Obama, Hillary, Benghazi and an Electoral Collapse?

Mark Noonan69 Comments

From Allahpundit discussing the rumor that Hillary is to be thrown underbus by Obama over at Hot Air:

My guess is no, they wouldn’t dare, but the Daily Caller and Tom Maguire make a fair point. In the span of about 18 hours, we’ve had Biden and Carney each insist that blame for Benghazi’s security failures lies outside the White House. It’s State that’s responsible for protecting U.S. diplomats in the field, which means if the buck doesn’t stop with Obama here, then it must stop with you-know-who. Normally that wouldn’t be a problem, as cabinet members are expected to take the heat for the president when something goes badly wrong. But in this case you-know-who has her eye on running in 2016 — possibly against (heh) Biden himself — and surely doesn’t want Benghazi staining the foreign policy credentials she’s worked hard to build.

Throw Bill Clinton, official Obama campaign surrogate, into the mix and we’ve got the makings of a nuclear clusterfark of ego, ass-covering, presidential ambition, and Clintonian drama…

For us on the right this is a “pass the popcorn” moment – but we’ll likely not get it until after November 6th – if Obama loses then Obama-bots will try to lay some of the blame on Hillary (others will seek to blame Biden) while Team Clinton will be desperate to build an impervious narrative that Obama was a failure from start to finish while Hillary heroically tried to keep him up on the rails for four years.  And even if Obama wins, given that Hillary has said she won’t accept re-appointment as SecState, there will be an effort to blame all that is wrong foreign policy-wise on Hillary, with the Clintons of course trying to burnish Hillary’s record and denigrating Obama’s.

Have I mentioned to anyone here yet my view that if Obama does lose in 2012, he’ll try again in 2016?  If I haven’t, then there it is – my view is that Obama will be more infuriated than anything else by an electoral rejection and so will try a come back in 2016.  It has happened before – Grover Cleveland after being defeated for re-election came back four years later to win a second term.  And here’s another prediction:  if Obama were to seek a second term after being defeated in 2012, the Democrats will nominate him.  Why?  Because the party bosses dare not do otherwise – to choose someone else over Obama would be a catastrophic blow against large sections of the Democrat base and so they would simply not turn out for the general election.  But, we’ll see about all that.

Meanwhile:  as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton bears a great deal of responsibility for whatever failures happened in Benghazi.  Ultimately, of course, it is the President who bears final responsibility.  In their dream world, both Hillary and Obama want blame assigned somewhere else and that, in my view, is why both State and the White House so eagerly leaped on the twaddle about a video causing a spontaneous riot which got out of hand:  had that story been true, then it would have mostly excused the White House and State (not entirely, of course, given the pre-attack calls for greater security).  I don’t know if it was a lie created out of whole cloth by State and/or White House or if it was something that someone just happened to remember at an opportune moment, but where ever the nonsense came from, Obama and Hillary were pleased to peddle it – for the self-serving reason that it got them off the hook.

Coupled with Obama’s disastrous debate performance, I think that Benghazi is causing a severe meltdown in support for Obama (and perhaps down-ballot Democrats, as well).  Keeping in mind that I always saw this race as “advantage Romney” and that if Romney were to win it would be by a substantial margin, I still view these two events as a catalyst for an Obama collapse – not just Romney winning, but winning very big.  As things stand right now, only about 10 States can be considered locked down by Obama.   As they include California and New York (with a total of 84 electoral votes between them) this keeps Obama definitely in the hunt for 270 – but this is a gigantic shift from as little as two weeks ago.

There is still a lot of time to go.  Two more Presidential debates are on tap.  Obama and his Democrats have a bucket of money to spend.  But the race has clearly shifted – Obama is behind and has to do something to change the dynamic if he wants to win.

