Surprise! Meg Whitman Uses Personal Fortune to Mount Nasty Hardball Campaign

Meg Whitman, wannabe conservative, Vann Jones acolyte, and GOP gubernatorial candidate, apparently knows a thing or two about Saul Alinsky. See, "Whitman No Rookie at Playing Hardball":

Meg Whitman is campaigning for governor as a political outsider, but behind the scenes she is playing classic political hardball in her quest for the Republican nomination.

She tried to push her chief GOP opponent, Steve Poizner, out of the primary contest with a consultant's threat to wage a negative ad campaign that would destroy his career. Her advisors have worked, with some success, to siphon away Poizner supporters, orchestrating calls by former Gov. Pete Wilson and others for the party to unite -- four months before the primary election -- behind her candidacy.

And Whitman's team warned labor leaders that if they gave money to Democratic operatives planning to attack her, the billionaire candidate would respond by spending millions to qualify a ballot initiative that would make it harder for unions to use dues for political purposes.

Observers say Whitman's embrace of rough-and-tumble politics should surprise no one, given her track record as the hard-nosed former chief executive of EBay.

"She's coming from a world that's absolutely a hardball world," said Thad Kousser, a visiting professor at Stanford University who specializes in state politics. "And anybody who thinks you don't become a politician being the CEO of a major corporation is crazy."

Asked about the tough moves by Whitman and her aides, her spokesman, Tucker Bounds, said her campaign "is committed to putting her in the most effective position" to explain her vision for improving California. He said talking to voters is her main focus.

Political analysts say Whitman's use of her wealth to intimidate her opponents -- she's moved $39 million of her own money into her campaign -- can backfire if voters believe she is trying to buy the election. Wealthy executives have won as political newcomers elsewhere but have largely failed in California.

The image of Whitman, 53, using her riches as a club was on display this month when Poizner -- himself a multimillionaire -- released an e-mail to his camp from her consultant, Mike Murphy. It said she could spend $40 million "tearing up" Poizner, also 53.

"It's arrogance," said K.B. Forbes, a GOP communications consultant who is not working in California at the moment. "It's going to turn off the electorate."

As I've said a couple of times, I wish we had Bob McDonnell in California:

See also, Michelle, "Memo to GOP Candidates: Stop Mindlessly Praising Commies in Green Clothing," and John Hawkins, "Meg Whitman’s Slap In The Face Of Sarah Palin Fans: Hiring Mike Murphy."

The Coffee Party Movement

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I doubt tea partiers could care one whit about the homage the "Coffee Party Movement" pays to conservative activists. I mean, seriously, this woman, Annabel Park, a recent Korean immigrant, puts a kinda every-woman gloss on the Joan Walsh-Keith Olbermann-Janeane Garofalo "racist tea-bagger" smears we've been hearing for a year now. Indeed, it's offensive to hear her basically allege that tea partiers reject diversity. Olbermann's already been hammered from all quarters for his idiot rant a couple of weeks ago. Frankly, we'd see more diversity on the conservative right except for the victimology stranglehold that's inculcating a grievance ideology and cultist politics among minority communities today. And when minorities break out of that death-grip, they're branded as racist "minority front groups" for the hegemonic white supremacist power structure. It's pretty contorted, but listen to Miss Park sing it! She hits all the right notes about the left's "reality-based" program and she excoriates the "extremist" politics of the tea partiers. Hmm ... you get the feeling that in fact she's a tool herself, of the Obama power-cult of Daily Kos-OFA-SEIU-MoveOn.org mind-crush totalitarians.

In any case, no one's fooled by this woman's simplistic diversity-based charm. But FWIW, see WaPo's piece, "Coffee Party Activists Say Their Civic Brew's a Tastier Choice Than Tea Party's." (Via Memeorandum.) And see Moonbattery, "Progressive "Coffee Parties" Let the Crap Fly."

Is Andrew Breitbart Breaking Down?

Did you see this?

Joan Walsh, who previously slurred tea party patriots as "traitors," attacked Andrew Breitbart at CPAC as unhinged, arguing that his brutal take down of the Salon sleazebags "doesn't get the work done."

Oh, but it does, Joan. Which is why Max Blumenthal is now reduced to making new allegations against "racist black front groups."

In any case, Founding Bloggers repsponds, "(EXCLUSIVE VIDEO) Did Andrew Breitbart “Breakdown” At CPAC?":

Apparently, Salon.com doesn’t think that anger and outrage are normal reactions for a human being to have in response to being falsely smeared and branded a racist.

Salon.com sees the videos of an angry Andrew Breitbart as not much more than an opportunity to ridicule someone with whom they disagree.

By using these videos in this particular way, Salon reveals that it considers the righteous indignation of a man falsely accused to be funny. A real knee-slapper.

