. Conservatives, great and small, are coalescing behind Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party nominee..

New York allows minor parties on election ballots, giving the establishment Republicans a false sense of security as most other states don’t make such allowances. But the old logic that conservatives will have to fall in line elsewhere or risk electing Democrats may not hold. Conservatives are playing by new rules now, and the GOP isn’t showing any signs of getting it.

And one more thing about that "third party" deal. Doug Hoffman is really the legitimate conservative in this race, and he'd be the GOP candidate had not county Republicans picked Dede. This is not a moment of third party ascendency in American politics. If Hoffman loses in New York, he'll immediately emerge as the conservative frontrunner for the 2010 primary, and activists will redouble their efforts elsewhere. RINO's are dead meat. Nationally, Sarah Palin's got the pulse of the party. Her decisionmaking's been exquisite since leaving office earlier this year, and the timing of her new book couldn't have been better. It's just a bit over 12 months until the 2010 midterms. After that, the race for the GOP nomination will begin, and then as now, folks like Doug Hoffman and Sarah Palin will be at the center of the GOP future. Establishment RINOsaurs better get with the program or face extinction.

Oy Vey! Gingrich Slams Right-Wing for 'Purge' of GOP

Somebody please tell Newt Gingrich to stop digging. From The Hill, "Gingrich Calls GOP Support for Hoffman a 'Purge'":

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) late Monday had some choice words for Republicans supporting Conservative Party party candidate Doug Hoffman (N.Y.), accusing them of conducting a "purge" of the GOP.

Many national Republican figures, such as Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) and ex-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), have backed Hoffman over GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava in the 23rd district's special election this year. The district has been long-held by Republicans, but many conservatives have shied away from Scozzafava for her socially liberal positions and the local GOP's selection process that they say was not transparent.

Gingrich broke the mold and backed Scozzafava, saying her candidacy gave the Republicans the best shot of regaining a congressional majority. The former Speaker faced a push-back from the right after his announcement but he upped the ante on Monday.

"This idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests and all across the country we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent; that guarantees Obama's reelection, that guarantees Pelosi as Speaker-for-life," he told Fox News last night.

Yeah. Right.

See Michelle Malkin's response, "Yes, Newt, the GOP Should be 'Purged' of Left-Wing Saboteurs."

Image Credit: The Blog Prof, "Song: Karl Marx - 'Dede' - Marx Endorses Dede Scozzafava!"

Islamic State of Iraq Claims Responsibility for Justice Ministry Blast: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Cheers Inside Job, Questions Baghdad Gov't Legitimacy

Rachel Maddow all but applauded the terror in her report last night on the Ministry of Justice attack in Iraq that killed nearly 160. Yet, reports from both the BBC and the Washington Post indicate that al Qaeda in Iraq affilates mounted the carnage, and neither of the reports raises questions of an inside job. See, "Al-Qaeda Group Claims Iraq Blasts," and "Extremist Group Claims Responsibility for Baghdad Bombs."

From the BBC's report:

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said the attacks showed that increased international support for the country was "vital and important".

The blasts drew comparison with an attack on 19 August, also claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq, in which truck bombs hit two ministry buildings and killed at least 100 people.

Iraq then blamed foreign fighters and accused Syria of involvement, demanding a UN investigation.

Mr Zebari said Sunday's blasts had strengthened that request for "a senior international envoy to come to Iraq and evaluate the degree of interference targeting stability in Iraq".
The US state department said it would support a United Nations investigation into "very serious allegations" of foreign involvement in Iraqi violence.

"What happened was so utterly horrific that the circumstances surrounding it need to be looked into," spokesman Ian Kelly was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.

Overall, violence has dropped dramatically in Iraq compared to a year ago, but sporadic attacks still continue in several parts of the country.

See also, Astute Bloggers, "HUGE SUICIDE ATTACK IN BAGHDAD - 150+ DEAD; 500+ WOUNDED."

Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out...

Bruce Springsteen's not one of my all-time favorites, but I've enjoyed some of his music over the years. Check out this old clip, from 1975, of the E Street Band's "Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out":

Tear drops on the city
Bad Scooter searching for his groove
Seem like the whole world walking pretty
And you can't find the room to move
Well everybody better move over, that's all
'Cause I'm running on the bad side
And I got my back to the wall
Tenth Avenue freeze-out, Tenth Avenue freeze-out...

More lyrics here.

