Why Left-Wing Women Hate Women on the Right

From Lisa Richards, at NewsReal:

Left-wing feminists are furious that conservative women are wildly popular. It’s completely unnerving to them that Sarah Palin, a well-educated athlete with a political resume (but considered illiterate because of her western accent, marriage, children, and home state) is the most popular woman in America, even with leftists who obsessively cover all things Sarah. After all, aren’t women supposed to lock-step like a bunch of politically enslaved vote-only-Democrat drones, support abortion, demand better pay (but insist minimum wage stay intact) and sue bosses who fire female incompetents? This is America for heaven’s sake! Women are not supposed to think for themselves, that’s the job of the Democrat Party!

And then came 2008 and Sarah Palin, followed by Michele Bachmann, Nikki Haley, Christine O’Donnell, Linda McMahon, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Sharron Angle, Angela McGlowen, Star Parker … should I stop? This might be too much for anti-female-unless-she-hates-men-and-unborn-babies leftist women to bare.

Bachmann and Haley won, the other GOP ladies lost, much to the glee of left-wing feminists like The Nation’s Betsy Reed who declared:

This result should not come as a huge surprise, given that the GOP Year of the Woman was always mostly hype, fueled by a potent mixture of Republican propaganda, Democratic hysteria and the mainstream media’s fondness for loopy ladies.

As opposed to Nancy Pelosi who did wonders elevating women’s political status with her spoiled demands for military jet-set vacations and claims of not knowing anything about intelligence reports. And let’s not forget Hillary’s contribution to women’s equality–accepting her serial molesting husband’s philandering actions, something feminists allegedly abhor.

Leftists do nothing to elevate women, yet they demand women vote one way and only one way. When women break that iron grip, saying no thank you, I can think and vote for myself, radical feminists turn against women like a pack of rabid grizzlies.

Case in point is Amanda Marcotte, who described Nikki Haley’s win as “the second most telling example of the ‘mama grizzly curse.’”

More at the link.

Boehner to Fly Commercial as House Speaker

At the video, after the discussion of failed Speaker Pelosi, and from Fox News:

Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday that he will not use the military jet provided to current Speaker Nancy Pelosi to fly from D.C. to his home district each week, but will board the same airlines as everybody else.

Pelosi had claimed after she became speaker in 2007 that a military aircraft was offered to her in light of position as second in line to the presidency. But Boehner said he's not so concerned.

"I've talked to our security folks about the security involved in my new role. Over the last 20 years I've flown back and forth to my district on commercial aircraft and will continue to do that," Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

Affirmative Action Bake Sales

Great discussion with Megyn Kelly and John Stossel:

Plus, "JOHN STOSSEL: Get Your Affirmative Action Cupcakes Here!"

1979 on 'The Sound'

It's 1979 today on The Sound's 10 at 10!

I was a senior in high school in '79. This set brought back a lot of memories, from this morning's drive time:

10:02 - Dance The Night Away by Van Halen

10:06 - Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd

10:12 - Roxanne by Police

10:15 - Just The Same Way (live) by Journey

10:19 - London Calling by Clash

10:22 - Breakfast In America by Supertramp

10:25 - Is She Really Going Out With Him by Joe Jackson

10:29 - Highway To Hell by Ac/dc

10:32 - Don't Bring Me Down by E.l.O.

10:42 - Ballroom Blitz by Sweet

10:46 - Lay It On The Line by Triumph

10:50 - Nights In White Satin by Moody Blues

10:58 - Here I Go Again by Whitesnake

Joseph Nye and the Future of American Power

Probably no scholar has written as much on the nature and longevity of American power as has Joseph S. Nye Jr. of Harvard University. Professor Nye has a forthcoming book, The Future of American Power, and his essay, "The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective," is the lead article at the new Foreign Affairs special edition, "The World Ahead." Here's the introduction:

The twenty-first century began with a very unequal distribution of power resources. With five percent of the world's population, the United States accounted for about a quarter of the world's economic output, was responsible for nearly half of global military expenditures, and had the most extensive cultural and educational soft-power resources. All this is still true, but the future of U.S. power is hotly debated. Many observers have interpreted the 2008 global financial crisis as the beginning of American decline. The National Intelligence Council, for example, has projected that in 2025, "the U.S. will remain the preeminent power, but that American dominance will be much diminished."

