I wrote on this previously, "Cartoonist Ted Rall Calls for ‘Proletarian Dictatorship’ in the U.S."
Two decades ago, the Soviet empire and its ideological engine, communism, simultaneously died. Thus ended the Cold War, with unexpected suddenness. Looking forward at the time, many observers foresaw a placid future with few challenges to approximate the hot and cold wars that had so scarred the twentieth century. Peace and prosperity were predicted. In fact, peace did not break out. The last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century were full of challenges and surprises, including several long and debilitating wars that are not yet over.More at the link.As the post-Cold War world unfolded, Foreign Affairs addressed some of the discernible changes just getting under way. It was an early witness to the rise of Asia, the growth of globalization, and the emergence of economics and environmental issues as primary concerns in international relations. One essay, published in 1993, sounded a much-noted alert that conflict would still be a central concern. It was Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" which predicted that the fundamental source of conflict would be not ideological or economic but cultural, consisting of clashes "between nations and groups of different civilizations."
Today, unlike 20 years ago, there is widespread recognition of a long list of simmering conflicts, unsettling trends, and mounting global problems. Mindful that the unexpected is always lurking in the future, the contributors to this special issue of Foreign Affairs address a broad range of challenges that are likely to arise in the world ahead. In general, the subjects break down into three categories: the changing balance of power among states and peoples, the urgency of planetary issues, and the role of the United States.
Here are a few of the notes struck by our authors:
- The return of Asia to the world stage will define the era.
- The chasm between the United States and China could widen as their differing interests become more pronounced.
- Emerging powers, even democratic ones, will have separate agendas, making international integration more difficult.
- Cooperative approaches to an array of global issues, such as climate change, will be difficult to accomplish.
- Nonstate actors, ranging from unofficial governing entities to terrorist organizations, will grow, particularly in weak states.
- The United States' influence, diminished by the rise of other states and nonstate actors, will be fatally undercut if the country does not curb its unsustainable reliance on debt.
- Avoiding famine will depend on a vast expansion of Africa's lagging agricultural productivity.
- The resurgence of all the major religions will be marked by post-Western versions of Christianity and a return of religious practice to secular Europe.
- Half the world will experience "fertility implosions," thus leading to shortages of working-age populations, with only sub-Saharan Africa producing a surplus of working-age men.
- The technology revolution, epitomized by the Internet, will empower both people yearning for democracy and repressive tyrants.
- The United States will remain the primary source of clean-energy innovation.
- Those states that best educate their citizens will win the economic competition.
On paper, the numbers tell you the Democrats held on to a majority in the Senate last week.I discussed the situation in the Senate in classes yesterday, but I hadn't thought of the high number of Dems running for reelection in 2012. McConnell's a smart cookie.
In reality, things won't be quite that neat. In fact, on some issues the Republicans actually may have a functional majority, given the sentiments likely to prevail among certain Democrats who face the voters in two years.
Here's the situation. After last week's midterm election, the Senate next year will have 51 Democrats, two independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 47 Republicans. (The Republican from Alaska could be either Joe Miller, the tea-party candidate who was the official GOP nominee, or write-in incumbent Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski. It appears Ms. Murkowski got enough votes to stick around, but all her write-in votes haven't been counted yet.)
So, in theory, that means Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, having survived his own election-day near-death experience, should be able to muster 53 votes if he keeps his troops in line.
But life is never that simple in the Senate and certainly won't be now. Among the Senate Democrats, 23 will face re-election in just two years, and, having just witnessed the drubbing some in their party took at the polls, they likely will be even less willing now to toe the party line. Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who caucuses with Democrats, often leans rightward, anyway.
More important, among those 23 Democrats who face voters in 2012 are a handful of incumbents from the kind of moderate to conservative states where Democrats took a beating last week: Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Jon Tester of Montana, Jim Webb of Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Joe Manchin, who just won a Senate race in West Virginia by separating himself from President Barack Obama and his party's congressional leaders, also faces voters again in two years because he was elected only to fill out an unexpired term.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, looks at this field and thinks he may see some votes for his side. He points in particular to his desire to roll back parts of this year's big health bill.