My good friend Tony at PA Pundits International is again an inspiration for my rock-and-roll posting. See this week's Sunday night music-club entry, "Sunday Music – Reelin’ In The Years."

Also, thanks to Theo Spark for generous inclusion in his hot blog roundups.

P.S. I chose Springteen after listening this morning to a medley of piano-rockers on KSWD - The Sound 100.3 FM (Elton John, Toto, etc.). Check out the station for live Internet streaming. Great stuff!

Measuring Counterinsurgency Success

This is vital contribution to the ongoing debate on Afghanistan: See Jason Campbell, Michael E. O'Hanlon, and Jeremy Shapiro, "How to Measure the War: Judging Success and Failure in Counterinsurgency."

The authors apply comparative analytical metrics to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq war is broken down into three periods: The initial campaign to topple the Baghdad regime (marked by military victory and the subsequent rise of armed resistance); from 2004 to the end of 2006 (where Americans nearly lost Iraq to insurgency, transnational terrorism, and civil war); and 2007 to the present (a period in which security improved so much that the levels of violence in Iraq was less than that of Russia and South Africa for the same period).

Campbell, O'Hanlon, and Shapiro are not rosy-eyed optimists. The authors indicate that while the insurgency in Iraq was more deadly overall, Afghanistan begins from a much lower level of development. On many comparative indicators, the Aghans rate dead last in human developmental indices - the population is poor, largely illiterate, with little scientific and technological (human capital) infrastructure from which to build a modern state.

What's perhaps the most important section of is the discussion of public support for the Karzai government and potential support for the alternative: a return to the Taliban's theo-authoritarian regime:

Public opinion ... serves as a helpful way to transpose the various data onto local expectations, providing needed perspective even if it is notoriously difficult to poll in conflict zones. After all, it is the civilians that are the focal point of counterinsurgency missions. Recent polling sheds light on some interesting points that belie the widely perceived severity of decline in Afghanistan. When Afghans were asked what the biggest problem in their local area was, in a 2008 bbc poll, insecurity received only 14 percent of the vote, tying for the sixth most popular answer behind a host of quality-of-life concerns such as unemployment, electricity, access to potable water, roads, and health care.7 Another popular theory challenged by polling is the sense that public support for Karzai and the central government has reached dangerously low levels, creating an opening for a return of Taliban control. True, approval ratings for Karzai and the central government have declined since 2005 (from 83 percent to 52 percent for Karzai and from 80 percent to 48 percent for the central government). However, when asked who they would rather have ruling Afghanistan, the overwhelming majority (between 82 and 91 percent in annual polling since 2005) reply “Current Government,” with “Taliban” gaining the favor of only between 1 percent and 4 percent of the respondents. Additionally, public disdain for the Taliban has remained static, with between 84 and 91 percent of respondents stating they have a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of the group.8 Tactical innovations by insurgents, particularly suicide bombings that kill civilians, have not always increased the insurgents’ popularity with the larger population, even in areas where they enjoy traditional support. One can infer that while there is palpable frustration with the continued ineffectiveness of the central government, the Taliban are not viewed as a viable alternative by the vast majority of Afghanistan’s people.

The authors suggest that Americans take the long view on the mission. In the near-term, folks shouldn't expect much improvement in metrics until the end of 2010 -- and that's if the mission's been successful to that point. Patience is key, as noted:

Counterinsurgency campaigns, especially successful ones, last on average over a decade. For this reason, political leaders rightly counsel patience. But skeptical publics rightly demand interim measures that can demonstrate that progress is being made. Both points of view are legitimate, even if they are in tension. On balance, however, patience is required in Afghanistan, since the main task there is to build up institutions and Afghan government capacity — inherently difficult and slow enterprises.

Video Hat Tip: Theo Spark. (If President Obama abandons the deployment, he'll be forsaking the huge sacrifices this country has made for liberty and security in that nation so far, and he'll be damning the Afghan people to a regime of political authoritarianism they do not want.)

Dems to Cram 'Public Option' Down Throat of American Public

As far as I'm concerned, the public option was defeated last summer, when conservatives protested Democratic health policy at town hall forums around the nation. Reputable polls continue to show tepid support for a government run health plan, which is why papers like the Washington Post have published bogus polls to help the Democrats deceive the American people.