Power is the ability to attain the outcomes one wants, and the resources that produce it vary in different contexts. Spain in the sixteenth century took advantage of its control of colonies and gold bullion, the Netherlands in the seventeenth century profited from trade and finance, France in the eighteenth century benefited from its large population and armies, and the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century derived power from its primacy in the Industrial Revolution and its navy. This century is marked by a burgeoning revolution in information technology and globalization, and to understand this revolution, certain pitfalls need to be avoided.

First, one must beware of misleading metaphors of organic decline. Nations are not like humans, with predictable life spans. Rome remained dominant for more than three centuries after the peak of its power, and even then it did not succumb to the rise of another state. For all the fashionable predictions of China, India, or Brazil surpassing the United States in the next decades, the greater threat may come from modern barbarians and nonstate actors. In an information-based world, power diffusion may pose a bigger danger than power transition. Conventional wisdom holds that the state with the largest army prevails, but in the information age, the state (or the nonstate actor) with the best story may sometimes win.

Power today is distributed in a pattern that resembles a complex three-dimensional chess game. On the top chessboard, military power is largely unipolar, and the United States is likely to retain primacy for quite some time. On the middle chessboard, economic power has been multipolar for more than a decade, with the United States, Europe, Japan, and China as the major players and others gaining in importance. The bottom chessboard is the realm of transnational relations. It includes nonstate actors as diverse as bankers who electronically transfer funds, terrorists who traffic weapons, hackers who threaten cybersecurity, and challenges such as pandemics and climate change. On this bottom board, power is widely diffused, and it makes no sense to speak of unipolarity, multipolarity, or hegemony.

In interstate politics, the most important factor will be the continuing return of Asia to the world stage. In 1750, Asia had more than half the world's population and economic output. By 1900, after the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States, Asia's share shrank to one-fifth of global economic output. By 2050, Asia will be well on its way back to its historical share. The rise of China and India may create instability, but this is a problem with precedents, and history suggests how policies can affect the outcome.

I've highlighted the second to last quote above, because it caught my attention. I can recall, almost twenty year ago, Nye offered the same basic analogy, in an article from Spring 1992 at Foreign Affairs, "What New World Order?":

No single hierarchy describes adequately a world politics with multiple structures. The distribution of power in world politics has become like a layer cake. The top military layer is largely unipolar, for there is no other military power comparable to the United States. The economic middle layer is tripolar and has been for two decades. The bottom layer of transnational interdependence shows a diffusion of power.

The top of the international remains unipolar with the concentration of military power in the United States. But I'm interested in how in 1992 Nye spoke of economic "tripolarity" but today mentions "multipolarity" going back from more than a decade ("tripolarity" was a hip term at the time, as Japan and Germany seemed to be emerging at "the new superpowers.") And the bottom layer --- now a chessboard and not a layer cake --- is transnational relations, which implies much larger system effects from non-state actors such as al Qaeda (clearly a nod to the dramatic importance of the global war on terrorism in U.S. foreign policy over the last decade).

Overall, I have little disagreement with Nye's analysis. The one thing that really concerns me, and perhaps more so that it does Nye, is the impact America's long-term debt burden will have on the sustainability of U.S. power. He writes later in the essay, for example:

On the question of absolute, rather than relative, American decline, the United States faces serious problems in areas such as debt, secondary education, and political gridlock. But they are only part of the picture. Of the multiple possible futures, stronger cases can be made for the positive ones than the negative ones. But among the negative futures, the most plausible is one in which the United States overreacts to terrorist attacks by turning inward and thus cuts itself off from the strength it obtains from openness. Barring such mistaken strategies, however, there are solutions to the major American problems of today. (Long-term debt, for example, could be solved by putting in place, after the economy recovers, spending cuts and consumption taxes that could pay for entitlements.) Of course, such solutions may forever remain out of reach. But it is important to distinguish hopeless situations for which there are no solutions from those that could in principle be solved. After all, the bipartisan reforms of the Progressive era a century ago rejuvenated a badly troubled country.