"There are 23 Democrats up in 2012 and only nine Republicans," he said in an interview. "I think there is a widespread belief on the other side of the aisle that [the health bill] was a huge mistake. There could be, who knows, a growing number of Democrats who think that was the wrong thing to do."
WASHINGTON — Turning their attention to the 2012 presidential election, Republican leaders are digging in for a battle over control of the Republican National Committee, judging that its role in fund-raising, get-out-the-vote operations and other tasks will be critical to the effort to topple President Obama.
Some senior party officials are maneuvering to put pressure on Michael Steele, the controversial party chairman, not to seek re-election when his term ends in January or, failing that, to encourage a challenger to step forward to take him on.
So far, the effort has been tentative, with Mr. Steele’s most ardent opponents working behind the scenes to persuade an alternative to run against him — fearful that any overt moves will create a backlash in Mr. Steele’s favor among those committee members who tend to view the establishment in Washington with suspicion.
One man leading the effort is a Mississippi Republican Party committeeman, Henry Barbour, who is a nephew of Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi — a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, himself. Governor Barbour is said by people involved in the discussions to be among those eager to see a change at the top the party and recently criticized party fund-raising under Mr. Steele.
Officials close to the presumed new House speaker, Representative John A. Boehner, and the Senate minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said that both men would prefer a new chairman, as well, but that they were also resigned to Mr. Steele’s continued leadership should no clear alternative emerge to defeat him.
In an interview Tuesday night, Henry Barbour said, “I like Mike Steele and I’ve worked hard to support him as chairman.” But, he added, “I do think we have to make a change and I have actively talked to some other members in the last week or so and encouraged a few of them to consider running.”
Among those Mr. Barbour has approached is a member of Mr. Steele’s “kitchen cabinet” of advisers, Reince Priebus, who is chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin and who helped manage Mr. Steele’s first election for the chairmanship two years ago.
Several officials involved in the discussions, all of whom requested anonymity to share details of the talks, said Mr. Priebus had recently warned Mr. Steele that a run for re-election could prove difficult this time around, and advised him to consider leaving the chairmanship at time when he could point to big Republican gains nationwide.
But Mr. Priebus has made it clear that he is personally uncomfortable with the idea of challenging Mr. Steele directly for the post, given their friendship.
The effort to woo Mr. Priebus was first reported Tuesday on the Web site of The Washington Post.
When Tony Blair released his memoir earlier this year, a facebook page was created calling for critics of the former prime minister to "Subversively move Tony Blair's memoirs to the crime section in book shops."At last count, the Facebook group had more than 14,000 members. The effort was a way for Blair's critics to protest his role in the war in Iraq. "Make bookshops think twice about where they categorise our generations greatest war criminal," the page says.
Now critics of President George W. Bush are trying to replicate the protest with a Facebook group tied to the release of the former president's memoir "Decision Points" tomorrow. The page has more than 1,000 members so far. "They did this to Tony Blair's book and I think we should do the same here," it says.
Left-leaning websites are promoting the idea and calling on people to post pictures of their efforts online.
Mr. Bush plans to sign copies of the book tomorrow in Dallas, and critics are vowing to protest the event, complaining on a protest-organizing Facebook page that "his unapologetic attitude" about the war in Iraq "is unacceptable."
Yeah, and Code Pink commie Jodie Evans is on the case, "Move W.'s Decision Points to the Crime Section."
This is going to be quite a week for Bush Derangement. See, "This Bid to Rehabilitate Bush Must Be Defeated: He Left a Trail of Destruction."
And Bare Naked Islam, "INDONESIA: Radical Muslim Group to Protest Obama Visit."