UPDATE:  I want to quote from Mark Steyn’s article about Benghazi because it perfectly captures just what a disastrous failure this was:

…the State Department outsourced security for the Benghazi consulate to Blue Mountain, a Welsh firm that hires ex-British and Commonwealth Special Forces, among the toughest hombres on the planet. The company’s very name comes from the poem “The Golden Journey To Samarkand,” whose words famously adorn the regimental headquarters of Britain’s Special Air Service in Hereford. Unfortunately, the one-year contract for consulate security was only $387,413 – or less than the cost of deploying a single U.S. soldier overseas. On that budget, you can’t really afford to fly in a lot of crack SAS killing machines, and have to make do with the neighborhood talent pool. So who’s available? Blue Mountain hired five members of the Benghazi branch of the February 17th Martyrs’ Brigade and equipped them with handcuffs and batons. A baton is very useful when someone is firing an RPG at you, at least if you play a little baseball. There were supposed to be four men heavily armed with handcuffs on duty that night, but, the date of Sept. 11 having no particular significance in the Muslim world, only two guards were actually on shift…

VP Debate – Open Thread

Cluster78 Comments

This ought to be a fun night. Ryan is a smart, young politician who represents the future of conservatism. Biden is old, not so bright politician who represents the past of failed liberal policies. The Democrats must be cringing tonight knowing that their hopes of a rebound in the polls rests on Biden’s shoulders.

Voter Fraud

Mark Noonan57 Comments

The reason for the Democrat campaign against “voter suppression”?  Well, if you are stuffing ballot boxes with fraudulent votes then any effort to stop it will “suppress” votes.  Illegal votes, but votes none the less.

A full scale and detailed investigation should be launched in 2013 if Romney wins – the full force of federal law must be brought against anyone who votes fraudulently, organizes fraudulent votes or in any way, shape or form encourages fraudulent votes.

Out and About on a Tuesday Afternoon

Mark Noonan89 Comments

Just wanted to bring up some things I saw – so how about an open thread?

The San Francisco TEA Party (yes, there is such a thing – and its larger and more visible than you’d think) protested Obama’s recent fund raiser.  The most telling thing about it?  The gathered Obama-bots made a mess – strewing trash all over the place – and it was the TEA Party activists who cleaned it up.  One does wonder – do liberals know what “citizenship” means?

There is a report that there is joint US-Israeli planning for a strike at Iran’s nuclear program.  There are two things, in my view, which this can be:

1.  Eye wash to the Israelis to keep them thinking we’ll do something until after the election – then if Obama is re-elected, Israel will be left in the lurch.

2.  A desperate ploy by Team Obama to have a rally ’round the flag moment late in the game – we bomb Iran, Americans feel better about Obama, Obama wins re-election (it won’t work – but I don’t put making such an attempt past the Obama people).

No, there is no chance that clear eyed  national security reasons would motivate anyone in the Obama Administration about this.

You know you’ve won the gun control debate when the argument is whether or not the cops have a right to assume that your concealed weapon is un-licensed.  They don’t, in my view, but I do see the point:  95% of firearms are not licensed for concealed carry but, on the other hand, the chances of someone carrying a concealed weapon who is un-licensed to do so is also very small.  Long way from demands that all handguns be banned or that the 2nd amendment only secured the right to bear arms to police and military personnel.

Iowahawk strikes again:  White House scientists fight outbreak of the dread disease scrutonium.

Yes, there are bags of polls showing Romney surging.  I won’t bother linking them – you can find them everywhere right now.  My prediction of a Romney win was never based on polling, so I’m not about to start citing polls.  It is the fundamental dynamics of the race asserting themselves – so much so that now, even with a lot of polls heavily over-sampling Democrats (some have stopped doing so in such an egregious manner), Romney is coming out in the lead.  Remember:  Obama never has had much chance of winning.  He’s not this super-genious who felled our best in 2008 and whom we could only beat by a string of massive good luck.  He’s a lousy President (meaning, on an executive, decision-making level) who’s policies have failed and who is running for re-election as America is on the cusp of renewed recession.  If we can’t beat Obama in 2012 then it might be time to fold up the tents and go home – not since 1980 has a political party been handed to many advantages when trying to take out an incumbent.  Obama can still win; it ain’t over until its over…but it was always an uphill climb for Obama, not for the GOP (I just wish we had had more guts and had worked out better plans to challenge Obama and the Democrats even in the bluest States).