That’s very revealing because the videos that the folks at Salon.com are promoting clearly demonstrate why Breitbart is so furious. He explains it to their cameras repeatedly. Perhaps the editors at Salon.com are too politically tone deaf to hear the message.

See also, Big Journalism, "How the World Works: Max Blumenthal and His Vicious Alinsky Tactics."

RELATED: "Libel Blogger David Hillman (Swash Zone) Workplace Harassment Fail."

There's Nothing You Can Do That Can't Be Done...

Remember HillBuzz last month, describing Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, et al.?

Honestly, we thought the extent of the attacks would be more of the same thing these people usually do, which is to say bad things about this site, to fill our voicemails up with nasty messages, to send more hatemail to our email telling us how much they want us to get AIDS and die, or how they’re going to find us in Boystown and beat us up. These are the people who threw rocks through our windows in 2008 because we had Hillary Clinton posters in them, and who’ve called us racists consistently for not supporting Dr. Utopia, as either a candidate or the Socialist in Chief he is now. That’s what the Left does to anyone who defies them: they call you a racist, harass you, and threaten violence against you.

And more recently at Whiskey Fire on S.E. Cupp and Tucker Carlson:

... there are in fact no such entities as "S. E. Cupp" or "The Daisy Call-Girl" and that nobody is dumb enough to believe you could ever get rich by banking on the likability of horrible halfwit dishwater failures like Tucker Carlson .... Fuck fuck fuckely fuck fuck fuckbooger fuckbananas fuck.

And then Andrew Sullivan on Sarah Palin:

She is Coughlin with boobs – except with a foreign policy agenda to expand Israel and unite with it in a war against Islam ... Do not under-estimate the appeal of a beautiful, big breasted, divinely chosen warrior-mother as a military leader in a global religious war.

Then Demon-Machine on Tiger Woods' recent public apology:

Tiger Woods addresses a waiting nation and declares that he LIKES TO FUCK. A lot."

And Doug-e at Brain Rage:

... UPDATE ... NEWSFLASH! ... Dick Cheney and Bob Dole are both hospitalised. Bad batch of Viagra suspected?...

And a self-descriptive David Hillman projecting his deep-seated eliminationist hatred onto conservative "reactionaries":

... reactionary ideas and talking points have infected public discourse to such a degree that it is poisoning how we treat each other in our daily lives. It is a political subculture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas in favor of outright elimination of the opposing side through suppression, condemnation, ostracism, or extermination.

Radical leftists are filled with rage and hatred and death-wish determination to destroy the ideological other. The left's hatred is not difficult to find - "it's easy". They should chill with some Beatles, for a little while, at least:

Love, Love, Love.
Love, Love, Love.
Love, Love, Love.

There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It's easy.

Nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It's easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

Nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love (All together, now!)
All you need is love. (Everybody!)
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need (love is all you need)
(love is all you need) (love is all you need)
(love is all you need) Yesterday (love is all you need)
(love is all you need) (love is all you need)

Yee-hai!
Oh yeah!
love is all you need, love is all you need,love is all you need, love is all you need, oh yeah oh hell yea! love is all you need love is all you need love is all you need.

Cross-posted from American Power.

So Where Are We on Race?

From Victor Davis Hanson, "We Have Race on the Brain":

The United States is a vast multiracial society that, despite multiculturalism, embraces one official language and still shares a common culture. Among the middle classes, race doesn’t matter all that much, and the society is not plagued by endemic racial and religious violence we typically see abroad.

But among the elite, where the lucrative jobs, prestige, and big money are — sports, entertainment, law, academia, medicine, high-power finance, big government and politics — our elites con each other. They often strain to find some sort of ethnic or racial or gender edge over the competition. Most Americans assume racial affinities and go about their business; elite utopians demand there be none — and then prove themselves far more racialist.

If white, the careerist elite professes to be liberal and a diversity proponent while himself conning to rely on his money, background and contacts to nullify the new diversity prejudice. Usually at universities, the white guy top administrator would surround himself with diversity appointments and talk down about the faculty’s lack of diversity. Most ignored the bottled piety and assumed the careerist dinosaur just wanted to survive. The white-guy leftist on television will talk ad nauseam about diversity on the assumption that such preemption shields him from the sort of diversity affirmative action salvo that might knock out his own job.

One of the reasons I liked farming (six contiguous neighbors — two Armenians, one Japanese, one Punjabi, one Mexican, one German) was that action not pretense mattered. And stereotypes were OK, if instantly backed by empirical evidence and if not pressed too far.