Discussing the Iraq surge strategy in 2006, former President George W. Bush notes that during his presidency he read 14 biographies of Abraham Lincoln. The cause of his preoccupation with Lincoln is obvious: The Bush presidency will be remembered as a war presidency. First in Afghanistan after 9/11 and then from 2003 onward in Iraq. The rest will be footnotes.And an interview with Kim Strassel, "Bush Agonistes? Not Quite."
Two years ago he left office with two wars raging and an economy in free fall, an embattled commander in chief with the lowest approval ratings of any modern president. Now Mr. Bush is offering himself up as a chatty president emeritus, sometimes defiant and other times cheerful, on a media blitz to promote his memoir, “Decision Points.”
It was a fascinating, at times disarming, performance, but also a confusing one: a plea for understanding from a president who says he doesn’t give a fig about popularity. At one point, Mr. Bush boasted that when an acquaintance told him his approval ratings were up, he retorted, “Who cares?”
In the hourlong NBC News special, Mr. Bush talked about himself with the blend of candor and self-serving boilerplate that almost all book-promoting celebrities master on a publicity tour.
Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said Monday that he would try to hold on to that position when his party slips into the minority next year as the leadership of House Democrats remained in turmoil one week after devastating election losses.More here.
The decision by Mr. Hoyer, who has served as majority leader the past four years, sets up a possible fight with Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, currently the No. 3 Democrat, who said on Monday that he was still pursuing the No. 2 position as well.
At the same time, some Democrats continued to publicly question the decision of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to try to remain as party leader in the new Congress though no lawmaker has stepped forward to challenge her. Both parties are to hold internal elections next week when Congress returns for a lame-duck session.
In a letter to his colleagues, Mr. Hoyer, who spent the weekend canvassing his fellow Democrats as he explored a run for minority whip, said he could provide the experience necessary to help Democrats try to recapture the House in 2012.
“As Democratic whip, I will hit the ground running, delivering our message across the country, speaking out on the House floor against efforts to undermine the health and security of the middle class, building support for our party among all Americans and fighting the special interest money that overwhelmed many of our colleagues,” he wrote.
Mr. Clyburn and Mr. Hoyer met Monday, but aides would not divulge any details about their talks. Mr. Hoyer leads in public endorsements.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told an international group of parliamentarians in Ottawa to discuss anti-Semitism that he will continue to be a vocal supporter of Israel even if it costs Canada international honours like a seat on the UN Security Council.RTWT. (And check the link above for video of Prime Minister Harper.)
The conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combatting Anti-Semitism – a gathering of politicians from more than 40 countries – is largely aimed at exposing what its members say is the “new anti-Semitism,” which is defined as excessive and unjust criticism of the state of Israel.
While the substance of anti-Semitism is as crude as ever, Mr. Harper said, its method is now more sophisticated.
“Harnessing disparate anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Western ideologies, it targets the Jewish people by targetting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so,” the Prime Minister said. “We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is.”
That prompted loud applause from conference participants.
“Israel, like any country, may be subjected to fair criticism,” Mr. Harper said, pointing out that Israel subjects itself to such criticism as part of a healthy democratic debate.
“But when Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand,” he said.
A favourite theme of American business and political elites at the moment is that authoritarian regimes – i.e. China – may be better at making hard, long-term economic decisions than are querulous democracies – i.e. the United States. There is plenty of academic research to suggest that, over the long term, this view is wrong. But in the shorter term, this week in fact, the U.S. itself offered a case study of this scary theory.More at the link.
Consider: On Tuesday, Americans swung sharply to the right, giving their Democratic President a shellacking and handing control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans. The country’s most powerful elected Republican, John Boehner, who will be the new Speaker, immediately declared it was a vote for “cutting spending” and “smaller, less costly government.” Most analysts, including happy ones on Wall Street (who are often most cheerful when the country’s elected officials are least active), decided it was a vote for gridlock, thanks to the Democrats’ continued control of both the Senate and the White House.
