I'm pretty sure it's racist to believe that all Hispanics are retarded, even if you're half-black. Maybe just his white half is racist.

But, whatever.

President Obama is reviving the issue of immigration reform in the face of mounting political pressure as he readies his bid for reelection.

...

[Our Campaigner in Chief said:] "The question is going to be, are we going to be able to find some Republicans who can partner with me and others to get this done once and for all, instead of using it as a political football?"

Uh-huh.

Posted by: Ace at 01:10 PM | Comments (856)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Sort of an interesting point from a European (Norwegian) reader who is actually surprised by the overbureaucratization and general bureaucratic decay in... America.

That's a European saying that, that our government is too bossy and too involved in small details of our lives.

Styen ponders:

What amazes me is how much more bureaucratic the US has become, as compared to what can only be described as socialist “home turf” here in Norway. Why? Well, Americans seem to have a knack for over-doing everything. Whether it is music, or sports, war or tree-hugging, the Americans simply over do it. So too with bureaucracy (and unions)… It’s a kind of “go big or go home” mentality which permeates American life at so many levels and in so many directions....

ThereÂ’s an element of truth in that. Bigness is part of what it means to be American. America is Superman and Wonder Woman, the Ziegfeld Follies and the Radio City Christmas Spectacular, the Super Bowl, King Kong, Avatar, SurfÂ’n'Turf and Supersized Fries and all-U-can-eat. . . . I love Â’em all, but such a land would seem an unlikely candidate for genteel incremental Continental-style decline. When such a nation embarks on the European trajectory of suicide-by-statism, it will not merely be Big Government but Biggest Government. I used to think Obamacare would simply be a disaster on the scale of Canadian health care or BritainÂ’s NHS, but, as the Cornhusker Kickback and the legions of additional IRS agents and the tanning-salon tax became plain, you realize it will be a disaster of an entirely different order. This is GibbonÂ’s Decline And Fall All-U-Can-Eat Super Bowl Christmas Spectacular On Ice.

Hm.

America also has a Go Big attitude towards authority and government, so if the government did get as big as Socialist Europe's, we probably wouldn't be meek and compliant. Which means the government would resort to oppressive measures to enforce its will.

Posted by: Ace at 11:47 AM | Comments (237)
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Christopher Buckley (son of the late William F. Buckley) took heat (deserved, in my opinion, and particularly in retrospect) for swooning over Barack Obama in the 2008 election cycle. You have to wonder how he feels now, given President Feckless's wrecking of the economy and the federal budget and his persistent unseriousness in dealing with massive and ever-growing deficits. (On the other hand, this post by Ace post-SOTU last January suggests that Buckley's still snorting the Kool Aid uncut.)

You see, back in 2007, Buckley published one of his best and funniest novels, "Boomsday". While there are subplots aplenty, the core plot revolves around a growing revolt by younger Americans against the massive entitlement programs that retiring Baby Boomers are counting on and the resulting increasing tax burdens they (the younger generations) face. This leads to the introduction in Congress of draconian legislation to address the issue, legislation that is not taken seriously at first, then draws increasing attention and support, including from a presidential candidate. In the end [minor spoiler] the legislation is watered down and compromised to the point of having no real teeth [end spoiler].

Sound familiar?

Of course, since this is Christopher Buckley, the legislation in question is [minor spoiler] legislation allowing significant tax breaks and other financial incentives for retired Boomers who agree to voluntary assisted suicide by a given age [end spoiler] -- a 21st century equivalent of Swift's "A Modest Proposal". But, heck, is it that far of a step from bureaucratic rationing of life-prolonging procedures to rewarding people for voluntarily killing themselves? One could argue that the latter is less intrusive and more humane. And if Obama gets elected to a second term, well, all bets are off.

Finally, and contra Ace's comments in his post from January, I've found most of Buckley's novels entertaining and decidedly un-PC. His best is probably "Florence of Arabia", which is a hilarious and unflinching look at misogyny in Muslim culture. YMMV. ..fritz..

Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:55 AM | Comments (69)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Might help him get elected, but just getting elected isn't everything. As Paul Ryan said, politicians should be in office for more than the perks.

If he's not behind some variation of the Ryan plan, then, like everyone else, he's got two options: Raise taxes significantly on the middle class or let the country go bankrupt. Those options don't change just because he's The Donald.

