Perry Chickens Out of South Carolina Forum For No Good Reason At All
— Ace

Erick Erickson (who supports Perry, as I do) notes the off-basedness of this charge, citing an attack reported by Byron York:

“It’s obvious that Rick Perry is skipping the DeMint forum because he knew he was going to be asked tough questions about his previous support for gay marriage in New York, as well as his policies in Texas in favor of illegal immigration,” says one representative of a rival camp. “He’s looking for a reason to not actually be compared to the other candidates,” says an official in another camp. “He was grasping for a reason not to show.”

Yes, obviously he concocted a silly excuse to get out of going to a forum which he'd wanted to attend (and planned to attend).

It's not as if, unlike most of the candidates, he has an actual job at the moment, and, unlike all of the actual candidates, a job with critical day-to-day management responsibilities.

And it's not as if Texas is on fire or anything.

With all due respect to Representative Doctor Paul, some people have jobs that involve more than purely-theoretical libertarian-political-club pronouncements; and with all due respect to Representative (also, Doctor) Bachmann this is what an executive job looks like; and with all due respect to Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and so on, it's much easier to schedule your appearances when you actually don't have any other job except for making appearances.

I don't know which of the rival camps put this out there, but it is illuminating as to their mindset. Some of the candidates might be surprised to learn the job they're angling for is actually an executive position, something like a governorship, in which the duties of leadership and coordinating a response to a crisis may occasionally interfere with a speaking gig or campaign event.

Attending two candidate fora in three days (the DeMint forum, and the debate tomorrow night) might seem a little negligent while out-of-control wildfires are burning up his state.

I'm very interested to know which camp believes that a campaign event > actual duties as sitting executive in coordinating crisis management.

I suspect Ron Paul's camp is one of the two making the charge, given that Ron Paul's had the best, cushiest job for 30 years-- one with absolutely no responsibilities whatsoever. That's got to distort someone's worldview, when he's literally been a part of no successful reform or legislation (or budget) for almost the whole of his adult life.

He hasn't had an executive position, and he also hasn't even had any kind of experience in merely dealing with the easier task of writing legislation. I usually look down on pure legislators seeking executive office; but Paul isn't even that.

Having absolutely no job responsibilities whatsoever, except to occasionally put out a newsletter in the form of a speech made to an empty Congress that no one reads or listens to, leaves a man free to contemplate the important things in life, like Jews and gold.

Posted by: Ace at 11:13 AM | Comments (573)
Post contains 525 words, total size 4 kb.

Democrats, Who Spent Months Arguing for "Compromise," Now Insist Obama "Throw Down The Gauntlet"
— Ace

Does anyone think that Hoffa's declaration of war, and the Congressional Black Caucuses' talk of lynchings, is entirely coincidental and organic?

While pundits like Jonathan Alter, who until recently was bemoaning the lack of a spirit of compromise in government, now insists that Obama embrace his inner demagogue?

It's the way he throws down his gauntlet," columnist Jonathan Alter said about President Obama's upcoming jobs plan on MSNBC. "Chris, he's got to say 'my party and I are for rebuilding America, if you don't agree you're against rebuilding America. You are against jobs.' He needs it to be jobs first. You're either for more jobs or you're not. Jobs immediately, you know."

Is this worth a post? I don't know. It's more of the same, isn't it? While they mau-mau Republicans to pray at the altar of compromise, they demand Obama fight, fight, fight.

Why, it's almost as if they are entirely lacking in principle or intellectual integrity and are just freelance political strategists in service of the DNC and Organizing for America, eh?

The point is so obvious (and so obviously true) it's a waste of time to even spend pixels on it.

But yes, the devotees of compromise are now promoting the slogan "If you're not with me, you're with the economic terrorists."

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 AM | Comments (106)
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

Get Me Rewrite: Pelosi Drops Word "Stimulus" From Her Vocabulary
— Ace

Apparently the word isn't polling too well.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Democrats have dropped the word stimulus from their vocabulary.

Though the House minority leader and her caucus are still pushing an economic stimulus agenda to save the economy, they’ve radically changed their rhetoric with the hope of winning over voters who saw “stimulus” as close to a dirty word.