Then, on Wednesday, the most powerful unelected Republican, Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, swooped in with massive government action, announcing a plan to pump $600-billion (U.S.) into the economy over the next two years. That is not much smaller than two of the big government interventions that earned the Democrats their shellacking – the $700-billion TARP program (never mind the pesky fact that it was actually a Republican Secretary of the Treasury who invented it) and the $787-billion stimulus.
The timing of the Fed’s move underlined one of the most important takeaways from the midterm election campaign. Watch cable news or surf the Web and you are likely to conclude that the United States is a deeply divided nation, split between fiercely partisan hardliners on the left and on the right. That’s one version of the political battle. But another one is that the division isn’t between liberals and conservatives, it’s between the hoi polloi and the elite.
The split between the mandarins and the public explains how you get a popular vote for government inaction the day before the bipartisan, Republican-led technocrats at the Fed, with only one dissenting vote, endorse massive government intervention. The economic battle today isn’t just between the Republicans and the Democrats, it is between the technocrats and the populists – and in the latter contest, the Bush-nominee who runs the Fed probably has more in common with the beaten-up Democratic President than he does with the victorious leaders of his own party.
No weekly magazine tracked by the Media Industry Newsletter has lost more pages of advertising this year than The Nation.More at the link.
As of Nov. 8, ad pages were down 30 percent compared with last year’s figures, remarkable even though advertising accounts for only a 10th of the revenue. Traffic to TheNation.com has also declined recently. And since 2008, the magazine has run an operating deficit of about $500,000 a year.
Despite all the gloom, could last week’s Democratic pummeling actually have a silver lining for The Nation, once home to writers like Henry James, Ezra Pound, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and even Yeats? Katrina vanden Heuvel, the magazine’s editor and publisher, did not have to think long about that question.
“If you can’t expose the hypocrisy of this new group of Republicans, then we’re not doing our job. And I mean that,” she said in an interview from her office on election night as she sipped a glass of Champagne, defiant as Democratic losses piled up and the mood around her darkened.
“I mean you’ve got a lot to work with,” she said. “You’ve got a Tea Party caucus in the Senate, a Tea Party caucus in the House. So I think you have a lot of rich material.”
If history is any guide, Ms. vanden Heuvel could be proved right.
The Bush years were good — very good — to The Nation. After operating in the red almost every year since it was founded by abolitionists in 1865, the magazine turned a profit in 2003.
He calls Islam a "totalitarian ideology." He compares the Koran to "Mein Kampf" and wants it banned. He says that millions of Muslims who have settled in Europe ought to be deported, taking their "retarded" culture with them.Notice the phony tie-in: Protesters in New York are the new Nazis, and the bloody freaking Westboro pastor in Florida is the poster-boy for alleged American racist hatred.
Such statements have made Geert Wilders the most controversial politician here in the Netherlands and a provocative figure abroad.
But do they also make him a criminal?
For months, Wilders, 47, has been at the center of a messy legal fight that has forced the parliament member to defend himself in an Amsterdam courtroom against charges of inciting hatred and insulting an entire class of people.
Wilders insists that he is being prosecuted — and persecuted — simply for speaking the truth about a dangerous religion and its adherents. His critics accuse him of whipping up public paranoia and jeopardizing the lives and livelihoods of the thousands of Muslims in the Netherlands.
The rancorous legal battle has thrown a spotlight on the growing tensions in societies where freedom of speech and freedom of religion seem to collide. Observers throughout Europe are closely watching the Wilders case at a time when vocal anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment is fueling the rise of right-wing parties and politicians.
The case also resonates in the U.S., which has been dogged by controversies such as the maverick pastor who threatened to publicly burn a copy of the Koran and the heated debate over the proposed building of an Islamic community center near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York.
To his detractors, he is also a peddler of fear and hatred directed at the Muslims, who make up just 6% of the population but who Wilders constantly warns are undermining traditional Dutch society by following the dictates of a "fascist book."This is pure bullshit, but what can you expect from the completely lame dead-tree press, not to mention the left's racism industry?