Now here's this from Breitbart, "Pelosi: Health Care 'Public Option' Needs New Name" (via Memeorandum):

A government-sponsored "public option" for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different moniker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.
In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as "the consumer option." Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi's side and used the term "competitive option."

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.

"You'll hear everyone say, 'There's got to be a better name for this,'" Pelosi said. "When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars."

Pelosi said that was a misconception and that any taxpayer money used to start up the public option would be repaid. She also said such an option would ultimately drive down government health care costs.

The speaker said the "competitive option" idea emerged during her closed-door roundtable at the Sunrise Senior Center with advocates of seniors and others who work with older populations. Wasserman Schultz suggested the term might be here to stay.

Right. A competitive option? These idiots got nothing!

See also, Verum Serum, "Public Option Marketing by Dems Finally Jumps the Shark." Plus, from William Jacobson, "Harry Reid: 'I Have Nothing to Announce, So Pay Attention'."

RELATED: The Wall Street Journal, "Senate on Verge of Health Bill."

Gingrich Doubles-Down Support for RINO Scozzafava: Attacks Conservatives as Hoffman Surges in NY-23

I thought Newt Gingrich was one of the sharpest analysts in contemporary politics? He's not looking too bright right now, and in fact, he's downright stupid if he's now seriously contemplating entry into the race for the 2012 GOP nomination.

Last week the former House Speaker came out in favor of electing RINO Dede Scozzafava to Congress from New York's 23rd congressional district. And now Gingrich is stepping up his attacks on the grassroots/tea party base, and amazingly, this is just as public support is putting Hoffman on top in the polls.

From the Politico, "Newt Gingrich: Doug Hoffman Support a 'Mistake'":

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is warning conservative activists that their support for a third-party candidate in a key upcoming New York special election is a “mistake.”

In a video captured last week and posted on YouTube Friday, Gingrich told tea party organizer Lisa Miller at a book-signing event that conservatives are inadvertently hindering the cause by backing Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman over Dede Scozzafava, the Republican Party’s nominee.

“I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea,” Gingrich said. “If we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us.”

A number of top national conservative voices have endorsed Hoffman in the last week, while others have yet to weigh in on behalf of either candidate. Gingrich, however, is one of the few prominent conservatives to support Scozzafava.

Asked why he chose to back Scozzafava, who supports abortion rights, same sex marriage and has ties with local labor leaders, Gingrich responded, “Let’s just start with she is the nominee of the local party. My bias is to be for the nominee of the local party, and I don’t second guess the local party.”

His bias is obviously toward radical lefist ideological carpetbaggers.

More later ...

Momentum's With Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd Congressional

From the Club for Growth, "Hoffman Surges Into Lead in NY-23"(via Memeorandum):

A poll released today by the Club for Growth shows Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging into the lead in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district to replace John McHugh, the former congressman who recently became Secretary of the Army.

The poll of 300 likely voters, conducted October 24-25, 2009, shows Conservative Doug Hoffman at 31.3%, Democrat Bill Owens at 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava at 19.7%, and 22% undecided. The poll's margin of error is +/- 5.66%. No information was provided about any of the candidates prior to the ballot question.

This is the third poll done for the Club for Growth in the NY-23 special election, and Doug Hoffman is the only candidate to show an increase in his support levels in each successive poll. The momentum in the race is clearly with Hoffman.

Notice the absence of push-polling methods.

The findings match up with my comments at my previous post, on the dynamism of the conservative movement, "Gallup Poll: Conservatism is Top Ideology; Meanwhile, From Newsweek: Right-Wing Has 'Overstayed' its Welcome."

Gallup Poll: Conservatism is Top Ideology; Meanwhile, From Newsweek: Right-Wing Has 'Overstayed' its Welcome

Gallup reports that conservative ideology is backed by a large plurality of Americans, "Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group":

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

Compare that to Newsweek editor Jon Meacham's discussion of current partisan trends, "The Great American Ideological Crackup" (via Memeorandum):

Shortly after the 2004 presidential election, I was chatting with a senior figure in the Democratic Party when, inevitably, the talk turned to why John Kerry had lost. My interlocutor's theory of the case: the voters did not know the truth about George W. Bush. Why didn't they know the truth? I asked. The reply: because of Roger Ailes.