I'll have more on this, but see, in the current issue, Roger C. Altman and Richard N. Haass, "American Profligacy and American Power." And Niall Ferguson, from March/April 2010, "Complexity and Collapse: Empires on the Edge of Chaos."

Hot Shots Calendar 2011

Via Theo Spark:

Order at Help for Heroes.

V for Vendetta Hacker Strikes at Washington State University

At Wired:

And at Chronicle of Higher Education:

In V for Vendetta, the protagonist V is a revolutionary fighting a fascist British regime in a dystopian future. V broadcasts a video message calling the British public to action on November 5 in honor of Guy Fawkes’s 1605 attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament and assassinate King James I. The film ends in a violent explosion—which had some university officials worried that the V-masked hacker might be threatening to do something similar.

Here's the text: "V's Speech To WSU" (c/o Computer World, "V for Vendetta Hacker Broadcasts Video at Washington State University").

Horny? Just Go to the Airport

At According to Nikki:

I think I am against legalized molestation. The jury is still out, but in all fairness I think it's a bad idea even in the name of national security. In my roller-coaster brain, it seems to me that our politically correct world has taken us here. We can no longer narrow down and label our enemy. Reality and truth are not permitted in political correctness, only appeasement and lies. We have to make equal the suspicion bombing field by groping old ladies, housewives, old men, young boys and girls and maybe even puppies. Really TSA? Our choice is either let us take a nude photo of your wobbly bits or let us feel you up when going on vacation? Work hard and prepare to get the goods felt when you want to relax. This is why I hate vacationing, it's seriously too much work. I can stay home and get my jollies and not have to pack my life into one 50 pound suitcase only to have it man handled at the airport. Good-bye Hawaii. Good-bye Vegas. It's not worth it to me to get groped or viewed like a porn star all to prevent some ARAB guy from blowing up an aircraft. See what I said right there? An Arab. A Muslim. Middle Eastern folk are the ones trying to blow us up.

More awesome commentary, at the link.

Video c/o American Digest.

Four Million U.S. Hispanics Would Migrate Permanently

And almost 10 percent of those would migrate to Canada, no doubt to get in on the racist anti-racist diversity bonaza now available in Canuckistan.

At Gallup:

Gallup's survey suggests that U.S. Hispanics who would like to migrate are more likely to be struggling, foreign-born residents who are ready to give up the American dream and move home or try again somewhere else. These findings not only have implications on the national debate about immigration reform in the United States, but also on the immigration policies and economies of other countries to which these potential migrants would like to move.

Amnesty International Demands Obama Prosecute Bush for Admitting to Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind KSM…

At Weasel Zippers, "The far-left standing up for mass murdering Islamic terrorists, nothing new…"

Frontier Records' 30th Year Anniversary Concert

One of my students came in wearing a "Middle Class" shirt yesterday. I mentioned that I knew the bass player back in the day, and she said "I saw them last night, at the Frontier Records anniversary."

Check OC Weekly for a report.

Proposed Cigarette Product Warning Labels

At the FDA (and at WaPo):

Commentary at Weasel Zippers, "Nanny State Gone Wild – New Graphic Cigarette Warnings From the FDA."

I don't know. Maybe some folks are so stupid they actually need these warnings. Besides, what would folks like egghead JBW do without some Nanny Statism to gripe about? Get rid of warning labels and marijuana laws in one fell swoop!! Then everyone would have equal opportunity to death!

Added: At Doug Ross, "The FDA's 10 Most Terrifying Proposed Cigarette Warning Labels."

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan Calls for Violent Revolution

From Dylan Ratigan's introduction to communist cartoonist Ted Rall: "Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for revolution? The answer is obviously 'yes.' The only question is, 'how to do it?'"

I wrote on this previously, "Cartoonist Ted Rall Calls for ‘Proletarian Dictatorship’ in the U.S."

But Dylan Ratigan's endorsement is getting some major play across the 'sphere. At Big Journalism, "MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Promotes Book Advocating Violent Revolution." And from Ed Morrissey, "MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan, Ted Rall Call for Violent Revolution?" Actually, no need for that question mark at the end there.