Then again, I doubt any Republican presidential candidate will strongly endorse the Ryan plan, either. They'll say something weak like "it's a good start to a national conversation" or something. The right thing here is definitely not the popular thing, and I doubt many candidates will tank their chances for the sake of honesty and integrity.

Think Progress has a bit of a hit piece on Trump, claiming that he has previously called Reagan a "con man" who "couldn't deliver the goods" in his book The Art of the Deal, but curiously enough, while they do show an image from one page, they don't show the page that contains that quote.

The page they actually prove exists says something critical, but less so, of Reagan:

Ronald Regan is another example. He is so smooth and effective a performer that he completely won over the American people. Only now, nearly seven years later [the book was published near the end of Reagan's presidency], are people beginning to question whether there's anything beneath that smile.

So, Think Progress, where's the "con man" and "can't deliver the goods" part?

What I'm guessing is this: Trump began with a general screed against politicians, labeling them "con men" who "can't deliver the goods," and then later specifically talked about some politicians. Think Progress is taking the position that that general critique of politicians applies, by the distributive property or something, to his later remarks about Reagan.

Well, maybe. Very debatable, though. If someone rants about all politicians, as we commonly do, it's not clear if he really means "all." Given that Think Progress won't quote this part of the book, it's unlikely Trump's connection between that general screed and Reagan must be pretty weak.

But the quoted passage does indicate misgivings about Reagan, and demonstrates Trump's basic politics: He is and always was a bit of a centrist and default-Democrat and populist at heart. Supposedly now he's a recent convert to some form of conviction conservatism but it's hard to believe that Donald Trump -- who has the ego you'd guess a billionaire might have -- has suddenly realized that he's been wrong all of his life and has changed his opinions on everything.

Ah: A commenter notes at the top of the page Trump is generally talking about politicians not being "able to deliver the goods." Still, it's not directly matched to Reagan (kinda-sorta), and I still see no "con man" connection to Reagan.

Party-Switching: A history of switching parties based on which party he's thinking of running as a candidate with -- in 1999 he switched to the Independence Party because he was thinking of running for Perot's semi-party nomination.

In 2009, he switched from Democrat to Republican. I guess he switched from Independence to Democrat between 1999 and 2009.

Posted by: Ace at 10:03 AM | Comments (175)
Post contains 535 words, total size 4 kb.

Jonah Goldberg quotes NBC's reliably-reflexively-liberal First Read. (Clarification: The below quote is all from NBC; I'm just linking Jonah because he found it. Some readers mistakenly thought Goldberg was claiming employment's on the rise -- no, that's NBC.)

*** Did last week’s speech backfire? A new Washington Post/ABC poll — which shows President Obama’s approval down to 47%, and with 44% believing the U.S. economy is getting worse (when employment is actually on the rise) — suggests that the climbing gas prices have soured the public’s mood, big time. “Almost eight in 10 say inflation in their area is getting worse, and more than seven in 10 say higher gasoline prices is causing financial hardship at home,” the Post writes. But this poll, as well as the Gallup surveys, also seems to confirm that the president’s speech last week might not have played well. For one thing, and this is true going back to the ’08 campaign, Obama usually doesn’t get rewarded when he comes off as too partisan (even though the left loves it). More importantly, last week’s speech was on a topic — the deficit/debt — that most Americans don’t find as important as the economy/jobs. And in the Post/ABC poll, Obama took a hit with independents, with 55% of them disapproving of his job.

Goldberg notes that the post-speech Conventional Wisdom was either that it was "irresponsible-but-[politically]-effective" -- this the response from the right and middle -- and on the left it was "fantastic-and-[politically]-effective."

It appears the "effective" prong of the CW response was wrong.

And bear in mind this ABCNews poll is seriously skewed in the Democrats' favor, figuring, I guess, that there are now 3% more Democrat-leaning or -identifying voters than Obama's 2008 vote-share.

Yes, I think that seems likely.

It's the movement, particularly among independents, that counts, and the movement is down.

Geraghty finds some other bad news for Obama in that skewed poll.

Obama is actually doing worse on his chances for reelection than December. Right now, 28 percent of respondents (again, adults, not registered or likely voters) would definitely vote for Obama for reelection, and another 25 percent said they would consider it. The number who say now that they will not vote for Obama is 45 percent. The December poll had 26 percent definitely supporting, but 30 percent in the “maybe” category.

Goldberg notes at the end of this post that Conventional Wisdom keeps failing to accurately predict events.