On hearing that a particularly dopey man we both knew had gone to rehab for drinking, a friend of mine once sent me an e-mail that said: "You know, that's an awful lot to blame on alcohol." To adapt the image, the 2004 victory is an awful lot to credit Ailes with. The head of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel, Ailes (whom I know) is a talented and influential man. He rose from The Mike Douglas Show to become a maker of presidents, from Nixon to Bush 41, and his channel is a big player in our politics. But if he and Fox News were as omnipotent as Democrats fear, John McCain and Sarah Palin would be in the White House.

Still, to many liberals, Murdoch and Ailes are the scary Wild Things of the last decade or so in American politics, the men on whom many of the evils of the world can be blamed ....

The whole thing feels like the last war, or a song that has not worn well, or a guest who has overstayed his welcome. The White House–vs.–Fox News mini-saga belongs to an era that effectively ended last fall, when President Bush radically enlarged the role of the federal government in the economy and Obama won the presidency. It was clear then, and is even clearer now, that the issues which long defined the right-left divide (hawkishness abroad, a limited role for government at home) are in spectacular disarray.

It's mindboggling, really, this elite media-bubble that envelops folks like Jon Meacham.

Forty percent of Americans identify with conservatism, we've had nearly a year of grassroots conservative and libertarian protests against the excessive government of both parties, and the most dynamic political movement in the country right now is the conservative's grassroots election campaign in New York's 23 congressional district.

That's what should be on the cover of this week's Newsweek, not Anna Quindlen's lame paean to President Obama's first year in office, "Hope Springs Eternal."

I'm doubling-down on my prediction that Obama's a one-term president. The left just doesn't get it: Democrats won no mandate to reengineer society in 2008. Folks want competence and good goverment, and instead they've been hoodwinked by a dopey-changey ideological Pied Piper of socialist nihilism.

It's almost unbelievable, but a real ideological crackup's coming ... conservatives just need to keep the pressure on.

SEIU Joins People's 'Direct Action' Group in Chicago Bank Protests

From the SEIU blog, "VIDEO: You Weren't on the Guest List":

SEIU is astroturfing with the National People's Action campaign, a communist front group:

National People's Action exists as a network to create a society in which racial and economic justice are realized in all aspects of society, resulting in more equity in work, housing, health, education, finance, and other systems central to our well-being.

The following beliefs were developed by our community leaders. Our beliefs are the building blocks for our big ideas and what we believe as a network:

• Every person has innate dignity, beauty, and worth, and thus is entitled to basic human rights;
• All people, regardless of race, class, gender, sexual orientation and national origin must be ensured a high quality of life;
• Society should be organized on the basis of mutual responsibility, cooperation, and community self-determination achieved through political and economic democracy.

Our big ideas – based on our beliefs – are those policies that we fight for as a network.
We will fight for policies that:

• Take back our power to use the government as our tool to promote the common good, correct the injustices of the past, and redistribute resources equitably and sustainably.
• Democratize the market to put people above profits.
• Enforce fundamental human rights standards that prevent exploitation of people and the environment.
• Take action to ensure racial, gender, economic, and immigrant justice in all social and economic systems.

And from the SEIU protest page, here's the list of affiliated organizations:

We are the members of:

Action Now

AFL-CIO

Albany Park Neighborhood Council

Americans for Financial Reform

ARISE Chicago

Brighton Park Neighborhood Council

Change To Win

Chicago Coalition of the Homeless

Citizen Action

Grassroots Collaborative

Housing Action Illinois

Illinois Alliance for Retired Americans

Illinois Hunger Coalition

Jane Addams Senior Caucus

Jobs with Justice

Northside Action and Justice

Northside POWER

National People's Action

SEIU Illinois State Council

SOUL

UE

Workers United

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin pandered to the activists at the bankers conference, calling for more regulations, wouldn't you know. See, the Chicago Tribune, "Durbin Calls for Bailed-Out Banks to Help on Foreclosures: Banker Association Meeting Greeted by Protests Here."

RELATED: This is where its heading. From thee New York Times, "Trying to Rein In ‘Too Big to Fail’ Institutions" (via Memeorandum):

Congress and the Obama administration are about to take up one of the most fundamental issues stemming from the near collapse of the financial system last year — how to deal with institutions that are so big that the government has no choice but to rescue them when they get in trouble.

A senior administration official said on Sunday that after extensive consultations with Treasury Department officials, Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, would introduce legislation as early as this week. The measure would make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution.