"More and more people are starting to believe his paranoia," said Rene Danen, head of an anti-racist organization based in Amsterdam. "The fear is planted by Wilders, who says that the Muslims are taking over, that they're a fifth column."
Danen is one of the activists whose official complaint prompted Wilders' trial on charges of inciting hatred and insulting a class of people. These are criminal offenses in the Netherlands, though a conviction would probably result only in a relatively minor fine.
"For us, the main thing is that the judge draws a line," putting Wilders' conduct and speech outside the legal pale, Danen said.
RELATED: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010." And at Atlas Shrugs, "The Ground Zero Mosque War in the Information Battlespace."
Is that a Kafeiya the chicky is wearing in the Poster! Looks like they coloured it green to me. Some anti-racism message - No jews and whites!
Oh Goody you can leave them a message about their "diversity initiatives." I signed as Martin Borman and congradulated them for their good work!
Anyway, here's the lineup from yesterday. Dan Riehl goes for the ideological purity: "Post 2010: Conservatives Must Reject Christie, Powerline And Other Short-Term Thinkers." Skipping the introduction (taking aim at both Christie and Paul at Powerline), here's the beef:
While a Republican, a corporatist, or a governmentalist might describe Castle as potentially a good Senator, no honest, serious thinking Conservative ever would. That does not mean that O'Donnell was an ideal candidate. But it is imperative that the conservative movement learn from 2010, come to understand why we lost where we did, and reject the conventional Republican wisdom that only serves to undermine our cause. Surrendering to liberalism, while claiming victory as a Republican, is a defeat for conservatism. And it is precisely those types of defeats Republicans have been fostering for too long, damaging our movement and, ultimately, their own brand in the process.I like it. But how's the going over with folks? Well, Dan triggered a pretty good reaction among some other familiar bloggers. Check Jimmie at Sundries Shack, for example, "Conservatives, It’s Time to Grow the Hell Up":
It is obvious that Castle would make a far better Senator compared to Chris Coons who will be the Senator. In other words, had the Tea Parties shown a bit more discretion and wisdom, they most likely would not be looking at a reliable progressive vote in the Senate but someone who would side with Republicans at least as often as he would Democrats.I like that part about "I'm not a bigshot blogger." But be sure to read the rest. Jimmie suggests that whiny brats grow up and join the real world of bipartisan cooperation.
That’s not to say that Castle would have been our bestest buddy. We would have had to fight with him at least as often as we would with the Maine sisters, but we wouldn’t have to fight him all the time. I’m not big-shot blogger like my friend Dan, but even I know that someone who votes with conservatives half the time is much better than one who will never vote with conservatives. [edited].
Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is rarely a good idea, and the fact that there are now two Senate seats in Delaware that are likely to be controlled by Democrats for the foreseeable future rather than just one should stand as a lesson to those who demand purity even when it’s suicidal.Folks can quibble about all of this, and I'm betting Dan and the others are not tweeting each other sweet nothings this morning, but after seven years of RINO government in California, I can tell you that successful fake Republicans are no better than genuine socialist commie Democrats. Sure, a vote here or there might be reassuring for GOP insiders, but every compromise helps the left in the end, on bullshit cap-and-trade, on budgetary bloat, on appeasement in international affairs, and so forth and so on. Just look where pragmatic conservatives line up. It if were me, I wouldn't come close to Frum Forum RINOs with a ten-foot pole --- and you can make that 100 if the name Alex Knepper gets thrown in there for some "pragmatic" icing on the cake!
And one final note.
When you start seeing people like Chris Christie being attacked for not being conservative enough, you know that the right is in danger of going off the rails. Or at least some parts of it.
RELATED: At The Other McCain, "Finally, PJTV Discovers Rule 5," and "Approaching 5 Million Hits." And getting to 5 million hits entails a considerable bit of link-baiting, like the present post. I should be hitting 2 million at American Power by the end of the month.