Democrats are now being careful to frame their job-creation agenda in language excluding references to any stimulus, even though their favored policies for ending the deepest recession since the Great Depression are largely the same.

...

Recognizing the unpopularity of the 2009 package, however, Democratic leaders have revised their message with less loaded language – “job creation” instead of “stimulus;” “Make it in America” in lieu of “Recovery Act” – in hopes of tackling the jobs crisis.

Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is off-message, and that's odd, because she is usually robotically, inhumanly on message.

She avoids the word "stimulus," but does use the word "Recovery Act," which I thought was now verbotten.

Well, the Republicans who think the Recovery Act didn't work are simply wrong. The Recovery Act, as of the beginning of this year, created an additional 3.6 million jobs. We have -- the Recovery Act had a direct impact on making sure the teachers, firefighters, police officers were able to remain in their jobs. It begun -- it helped begin to turn the economy around. 50% of it was tax breaks to small businesses and to the middle class. So every economist you would talk to that is worth their salt acknowledges that without the Recovery Act we would not be continuing on the upswing. We would still be either stuck or spiraling downward. So the Republicans can't make up their own facts. The bottom line is the Recovery Act had an impact.

Note the original trascript contained the word "(stimulus)" in parenthesis after "Recovery Act," but that was just the editor helping the reader out-- Wasserman-Shultz didn't say stimulus.

You know what she did say? This is good. She can't say stimulus anymore, so later in her soundbite, she says we need an... "infusion."

Infusion. Just imagine them trying out a series of synonyms for "stimulus" in focus groups and deciding that "infusion" tests the best, because it makes people think of good food and drink "infused" by fruit juice or something.

Another word she likes is "impact," as a noun, as in "We need additional impact."

If you're unconvinced that Dumb Debbie is a Talking Points Terminator, enjoy her refusing to comment on the Richard Trumka James Hoffa* declaration of war, insisting that her comment on this matter is that we must work together to aid the middle class.

* Whoops. Hoffa, not Trumka.

Posted by: Ace at 10:33 AM | Comments (82)
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

Mickey Kaus: Perry's Positions on Immigration Are Even Worse Than I Thought
— Ace

I have long thought this will be the hardest issue for Perry to finesse.

Here's one Perry statement Kaus highlights:

ThatÂ’s why I support a guest worker program that takes undocumented workers off the black market and legitimizes their economic contributions without providing them citizenship status.

I would rather know who is crossing our border legally to work instead of not knowing who is crossing our border illegally to work. A guest worker program that provides foreign workers with an ID removes the incentive for millions of people to illegally enter our country. It also adds those workers to our tax base, generates revenue for needed social services and it can be done without providing citizenship.

Personally, I've long been in favor of a guest worker program. Liberals hate this idea because they want immigrant workers voting in elections, and also supporting the American social welfare system (because, being citizens, they'd be beneficiaries). The unions hate the idea because they don't like the idea of immigrants with legal status competing for jobs.

Many conservatives don't like the idea because they want illegal immigrants stopped, period.

This is one area where I do become what some would call a "RINO:" I think there is a fact on the ground that cannot easily be ignored that American agriculture relies, to a serious extent, on immigrant farm workers coming in to collect the harvests. There is a glib response to that -- "We'll just encourage Americans to take those jobs!" -- and I suppose that's possible, but the American public of 2011 is not the American public of, say, 1932. Whereas once American workers might take a bus to the heartland and work the fields for a season, American workers no longer feel they need to do that, as government unemployment programs don't require them to change jobs or to travel long distances for work. So, in the main, they don't.

I've wondered if we could kill two birds with one stone, say, and get highly-unemployed black urban youths to work on farms during the season, but I doubt that would ever happen.

To me, part of the reason there aren't any serious immigration reforms -- and I mean on the enforcement side, here -- is because neither side is particularly willing to confront the facts on the ground. Liberals demand an amnesty and citizenship to goose their vote share (and further drain our social welfare finances), which is a non-starter for conservatives. Business-oriented conservatives, however, block real immigration enforcement, because they feel those enforcement efforts don't take into account the fact that many businesses have come to rely on immigrant workers, and would be disrupted by any kind of crackdown that was more than superficial (which is what our current raids mostly are).