Part of the problem here is that Obama's administration is, in several ways, "unprecedented." And if something's unprecedented, then past precedents fail to serve as reliable guides.

Has anyone governed as unabashedly left as Obama? No; it's unprecedented.

Has the US ever posted a staggering trillion and half yearly deficit? No, not even close. It's unprecedented.

Has the US ever voted for a half-black man as President, partly not out of genuine support but just out of racial good-will, and thus, having not truly voted for Obama based on his capabilities or policies, might have a particularly high level of buyer's remorse? No, that's obviously never happened before; it's unprecedented.

Has any candidate ever promised a supernatural agenda which included, literally, causing the waters of the earth to fall before him? No, no one's ever done that, at least not since Babylon circa 1500 BC.

Has the US suffered a three year deep recession bordering on a depression since the thirties? No, it's unprecedented.

Has the government of the US ever acted as a hostile occupying force and imposed a massively unpopular law on the nation despite the strong majority hostility to it? No, it's unprecedented.

If current models and current conventional wisdom is based upon a series of default assumptions which are actually now untrue, then the old models and old conventional wisdom fails to give us any guide.

The rules haven't applied to Obama all his life. Fortunately, going forward, the general rules of predicting future events also don't apply to him.

Posted by: Ace at 08:55 AM | Comments (207)
Post contains 694 words, total size 5 kb.

I like this post. I get his "manic-depressive" schizophrenia in prognosticating 2012 -- I spend four days thinking "we can't win" and then three days thinking "we almost can't lose."

Good sum-up of Obama's problems.

He’s lost his touch: For an allegedly great communicator, most of Obama’s efforts to move public opinion since taking office have fallen flat. He never moved the numbers on health care. He’s no good as a surrogate for Democrats, as Jon Corzine, Creigh Deeds, Martha Coakley, and scores of Democrats learned in the midterms. He and his team can’t resist overpromising; his team put out a laughable chart about how the stimulus would keep unemployment low, and by September 2010, “Recovery Summer” was a punchline.

Jimmy Fallon had one of the first jokes that really hit Obama, just before Christmas 2009: “Michelle Obama’s not that excited about Christmas this year. It seems every year the president makes her this great big promise about how great a present he’ll get her, and then he never delivers.” The joke killed. People began to draw a conclusion about Obama: He always promises the moon and gives you much, much less.

Speaking of that: Obama got testy with an aggressive reporter for, as Drudge calls it, the "first time." That is, the first time a reporter's treated Obama like a citizen in a democracy rather than a Sun King fated to sit upon the Celestial Throne.

Sample testiness:

"That's wrong," the president stated. "That had nothing to do with it; the White House had nothing to do with it."

When Watson persisted, Obama said, "I just said that was wrong," and, later, "I just said that wasn't true."

I think he's talking about the politically-motivated decision to send one of the retired Space Shuttles to NYC instead of the more-deserving Houston, but it sort of doesn't matter -- it could be about anything. His petulance and lack of adult-level conflict-navigation skills are on display.

Obama does not do well when challenged, whether by people or circumstances. One can hardly blame him; he's hardly had to face any challenges in his life and so he's never developed the coping skills most people pick up by their early teens. Although previously praised for having a "first class temperament" and preternatural cool, he doesn't -- almost everyone can appear charming and even masterful in easy situations.

I never lose my cool when buying coffee at Dunkin Donuts, for example. I don't get angry or seem desperate. Because... it's not a difficult situation to face.

And pretty much that's been Obama's life. The toughest thing he's faced is dealing gracefully with being overpraised. His skill in dealing with challenge is mostly restricted to charmingly deflecting compliments and flattery.

2008 won't be like 2012 in that respect. The national media is all-in with Obama, and will do what it can to shield him, coddle him, as he's used to; but not everyone out there will be on Team Obama, and some reporters (like this local guy in Texas) might actually decide to do their jobs and, as they say, "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

And Obama won't handle that well. He never has responded well to criticism.

And even the monolithic liberal national media can't completely pretend the last four years haven't happened. Obama is now no longer just an abstraction or an "empty screen upon which to project one's hopes;" he actually has a record. And he can barely explain away that record, let alone run on it in a positive way.

Not Really Related: Drudge's funny juxtaposition in headlines.

Posted by: Ace at 07:40 AM | Comments (238)
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.

Maybe the slashing of the photo was an attempt at post-modern meta-reflexive guerilla-style outsider art.