Preserving the American Nuclear Deterrent

As a candidate, President Obama repeatedly announced his intentions to pursue a "nuclear free world." In October 2007, Obama pledged a reduction of stockpiles of fissile material, with the ultimate goal of ridding the world of nuclear arms. In July 2008, at his speech in Berlin, Obama called to "renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons." And in April this year, Obama told a crowd in Prague that "his administration would 'reduce the role of nuclear weapons” in its national security strategy."

These announcements are striking in the context of the history of American strategic policy. And as Keir Lieber and Daryl Press argue in their new article at Foreign Affairs, the nuclear peace of the last 60 years has perhaps dulled the sense of urgency that ought normally reside in discussions of high nuclear politics. Should the administration carry out its repeated pledges to make dramatic unilateral cuts in U.S. stockpiles, our country's national security might well face new extreme dangers.

Here's a passage from Lieber and Press', "The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent":

The central problem for U.S. deterrence in the future is that even rational adversaries will have powerful incentives to introduce nuclear weapons -- that is, threaten to use them, put them on alert, test them, or even use them -- during a conventional war against the United States. If U.S. military forces begin to prevail on the battlefield, U.S. adversaries may use nuclear threats to compel a cease-fire or deny the United States access to allied military bases. Such threats might succeed in pressuring the United States to settle the conflict short of a decisive victory.

Such escalatory strategies are rational. Losing a conventional war to the United States would be a disastrous outcome for any leader, and it would be worth taking great risks to force a cease-fire and avert total defeat. The fate of recent U.S. adversaries is revealing. The ex-dictator of Panama, Manuel Noriega, remains in a Miami prison. The former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, awaits trial in The Hague, where Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic died in detention three years ago. Saddam Hussein's punishment for losing the 2003 war was total: his government was toppled, his sons were killed, and he was hanged on a dimly lit gallows, surrounded by enemies. Even those leaders who have eluded the United States -- such as the Somali warlord Muhammad Farah Aidid and Osama bin Laden -- have done so despite intense U.S. efforts to capture or kill them. The United States' overseas conflicts are limited wars only from the U.S. perspective; to adversaries, they are existential. It should not be surprising if they use every weapon at their disposal to stave off total defeat.

Coercive nuclear escalation may sound like a far-fetched strategy, but it was NATO's policy during much of the Cold War. The Western allies felt that they were hopelessly outgunned in Europe at the conventional level by the Warsaw Pact. Even though NATO harbored little hope of prevailing in a nuclear war, it planned to initiate a series of escalating nuclear operations at the outbreak of war -- alerts, tactical nuclear strikes, and wider nuclear attacks -- to force the Soviets to accept a cease-fire. The United States' future adversaries face the same basic problem today: vast conventional military inferiority. They may adopt the same solution. Leaders in Beijing may choose gradual, coercive escalation if they face imminent military defeat in the Taiwan Strait -- a loss that could weaken the Chinese Communist Party's grip on power. And if U.S. military forces were advancing toward Pyongyang, there is no reason to expect that North Korean leaders would keep their nuclear weapons on the sidelines.

Layered on top of these challenges are two additional ones. First, U.S. conventional military doctrine is inherently escalatory. The new American way of war involves launching simultaneous air and ground attacks throughout the theater to blind, confuse, and overwhelm the enemy. Even if the United States decided to leave the adversary's leaders in power (stopping short of regime change so as to prevent the confrontation from escalating), how would Washington credibly convey the assurance that it was not seeking regime change once its adversary was blinded by attacks on its radar and communication systems and command bunkers? A central strategic puzzle of modern war is that the tactics best suited to dominating the conventional battlefield are the same ones most likely to trigger nuclear escalation.

Furthermore, managing complex military operations to prevent escalation is always difficult. In 1991, in the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, that the United States would leave Saddam's regime in power as long as Iraq did not use its chemical or biological weapons. But despite Baker's assurance, the U.S. military unleashed a major bombing campaign targeting Iraq's leaders, which on at least one occasion nearly killed Saddam. The political intent to control escalation was not reflected in the military operations, which nearly achieved a regime change.

In future confrontations with nuclear-armed adversaries, the United States will undoubtedly want to prevent nuclear escalation. But the leaders of U.S. adversaries will face life-and-death incentives to use their nuclear arsenals to force a cease-fire and remain in power.