To me, the best solution is to permit guest-worker visas but only for those industries that have long relied on immigrant illegal workers (agriculture, mainly), with a smaller pool of visas for industries that have recently begun to rely on such workers (hotels, restaurants), and none at all for industries which are just recently beginning to indulge in illegal hiring.

Then start reducing the visas for the middle category (the hospitality industries), to begin ratcheting this practice down in a slow way, forcing them little by little to stop hiring illegals.

Such guest worker visas should only be generous for the one industry that seems to be historically dependent on seasonal workers (agriculture).

That is, less of a war on illegal immigration, and more of a containment and rollback model. (I don't mean "war" to slight the anti-illegal-immigrant side, I just mean to contrast a "Stop It All Now and Eject Them Immediately" position to some kind of phased rollback.)

I think our laws do not reflect the reality that immigrants pick crops, and there aren't a huge number of Americans ready and able to step in were they to stop. Businesses will hire them illegally because they have to, and then the political structure will turn a blind eye to all of this because they know it's necessary, and the situation continues, with no support on either side for any kind of actual governing law.

Because there is no majority for any scheme of law here, we've all collectively decided, essentially, to keep the old "law" in place and just ignore the fact it's being broken left and right.

Posted by: Ace at 09:31 AM | Comments (347)
Post contains 755 words, total size 5 kb.

An Interesting Flag Display in a Colorado Public School [ArthurK]
— Open Blogger

Thanks to a tip from a Mark Steyn post I see something interesting in Colorado.

(I added the "Saudi Flag" text)

The Greeleyreport blog is all over this.

Greeley Report broke the story last week that Bauder Elementary in Ft. Collins was flying the Saudi Arabian flag with the U.S. flag in a subservient position. Poudre Schools states this has been fixed, but refuses to provide photo verification.

Here are links to the relevant posts. I'm not going to add anything as it would be unwise in my current mood. Please count to 10 before posting a comment.

What's That Flag?

More About The Flag

Poudre Schools Responds

Poudre May Not Have Fixed It After All

Is It Still There?

What Does The Flag Say?

Again - calm yourself before commenting.

(Published out of draft by Ace.)

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:50 AM | Comments (190)
Post contains 149 words, total size 2 kb.

Funny Ad for Herman Cain
— Ace

Nick Searcy ("Art Mullen" on Justified) did this ad for Herman Cain with some friends. Pretty funny. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:22 AM | Comments (75)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

A Few Thoughts On Yesterday's South Carolina Presidential Forum
— DrewM

Yesterday's Palmetto Freedom Forum was an interesting opportunity for 5 candidates (Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul and Romney. Perry bailed to tend to his duties as Governor in light of the wildfires in Texas and Huntsmann, meh, who knows or cares) to discuss a number of issues in a long form give and take with Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Steve King (IA) and Professor Robert George of Princeton. Each candidate was alone on stage and answered more or less the same questions.

I want to focus on one question Professor George asked in one form or another of each candidate. Here's how he phrased it to Bachmann but it was essentially the same for all.

Would you as president propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions?

...

Because, as I say, some people believe that a constitutional amendment would be needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and short of that, the best we can do is put some limitations around the edges and prohibit federal funding, as we have done in the Hyde amendment.

But my question goes to a matter of constitutional principle concerning the respective rules of the government. President Lincoln famously said in his first inaugural address that if we permit the policy of the government on matters that are essential to the whole people to be determined simply by the Supreme Court, we will have abdicated our responsibility, handed over self-government to that eminent tribunal, as Lincoln said.

So, given the clear mandate of the 14th Amendment, empowering Congress to enforce the guarantee of equal protection, shouldn't Congress act on that now?

What George was doing here was really more than your average abortion question. He was inviting the candidates to address the balance between the courts and the political branches when it comes to interpreting and enforcing the Constitution.