The New House of Representatives in Ten Seconds

Via Invincible Armor:

NewsBusted — MSNBC Suspends, Reinstates Olbermann

Via Theo Spark:

'The World Ahead' at Foreign Affairs

It's a special issue commemorating and reflecting on the 20 years since the end of the Cold War, in 1990-1991. I've read two articles so far: "The Future of American Power," and "American Profligacy and American Power." I should have some comments on these over the next few days, as well as some of the additional readings.

Meanwhile, here's this from James F. Hoge, Jr., "Editor's Note":

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.

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.

More at the link.

Check back for some commentary on all of this in the days ahead.

Republicans May Yet Have Upper Hand in Senate

At WSJ:

On paper, the numbers tell you the Democrats held on to a majority in the Senate last week.

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."

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.

More at the link.

Michael Steele, Republican Chairman, May Face Opposition

If I recall, it seems like folks thought Michael Steele was pretty much innoculated against an ouster. The lefty spin would be that the GOP is RAAAAACIST!! But here's this, in any case, via New York Times:

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.

WaPo's piece is here: "Republicans Attempt to Recruit Alternative to Michael Steele."

RELATED: "Sarah Palin Rallies GOP at 'Victory 2010' in Anaheim."

BDS Lives: Critics Plan to Move Bush Memoir to 'Crime' Section in Bookstores

At CBS News:

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."

In Indonesia, Obama Continues Outreach to Muslims

And how's that working out?

At Jakarta Globe, "First Day of Obama's Indonesia Visit Marked by Scattered Protests."

And Bare Naked Islam, "INDONESIA: Radical Muslim Group to Protest Obama Visit."

RELATED: At WaPo, "Obama Heralds Indonesia's Political, Religious Diversity in Latest Outreach to Muslims," and WSJ, "Full Text: Obama's Prepared Remarks in Indonesia."

Decision Points #1 at Amazon.com

Decision Points is out today. And checking Amazon, it's currently running at #1 in sales.

Also, a review from Daniel Henninger at WSJ, "Looking Back":

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."

George W. Bush Talks With Matt Lauer

Right Scoop has the full video, and at New York Times (FWIW), "A New Bush, a Lot Like the Old One":

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.

Democratic House Minority Meltdown

After their debacle, you'd think they'd consider some fresh blood.

At NYT, "No. 2 House Democrat Will Try to Retain Post":

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.

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.

More here.

RELATED: "Moderate Dems Line Up in Opposition to Pelosi's Bid for Minority Leader," and "FOX Exclusive: Defeated Democrats Pen Letter to Implore Pelosi to Step Aside."

Obama on '60 Minutes' — 'Republicans Were Able to Paint My Governing Philosophy as a Classic Traditional Big Gov't Liberal'

I watched the first 15 minutes. Steve Kroft does a good job, coming back to some questions as Obama prevaricates. But the president's only in his second year, and he's clearly a beaten man, blaming the GOP in the most abject --- and predictable --- way possible. More at WaPo (FWIW), "Obama Says He Fears Economy Could Enter 'New Normal' of Low Job Growth" (via Memeorandum):

The full transcript is here.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper Warns of Rise of Anti-Semitism

From Gloria Galloway, at Globe and Mail, "Harper Pledges ‘Relentless’ Stand Against Anti-Semitism":

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.

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.

RTWT. (And check the link above for video of Prime Minister Harper.)

U.S. Party Politics Mask Real Battle Lines

From Chrystia Freeland, at Globe and Mail (via Theo Spark):

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.

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.

More at the link.

Keith Olbermann: 'A Statement to the Viewers of Countdown'

At New York Times, "Olbermann Apologizes to Viewers, But Not to MSNBC" (via Memeorandum).

Bad News for Liberals Leftists May Be Good News for a Liberal Leftist Magazine

I'm bothered, increasingly, by the overwhelming tendency of the major actors and institutions of the political regime to treat those on the far left of the ideological spectrum as "liberals." Leftists are not liberal. They're anti-liberal. But one of the great achievements of radical left-wing politics in the second half of the Twentieth Century was to successfully label the massive Democrat Party interventions in the economy and bureaucracy as "liberal." This is no secret, by any means. The late historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., is widely credited with the claim that "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals." But thoughout history, the country's manichean and existential struggle against Soviet Communism made it taboo to formally (and accurately) recognize leftist ideology in America as socialist.

