The jackass douche-tool Glenn Thrush of Politico sets the stage thus:

Bad day for USA. Good day for GOP?

Remember when Republicans accused Democrats of rooting against America?

Judging from the volume of exultant Tweets and press releases from Republicans today -- you'd think they'd won a doubleheader, what with Chicago losing the Olympics and the unemployment numbers rising unexpectedly.

Within the first 45 minutes after the Labor Department announced a worse than expected Sept. jobless numbers, I received no fewer than eight GOP press releases blasting away at President Obama for failing to stem the tide of unemployment.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) literally hit the send button at 8:30 a.m., the moment the announcement of the 263,000 losses were announced: “As unemployment continues to climb, we are reminded yet again that wasteful government spending is not the solutions to what ails this economy.”

Note well how that is phrased: Republicans accused the Democrats of rooting against America. Not that the Democrats did root against America; only that Republicans accused them of such -- the implication, of course, being that this is false charge.

And yet-- we then proceed to what is offered as proof that Republicans really are rooting against America.

Let me correct Thrush's first claim first -- that Republicans accused Democrats, impliedly falsely, of rooting against America. For the fifteenth time, I quote respected liberal Gary Kamiya "celebrating" the Fall of Baghdad, in the mainstream left-liberal webzine Salon, mere hours after our troops had taken that city quickly and with blessedly few casualties:

The larger question of the effect of the war on the region, America, and the world, however, is less clear-cut. And it is doubts about this question that have led many of us who oppose the war to that confused state of moral schizophrenia.

I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.

Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow. But some of it is something trickier: It's a kind of moral bet-hedging, based on a pessimism not easy to discount, in which one's head and one's heart are at odds.

Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people. But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative -- four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere?

Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world. It is based on the belief that every apparent good will turn into its opposite. ....Dialectical pessimism is the dirty little secret of the antiwar camp -- dirty because there is something distasteful about wishing for bad outcomes when the future on which those wishes are based is unknown.

Mr. Thrush, care to revise your claim that Democrats were merely "accused" of rooting against the American interests, unlike Republicans, who, in your telling, clearly do so?

And care to compare the stakes involved in the two cases -- in one case, a liberal clearly rooting for higher US casualties and deaths in a war versus a bit of crowing that The One is finally beginning to learn the valuable lesson -- which only a callow seventh-grader would usually need to learn -- that his vaunted charisma can't solve all of his problems?

And... Re: the jobless rate, among those Democrats cheerleading against America were the Leftwing Media, who relentlessly talked up "discouraged workers" as greatly adding to Bush's relatively low unemployment rate.

Now that Obama's in office, no one in the Leftwing Media wants to talk about discouraged workers anymore. The stat has all but disappeared -- it's mentioned on occasion, but not masturbated over on television as it was during the Bush years.

So let's take a moment to note the true unemployment rate, when discouraged workers are taken into account -- 17%.

Seven. Fucking. Teen. Percent. Over one sixth of the entire workforce.

So you tell me, Glenn Thrush -- am I to celebrate this number? Shall I be grateful to your boyfriend that he's managed to keep (so far) five-sixths of America working?

Tell me -- what is the proper response to a real unemployment rate of 17%?

Apparently you think it's unpatriotic if I don't cheer so hard about it that I have a bit of slippage in my pants.

Posted by: Ace at 12:15 PM | Comments (197)
Post contains 893 words, total size 6 kb.

Oh, the humanity deity?

Bill Hader does his great Malkovich impression below, talking up Chicago's chances for the Olympics.

But first an update. IOwnTheWorld salutes the O-lypian Failure.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:37 AM | Comments (85)
Post contains 105 words, total size 3 kb.

Obviously getting the Olympics is hard but Obama's personal commitment and charm surely can handle something as inconsequential as getting the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions.

First step, don't press too hard.

A State Department spokesperson on Friday signaled the president's mandate that Iran has two weeks to permit inspections of its recently unveiled uranium refinement plant was not "written in stone."

"I don't think that there's a hard-and-fast deadline," State Department Spokesperson Ian C. Kelley said during Friday's press briefing, after a reporter asked what the consequences of Iran's inaction might be.