Its been mostly out of the news lately, but Europe continues to melt down.  I’m astounded they’ve managed to keep it together this long.  I don’t know how much longer they’ll be able to keep it up.  Once it goes, though, the world will go through a very sharp financial crisis.

 

 

 

The Immorality of Government Debt

Mark Noonan18 Comments

At Wednesday’s debate Mitt Romney said something I never thought I’d hear him say – or, indeed, hear anyone in government say:

LEHRER: … Governor Romney, you — you go first because the president went first on segment one. And the question is this, what are the differences between the two of you as to how you would go about tackling the deficit problem in this country?

ROMNEY: Good. I’m glad you raised that, and it’s a — it’s a critical issue. I think it’s not just an economic issue, I think it’s a moral issue. I think it’s, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation and they’re going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives.

And the amount of debt we’re adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral…

One could almost leap and shout for joy.

It has been growing on my mind – for some time now – that it is not right for any government agency to have debt.  You see, when the government creates debt what it does is deny to future generations the right to make their own decisions.  As a true democrat, I refuse to bow to the tyranny of those who merely happen to be walking around at the time – I pay heed to those who are dead (ie, I revere tradition) as well as have consideration for those who are yet to be born (I won’t, if I can help it, make things more difficult for them by engaging in idiocy today).  Many of those who are walking around right now want all sorts of things which we cannot afford; and even those who want higher taxes still want even more spending than even the higher taxes would cover.  Anyone who wants anything which cannot be paid for out of current accounts is reaching in to the future and acting as a most tyrannical dictator.  People not yet born may want to expend their collective tax dollars on Project X but they won’t be able to because we, before they were born, spent their tax dollars on Project Y.  Is that in any way fair?

You can try to dress it up and say “well, true we’re mortgaging their future but we’re also providing them this wonderful thing”.  But suppose when the future arrives they don’t consider it all that wonderful?  Suppose even if it were wonderful they’d yet rather have something else?  Who are you, current person, to deny them their choice?

The future does not belong to us – the day after you vote to increase the debt on persons yet unborn you may well die.  You’re not there – you can’t convince anyone tomorrow, you can only deal with today.  Today we may have X amount of dollars to spend and it is up to us, by applying our wisdom, to figure out how to spend them and once we run out, that is the end of the matter.  You can try to hike taxes to get a bit more but everyone knows that after a while high tax rates have a diminishing return (even liberals know this – so ultra-liberal Governor Jerry Brown just extended lower tax rates for Hollywood…because he knows that if Hollywood were hit with a higher tax rate, Hollywood would move out of California and so California would get nothing…the pity, though, is that liberals won’t apply this to all spheres of economic activity…guess it helps if you can throw a swank, Beverly Hills party).  But no matter how you slice it, there isn’t an endless supply of money – there is just so much and then there is no more.  And there is the additional fact that no matter what we do there will never be enough money to satisfy all the wants – some will have to be set aside.  To borrow to meet wants is just criminal cruelty – and an undemocratic assault upon future generations.

Right now we are so jammed up with debt that we won’t be able to get out of it for quite a while but it is to be hoped that we are learning our lesson – and Mitt Romney’s statement at the debate shows that he, at least, is far ahead on the learning curve.  Much further ahead than Obama and his Democrats.  We have to balance our budget, pay our debt off and then never borrow another red cent.

Want a social program?  Pay for it out of current accounts.  Want a new road?  Pay for it out of current accounts.  Want to fight a war?  Pay for it out of current accounts.  And if there isn’t enough money for it, then  you’d just better not do it.  Its the only moral thing to do.

Poetic Justice

Retired Spook10 Comments

The deafening silence by the mainstream media on an interesting aspect of ObamaCare borders on conspiratorial. An article last week by Ramesh Ponnuru at Bloomberg News brought it to my attention for the first time, although it turns out there have been mentions of it going back a few months in other new media venues.