As conservatives continue to sort out the lessons from the 2010 elections, one enduring ideological challenge remains clear: the need to appropriately and consistently identify so-called liberals for what the are, radical left-wing ideologues and statists.

We can see just large how the challenge remains at today's New York Times, "Bad News for Liberals May Be Good News for a Liberal Magazine." I've obviously altered the title of this blog entry to better reflect what the Times is attempting to say. Basically, and fair enough, Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor and publisher of The Nation, sees the current resurgence of right-wing politics as providing a burst of life-saving blood to her far left-wing organ:

No weekly magazine tracked by the Media Industry Newsletter has lost more pages of advertising this year than The Nation.

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.

More at the link.

Interestingly, The Nation's main competitors are blogs like Daily Kos and online news aggregators like Huffington Post. And like The Nation, both of these are neo-socialist outlets, but with more modern technological coolness. And also like The Nation, both Kos and Puff Ho are treated as respectable media organs while effectively functioning as neo-socialist appendages to the Democrat Party in Washington.

All of these folks are on the extreme left of the spectrum, and, along with the New York Times itself, they all advance a progressive and statist agenda that reaches from the tops of the elite media shops in Manhattan to the lowest elementary school classrooms in the inner cities. We've seen it over and over. And conservatives need to keep pushing back: Say no to the media lies of neo-socialist press organs as mainstream "liberal" institutions.

Los Angeles Times Slurs Geert Wilders Case as 'Hate Trial' — Hit Piece Cites 'Anti-Racist' Activists in Alleged Call to 'Dutch Tolerance'

It's the same thing, over and over.

The Los Angeles Times hard-copy has the headline: "Hate Trial Tests Dutch Tolerance." And at the web edition: "Netherlands Politician Has Angry Words for Muslims."

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.

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.

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.

Typical for the left's DEMOCRAT-MEDIA-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX. You never get the full story. Not even close. Those who champion freedom and dignity for the individual are slurred as "haters." Those who truly hate, the Muslims calling for "Death to Jews," are glorified as alleged "victims of racist oppressors." It's all totally FUBAR. For example, at the Times' hit piece:

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."

"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.

This is pure bullshit, but what can you expect from the completely lame dead-tree press, not to mention the left's racism industry?

I'm still looking forward to meeting Geert Wilders. Once you listen to this man speak you know he has a heart of gold. He's truly one of the West's most vital champions of liberty and defense of democracy. Here's the speech from New York's SIOA rally:

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."

White Is the New Hate Crime

At Blazing Catfur, "Being white is now a hate crime":

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!

Governor Chris Christie: O'Donnell Was a 'Missed Opportunity'

One thing I learned during the 2008 election was to stay away from intra-conservative battles. I was calling some right-wing bloggers all kinds of names for opposing John McCain's nomination. I regret it, mainly because I wasn't taking the long view. Whatever my policy differences, and my feelings for McCain (he was the best on foreign policy), it did little good to beat up on folks to the right of me --- especially since, in terms of important ideological trends on the right, their positions were more vindicated than mine were. And not only that: I've learned. When conservatives compromise with the middle --- and by that I mean endorsing moderate Republicans who will be "better" than centrist Dems --- they get burned every time. Newt Gingrich's endorsement of "moderate" Republican Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23's special election was a slap in the face to tea partiers (she endorsed Democrat Bill Owens after losing); and in California, we've had a "moderate" GOP governor in Arnold Schwarzenegger for seven years and this state is totally FUBAR. I won't be surprised if Governor-elect Jerry Brown pulls off a better incumbency than "The Governator," and that's saying a whole lot, believe me.

