Obama, foreign policy team – a quick note:

…we have a better chance of assuring our future if we remember who our friends are. – Henry Kissenger

The story:

Young Americans showed their collective power when they helped vote President Obama into office. Inspired by his message of “change,” they knocked on doors, spread flyers, voted for him by a 2-1 margin, and partied like rock-the-vote stars when he won.

Since the election, though, that fervor has died down — noticeably. And while young people remain the president’s most loyal supporters in opinion polls, a lot of people are wondering why that age group isn’t doing more to build upon their newfound reputation as political influencers.

“It’s one thing to get excited about a presidential candidate. It’s another thing to become a responsible citizen,” says Jennifer Donahue, political director for the New Hampshire Institute Of Politics. She and other political analysts thinks they have yet to prove themselves.

Professors and students themselves also are noticing the quiet on college campuses, which were hotbeds for “Obamamania” during the campaign.

“They’re supportive, but in a bystander kind of way,” says Laura Katz Olson, a political science professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.

Ever since a bunch of middle aged professors tried to curry favor with 1960’s hippies by calling them the “best and brightest”, there has been this concept that young people, on the whole, are something special. Well they’re not – never have been. There’s a reason the voting age used to be 21. Young people – and especially modern, western young people – are, in their masses, shallow, ignorant, slaves to fashion and un-educated (its why we have them in school, ya know?). “Obamania” was cool, don’t you see? And that is all it was – now its just sooo 2008.

This is not to say that there aren’t exceptions – to every rule, there are. But most kids are just kids – not to be trusted much until they’ve either lived a bunch more years, or someone like a Marine drill instructor knocks some sense into their heads. Obama will still command a lot of youth support – and he’ll even be able to generate enthusiastic crowds of young supporters…but the rock star part of his youth appeal is gone and won’t ever come back. You can only do that once.

As time goes on, however, I figure that the “Obamania” of 2008 will turn to shock and anger among many young voters by 2012 – now that they see that “hope and change” has a price tag, and they’ll be stuck with the tab.

Gulp!

President Obama is exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan, including a plan advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan, officials said Tuesday.

Uh, Mr. President; if I may? Your Vice President? Well, he’s an idiot. I know, its hard to believe that you could have chosen a moron as your Veep, but you did…next time, a little more monitoring of the selection committee, kay?

Anyways, back to this whole, “Biden is an idiot” thing – given that he is (and, remember, during the campaign he once talked up how France and the US had expelled Hezbollah from Lebanon), it might not be in America’s best interest to make him the point man on strategy. Any strategy – but most especially strategy where life is at stake. What I’m saying here is that its ok to keep Biden around for a laugh or two, but when real, adult decisions have to be made, you might want to look elsewhere for advice…

Geesh:

Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.

Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting.

Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks.

Uh, Donks, “delay the vote” isn’t a bug, its a feature…

Going to the ultimate source of our economic ills:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in what was billed as her first public-speaking engagement outside North America, blamed the world financial crisis on government excesses and called for a new round of deregulation and tax cuts for U.S. businesses.

“We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place,” the former Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate said Wednesday at a conference sponsored by investment firm CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets. “We’re not interested in government fixes, we’re interested in freedom,” she added…

…In the wide-ranging address, Ms. Palin touched on the rising U.S. budget deficit, the debate over a proposed health-care overhaul, the war in Afghanistan and China’s role in world affairs.

She described her political philosophy as a “common-sense conservatism,” and said the free-market policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher should be guides for how to get out of the current economic situation. “Liberalism holds that there is no human problem that government can’t fix if only the right people are put in charge,” she said.

Other news reports are claiming that some US bankers in attendance walked out – probably due to a guilty conscience. Government made Wall Street what it is today – the play ground of the well-connected and a slush fund for the government apparatchiks who regulate Wall Street: the calls by Obama and his liberals for more government regulation are really just calls to make the bond between Wall Street and DC tighter…so that there can be more special deals for the well-connected and more “oversight” which doesn’t see.

Freedom is the answer – and freedom requires that we break up Big Government and Big Corporation….but, also, that we unfetter the American people. Get rid of those regulations which make it next to impossible to start up a new factory, or a new farm, or a new mine – get rid of the liberal NIMBYism which has prohibited us from building nuclear power plants, drilling for oil, refining gasoline and exploiting our massive coal reserves. Unleash the American economy – and allow real wealth to be built up: that is what will cure our ills.

Have at it, boys and girls.

Someone get this to President Obama:

… once war is forces upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory. – Douglas MacArthur

And the soldiers need to know what they are fighting for. Krauthammer via NRO’s The Corner:

Well, I think what’s really important here are two dates. The first is August 30. That’s when the McChrystal report was sent to Washington. That is three weeks ago. Obama has had a single meeting [on that report] since then.

He says he hasn’t reached a conclusion — I suppose because he is spending all his time preparing for Letterman and speeches to schoolchildren — to focus on a war in which our soldiers are in the field getting shot at and, as the president himself is saying, without a strategy.

Now, the other date is the 27th of March, when Obama gave a speech in the White House flanked by his Secretaries of Defense and State, in which he said, and I will read you this, because it is as if it never happened, “Today I’m announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

So we for six months have been living under the new Obama strategy, of which he says today we have none. And his next sentence is, again in March, “This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review” — not the beginning, the end of the policy review.

So it has been his policy, and now he tells us we don’t have a cart and we don’t have a horse…

…You either can act on that or not. It’s not a complicated idea. Obama is not stalling because he’s studying all this. Obama is stalling because a) he doesn’t know and b) he doesn’t want to go politically against his own party.