"I think that we've made it quite clear this was a matter of some urgency; that we expected [Iran] to take urgent and concrete steps to open up this facility, and not only just open it up but also make sure that we were able to -- or that the IAEA would be able to -- talk to some of the engineers there and see documents and plans," Kelly added.

Oh, it's a matter of some urgency. Not too much, not too little, just some. See it's all about calibrating your language and expectations. That's the kind of thing that buffoon Bush never quite understood. But with Mr. Wonderful at the helm, we are taking a new path.

So Mr. Iranian Official, whenever it's convenient for you to let us see that secret nuke plant, let us know and we'll see about making travel arrangements and such but please don't put yourself out. Take all the time you need to clean anything up, hide any evidence or whatever else you think you need to do.

Isn't this the much more civilized way to do business?

Posted by: DrewM at 11:26 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

First, some snark from Jonah Goldberg

Coming soon from Maureen Dowd: "IOC to Obama: No Olympics for you, boy!"

Now, CNN's coverage of Obama's Epic FAIL.

From Townhall via Hot Air

I tried to post something below the fold but for some reason it won't let me, so CNN will have to do.

You can see the WGN video here.

UPDATE: Thank God Chicago lost, it's the best thing for Obama.

This is pretty embarrassing for the White House. (Especially letting Obama having to fail in front of his wife—ouch!) But ultimately, it’s a good thing for him. As I wrote on Monday, the Olympics are notorious for running massively over budget. The organizing committees are always rife with infighting and power games as all manner of colorful cronies badger members to get their paws on some of those coveted Olympics dollars. Public support for the Olympics in Chicago itself was already lukewarm. Residents would have been facing seven years of disruptive construction and roadwork as their city raced to prepare itself. It’s a recipe for serious disgruntlement.

A video representation of this opinion here.

In other news, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:18 AM | Comments (310)
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

Your representative democracy at work.

Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told CNSNews.com.

Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted in as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible." He likened it to the "gibberish" used in credit card disclosure forms.

Here's the thing, he right. The actual wording of a law is incomprehensible because it refers to other laws, sections and subsections, striking some words adding others and on and on and on. But...we as citizens are expected to follow these laws. Try going to court and say, "Your honor, as Senator Carper says, 'laws are confusing and hard stuff to understand' so let me go."

Good luck with that one.

Below the fold, video of Carper explaining why he can't read the bill he's supposed to be writing. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:53 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Breaking. Updates to follow.

Geraghty over on Twitter: I think I'm a bit offended for Obama and Chicagoans. The leader of the free world just dropped everything to kiss some IOC ass.

No kidding.

Some additional thoughts: I was sure this thing was in the bag, mostly because I could not imagine Obama being so dumb as to actually take this risk with his credibility.

So I was wrong about that. Either he is this dumb, or he's extremely naïve about his negotiating ability. Can't wait to see him leverage that action with Iran.

Secondly, it's not as if we haven't heard the IOC has a few integrity issues. He had to know what he was dealing with, including their propensity to snub the U.S. when given the opportunity. Which he served up on a frickin ginormous platter with this stunt.

Can't wait to see how he spins it though. My guess, "Bush damaged our relationships with the rest of the world so badly that I we* simply couldn't overcome it. We have a lot, a lot of repair ahead of us".

Or words to that effect.

*little slip there, this is one situation where he won't use "I" in the speech.

This post is racially offensive and I'm re-rebanning myself.

tip via email from Slublog

EXCLUSIVE! Must Credit Ace Of Spades HQ! [DrewM.] President Obama Emails to say, "I went all the way to Copenhagen and all I got was a meeting with an Army general!"

ONE MORE: Heh.

I did not see that coming!

SECOND UPDATE from lauraw below the fold.

Lefties snark: Slublog emails that leftist sites have a lot of comments like "conservatives who wanted Chicago to lose the Olympics are unpatriotic."

Ninja please. You wanted us to lose a war to damage Bush.

I didn't want Chicago to lose. Honestly I didn't care. But when the President of the United States puts his credibility on the line with the rest of the world, I want him to win.

Not get his ass handed to him. Wearing "mom" jeans. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:30 AM | Comments (1094)
Post contains 364 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama made his pitch to the International Olympic Committee for his hometown of Chicago. Naturally in his mind they should get the games because, well, people in Chicago like him.

Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasnÂ’t about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that AmericaÂ’s experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals. It sprung from the hope that in this ever-shrinking world, our diversity could be a source of strength and cause for celebration; and that with sustained work and determination, we could learn to live and prosper together during the fleeting moment we share on this Earth.

Let me be clear about something I have always said, when Obama says something "wasnÂ’t about me as an individual" it was about Him as an individual.

As Slu points out via email (from a secure, undisclosed location), "Even in answering questions about the Olympics, he can't resist taking shots at Bush".

And he won't defend the US.

Responding to a question by Syed Shahid Ali, the IOC member for Pakistan, about the “pretty harrowing experience” of many foreign visitors to the US, he said: “One of the legacies I want to see coming out of 2016 is a reminder that America, at its best, is open to the world. We are putting the full force of the White house and the State Department into making sure that not only is this a successful Games but that visitors from all around the world feel welcome and will come away with a sense of the incredible diversity of the American people.”

Perhaps he should have asked the Pakistani gentleman how Daniel Pearl enjoyed that country's hospitality.

It's interesting that Obama took a pass on defending the US from a negative impression when he considers part of his job "to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"

But if you think the trip to Copenhagen was all show and no work, you'd be wrong. While on board Air Force One Obama held a meeting with Gen. Stanley McChrystal to presumably talk about the situation in Afghanistan. They spoke for, get this...25 whole minutes.

Shortly before departing Copenhagen, Denmark, the two held their first face-to-face meeting since May while Air Force One was on the tarmac ready to fly back to Washington, D.C.

McChrystal, ObamaÂ’s top Afghanistan commander, had been in London giving a speech yesterday and flew to Copenhagen specifically to meet President Obama.

There had been some speculation that Obama might take the opportunity to fly to Afghanistan but apparently 25 minutes on the ground with McChrystal was enough.

So there. Now you wingnuts can't say he doesn't care about Afghanistan.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:25 AM | Comments (195)
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

9.8%

Note how much worse it would be if we weren't losing people from the civilian work force (570,000 last month).

As we mentioned in previous posts, the labor force normally increases by ~ 150,000/month, so thatÂ’s a huge, very unusual, decrease. In fact, had the labor force size simply remained the same, the unemployment rate would have jumped to 10.2%.

Obama's "tourniquet" example sounds even more ridiculous if you really haven't stopped the bleeding.

UPDATE: Joe Biden responds.

4 I have a three letter word for you: Jobs.

J-O-B-S.

Posted by: Joe Biden at October 02, 2009 09:10 AM (cxGtL)

God love 'im.

Also, I denounce the racism of this post, and I'm re-banning myself. That'll teach me a lesson.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:22 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Friday!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:21 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

After years of expanding its powers the European Union is finally at the cusp of becoming a real political state and taking sovereignty over its existing 27 members via the 2007 Lisbon Treaty. The only remaining hurdles before the EU 'goes live' are a referendum by the Irish people and ratification by the current leaders of the Czech Republic and Poland. Both the Czech and Polish governments are expected to sign the treaty so it will come down to the Irish whether it goes into effect.

And today is the day the Irish go to polls to vote on it. Again. Because they already rejected it back in June 2008, but as is typical of the EU they are being forced to re-vote on it in the expectation that they'll 'get it right' this time or else. The Brussels Journal has more details:

The EU leaders want Ireland to vote “yes.” They are intent on forcing the Irish to vote again and again until they say “yes.” In the past weeks, politicians from all over Europe, including Ireland’s own government ministers, have been threatening the Irish people that a second “No”-vote will have serious economic repercussions, although it has not been specified what these repercussions will be.

The referendum this Friday is Ireland’s second referendum in two years on the European Union’s 2007 Treaty of Lisbon. In June 2008, the Irish voted “No” and rejected the treaty. The fact that the Irish are being forced to hold a second referendum on the matter, is indicative of the nature of the EU and the way in which it “consults” its people. The EU is in the habit of giving recalcitrant populations another go if initially they fail to see that what the EU’s leaders have decided for them is best for them.

Posted by: Open Blog at 11:51 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 668 words, total size 4 kb.