Saturday, January 30, 2010

Barone 1/30/10

Democrats Heading for Epic Disaster


My take on Michael Barone's latest. His column was published in The Washington Examiner.

Summary: Polling shows Republicans doing better than ever mostly due to opposition to the Democrats.

Quote:
Nonetheless, what we have here are the makings of an epic party disaster. Whether it comes to pass is still uncertain. But it certainly could.

My Views: Let's assume that all of the Democrat's policies are good ones for the moment. I think that Obama's behavior over the last month will become the classic case of someone stepping on their own brand. Obama and his supporters in party, country, and in the media have spent much effort in developing the image of a careful, non-partisan, and thoughtful political leader. His biggest misstep recently was the Boston speech in the special Senate election where he tried to cast it as between ordinary persons and the "big Wall Street bankers".

His best (and most quoted) line in the speech was also his worst. "Anybody can buy a pick-up truck but you've got to look under the hood." That last clause was pretty good but it was belied by the first. How many poor voters heard that and thought, "I wish I could buy a pick-up."

The problem with the speech was not that it wasn't so very bad but that it was so very ordinary. Virtually any Democrat politician anywhere in the country could have made that speech. They've been making variations of that speech for years. Same-o, same-o.

Then there's the visual image. Why's he appearing around the country (like in Ohio last week) without the tie? A small thing, true. But the visual, together with the demogogic speeches, and the jarring policies create the wrong impression. To citizens who need reassurance that they've got competant, thoughtful leadership (the old Obama brand would have given them that), they're getting the image of a left-wing radical.

So, what can Obama do (assuming that he does not want to change his policies.)

First, he can put that tie back on and look Presidential. He's the President of the USA, for crying out loud. There is not more advantageous spot to be in, no matter how unpopular a pol may be. Stop diminishing that advantage and use it!

Second, explain what he's trying to accomplish and how his policies are going to accomplish those goals. En-passent, he can say that's why he needs those Democrat votes in the Congress.

Third, stop demogoging. This stuff only hurts the Obama brand. - And if you're going to criticize Supreme Court over-reach, go ahead. But not just when they make Conservative decisions. And be thoughtful in your criticism. His State of the Union speech wasn't thoughtful at all.

Fourth, he's just got to answer the public's concerns about his policies. Meaningfully answer, not clever evasions.

This last point is probably the one that spoils everything I wrote above. For if he cannot meaningfully address the concerns, then maybe he should just face the fact that his policies are just all wrong. Go back to demogoging becasue that's all he has left.



Once, while flipping through tv channels, I stopped at C-Span when I heard someone say something like, "The most discriminated-against group in America today are Right-Wing Christians. The Press doesn't understand them and what little they do understand of them, they don't like." The moderator of the panel discussion quickly cut him off and said something about getting back to the topic of discussion which was discrimination in the newsroom. Another panelist began speaking, saying the things you would expect and I turned the channel. But before doing that, I marked down Michael Barone as a man I would watch in the future.

He has written a remarkable series of books, the most widely known and used is in the banner.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

World Wide Web - World

This means we need to start subtracting the word "world" from the term "world wide web". China and other totalitarian countries countries are increasingly restricting internet use. We're moving from a true world wide web to a nationalized web.

That is, until new software hacks can be invented to circumvent government controls.

More information: Investors Business Daily.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Interesting Reads 1/20/10

News articles that I think were interesting, so I'm passing them along.

WHERE OBAMA WENT WRONG at RealClearPolitics.com discusses the 3 big strategic decisions that made the Democrats so unpopular. Quote:
To put it bluntly, the Obama White House has been politically inept in the last year. It has made serious miscalculations, and today it is paying a price.
----------


OBAMA'S EEOC NOMINEE: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals at CNSNews.Com says that the nominee wrote that government ought to persecute Christians and other religeous people for private beliefs that conflict with gay rights. Quote:
“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” the Georgetown law professor argued.
----------


MASSACHUSSETTS STILL A TOSS-UP FiveThirtyEight.com is now outdated but I like this article as a good lesson in how to analyze polling. Quote:
It should be kept in mind that a lot of Brown's support is pretty new, which would ordinarily imply that it is pretty soft.
----------


DEMS' LOCK ON SENATE IS MIXED BLESSING FOR OBAMA by Michael Barone says that Obama would have been better off if he had been forced to work on a more bi-partisan basis by the lack of the 60 votes in the Senate. Quote:
The 60th seat was a temptation, and like Oscar Wilde, the Democrats were able to resist anything except temptation.
----------


HOW COAKLEY WILL STEAL THE ELECTION FROM BROWN in the Washington Examiner discusses how recent elections were manipulated by lost/found ballots and other counting manipulations in recent years. Quote:
How best to steal the election from Brown and the people of Massachusetts? Absentee ballots.

Monday, January 18, 2010

But Enough of MLK, Vote for Me . . .

This is the Democrat's candidate for U.S. Senate from Massachussets speaking at the MLK Day event in Boston.



The Republican candidate was invited by a private attendee and was seated at Table 84 in the back. He was not allowed to speak; only the Democrat's candidate was.

Sad that this day is treated as a holiday for the left and for the Democrats instead as a national holiday. I'm sure this is why so many people in America don't honor it. The promoters of this holiday send the same message year after year: this isn't for MLK and certainly not for you or your values but only for us and ours.

I wish they would allow the rest of us in the tent. Step 1: allow the Republicans to speak. End the political predjudice against them and be more tolerant of non-left-wing ideas.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Mass. Senate Race

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the race for the Senate in Massachussets. Barrack Obama is dropping everything - Haiti, Healthcare, everything - to campaign here today. For most of the last half-century, when we think liberal, we think Massachussets. When we think Democrat, we think Massachussets. This is the state that the Democrats must hold.