In his inaugural address in January 2009, President Barack Obama promised a new era of diplomacy in foreign affairs. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history," he said. But, he continued, "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
He didn't know that he might as well have been speaking to the Republicans.
The ACA contains 64 specific authorizations to spend up to $105.6 billion and 51 general authorizations to spend “such sums as are necessary” over the period between 2010 and 2019. None of these funds will flow, however, unless Congress enacts specific appropriation bills. In addition, section 1005 of the ACA appropriated $1 billion to support the cost of implementation in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).... [and the] ACA appropriated nothing for the Internal Revenue Service, which must collect the information needed to compute subsidies and pay them. The ACA also provides unlimited funding for grants to states to support the creation of health insurance exchanges (section 1311). But states will also incur substantially increased administrative costs to enroll millions of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries...And thank goodness. That would be like a symphony.
Without large additional appropriations, implementation will be crippled.
ObamaCare was lauded by many for covering all Americans with pre-existing conditions. That's not the issue. We're going to get into trouble because of the kinds of coverage that the new law mandates. There are no brakes on the system. Co-pays and deductibles will be kept low, and preventive services will have no co-pays at all. That sounds like a good deal for patients, yes? But without at least a pause to consider necessity and/or cost, expect waiting times to increase, ERs to be clogged and longer lead times needed to make an appointment.Clogged emergency rooms, death-panel rationing, and reduced consumer choice.
Patients with new Medicaid cards who can't find a doctor will go where? To emergency rooms. The escalating costs of these visits (necessary and unnecessary) will be transferred directly to the American public, both in the form of taxes as well as escalating insurance premiums.
Beginning in 2014, insurance exchanges will be set up in every state so that individuals can choose a health insurance plan. This will help control costs, right? Wrong. Don't expect to find individually tailored plans or those with higher deductibles or co-pays. They won't be there because they can't receive the government stamp of approval.
In the new system, my patients will be able to see me as often as they'd like. But will they get the same level of care? I don't think so. I anticipate that more expensive chemotherapies and cardiac stents or transplants, for instance, will have a tougher time being approved, as is already the case in Canada.
Over on the public side, the new Independent Payment Advisory Board — established by the health reform law to "recommend proposals to limit Medicare spending growth" — will advise Medicare that some treatments are more essential and more cost-effective than others. I believe that value judgments inevitably will have to be made, reducing my options as a practicing physician. Private insurers will follow suit, as they often do.
During the battle over this reform, you often heard, even from President Obama, that you'd be able to keep the plan you have. What he didn't say — but what we now know — is that because of this new law, the private markets will have to remake their plans, that the costs will rise and that the plan you were told you could "keep" is in all likelihood no longer available. But when your plan changes, backers of reform will simply blame it on those evil private insurance companies.
The truth is, private health insurance is a low-profit industry, with profit margins of 4% compared with over 20% for major drug manufacturers. With the additional costs of no lifetime caps and no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, these companies will be compelled to raise their premiums in order to stay in business. The individual mandate is supposed to be the tradeoff by providing millions of new customers, but there is no guarantee that this additional volume will preserve profits with all the new regulations. This is what occurred in New York state in 1992, when a new law denied exclusion on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
Now also at Jennifer Rubin, "Dohrn vs. the Tea Party":
[Bernardine Dohrn] ... insists that the right is racist, armed (presumably, the Second Amendment is one that the hard left would rather do without), and violent. And she — who helped lead a violent, armed revolutionary group that resorted to bombs rather than the ballot box – is terribly concerned about the right’s dangerous propensities. And what of her past? She laughs — ah, well, they were trying to open a “front” in the heartland.
Remorse? Not from her. She still oozes with resentment, understandable given the utter lack of acceptance by the American people of her views. Perhaps her fury at the Tea Partiers, then, is nothing more than jealousy. After all, they are the embodiment of grassroots, peaceful change. And she is a has-been terrorist.
And a preview: "TLC Unveils Trailer for 'Sarah Palin's Alaska'."