In contrast, one reason I disliked academia was that in such a dry, bored self-created landscape, pretense trumped action, and one’s tribe, not one’s essence, was the key to career advancement. I never heard a Mexican neighbor say he was Mexican or an Armenian vineyard grower talk of his vaunted heritage or the German claim privilege — they all succeeded or failed on their own ability, or lack of, to grow food at a profit.

In academic lala land, scholarship and teaching too often came second, bumper-sticker identification first — another sign that with supposed intellectual progress, so often comes moral regress.

RELATED: "Foundations of Whiteness and White Domination?"

Talking Tea Parties

Via Dana Loesch, good stuff from Founding Bloggers, "Talking Tea (NSFW)":

These guys are the best!

'Secure Nation'

Via Jules Crittenden, "Secure Nation":

Notes Jules:

Mike Slagh, an active-duty naval officer currently at Harvard’s JFK School and headed after that to EOD school, has started up Secure Nation, a somewhat academic military-civilian interface discussion forum … despite my best advice to him that putting your opinions on the Internet is sure to bring only scorn, ridicule and professional opprobrium.

Sharp-looking site. Slagh promises it will run a full spectrum of political views and it looks like, with a few posts up, it’s already headed that way with some thoughtful posts on variety of subjects and a submission form for anyone who wants to jump in. Slagh’s also asked me for a guest blog, which pretty much confirms he’s willing to live dangerously although I expect to behave and will be rummaging* around for some deep thots. I like the fact that everyone so far has a name attached. Easier to respect someone’s opinion when they are willing to stand by it.

Probably not as wild as GSGF, but I'll definitely be heading over there for some of the debates!

So what are you waiting for? Check out that post at the screencap: "A Centrist Approach to Reforming Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell."

RELATED: "Army and Air Force Chiefs Voice Concern Over Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'."

'ObamaCare is Dead': Town Hall Participants and Tea Partiers on the Health Care Summit

From Greta's show last night, "The Voices of the People."

I love Catherine Bragg, interviewed first, who declares "ObamaCare is dead!" Plus, town hall icons Tracy Miller and Katy Abram are also interviewed. And that's not to mention my good friend Dana Loesch:

Dana's also interviewed at Riverfront Times, "Patriot Dame: Dana Loesch, Tea Party co-founder and rising star of conservative talk radio, reporting for duty!"

And one more: With Glenn Reynolds at PJTV, "Don’t Tread On Her: Dana Loesch Has Tar & Feathers Ready for the Tyrants."

RELATED: Yuval Levin, "The Summit So Far" (via Memeorandum).

Max Blumenthal Booger-Boarded

From Andrew Breitbart, "Max Blumenthal, You’re Being Booger-Boarded":

Max Blumenthal has an amazing thesis: All conservatives and Republicans are beneath contempt. He also has an amazing line of work. He is underwritten by various media organs to prove his thesis ....

Max gallivanted around CPAC looking for prey. He was treated with respect as he sought to make good and decent people look foolish on camera. He decided he would go after a 20-year-old girl, one Hannah Giles. And perhaps due to sexism or ageism he underestimated her ability. Max should have called Bertha Lewis before he went after this young heroine. Instead, he went to a gunfight with a knife – and a dirty nose.

Ladies and gentlemen, the much awaited, “Max Blumenthal Picks a Booger Out of His Nose at CPAC” video:

Ha!

Hat Tip: Instapundit.

'Compton Cookout'? Not the Racial 'Crisis' it's Cracked Up to Be

At the Los Angeles Times, "Students Walk Out of UC San Diego Teach-In." The first thing I noticed is the tears streaming down the young woman's face. What's causing her so much pain? It's hard to see at the screencap, so look closely at the original image.

At issue was an off-campus party thrown by a fraternity and promoted as a "Compton Cookout." Women were invited to attend as "'ghetto chicks' with gold teeth, cheap clothes and 'short, nappy hair'."

Now this is not something I would organize, sponsor, or endorse, but as distasteful as the "Compton Cookout" appears, it's seen more as a catalyst of racial outrage for percieved slights and injustices. As the Times reports:

The controversial party, she and others contended, was just the spark that ignited long-simmering ethnic tensions on the campus.

According to UC systemwide data, UC San Diego enrolled the smallest number of black freshmen last fall of any of the nine undergraduate campuses, 46 students out of a class of 3,749. Overall, officials say, about 1.6% of the campus' 23,143 undergraduates are African American, among the lowest percentages in the UC system.