It is just fascinating to see a party monopoly getting challenged; it is also fascinating to see the underdog getting a chance.

Late-night observation. Tried to find Obama's speech on the internet. No coverate at CNN, or Fox. Minimal coverage at Boston Globe, New York Times, and Washington Post. What does this mean? Obama's rally fell flat?

Just saw - Fox News reported that Obama spoke in an auditorium that seated 3,000. The audience was only 2,500. Republican Brown held a competing rally on his own and drew a similar size crowd.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Questionable Tea Party Convention



Here is an interesting essay from one of the leading Conservative Bloggers on one of the leading Conservative blogs. (Okay, I admit it. I post there, too.)

Here's the important facts I gleaned from the piece.
1) The Convention is organized by folks no one has heard of before.
2) They are charging $500 a pop entrance fee.
3) They are a for-profit organization.

This is starting to sound like some hucksters are wanting to cash in on the tea party protesters. It started out as a grass-roots movement for ordinary folks to have their voices heard. Now, it is starting to have over-tones of a Ross Perot style third party.

Sarah Palin is going to be the keynote speaker at this convention. Why did she pass up other, more important speaking opportunities - such as the Guest of Honor at the House Republican's annual dinner last winter? - Or the Ronald Reagan Library event?

Her presence at this event may just wind up legitimizing a rip-off of a legitimate movement.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Steyn 1/9/10

Anti-Terror System Still Not Working


My take on Mark Steyn's latest. His column was published in the Orange County Register.

Summary:Airport measures taken since the Christmas terror attack have made things worse for passengers while not hindering more terror attacks.

Quote:
First, the bureaucrats at the TSA swung into action with a whole new range of restrictions.

Against radical Yemen-trained Muslims wearing weaponized briefs? Of course not. That would be too obvious. So instead they imposed a slew of constraints against you. At Heathrow last week, they were permitting only one item of carry-on on U.S. flights. In Toronto, no large purses.

Um, the Pantybomber didn't have a purse. He brought the bomb on board under his private parts, and his private parts weren't part of his carry-on. . . .

My Views: Valid point - National Security thinking needs to get away from all this politically correct, no profiling stuff. Clearly, the Fort Hood shooter should never have been promoted to Major in the US Army. It wasn't that his problems were unknown; it was the fear of official retribution if he was denied promotion - or (ahem!) kicked out of the army, entirely. Kicking him out of the country would have been too sensible.

Not valid point - the criticisms of Obama. Yes, he ought not have allowed the Christmas Terrorist a civilian trial but once he did, his remarks couldn't prejudice the prosecution. So the reliance on the word "allegedly" and so on. More significant are the President's latest statements on how the system failed and how things need to be improved.

Steyn's column is correct in critizing the President's actions; not so correct in criticizing the President's words. Sadly, actions still speak louder than words.



Mark Steyn is a syndicated columnist from Canada. Here's his Wiki bio.

His latest book is on the right. This is the book that got several Human Rights Commissions in Canada hot and bothered. With free speech under unprecedented attack, Mark Steyn managed to pull out a badly needed victory. This was the first time a Canadian Human Rights Commission found a defendant innocent.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

2009 Year in Review

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!


I've always liked JibJab's work. This is a funny video about 2009. I notice that they went real light on Health Care! I wonder why. It was too explosive, even for them.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

The Peace Prize

Now for a story I missed in 2009. Almost everything to be said about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize has been said except for the elephant in the room. Why have a Nobel Peace Prize at all?

There's now been a century's worth of annual winners of this prize. How many among them made a real difference in World Peace? Many of them were great humanitarians. Many of them did lots of good deeds. But in settling the wars of the century, in preventing wars, how many of these winners ever did anything major?

The problem is that real peacemaking means doing things that automatically disqualify the person from ever getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's take up a couple cases of people who were not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - as a direct consequence of their peacemaking.

1) Franklin D. Roosevelt. He could have got it. In those darkest days of World War II, he could have announced that he was making peace with Hitler. H would have demanded a lot, but as long as FDR wanted to give him whatever he wanted, he could have got a peace treaty. Instead, he declared that the only peace he would accept with the Nazis was Unconditional Surrender. Warlike, true. But consider how much less peaceful the world would now be if the Nazis remained a major power in it.

2) Dwight Eisenhower. He ended the Korean War but that act precluded him from winning the Nobel Peace Prize. First, he got tough with the Communists. Told the Chinese that if they did not get serious about peace, he would start bombing them. Then, he accepted a truce (instead of a formal peace agreement). The U.S. army is there to this very day. But he stopped the fighting.

Now, let's look at the last few people who did win the Nobel Peace Prize (skipping Obama):

1) Mahtti Ahtisaari of Finland. What did he accomplish? His Wiki bio lists offices and awards, but what did he ever actually accomplish with any of them? He was the U.N. negotiaton on the Kosovo peace talks which failed. That's the noteworthy achievement.

2) Al Gore for his climate change work. Let's assume Gore is correct on every particular. Give him a Nobel Ecomomics Prize or even a Nobel Other Prize, but this work's relation to settling or preventing any war is tangental at best.

3) Grameen Bank is a banker who pioneered new banking methods for poor people. Give him an Economics Prize.

I could go on. Great humanitarians, great dedicated people but very few really made a direct contribution to World Peace.

And this is my problem with the World Peace Prize. Only those who act on the edges of the issue can get it. They're like the customer service reps at the Auto Service Centers who sit at their desks or wander the floor but who never crawl under the car and get their hands dirty. The mechanics who actually step into the gunk and are willing (and able!) to get dirty with the real decisions of War and Peace do not get awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

I propose a Nobel Humanitarian Prize. That would be far more descriptive of what those dedicated individuals really did.