The debate over President Barack Obama’s health-care law has taken another twist. Now conservatives and libertarians are defending it, while the administration tries to toss part of the legislation out.

The reason for this role reversal is that the drafters of the law outsmarted themselves and handed their opponents a weapon. Now they would like to pretend the law doesn’t say what it does.

Obama’s plan makes tax credits available to people who get health insurance from exchanges set up by state governments. If states don’t establish those exchanges, the federal government will do so for them. The federal exchanges, however, don’t come with tax credits: The law authorizes credits only for people who get insurance from state-established exchanges. And that creates some problems the administration didn’t foresee, and now hopes to wish away.

Legislative debate over the law didn’t go into great detail about these provisions. We can surmise what happened, though. Supporters of the legislation wanted to encourage states to set up the exchanges. So they offered the states a deal: If they did so, they would get to write their own rules, and their citizens would be able to get the tax credit. The states would also gain extra flexibility on Medicaid spending. The law’s supporters also expected the health-care law to become more popular over time.

That hasn’t happened. Many states are determined in their opposition, and few of them have set up exchanges. If they don’t do so, the tax credits don’t go into effect and the federally established exchanges won’t work: People won’t be able to afford the insurance available on them without the subsidy.

States have another incentive to refrain from setting up exchanges under the health-care law: It protects companies and individuals in the state from tax increases. The law introduces penalties of as much as $3,000 per employee for firms that don’t provide insurance — but only if an employee is getting coverage with the help of a tax credit. No state exchanges means no tax credits and thus no employer penalties. The law also notoriously penalizes many people for not buying insurance. In some cases, being eligible for a tax credit and still not buying insurance subjects you to the penalty. So, again, no state exchange means no tax credit and thus fewer people hit by the penalty.

Of course, just as with so many things they find inconvenient or contrary to their agenda, the administration will simply ignore or attempt to bypass the parts of the law that don’t fit their template, but the more they do that the more potential there is for numerous lawsuits.

Ponnuru ends with this zinger:

The health-care plan the Obama administration got enacted isn’t going to work. That doesn’t mean they get to rewrite the law unilaterally as they go. It means they should have passed a different law.

I hope this comes to light before a national audience during one of the next 3 debates, and perhaps this whole ill-advised, fraudulently conceived, rotten piece of legislation will just unravel on its own.  That would be poetic justice.

Party Trumps Person

Retired Spook40 Comments

I have asked Retired Spook to post this as a thread because as we near Election Day I think we need to consider the fact that we will not be voting for a person, but for a political system. Amazona

I have taken a lot of abuse here on this blog for making this statement, criticism which I think reflects a basic lack of knowledge of how our political system works. The other day I was listening to a Denver radio talk show host, Mike Rosen, who has often discussed his theory that Party Trumps Person, and he spoke to a caller who explained that he has always voted for the person he thought would be best for the job and wondered why Mike disagreed with this approach.

Mike gave a very concise and detailed explanation, and then referred listeners to the column he had written in the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News during the last Presidential campaign, a written version that is essentially what he had just told the caller. He said all we have to do is substitute “Romney” for “McCain.

In part, he says: “I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, his party’s coalition will be served. A Democratic president, for example, whether liberal or moderate (conservative Democrats, if any still exist, can’t survive the nominating process), can only operate within the political boundaries of his party’s coalition. The party that wins the presidency will fill Cabinet and sub-Cabinet discretionary positions in the executive branch with members of its coalition. Likewise, the coalition will be the dominant source of nominees to the federal courts, ambassadorships, appointments to boards and commissions, and a host of plum jobs handed out to those with political IOUs to cash in.

It works the same way in the legislative branch. After the individual members of a new Congress have been seated, a nose count is taken and the party with the most noses wins control of all committee and subcommittee chairmanships, the locus of legislative power.”