And while I have little affinity for Earl Ofari Hutchinson's politics, he suggests that the frat party was not only organized by white and non-white students, but was an artifact of the wider culture:

The Compton cookout, of course, was the boneheaded stunt by a handful of white and non-white students at an off campus to mock, poke fun at, and revel in what's presumed to be the sway and swagger of ghetto life. There's a problem, actually, two problems with this. The air head students couldn't conjure this up from whole cloth. They aren't that imaginative. They lifted the wording for the invitation for the cookout from the online Urban Dictionary web site. The site has parlayed an online commercial empire out of irreverent lampooning of slang words and phrases, and then hustling some slang laced products at a pretty penny. There are nine Compton cookout mugs, banners, tee shirts and mouse pads scrawled with inscriptions and jive talk on the items, some with a hefty price tag. There's also evidence that the UCSD racial spoofery is not isolated, that students at other campuses have had their own versions of Compton Cookouts.

"Naw, `hoe' is short for honey." (Dr. Dre, "Housewife")

That's the minor problem. The bigger problem is that Urban Dictionary, as the UCSD students, couldn't conjure up the Compton Cookout inanity from whole cloth either. They've had overgenerous help from the endless parade of gangster rappers, some black filmmakers, and comedians continue to routinely reduce young black women to "stuff," "bitches" and "hoes." Their contempt reinforces the slut image of black women and sends the message that violence, mistreatment and verbal abuse of black women are socially acceptable. Despite lawsuits, protests and boycotts by women's groups, gangster-themed films and rap music still top the popularity charts. Hollywood and music companies rake in small fortunes off them, and so do a few rappers.

And here's this from Jusneet Beasley of Marshall College:

Obviously, PIKE [Pi Kappa Alpha] is made up of entitled young WASPs who just want to get fucked up and have fun. Instead of protesting some insignificant fraternity’s barbecue bash, I believe that concerned UCSD administrators should focus their attention on real problems that the student body can endeavor to change. We, as a generation, see how the American political system is failing due to outdated bipartisanship. But instead of encouraging the student body to come together to protest and make real change, the administration has resorted to sending e-mails condemning inappropriate frat parties. Grow up, UCSD.

But all of this is unimportant to the race-mongering grievance industry. Just today 17 students were arrested at UCI during a sit-in protesting the "‘Compton Cookout’ incident at UC San Diego ..."

The frat party was in bad form, but it's not the real reason for the cries of "racism." Those are found way deeper in the victimology culture that chains down black Americans in the left's self-segregating culture of under-achievement and blame.

It's time to lift up the race, not beat it down further by inflamming manufactured outrages that mask larger issues internal to black Americans and their culture.

Obama's Corporate Messaging: 'An Ardent Believer in the Free Market' (VIDEO)

President Barack Obama, at a Business Roundtable luncheon Wednesday, rejected critics who have attacked his economic agenda as socialist: "Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, I am an ardent believer in the free market," the president announced.

Yet, note Obama's remarks in a Business Week interview last week, "Obama's Corporate Messaging":

Some of that anti-Wall Street rhetoric is heard by businesspeople outside of Wall Street. Do you think that they take that as a lack of confidence and, therefore, they are hesitant to invest?

I do think that the anger directed toward the big banks had a spillover effect. As much as we have actually been restrained this year, if you look at the statements coming out of this White House, the irony is, is that on the left we are perceived as being in the pockets of Big Business. And then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business.

We are pro-growth. We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market. But we do think that there have to be some rules of the road in place in the financial sector that will create an even playing field and allow businesses to raise capital and consumers to buy products with confidence.

Coming out of this past decade, there has been a sense on the part of a lot of middle-class families that they have been left behind, even when we were expanding. And I talked during the campaign about the need for us to restore a sense of balance to the compact between business, government, and employees all across the country.

If businesses are making record profits but employees are seeing their wages flatline—and in fact, incomes decline over the course of the decade—that puts enormous strains on families. It puts, I think, a dampening effect on consumers who help drive this economy. We are going to be better off if everybody feels like they have got a stake in growth and innovation moving forward. And I think that balance got lost.

Now, making sure that we restore that balance without tipping too far in the other direction in ways that squelch innovation and investment is going to be an important challenge, and one that we take very seriously. But the important message I would have for the business community—and this is something that I emphasize every time I have lunch with CEOs, and we have had a lot of them in here—is we have every interest in you succeeding.

In the international marketplace, the more the American brand and American products and American services are thriving, the better off we are going to be and, by the way, the better off I will look as President of the United States.

Every American President in the last 30 years has had a major CEO as a member of the Cabinet in the inner circle. You don't so far. Why is that?

It just has to do with who the particular individuals who were needed at a time of crisis. I thought it was very important to have Larry Summers and Tim Geithner as two of my key economic advisers early on because they had gone through significant global economic crises before.

But I think it is a legitimate point to say that we want and need more input from the corporate community, if nothing else, just so that we can communicate to the corporate community and to the business community the fact that, if you look at our actual policies, as opposed to the speculation around our policies, they have been fundamentally business-friendly.

RTWT.