Bachmann, after a good bit of prodding, answered that she'd be willing to force a showdown with the courts over the issue but she really didn't engage with the issue.

The candidate who really took the bit here was, not surprisingly, Newt Gingrich. I know, I know, but just stick with it. I's worth it.

Below the fold is part of Gingrich's answer more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:51 AM | Comments (148)
Post contains 1557 words, total size 10 kb.

Leftwing Nutjob: Stop Being So Mean To Public Employees
— DrewM

Katrina vanden Heuvel says, they are from the government and they are here to help so shut up and back off.

Two thousand and eleven has been one of the toughest years for public workers that I can remember. Every month until this past one, the private sector has added jobs, and every month the public sector has lost them. The August employment report shows that the public sector got hit hard again — losing 17,000 jobs. In states across the country, public workers arenÂ’t just being laid off; theyÂ’re being made into economic scapegoats. These workers deserve to be treated fairly any time. But in the wake of Hurricane Irene, as we watched teams of federal, state and local government workers tirelessly saving lives, and on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, they deserve much better.

The last decade has been marked by both peril and possibility, and in all of it there has been no shortage of American heroes. Many, if not the vast majority, worked for the government — as firefighters and police, as teachers and rescue workers. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, men and women proudly wore hats and shirts labeled “FDNY” and “NYPD.” When we wept for our nation, it was the bravery of the first responders that reminded us of our national character. There was a newfound respect for public service and a heartening change in how Americans viewed their government. Fire and police departments, and organizations such as the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, saw a surge in applicants. We didnÂ’t just want to believe in those workers. We wanted to be them.

...

Government isnÂ’t just about first responders, of course. When our public school teachers are constantly asked to do more with less, when they work to prepare the next generation for an uncertain economic future, they deserve our deepest gratitude. When regulators prevent corporations from spilling chemicals and oil and waste into our rivers and oceans, we should sing their praises. When bureaucrats at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stand up to the big banks, we should stand alongside them.

I'm glad she got around to mentioning that not all (or even remotely most) government workers are courageous first responders but that came much later in the column. She also ignores that plenty of places around the country are served by volunteer fire and ambulance crews but liberals don't do details. It's an old trick to pretend that your average government employee is out there facing dangers day in and day out facing down danger to better serve you. The reality is quite different.

Would the Republic survive if we cut back on the 112,000 employees at DoJ, 71,00 at Interior, 109,000 at Agriculture or 109,00 at Energy? Hell, I bet we can find more than a few non-essential spots in the over 700,000 civilians working at the DoD. I'm guessing we'd be ok. I'm really confident because we've expanded the federal workforce by 12% under Obama. I think the world would go around just fine without them.

At the state and local level we need teachers, garbage men and a whole host of other jobs that do provide necessary services (or course we might want to try privatizing some of them) but we could do without hordes of desk bound bureaucrats.

Democrats have argued that one of the reason unemployment is staying at current levels is because public employees are being laid off as stimulus funds run out. Well, that's a good thing. You can't expect the federal government to keep borrowing money to protect states from their out of control spending. If a state can't afford it's workforce then it should cut back or unions should be willing to talk about wage and benefit cutbacks. This is all old hat to the private sector, there's simply no reason that productive sector of the economy should be burdened with keeping the unproductive sector fat and happy. Figure out what essential government services are and start slashing the hell out of the rest.

Here's a tip on where to look...when the weather gets bad and they give "non-essential personnel" the day off, start with those who get to stay home. If you can't cut 10-20% of those people, you aren't trying.

If public workers can't stand the stigma of working for the government, they are free to get a job in the private sector (if they can find one). Short of that, they need to stop whining and say thank you every time they deal with an actual taxpayer.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:47 AM | Comments (230)
Post contains 782 words, total size 5 kb.

Obama Pollageddon
— DrewM

Two polls out today and not a bit of good news in either one of them for Obama.

First the Washington Post-ABC News poll.

More than 60 percent of those surveyed say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the economy and, what has become issue No. 1, the stagnant jobs situation. Just 43 percent now approve of the job he is doing overall, a new career low; 53 percent disapprove, a new high.