Our soldiers have an absolute right to know that the orders which send them in to battle – which may send them in to grave wounds or death – are animated by firm plan. As it stands, Obama – by his own admission – doesn’t know what he wants the troops to do, and isn’t even close to figuring out what he wants to accomplish. The soldiers have been fighting with incredible bravery and with some success even in this deteriorating situation…their Commander in Chief has just told them that he’s got other things on his plate more important than figuring out what we’re going to do in Afghanistan.

I realize that Obama probably needed to be coached in order to know who outranks whom among his military aides; that Obama probably couldn’t tell anyone what a CIWS is; that when a soldier says “flank”, he’s not talking about a type of steak; that, in short, President Obama has zero military experience and zero knowledge of military affairs and history. That’s ok – a President doesn’t have to be a Napoleon to be an effective Commander in Chief. It helps to have a fund of knowledge in order to better correct and challenge the generals, but its not a requirement – especially when you have a first class Secretary of Defense like Gates. But Obama is the only man who can make a decision and ignorance of military affairs does not excuse him from the requirement to both make decisions, and make them swiftly when lives are at stake.

If we are to ask an American soldier to spill the blood of an enemy and risk his own life in so doing, then we must ensure that he’s got a clear mission with a decided goal. With President Obama, our soldiers have neither. My biggest fear is that Obama is simply afraid to make a decision – that he’s afraid to either risk lives or risk his political prospects, and thus remains caught in a web of indecision. But he must be made to move – pressure must be brought on Obama to force him to choose. One way or the other – in or out; fight or withdraw…no more hesitation and waffling. Choose.

The story:

Facing the increasing likelihood of losses in the 2010 midterm congressional and gubernatorial elections, President Obama and his fellow Democrats are returning to a tried-and-true campaign strategy — run against former President George W. Bush.

In speech after speech since taking office, Mr. Obama has pointed back to the problems he inherited from the Bush administration when he took office. And earlier this month, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine catalogued a slew of perceived Bush failures to the delight of supporters.

Already, Democratic gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey are testing the strategy — so far, however, unsuccessfully.

“It will be a failed strategy,” said Karl Rove, former senior political adviser to Mr. Bush. “They have been doing that very intentionally in New Jersey and Virginia thus far, and both their candidates are behind.”

I guess if all you ever had was “I’m not Bush”, then you keep going with it…

What is amazing here is just how much Democrats hate President Bush – and think that the American people, on the whole, hate him, too. President Bush left office one of the most unpopular Presidents in American history…but the left is wrong to think that Joe Average out there hates President Bush so much that they’ll vote for a Democrat over a Republican.

Peace, Democrats – you don’t have to hate this much.

It is a question being asked – and talked of very intelligently by Peter Wehner:

…he seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck’s statements—for example, that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people”–are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger—the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.

I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality. My hunch is that he is a comet blazing across the media sky right now—and will soon flame out. Whether he does or not, he isn’t the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism. At a time when we should aim for intellectual depth, for tough-minded and reasoned arguments, for good cheer and calm purpose, rather than erratic behavior, he is not the kind of figure conservatives should embrace or cheer on.

Which is an arguable position – but a position I think wrong. Here’s why:

The Republican Party is not a majority party in the United States. Neither is the Democrat Party. Both parties are a minority dependent upon non-party voters to craft a governing majority. There is a theory that the GOP must moderate its tone in order to capture the votes of non-affiliated voters. These are voters who are not keen on politics, don’t pay daily attention to what is happening in politics, and are easily turned off by people coming across as too extreme. There is much to be said for this argument – but not right now.

We are in an era of political ferment; in my view, a nearly revolutionary ferment. Heck, so dissatisfied are people, on the whole, that even a large number of leftists are not liking the way Obama is governing – of course, they see it as him not being leftist enough, but the fact remains that only a very small minority are pleased with things as they are. Outside of the precincts of the left, the anger is palpable (the left calls it “hate”, but that is because the average leftist has been living in a bubble of lies for so long he can’t tell truth when it falls on him) – people are furious. Fed up. Mad as heck and not going to take it anymore.

Beck has either keyed in to it, or it has keyed in to him – regardless, he’s the representative of the fury of the people. This is not to say that Beck commands a political movement – no one commands this movement, which showed up in droves on September 12th in Washington, DC – but that he is speaking to them and for them much better than almost anyone else out there. Even such grand masters of conservative polemics like Rush and Hannity are not quite on the same plane, with the most disgruntled, as Beck is.

To speak of Beck as good or bad for conservatism is to miss entirely what is happening out there – Beck is neither good nor bad: he is what he is, and the people he speaks for and to are what they are…and we conservative Republicans had better figure out a way to court them or we’ll miss the opportunity of a lifetime to really reform our nation. The people, epitomized by Beck, are sick of the whole, rotten mess we call American government…make no mistake about it: they have no love for the GOP or the Democrat party. They share a greater affinity with the GOP than they do with the Democrats, but they aren’t an adjunct of either party, and they are open to the pleas of anyone who actually gets out there and speaks to their concerns and their demands. While a liberal Democrat would have a hard sell with this TEA Party movement, such a person would have far more luck than a conservative GOPer who shied away from the movement out of fear of being “extreme”.

These are revolutionary times – and as G. K. Chesterton once observed, if you wish to be conservative, you have to continually have revolutions. To paraphrase – if you wish to preserve a fence post, you have to keep painting it, or you’ll shortly have a rotted stump. If we wish to conserve the America we love, its going to take a revolution to do it – and you can’t have a revolution without revolutionaries. The people out there in the streets are the revolution – Beck is one of their prime spokesmen…he and they won’t always be 100% right and are bound to make mistakes as they go along. But they are the future – and it is time for we Republicans to grasp that future, and ask for their support, and pledge ourselves to a course of action which will save the America we all love.