One of Obama's favorite CEO's is GE Chairman and progressive-socialist Jeffrey Immelt.

Added: From the New York Times, "Obama Defends His Policies to C.E.O.’s" (via Memeorandum). And at The Lonely Conservative, "Obama: Enough with the Socialist Rhetoric!"

Trainer Killed in 'Dine With Shamu' Attack: Tilikum, Largest Whale at Any SeaWorld Park, Will Not Be Put Down

Left Coast Rebel has the story, "Killer Whale Tilikum Kills Trainer Dawn Brancheau, at Sea World, Florida.

And make sure you read the report at the Orlando Sentinel, "SeaWorld Trainer Dawn Brancheau Dies in Killer-Whale Attack":

Witnesses who watched the attack while eating at the "Dine with Shamu" show — a poolside buffet where trainers demonstrate their connection with the animals — told the Sentinel a female trainer was petting a killer whale when it grabbed her and plunged into the water.

It reappeared on the other side of the tank and leapt up holding the woman, they said.

Within minutes, an alarm sounded, and security workers escorted the spectators out. Some people were screaming, and children were crying, Sobrinho and Oliveira said. The scene was more orderly at "Dine with Shamu."

Several spectators said the animals had been agitated during a 12:30p.m. show, playing or fighting with one another and refusing to obey commands to splash the crowd, a staple of the program.

I've done the "Dine With Shamu" show with my family in San Diego. The whales literally come within a few feet of guests, who are being served privately at a lavish luncheon a few hours before the regular afternoon performance. My son was just five years-old when we attended the event. I can't imagine the shock and trauma for some families whose kids witnessed this.

And sadly, this whale has been involved in two more deaths:

Tilikum, the largest killer whale at any SeaWorld park, has been involved in two previous deaths.

He was one of three killer whales blamed for the 1991 drowning of a trainer while he performed at the now-defunct Sealand of the Pacific in British Columbia. In 1999, the dead body of a naked man was found lying across Tilikum's back at SeaWorld Orlando.

Tompkins said Tilikum would not be put down because of the attacks. His name, according to various sources, means "welcome," "greetings" or "friend" in Chinook jargon.

Foundations of Whiteness and White Domination?

In 2003, in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority that "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

And she might have been proved correct, except that the left's racism, sexism, and homophobia industry keeps moving the goalposts for reaching "The Promised Land."

And shoot, the way things are going, leftists will initiate a "White Racist History Month" to make all of today's "racist oppressors" pay continued penance for the sins of the fathers. For example, "Thinking About My Whiteness":

I was googling "white privilege quotes", looking for a quick fix ... and came across these wise Mennonite dudes who had some good things to say. I particularly love this quote about white privilege and the need to be intentionally anti-racist:

As Tatum points out, to be white in America and do nothing about it is to participate in passive racist behavior; the equivalent of standing still on a moving walkway. No overt effort is being made, but the conveyor belt moves the bystanders along. Unless a person is walking actively in the opposite direction at a speed faster than the conveyor belt—unless they are actively antiracist—they will find themselves carried along with the others. To be white and actively antiracist means seeking to interrupt the advantage system; to change the structures of power that give advantage based on skin color. In the language of Ephesians it is to struggle not against flesh and blood, but against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places ... by taking our stand against the devil’s schemes.

Basically, just being white is racist. Who'd a thunk it!

And the "present darkness ..." Well, hmm ... I better not comment: That might be RAAACIST!!

Anyway, see the program note for the "Thinking About Whiteness and Doing Anti-Racism" series with Sheila Wilmot (who is the author, naturally, of Taking Responsibility, Taking Direction: White Anti-Racism in Canada).

Oh, and by the way, Sandra Day O'Connor has had second thoughts: Maybe white guilt weighs heavier in retirement. See, "Sandra Day O'Connor Revisits and Revives Affirmative-Action Controversy."

Hat Tip for Wilmot Series: Blazing Cat Fur: "We regret our bathroom is not wheelchair accessible" (link).

Hey, wait a second: Isn't that "ableist"? BOYCOTT SHEILA WILMOT ABLE-BODIED HEGEMONIC OPPRESSOR!!

'Black Front Groups': The New Secret Plan to Reimpose Jim Crow!

OMFG!! You cannot make this stuff up!

From Max Blumenthal, the idiot race-baiter who was literally destroyed at CPAC, "Feeling the Hate at CPAC 2010 With Andrew Breitbart, Hannah Giles and the Crazy Mob" (via Memeorandum):

While I was filming at CPAC for a forthcoming project, I was confronted by Hannah Giles, Andrew Breitbart and a mob of crazed teabaggers. They were enraged by an article I wrote for Salon.com about James O'Keefe's attendance of and assistance with a white nationalist event featuring open racialists Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire as well as Kevin Martin of the right-wing front group Project 21. Project 21, by the way, is a black front group created and operated by white conservative operatives to provide cover to figures like Taylor.