The authors go on to outline the advanced technological basis for maintaining a robust "counter-target" nuclear deterrence policy. Lieber and Press speak of the "grim logic" of rational decision-making, and they anticipate criticisms from those who'd claim that their war-gaming scenarios are "macabre." But as they note:

Deterrence depends on the capacity to carry out threats. Retaining that capacity is not a sign that the United States has moved beyond deterrence to a war-fighting posture for its nuclear arsenal; rather, the capacity to execute threats is the very foundation of deterrence.

It's not a mystery as to why this administration is so intent on dismantling the strategic security apparatus that's kept great power peace since the end of World War II. This president sees the United States as the greatest threat to internatioanal order - that's why he's toured the world making apologies for American policies and power projection, and that's why he won the Nobel Peace Prize. But hopey-changey platitudes of world peace are essentially exogenous to the logic of military-strategic rationality. Ignoring these facts will make war more likely, not less, with an even greater risk of catastrophic loss of life.

**********

UPDATE: See also Common Sense Political Thought, "Foreign Policy 101: Do We Really Want to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?"

Afghan Insurgency More Dangerous Than Ever: Obama Leaves McChrystal Hanging

Is Newshoggers cheering American deaths again? It's always the U.S. they decry, not stuff like this below:

EXTREME CONTENT WARNING!!

See also, "Afghan Insurgency Given New Life by Their Enemies":

Afghans do want governance – they want good governance. But they have been ripped off every time it's been within their grasp. And the worst rip-off has been in the last eight years, because democracy and good governance were the gifts offered by the West – by governments that supposedly knew about these things.

You have to want freedom and good government, and so far a lot of blood and treasure been expended on the promise of the first amid a shortage of the second.

And since President Barack Obama doesn't not care about the mission - and since he has anti-Americans defeatists like Jodie Evans at his side - it's no wonder idiots like the Newshoggers can spew their fecal matter with considerable hopes of having the desired effect.

And frankly, combined, this is why my good friend Pamela says forget it - let's bring the troops home.

Via Memeorandum.

'We Need to Take 'Em Down' - ANSWER/PSL: Stop the War at Home and Abroad!

On Saturday afternoon, October 24th, I attended the Long Beach Public Forum on Afghanistan, "STOP THE WAR AT HOME AND ABROAD," sponsored by L.A.'s Party for Socialism and Liberation. The party's website is here. The event took place at one of the coolest coffeehouse's ever, the Library Coffeehouse, at Broadway and Redondo, in downtown Long Beach.

Here's the sidewalk scene as I arrived. Inside, the walls are lined with old bookshelves, and customers were working with laptops at tables and lounging in comfortable chairs. Definitely a happening local hangout:

Apparently, activists already toured the neighborhood to plaster party stickers on the local communications hardware. I actually forgot my cellphone. I used this payphone - the first time I've used one in years - to call home and check in on my family before the event started:

Back out front, one of the event organizers, Douglas Kauffman, was handing out flyers for the event. That's him pictured below. He was standing with another young fellow, Comrade Javiar, who refused to have his picture taken. Even Kaufman was hesitant, but I'd introduced myself and given him my business card, so he said okay:

I ordered a latte and hung out for a couple of minutes. The group met in a small side room at the coffeehouse. The setting was intimate. I didn't take any more pictures until after the event. I snapped this just as things were concluding. Here's the table organizers set up with flyers and copies of Liberation, the PSL news organ.

At the upper left is Richard Becker's Palestine, Israel and the U.S. Empire. I'm about halfway through the volume, and I'll most likely will be writing a review and analysis when I'm done (big problems in that book, but more on that later). I picked up a copy of Liberation, on the left, with the cover story about the Wall Street bailout. Inside, the November 6th edition features a piece on the war, "Occupation Intensifies, Afghan Resistance Grows Stronger":

As the civlian death toll rises and reports come back of troops dying in a war that cannot be won, public opinion in the United States is starting to turn. What is needed is for the people to once again take to the streets to demand an end to the occupation. Once free from foreign occupation, the people of Afghanistan will be able to determine their destiny.

Notice also the upcoming event flyers at right. The PSL has made a big deal previously about its upcoming socialism conference. But notice the new Students Fight Back flyer at top right. Students Fight Back is ANSWER's campus front group. I discussed the organization yesterday. See, "'Mobilizing Conference' for Public Schools Revives '60s-Era Campus Radicalism." Organizers have an event planned for November 17th at the CSU Chancellor's office in downtown Long Beach, along the waterway. The flyer's small print reads, "The CSU Trustees don't care about students, faculty or campus workers. They have pushed the state budget crisis onto our backs." The flyer also calls for "mass demonstrations," clearly in line with what I reported yesterday: Activists statewide have situated the campus mobilizations within the dialectical language of international solidarity and revolutionary struggle.