This is important for us to remember. While it may feel more principled to vote for someone from the opposing party because you feel he or she is a better person than the one from your own, I suggest that the wiser course is to consider the result of having the other PARTY filling all these discretionary positions, committee chairmanships, etc. and vote for the party, and then work to make sure that the next party candidate for this position is a better one.

Your candidate is only one component of a political machine, and while he or she may represent a view you like, he or she will probably not be a deciding factor in a vote but will add to the total of party representation in the House or the Senate.

I take Mike’s statement a bit farther, as I think it is important to understand that when you vote for a party you are really voting for an ideology, because voting strictly by party, without this being based on ideological conviction, is really nothing more than Identity Politics.

For the first time in a long time, the Republican Party is taking a stand on ideology, openly stating its focus not just on issues but on broader ideological concepts such as adherence to the Constitution, reducing the size and scope and power of the federal government, fiscal responsibility, and redistribution of power to acknowledge state sovereignty. The Democrat Party is not running on its ideological agenda, which is for all intents and purposes the opposite of the Republican ideology, but we can see it in its actions and the issues it promotes.

And at this time, in this place, understanding of ideology and long-term agendas is more important than ever before, as well as an understanding of how the process works.

Can Democracy Survive?

Mark Noonan45 Comments

First we begin with a bit of a quote:

…There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man…
– G. K. Chesterton, “What I Saw in America”, 1922

There are some words to infuriate our liberals – and even some of our libertarians:  “dogma” and “divine”!  Did he really just say that if we want to have democracy we must have divine dogmas?  You bet I did, because it is true.

When it comes down to it – as Thomas Jefferson, Deist though he was, clearly saw – if our rights are not given to us by God then they are not rights.  If we are not all created equal then there is no justification for democracy because democracy’s justification is the moral equivalence of all people.  It is the only equality there is or can be – because it is obvious that we are not physically and mentally equal to each other.

It there were nothing but blind evolution which accounts for our being here – if there is no God, that is – then any assertion of an absolute human right is absurd.  It will fall victim to the first person who comes along and says “I don’t agree” and who has the power to enforce it.  If you want to be free the first thing you must do – hard as it will be for many – is believe in God.  Don’t believe in God and, eventually, you won’t be free simply because you’ll have no defense against someone who doesn’t want freedom to exist for whatever reason.  Whether it is a national socialist who wants to base  things upon race or an international socialist who wants to base things upon class is a matter of perfect indifference:  you cannot say that the national or international socialist (and they come in all sorts of different guises) is wrong unless you have an absolute truth – God – to point to.

That right there is enough to stick in any liberal (and most libertarian) craw – but I’m about to get much worse about it.

Continue reading →

If Democrats Cared

Cluster18 Comments

I am tired of this pervasive notion that conservative Republicans are uncompassionate, unfeeling, and detached people while liberal Democrats are believed to be compassionate, and care so much about the well being of the individual. Well that notion simply couldn’t be further from the truth. If Democrats cared so much, wouldn’t they hold up the ideal as something to aspire to? Something to reward? Something to encourage people to realize? The ideal being a life of sobriety, a life of working hard to achieve dreams, a life of personal responsibility, and a life beginning in a two parent household comprised of a mother and father. Substance abuse has destroyed more lives than any war could ever possibly do, yet drugs and certainly alcohol are considered “recreational” in our society, and alcohol is completely accepted, if not encouraged in our society. Very few people have realized their dreams without struggle, yet in this day and age of instant gratification, that concept eludes many of our younger generation. Personal responsibility is also a concept lost on too many people. Decisions have consequences and taking away those consequences denies the individual personal growth and the opportunity to learn how to fail. But most importantly, is helping  ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to be raised in a family with a mother and father.