This brings me to the right's intra-ideological squabbles yesterday over New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's statement that Delaware conservatives (and voters) would have been better served with the nomination of RINO Mike Castle. We saw this debate during the primary (Patterico was at the center of this, if I recall). I'm not invested, but when Frum Forum links approvingly to radical leftist Amada Terkel at Puff Ho, that ought to be a heads up on squishy "moderate" conservative loyalties. The left is the left. Compromise kills conservatives.

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.

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].

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.

Which leads us to Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. Doug is anything but unpredictable: If it's ideologically conservative along Sarah Palin/tea party lines ... well, that's just too f**king crazy. See, "The Circular Firing Squad Takes Aim at Chris Christie":

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.

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.

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!

Emily Miller on Twitter!

Just started following her yesterday, and turns out she was on Fox & Friends this morning!

Perfect timing:

And The Other McCain has the morning news roundup, "LIVE AT FIVE – 11.08.10."

George W. Bush on the Tea Party in America

Democracy working.

I love this man:

Election Coverage You Might Have Missed

You know, since this doesn't really fit the narrative.

Via Founding Bloggers:

Field Stripping

At Sean Linnane's:

Katy Perry Won't Pose Nude

At People Magazine, "Katy Perry: I'd Rather 'Tease' Than Pose Nude."

Plus, "Katy Perry Sets Off 'Firework' For EMA 2010," and "Katy Perry On the Red Carpet at the 2010 EMA."

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.

At New Yorker: 'Clenched Fist' or 'Terrorist Fist Bump'

What's with The New Yorker's November 15th cover drawing featuring incoming GOP House Speaker John Boehner standing with President Obama in the Oval Office? While Obama is clearly extending his hand in what appears as a reluctant bid for cooperation, Boehner's hand is gathered in a fist. Is that a bump? The New Yorker says so, but with reference to public opinion: "Cover Story: Approval Bump?" But should the administration expect a bump after last Tuesday's Democrat debacle? No, according to Ryan Lizza's article from November 5th. Not unless Obama backs off from his aggressive left-wing policy agenda.

In contrast, Puff Ho's article is entitled, "John Boehner Gives Obama 'Terrorist Fist Bump' On New Yorker Cover." That's a clear retaliatory reference to New Yorker's July 2008 cover picture. Interestingly, though, the commentary at the essay suggests Boehner's extending the clench fist. Clearly, the title of the article was edited to maximize SEO and fever-swamp rage. Some folks at Puff Ho are still smarting at the image of Barack Hussein in Muslim garb:

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.

Opposing ObamaCare is Bigoted Asshattery!!

Well, I'm up to a trifecta at this point.

Here's yet another tweet, from Olby-Obama cultist Matt Osborne:

I've seen this guy around the 'sphere. His page is "Osborne Ink." Here's a sample: "They Are The Fear They Want Us To Feel."

PREVIOUSLY: "If You Oppose ObamaCare You're RAAAAACIST and UNEDUCATED!!", and "If You Tweet Your Opposition to ObamaCare You're REALLY RAAAAACIST!!"

And what the heck, follow me on Twitter: @AmPowerBlog.

If You Tweet Your Opposition to ObamaCare You're REALLY RAAAAACIST!!

Okay, here's a follow up to "If You Oppose ObamaCare You're RAAAAACIST and UNEDUCATED!!"

I fowarded that to some lefty tweeps at Single Payer's Twitter feed, and a few others in those threads.

And here's a reply from Mona Hussein Obama:

And that was cracking up a couple of my tweeting friendlies, Robert Stacy McCain and William Teach (on Twitter here and here).

If You Oppose ObamaCare You're RAAAAACIST and UNEDUCATED!!

Out of the blue, I got this on Twitter earlier this morning:

I replied here.

@SinglePlayer then blocked me, typical for a leftist totalitarian.

RELATED: At Doug Ross, "New England Journal of Medicine Inadvertently Hands House GOP the Game Plan for Starving ObamaCare." If you can't completely kill it (right away), squeeze funding until implementation becomes impossible:

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...

Without large additional appropriations, implementation will be crippled.

And thank goodness. That would be like a symphony.

See Dr. Marc Siegel, "ObamaCare Will Clog America's Medical System":

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.

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.

Clogged emergency rooms, death-panel rationing, and reduced consumer choice.

That's what @SinglePayer is all about.