Douglas Kauffman spoke first during the presentations. He's a key organizer for the CSU protest on November 17th. It turns out that the big line coming from ANSWER and Students Fight Back is that the wars abroad have cut into education budgets at home (no mention of the fact that state revenues pay for the bulk of public school programs in California). Kauffman in particular spoke of how the "war economy" had created an "economic draft," analogous the federal government's Vietnam-era draft. "Capitalism has made it that poor and minorities are targeted first," argued Kauffman. "Those impressed into military service face worse economic circumstances after they return home from war." Kauffman spoke for some time, mouthing boilerplate communist talking points, and concluding with, "We will fight to destroy the imperial war machine - troops out of Afghanistan now!"

Next up was "Comrade Javiar." I got a kick out of the emcee's introduction, since this was my first actual party meeting where cadres referred to each other as "comrade." It's almost a blast from out of time: All that was missing were the berets and bandoliers. That said, Comrade Javiar was sporting a "Viva La Palestine" t-shirt, which featured images of radical militants above the slogan, "Which side are you on?"

Comrade Javiar denounced alleged American imperialism in Afghanistan. Sounding as though he'd read some key Leninist tracts, he exclaimed, "Imperialism is a system that exists for war." Comrade Javiar continued, saying that America's colonial occupation was doomed. Resistance movements had achieved independence in countries like China, Korea, Vietnam, and Mozambique. "Imperialism can be defeated," he claimed. Comrade Javiar then reminded the audience that "ANSWER was the only group that mobilized against the invasion of Aghanistan in 2001." He was quite proud of this, and was convinced that resistance and struggle would ultimately defeat the American regime.

Interestingly, when the emcee opened up the floor for questions, one woman who was sitting to the back of the room with her daughter spoke up and denounced the Obama administration. She said that President Obama is a "puppet" controlled by the powerful corporate interests who run the country. "We need to take em' out," she said, speaking of the government in Washington, and referring to hopes for the proletarian victory over the ruling class. Here's the picture of the woman. I waited until folks were moving outside to try to get a couple of more photographs:

Comrade Javiar was in wild agreement with the "We need to take 'em down" comments, although seeming a bit paranoid, he couched his direct calls for toppling the Obama regime in the vague language of "change." Ironic that Obama himself has branded himself as the agent of change. Comrade Javiar should just come out and say his wants to decapitate the "criminal" Obama administration. He had already denounced the current administration for backtracking on pledges to withraw the troops, and Comrade Javiar made the point that in fact Obama had "escalated" the "occupation."

Comrade Javiar was accompanied by a former student of mine from Long Beach City College. I said hello to Shondriane Wise after the event was over. She as pleased to see me and happy I'd recognized her, but she also refused to be photographed. She said she hadn't yet joined the Party for Socialism and Liberation, but she did end up leaving with Comrade Javiar; so it's most likely that she's long been indoctrinated to Marxist-Leninist basics by now. I snapped this shot of the couple as they were leaving. Comrade Javiar turned back to look just in time:

Is it just me, but isn't there something fundamentally inauthentic for our revolutionary to be hopping into a late-model Volkswagon convertible?

No ascetism for today's revolutinary communist party cadres, I guess?

Radical Left Launches Feminist Feeding Frenzy on Obama's 'Guy Thing'

It's never ending with the mind-numbingly politically-correct quota-crushing radical left-wing feminist establishment. From the New York Times, "Man’s World at White House? No Harm, No Foul, Aides Say":

Does the White House feel like a frat house?

The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.

The president, after all, is an unabashed First Guy’s Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a “big rambunctious dog” over a “girlie dog” and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.

He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other “dude” and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

While the senior adviser Valerie Jarrett is undeniably one of the president’s closest White House confidantes, some women inside or close to the administration complain that Mr. Obama’s female advisers are not as visible as their male colleagues or, they suspect, as influential.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton administration whose sister, Betsy, served as the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer.

I think the Times overstates Obama's manliness. Perhaps if he'd only apply a little more of that testosterone to our enemies ...

In any case, the "guy thing" backlash on the left is no surprise. These are Democrats. That's what they do.