...

By this time in their presidencies, approval ratings for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — who also suffered serious midterm setbacks during their first term — had settled safely above the 50 percent mark. Both then stayed in positive territory throughout their reelection campaigns.

When ratings for George W. Bush slipped into the low 40s during his second term in office, they remained there or lower for the remainder of his presidency.

Obama does, however, rate better than do congressional Republicans, his adversaries in recent, fierce confrontations on federal spending. Just 28 percent approve of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job, and 68 percent disapprove, the worst spread for the GOP since summer 2008.

Unfortunately for Obama, "congressional Republicans" won't be the alternative on the 2012 ballot.

And for all the talk about how "congressional Republicans" poll lower than Obama, when respondents are asked, "Who do you trust to do a better job" on key economic issues the GOP is close to or actually leads Obama:

On "Handling the economy " Obama is at 42%, the GOP is at 39

On "Creating jobs" Obama and the GOP tie at 40%

And on "Handling the federal budget deficit" the GOP leads Obama 42% to 39.

The poll sample is 1,001 adults and not registered voters (where GOP usually does better) and breaks down to 33% Democrats, 24% Republican and 36% independent. There's no way to predict what the electorate is going to be next year but you can compare it to the '08 exit polls...39% Democrats, 32% Republican 29%, independent. Clearly the Democratic turnout. If you really think GOP turnout is going to be lower and all the shrinkage goes to indies, good luck with that.

Want some more Obama DOOM? Of course you do.

Obama's job approval rating has sunk to a low of 44 percent, a 3-point drop since July. His handling of the economy stands at a low of 37 percent. And only 19 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction, the lowest mark for this president.

Perhaps most ominously for Obama, a majority of poll takers — 54 percent — think he's facing a longer-term setback from which he's unlikely to recover. Back in January, just 39 percent agreed with that assessment.

Indeed, that 54 percent is virtually identical to George W. Bush's score on the same question in the Nov. 2005 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which was released just months after Bush's widely criticized handling of Hurricane Katrina.

The bold part? DOOM. 54% are basically saying, the guy is done.

That's NBC, the house organ of the Obama administration. They do give it the old college try to find some good news for their guy.

If there's a silver lining for Obama, it's that a combined 70 percent of respondents still find him likeable (though nearly six in 10 say they disapprove of many of his policies). And 50 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, which Hart says is significant because it suggests that the public doesn't think that everything Obama touches can be viewed negatively.

What's more, in a hypothetical general election contest, Obama leads Texas Gov. Rick Perry by five points, 47 percent to 42 percent. And he leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by one, 46 percent to 45 percent, though that margin is down five points since June.

But for the first time in the poll, more say they'd probably vote for a generic Republican candidate (44 percent) than say they'd probably vote for Obama (40 percent).

Yeah, well, the part where people actually have to chose is over a year away. A challenger is going to have time to define themselves and build support. Obama for the first time in his life is going to have run on his record and it's miserable. It's going to be a lot harder to dazzle people with BS when they have already decided you are a SCOAMF.

Which leads to this interesting internal question from the poll (pdf):

Which of the following two statements comes closer to your point of view?

Statement A: The president and the Congress should worry more about boosting the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits now and in the future.

Statement B: The president and the Congress should worry more about keeping the budget deficit down, even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover.

Statement A/Worry more about boosting the economy ............ 38%
Statement B/Worry more about keeping budget deficit down .... 56%

If people have decided that keeping the deficit down is a top priority then that bodes well for the GOP and indicates calls for massive spending (the only trick Obama and the Democrats have, well other than "teh RACISM!") aren't going to be well received.

All the caveats...polls are just snapshots and a lot can happen in 14 months away but Democrats better hope this is one hell of a speech he gives on Thursday.

Added: Slublog remembered to dig out the partisan breakdown of the NBC poll: 39% Dems or leaning, 17% independent, 34% GOP or leaning.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:10 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 942 words, total size 6 kb.