But on Palm Sunday morning, four people in sunglasses aged between 18 and 25 entered the exhibition just after it opened at 11am. One took a hammer out of his sock and threatened the guards with it. A guard grabbed another man around the waist but within seconds the group managed to take a hammer to the plexiglass screen and slash the photograph with another sharp object, thought to be a screwdriver or ice-pick. They also smashed another work, which showed the hands of a meditating nun.

The gallery director, Eric Mézil, said it would reopen with the destroyed works on show "so people can see what barbarians can do". He said there had been a kind of "inquisition" against the art work.

Instapundit's got a schadenboner. If the rule of the left is that an aggrieved group's egregious aggrievement grants a license to kill or destroy -- well, you made the rule. Live with the consequences.

Posted by: Ace at 06:58 AM | Comments (134)
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

A quip that Walter Mondale is especially proud of has fresh relevance, but not in the way Mondale intends it.

In a Washington Post op-ed piece over the weekend, Mondale quotes his own speech to that year's Democratic National Convention in San Francisco: "Taxes will go up. . . . It must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."

In Mondale's account, "I lost the election, but I won the debate."

...

"It makes sense to seize today's bipartisan support for cutting tax exemptions as a way to increase revenue," Mondale continues. "I also believe that we must eliminate [George W.] Bush's tax cuts for the rich."

Obama embraced these ideas in his speech last week. But unlike Mondale, he didn't have the honesty to say he wanted to raise taxes, so that he ended up advocating a "$2 trillion stealth tax hike," as Reuters' James Pethokoukis points out.

He described the increase in rates as forgoing a tax "cut" and the curtailment of tax deductions and exemptions--which his deficit commission proposed, but offset by lower rates--as "spending reductions in the tax code."

...

"Calls to cut taxes further . . . brings [sic] me back to 1984," Mondale writes. But Obama's doublespeak is more reminiscent of "1984."

But it's not just doublespeak; it's also Obama lying in exactly the way he wrongly accused Ronald Reagan of doing.

Obama plans to raise taxes on the middle class specifically. That is his only option for supporting the Government By Colossus he's built.

While he does tell us he wants to raise taxes, in his doublespeak sort of way, he specifically lies about only taxing the rich.

Does Mondale miss the whole point of this quip he's so fond of? He was accusing Reagan of not being straight with the American people and having a secret plan, to be executed without the public's consent in the confirmatory mechanism we call an "election," to raise taxes.

Which is exactly what Obama is planning.

If Reagan was to be attacked for this claimed stealth plan to raise taxes, why is Obama to be praised?

Posted by: Ace at 06:10 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 398 words, total size 2 kb.

I usually commemorate this anniversary with quiet thought about the event and its aftermath. I've tucked my reflection from two years ago below the fold. This year I'm more concerned about the increasing number of politicians and academics who want to use the bombing as an excuse for their own pet prejudices.

Here's Obama's U.S. Attorney for Eastern Michigan, a truly ignorant woman named Barbara McQuade:

"Blaming all Muslims and Arabs for the acts of the hijackers of 9/11 is like blaming all Catholics for the acts of Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City," U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said Monday, referring to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the 1995 bombing of a federal building.

She said this at a community forum as part of the Obama Administration's attempt to reassure Muslim Americans that the Administration wouldn't take any extra pains to discover and deter Islamic radicalization. (See the dangerous outcome of the Obama Administration's "outreach.")

McQuade's strawman -- who is blaming "all Muslims" for 9/11? -- and obfuscating moral equivalence -- McVeigh didn't blow up a building as part of a mission for radical Catholicism and, though he was raised in a Catholic household, he claimed to be agnostic -- is typical of a liberal strain of thought that arose after 9/11. I saw the false equivalence in grad school from an academic desperate to link religion generally (and not any particular religion) to terrorism and again in law school from another academic who clearly didn't know any of the actual facts about the Murrah building bombing but had his 9/11 : Islam :: OKC bombing : Catholicism analogy down pat.

Unfortunately, history is easily abused by the ignorant. Which is why I write about the bombing every year and I talk about it to folks too. This morning, local news did a retrospective on the Branch Davidians in Waco, which ended horribly on this day in 1993. The Oklahoma City bombing wasn't mentioned in the entire newscast. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:26 AM | Comments (108)
Post contains 808 words, total size 5 kb.

A secret may be sometimes best kept by keeping the secret of its being a secret.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:00 AM | Comments (75)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.