Yeah, that'll work. White conservatives will locate enough "shufflin' black folk" to shill for white supremacist organizations.

Brilliant! Dude, that beats "vajazzling"!

You got to hand it to him, though: Just when you thought Max Blumenthal had hit bottom, he actually finds another way to dig deeper.

See Kevin Martin's rebuttal, "On the Record: Exposing the Source of Blumenthal’s Smear" (on Daryle Jenkins of One People’s Project):

From left: Marcus Epstein, Jared Taylor, Kevin Martin, and John Derbyshire at what Daryle Jenkins dubbed a “racist forum”.

Sarah Palin: 'More of the Same, Only More Expensive'

New essay from Sarah Palin on Facebook:

With a government-growing proposal this bad, it’s no wonder the President wants bipartisan cover for it in an election year. Thursday’s health care summit is already being revealed as little more than a photo-op. The Obama administration still denies the existence of the House Republicans’ health care plan that offers alternative solutions to health care challenges – even though the White House website links right to it.

The President’s proposal doesn’t include pro-free market ideas like allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, giving individual buyers the same tax benefits as those who get insurance through their employers, or instituting real medical liability reform. Despite the “kumbaya” rhetoric, Democrats are making plans to ram this bill through the Senate using a partisan procedural maneuver that will bypass the normal bipartisan debate process.

In the meantime, the White House will continue to ignore Republican reform ideas and cast the GOP as the party of no. That’s a hard sell considering that Democrats still hold the majority in the House and Senate. The only real “gridlock” preventing Democrats from doing what they want is the very real threat of America's voice being heard at the ballot box.

The public is clearly opposed to the Democrats’ health care bills. Americans want to scrap these big-government plans and start over with common-sense, incremental reform. Some on the left have urged Democrats to vote for Obamacare because it’s a foot in the door for universal health care. They understand what’s at stake; so should the rest of us.

The President can perfume this proposal however he wants, but it still doesn’t pass the smell test. Washington should listen to Americans now, or Washington will hear us in November.

RTWT at the link.

Temecula Valley First Anniversary Tea Party

Via Political Pistachio, and from the Escondido Californian, "TEMECULA: Local Tea Party Activists Celebrate One-Year Anniversary Saturday":

For the second straight year, Southwest County conservatives will kick off their political year with a February "tea party" protest at Ynez and Rancho California roads.

While many of the causes uniting the group will be similar ---- calls for lower taxes and more accountability from government ---- the context of this year's protest, scheduled for Saturday afternoon, will be different.

Last year, the protesters were dismissed and derided by liberal commentators as "tea baggers" and some pundits chalked up the February rally as an outlet for disgruntled election year losers to let off steam. Then people came out for a follow-up tax day rally in April. Then there was a patriotic rally on July 4 and one more in September that was tied to the Sept. 12 project, a Glen Beck-inspired push to focus on the national unity of the day after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Instead of fizzling out as some people expected, the tea party movement has gained strength and clout.

This year, as evidenced by the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, the tea partiers are an increasingly viable force in politics and they are being wooed and seduced by Republican Party leadership: a group that includes presidential hopefuls, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

"We're feeling really good about how it's progressed and how far it's come," said Ramona Lott, a member of the Temecula Valley Tea Party Patriots and one of the organizers of Saturday's rally.

Lott, a retired social worker, said she is expecting a minimum of 1,000 people to attend at least some portion of Saturday's event, scheduled for 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.

"People are more energized, more positive and optimistic," she said. "When we started it last year ... at the time you could feel the energy, the vibe, the frustration ... but there was no knowing where it was going to go."

Lott said the fuel for the movement is conservative independents who are frustrated and disillusioned with both Republicans and Democrats and "politics as usual."

"The Republicans fell into the same trap as the Democrats, they couldn't say no to spending," she said.

One of the featured guests at the rally will be Doug Gibbs, a conservative blogger who also broadcasts a radio show.

Gibbs, Lott said, will have a booth at the Duck Pond's gazebo and he will be fielding questions about the Constitution, which, Lott said, is the cornerstone of the tea party movement.

Image Credit (and more information): Free Republic, "Temecula Tea Party & Anti-Tax Rally on Saturday, February 27, 2010 in Temecula, California."

Debating the New Rules of War

When John Arquilla came to UCSB to give a job talk, back in the 1990s, one thing sticks out in my memory: He was the only prospective faculty hire who flirted with the female graduate students during a colloquium!

He was quirky and extremely knowledgeable, but he didn't get the job.