DOOM: I see a red door and I want it painted black
— Monty

You know how I'm always harping that Social Security is doomed? Well, it's even more doomed than I thought. Dean Kalahar lays it out:

In simple terms the FICA program is a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. In the fraud, people on the top of the pyramid collect as long as they can get others below them to pay in. Now as the baby boom retires, the takers outstrip the payers. And like all Ponzi schemes, this is when the system will collapse like a house of cards and take with it the American economy.

The day of reckoning is here. Not even the all powerful OZ can spend other people's money, write an IOU to himself, and then on some future day expect to use those IOUs to fund the Emerald City. It's time to pull back the curtains and admit "the emperor has no clothes."

Rhode Island: the vanguard of the LOTB. I would have guessed Illinois or California would go first, but RI beat them to the tape.

An economic crisis is natureÂ’s revenge on those who make and those who accept false promises; it is a holocaust of lies when the dross is burned away and only what is real and true remains.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Germany and the fate of the Eurozone.

More on that heaping helping of FAIL served up by Solyndra, courtesy of the Democrats.

The first economist. The theory is still sound!

Stiglitz: The economy is because of 9/11, which happened a decade ago, and not Obama and the democrats, who have been in conrol of the government since 2006. Also: ITÂ’S BUSHÂ’S FAULT, YOU WINGNUT FREAKS! LEAVE MY BOYFRIEND ALONE!!!

More on that whole "we need to roll a s**t-load of short-term debt" problem.

The United States has the least balanced maturity schedule of any
major nation. Over 70 percent of its bonds mature within 5 years,
compared with an average 49 percent for the 34 member countries in the
OECD.

That's right, kids. 70% of our bonds mature in 5 years or less, and most of that is going to have to be rolled rather than retired. If interest rates go up even by fractions of a percent, we are completely hosed. We're already broke borrowing at zero percent interest. Can you imagine how screwed we're going to be when interest rates go back up to 3-4% (or higher)?

The Greek “bailout” has gone from drama to low comedy to absolute farce. This is particularly hilarious:

The collateral offered would be worthless in the event that the Greek state failed to repay the bailout loans.

So...it’s really not “collateral”, then, is it?

New Jersey unions take the news of pension cuts with all the grace and dignity youÂ’d expect.

Stories like this one put me in a very anti-government mood. Very.

When something costs more, you buy less of it. ThatÂ’s as true of labor as it is of everything else. How do you make labor cheaper to buy? Repeal the minimum wage law, for a start.

USPS is living on borrowed time. ThatÂ’s been true for about twenty years now, but the clock is finally ticking down to zero.

The End Of the New Deal Order. Read it all, but here's a taste:

Only later would we come to understand that the house FDR built sits on a wobbly base. Steady economic growth is necessary to pay for all of the governmentÂ’s promises. The bureaucracy functions only if experts have the confidence of the people. And government and citizenry must agree on a limiting principle that prevents national bankruptcy, a bloated state, and an irresponsible public.

Otherwise, the nation backs into a situation where government has promised far more than it can afford; where the dollars coming into the Treasury are spent entirely on satisfying creditors; where public institutions and leaders are denigrated; where the future is frightening; where snark is the dominant mode of public discourse; where menace grows overseas without check; and where voters lurch from one party to another, desperate for a way out.

The nation, in other words, would back into precisely the situation where we find ourselves today.

Clive Crook at the FT asks Obama to be something he has never been, and will never be.

The magic 8-ball says...Italy is boned!

Even TV chefs have fallen prey to the class-warfare gestalt abroad in the land right now. No bacon cheeseburger, no peace! Chili fries and cheese are what made this country great!

If banks had to fairly value a lot of their assets (especially sovereign debt), theyÂ’d collapse in a day.

UPDATE 1: People keep asking me if I think gold is in a bubble or not. I don't think so, and neither do a lot of other people. That "correction" downward last week lasted for about three days, and now gold is flirting with its all-time highs again. (Gold is at $1894/oz as I write this.)

UPDATE 2: And how a word from an actual job creator.

UPDATE 3: California is crumbling. Via Insty.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:37 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 866 words, total size 8 kb.