**********
And be sure to visit some of the other friends of American Power:
BONUS: Don't forget Instapundit.* Another Black Conservative.
* Astute Bloggers (Honorary).
* Blazing Cat Fur.* The Blog Prof.
* Bob Belvedere.
* Classical Liberal.
* Daley Gator.
* Kathy Shaidle.* Mind Numbed Robot.
* Not a Sheep.* Pirate's Cove.
* POWIP.
* The Other McCain.
* Reaganite Republican (Honorary).
* Right Klik (Honorary).
* Saberpoint (Honorary).
* Serr8d (Honorary).
* Snooper's Report (Honorary).
* Stormbringer.
* Theo Spark.
* Washington Rebel.
* WyBlog.
When you walk into Gloria Allred's office to interview her, she hands you her book — "Fight Back and Win" — and suggests you read it. Immediately.RTWT.
"Would you mind?" she asks. "I think it will answer some questions."
Smiling, she leaves you in the firm's conference room, with its long, glossy table and panoramic view of Los Angeles. This is where Allred holds most of the news conferences that have made her both famous and infamous — sitting at the head of the table, jaw set, arm wrapped tightly around a weepy client as cameras zoom in.
This afternoon, it's a study hall for a lone reporter frantically skimming the book subtitled "My Thirty-Year Fight Against Injustice — and How You Can Win Your Own Battles."
Whether you see this command cram course as an exercise in vanity or efficiency won't matter to Allred. As she writes in the book, "Early in my career, I decided that if I intended to be a strong advocate for women I couldn't be deterred by my critics."
She has not been. Allred has escorted into the spotlight a parade of castoff women — the TV star fired for being too pregnant, the banker fired for being too sexy, the jilted mistresses and wronged girlfriends of famous philanderers and murderers.
With her latest client — the sad-eyed housekeeper Nicandra Diaz Santillan — she may have helped spoil the gubernatorial chances of billionaire candidate Meg Whitman. After the housekeeper said she had worked for Whitman for nine years and then been fired for being undocumented, Whitman's poll numbers dropped and Jerry Brown's lead widened.
A new IBD/TIPP poll on public attitudes suggests that Tuesday's event was less an election than an intervention: Stop what you are doing; you're hurting us all.Anyone who looks at politics with a shred of pragmatism --- and even ideologues can be pragmatic at times, which includes admitting failure --- can see that the left's meme that Obama-Dems never truly advanced a progressive agenda is pure bull. The left is indeed doubling down, and one of the more despicable indicators of this --- if not outright evil --- is the increasingly strident allegations of Republicans as racist. It just proves to me that conservatives still have a lot of work to do, and of course retiring the Obamunist in the Oval Office should be job one.
A majority of the public wants Washington to stop the spending that has exploded the budget deficit. In a listing of top priorities for Congress, cutting the deficit by cutting spending came in No. 1, cited by 53%. (Fully 73%, including a majority of Democrats, said this is a "high priority.")
"As reflected by the outcome of the midterm elections, the public is sending a clear message to Washington: They want the government to live within its means," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the poll.
Rounding out the top five on the public's list, pluralities also want Washington to: 2) repeal or revise the new health care law, 3) provide more protection against terrorism, 4) reduce illegal immigration and 5) pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by next year.
Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the presumed incoming House speaker, has signaled that spending cuts and repealing ObamaCare will be the priorities for the GOP majority.
But Democratic leaders are doubling down. President Obama flatly rejected in a press conference that his policies were to blame for the election losses. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday she would run for House minority leader in the next Congress. With so many moderates in the caucus out in January, she may win.
"We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back," she said in a statement.
But most Americans — 57% — said an ObamaCare rollback should be a "high priority" for Congress — including 46% who say it's very important.
The public is cool to liberal solutions to cut the deficit or boost the economy. Just 7% say deficit-cutting tax hikes are a top priority. Only 14% say the same about a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes.
Only 29% support the idea of more government spending to stimulate the economy; just 14% say it should be a top agenda item.