In any case, Aquilla's got the lead essay at the March/April Foreign Policy, "The New Rules of War":

The visionary who first saw the age of "netwar" coming warns that the U.S. military is getting it wrong all over again. Here's his plan to make conflict cheaper, smaller, and smarter.

Every day, the U.S. military spends $1.75 billion, much of it on big ships, big guns, and big battalions that are not only not needed to win the wars of the present, but are sure to be the wrong approach to waging the wars of the future.

In this, the ninth year of the first great conflict between nations and networks, America's armed forces have failed, as militaries so often do, to adapt sufficiently to changed conditions, finding out the hard way that their enemies often remain a step ahead. The U.S. military floundered for years in Iraq, then proved itself unable to grasp the point, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that old-school surges of ground troops do not offer enduring solutions to new-style conflicts with networked adversaries.

So it has almost always been. Given the high stakes and dangers they routinely face, militaries are inevitably reluctant to change. During World War I, the armies on the Western Front in 1915 were fighting in much the same manner as those at Waterloo in 1815, attacking in close-packed formations -- despite the emergence of the machine gun and high-explosive artillery. Millions were slaughtered, year after bloody year, for a few yards of churned-up mud. It is no surprise that historian Alan Clark titled his study of the high command during this conflict The Donkeys.

Even the implications of maturing tanks, planes, and the radio waves that linked them were only partially understood by the next generation of military men. Just as their predecessors failed to grasp the lethal nature of firepower, their successors missed the rise of mechanized maneuver -- save for the Germans, who figured out that blitzkrieg was possible and won some grand early victories. They would have gone on winning, but for poor high-level strategic choices such as invading Russia and declaring war on the United States. In the end, the Nazis were not so much outfought as gang-tackled.

Nuclear weapons were next to be misunderstood, most monumentally by a U.S. military that initially thought they could be employed like any other weapons. But it turned out they were useful only in deterring their use. Surprisingly, it was cold warrior Ronald Reagan who had the keenest insight into such weapons when he said, "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought."

Which brings us to war in the age of information. The technological breakthroughs of the last two decades -- comparable in world-shaking scope to those at the Industrial Revolution's outset two centuries ago -- coincided with a new moment of global political instability after the Cold War. Yet most militaries are entering this era with the familiar pattern of belief that new technological tools will simply reinforce existing practices.

In the U.S. case, senior officials remain convinced that their strategy of "shock and awe" and the Powell doctrine of "overwhelming force" have only been enhanced by the addition of greater numbers of smart weapons, remotely controlled aircraft, and near-instant global communications. Perhaps the most prominent cheerleader for "shock and awe" has been National Security Advisor James Jones, the general whose circle of senior aides has included those who came up with the concept in the 1990s. Their basic idea: "The bigger the hammer, the better the outcome."

Nothing could be further from the truth, as the results in Iraq and Afghanistan so painfully demonstrate. Indeed, a decade and a half after my colleague David Ronfeldt and I coined the term "netwar" to describe the world's emerging form of network-based conflict, the United States is still behind the curve. The evidence of the last 10 years shows clearly that massive applications of force have done little more than kill the innocent and enrage their survivors. Networked organizations like al Qaeda have proven how easy it is to dodge such heavy punches and persist to land sharp counterblows.

Lots more at the link.

A lot of folks at the Pentagon and in the armed services aren't going to love the argument, although Arquilla does note that we're actually developing a more "networked U.S. military" right now. Yet while mentioning it, the article still slights the phenomenal strategic adaptation of U.S. forces in Iraq. Moreover, Arquilla's argument for a smaller, more agile displacement profile of fighting forces was in fact used in 2003 in Iraq. General Eric Shinseki lost his job for arguing that the U.S. should have gone in with "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers." Since then, untold analysts have said Shinseki was right, and of course Rumsfeld left the Pentagon in 2006 with his early postwar celebrity simply destroyed. So, Arquilla's argument needs to be developed further in light of various contingencies, and in the context of further evolving military, strategic, and technological circumstances. He's got the big picture right, but plugging in a few cases leaves a little to be desired.

Army and Air Force Chiefs Voice Concern Over Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

From the Los Angles Times, "Military Chiefs Voice Concern Over Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'":

In a sign of possible differences among top military officials, Army and Air Force chiefs voiced concern Tuesday about ending a ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces while the country is in the middle of two wars.

Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz both told Congress that they supported the Pentagon's plan to spend a year studying a change in the policy that allows gays to serve only as long as they keep their preferences hidden.

However, both generals were mum about their own views on gays in the military, and neither followed the lead of Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who this month said gays should be allowed to serve openly.

The appearances by Schwartz and Casey will be followed Wednesday by those of Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, and Gen. James Conway, the Marine commandant.