There is no substitute for that family dynamic and any one that tries to convince you otherwise, is either ignorant, agenda driven, or not overly concerned about the well being of the human condition. A child needs the nurturing and love of a mother, and the love and guidance of  a father, and single parent households, or same sex households can not offer that very important dynamic. Male and females are not only anatomically different, we differ greatly in the way we react with people and certainly our children. Where a mother will wince and cry out for the child to be careful when playing sports, or simply riding a bike, a father will push them, and encourage them to play harder, or take a few risks. When the child is very young, a mother will hold them tight to the bosom and nurture them while a father will tickle their belly and toss them in the air, and these acts of parenting are crucial to a child’s development and well being in life.

Now I as a conservative fully understand the human condition, and the difficulty it is to reach the ideal. Therefore, I understand single parent households, same sex households, substance addiction, and those who fall short of their dreams and want to help them in any way possible. But that doesn’t mean that we as a society shouldn’t hold up the ideal as the standard, and that of which we should all strive for. Striving for the ideal is not a vice, and falling short isn’t a crime, but unless we all know what the ideal is, how will we ever get there? If Democrats truly cared, they would speak to this issue, yet they don’t, and seem to champion policies that reward falling short, and today we have more children born out of wedlock than ever before, more people in poverty than ever before, and more substance abuses than any time in our history. Conservatives champion policies that encourage people to reach their ideal, and that is where true compassion lies.

The Last 30 Days

Mark Noonan60 Comments

I was reading today to gauge reactions to Romney’s smashing debate victory last night and I came across three interesting data points:

1.  The GOP is doing exceptionally well in early voting in Ohio.  This is quite stunning – keep in mind that McCain won Ohio among voters who voted on election day, but got so badly clobbered among early voters that he couldn’t make up the difference.  That the GOP is surging in early voting indicates two things – Democrats are lackluster in their support for Obama and Republicans are very enthusiastic…and that enthusiasm will only rise to a fever pitch after last night.

2.  In a certain suburban Chicago House district that Obama won by 23 points in 2008, recent polling shows Obama only leading by 2 over Romney and Obama is under 50%.

3.  Gasoline in Los Angeles is $4.34 a gallon and de-facto rationing is in effect as refinery outages drastically reduce gasoline supplies on the west coast.

The combination of waning Democrat support, surging GOP enthusiasm and the growing evidence of economic collapse opens up a new prospect for Mitt Romney – not just to win the White House, but to run a truly national campaign where he really presents to the entirety of the American people the stark choice facing our nation.  In my view Mitt Romney – while still pouring it on in the “battleground States” – should start to make time and resources available for the “blue” parts of the country.  A campaign swing through California is in order – and perhaps a bit of time in Illinois and Oregon, as well.

This would not be done with a mind towards actually winning those States – they are likely out of reach unless Romney winds up winning by some miraculous, 1932-like landslide.  But you do it because you want to tell all of the American people that you understand the trouble we’re in.  A trip through California would allow Romney to point out – in the example of California – just where Obama is leading us and what four more years will mean.  Do you want more cities filing for bankruptcy?  Do you want more tax hikes?  Do you want gasoline shortages to come to your part of the country?  Then re-elect Barack Obama – in California Democrats are entirely in control (as they are in rapidly disintegrating Illinois) and this is where they want us to go.  Not that they are wicked, but that they are simply fools to keep following the failed polices of Big Government liberalism and disaster is always at the end of that road.

It would also force Obama to follow Romney – Obama would either have to follow Romney to California (thus taking time and resources from the battlegrounds) or duplicate Romney by going to Texas and South Carolina (thus also taking time and resources away from battlegrounds).  It would take the battle straight to the liberals and force them away from trying to attack Romney in the battlegrounds and back on to a defense of liberalism in the blue States, something no Democrat wants anyone to notice until after November 6th.

This is an election about contrasts – the false promises of liberalism and their disastrous reality contrasted with a message of American renewal.  In that kind of a debate, we win – any time liberals have to defend liberalism, they lose.  They can only possibly win if they make the fight about what a mean, nasty person Romney is in liberal talking points.  Going to California forces Obama and the Democrats to defend liberalism.

And, who knows?, things are so absolutely catastrophic in California that maybe a political miracle will happen?