Lawmakers and advocates are carefully watching the congressional testimony, trying to gauge where the various service chiefs stand on the issue of gays in the military as a barometer for the eventual outcome.

Opponents of the ban, including President Obama and many congressional Democrats, want to quickly overturn it. However, backers of the ban, including some congressional Republicans, are looking to military officials for possible support for keeping the policy in place.

RTWT.

The report notes the support of Army Gen. Ray Odierno, top U.S. commander in Iraq, for the administration's policy proposal:

'My opinion is everyone should be allowed to serve, as long as we're still able to fight our wars and we're able to have forces that are capable of doing whatever we're asked to do,' Odierno said."

I had the best "teachable moment" on Monday in my 11:00am class. I have two students who are retired from active duty, one from the Army and the other from the Navy. Neither of them had any problems with gay service-members. As we were discussing this, I pulled up Mackubin Thomas Owens' recent WSJ essay, "The Case Against Gays in the Military." As Owens argues there, "open homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it undermines the military ethos upon which success in war ultimately depends."

I reminded the class that I was NOT taking a position on the issue, but that I was sharing the military-strategic side of the argument. It was a powerful exchange. One of the students came up after class to thank me for the vigorous discussion. "That was fun," he said.

More on this later ...

Charlie Cook: 'Very Hard to Come Up With a Scenario Where Democrats Don't Lose the House'

I mentioned this earlier, but the Foggy Bottom blog came out of the blue for a frankly strange attack on my analysis of the New York Times' poll out a couple of weeks ago. Here's the guy's post: "The Nutty Professor Reads the Polls":

Donald Douglas writes at American Power that the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows “disastrous” numbers for Democrats. To make his case, he cites two results which indicate a preference for smaller government, and a third showing more concern over the economy and jobs than health care. Douglas then points out that a bare plurality has more faith in Republicans to “ensure a strong economy” and a bare majority who don’t think the President has offered reasonable solutions to the economic problems faced by their families.

Not so fast. These cherry-picked results don’t tell the whole story, and “it doesn’t take a statistician” to see that this grossly exaggerates the bad news in the poll for the President and Democrats. That’s a good thing, because for a political science professor, Douglas isn’t much of one if that’s what he gets from this poll.

And then toward the end:

Donald Douglas is not a very good political scientist and an even worse poll analyst, based on this example of his work. He pulled a few results that support his preconceived notion of the state of American public opinion from a long survey while ignoring data points which might refute his claim. This poll contains nothing particularly disastrous for Democrats or President Obama. If Douglas cared about good analysis, he would have pointed this out.

Actually, this smear that "Donald Douglas is not a very good political scientist," etc., is completely gratuitous and simply reveals the true agenda of whoever this Foggy Bottom guy is (R. Stanton Scott?). More importantly, of course, is that my analysis at the post was dead on. As I pointed out there, the key measure to watch is anti-incumbency. Combined with elevated measures showing support for limited government, the anti-incumbency mood is going to take a huge bite out of the Democratic majority in Congress come November. Interestingly, Mark Tapscott, the Editorial Page Editor at the Washington Examiner, cited my post in his essay, "New York Times Survey Finds Obama Edge Over GOP ... Until You Look at the Data." And as Mark notes there:

How has the public responded during Obama's first year in office? His high point came in May 2009 with 45 percent saying he had the country headed in the right direction, while 48 percent said it was going the wrong direction.

But the worse news for Obama is the fact the right track percentage has been headed steadily down ever since, reaching its lowest percent under him in the most recent survey at 33 percent. Fully 62 percent of the respondents said the country is headed in the wrong direction under Obama.

Donald Douglas at American Power blog notes other questions and responses that suggest the president's position with the public is vastly more negative than the Times' leads its readers to believe. A strong majority, 56 percent, say they prefer a "smaller government with fewer services," and nearly 60 percent say "government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."

But the bad news for Obama and his political supporters in the New York Times/CBS News poll gets even worse the more you read in it.

I'm no congressional expert, but I'll tell you, Adam Nagourney at NYT badly screwed up the analysis on that one. But don't take it from me, or even Mark Tapscott. One of the country's foremost congressional forecasters says it's looking worse all the time for the Dems. See the interview with Charlie Cook, "Health Care Is Obama's Iraq":

I've spent the last couple of days talking to some of the brightest Democrats in the party that are not in the White House. And it's very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don't lose the House. It's very hard. Are the seats there right this second? No. But we're on a trajectory on the House turning over....

So, piece of advice to R. Stanton Scott: Either do straight analysis or do smears, since you've botched both in this hatchet job.

Video Hat Tip: MAinfo, "Charlie Cook Says Dems Will Lose The House In November."

Unbelievable Tsunami Surf!

Via Maggie's Farm: