by baldilocks

Barring something (sort of) unforeseen, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States. That one of them will be the Leader of the Free World in January is merely the tail end of an ideological splintering that has been going on since the end of Ronald Reagan’s second term.

And today, we have the President Reagan’s Vice President and successor driving my point home.

Former President George H.W. Bush is bucking his party’s presidential nominee and plans to vote for Hillary Clinton in November, according to a member of another famous political family, the Kennedys.

Bush, 92, had intended to stay silent on the White House race between Clinton and Donald Trump, a sign in and of itself of his distaste for the GOP nominee. But his preference for the wife of his own successor, President Bill Clinton, nonetheless became known to a wider audience thanks to Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend, the former Maryland lieutenant governor and daughter of the late Robert F. Kennedy.

The former president has chosen not to comment on the topic–at this point–and his spokesman tells the reporter in spokeshole-speak that it’s none of the public’s business how the elder President Bush plans to cast his vote. Bull Twinkies.

President GHW Bush would never have told Townsend—a Democrat, of course–what his plans are if he didn’t want that information in public. The man is 92-years-old and he doesn’t care anymore, as if he ever did. If the report is true, call it one more stab into the heart of the old GOP.

It’s almost dead, Jim.

Update (DTG): One more thing I’d like to add to Juliette’s piece.

All this stuff happens for a reason, this story came out at this time for three reasons

1. It was necessary to change the subject from the Terror attacks which hurt Hillary

2. It was necessary to get this out there so Lester Holt could ask Donald Trump about it before the 1st debate.

3. This is a blatant attempt to bait Donald Trump to attack President Bush allowing the MSM to feign moral outrage over his response and demand every GOP senate candidate, congressional leader and spokesman to denounce Donald Trump for attacking the 92 year old ex-president.

How obvious can you get?

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>>baldilocks

by baldilocks

Right, duty, whatever one wants to call it, I voted today in the California Primary Election. No Party Preference, crossover ballot—Republican. Who did I vote for? Ted Cruz. I figured that readers would want to know.

I first registered as a Republican immediately after the 2000 General Election in which I voted for a Republican picardelectionmemecandidate for president for the first time. This was after a decade-long exploration of the two major political parties and paying closer attention to current events than I had done before that period. Back then, I remained a registered as a Democrat on purpose until after I voted in order to send a tiny message to the party whose principles bore no resemblance to my own. Sixteen years later, the circumstances are similar: this was my first vote as an independent. We’ll see what happens next.

One of my real-life friends tells me that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in town, holding a rally a quick bus ride from my apartment, among other places in LA.

Hillary Clinton is holding multiple campaign events across Southern California on Monday, the eve of the California presidential primary.

Clinton attended a “Get out the Vote” rally at La Fachada Plaza Mexico in Lynwood. Then, she headed to Leimert Park Village Plaza for another rally, followed by an event at Long Beach Community College. The former secretary of state will then head to the Greek Theatre for a concert later in the evening.

The concert will feature singers Christina Aguilera, John Legend and Stevie Wonder.

Clinton has reached the number of delegates and superdelegates needed to win the Democratic nomination, according to an Associated Press survey of delegates.

I get my hair trimmed at a shop about two blocks from Leimert Park and was considering going for a clean-up cut today. Glad I found out about the Clinton event beforehand. Traffic makes me nuts—even when I’m not driving. So do Leftists.

Oh, have I mentioned that my hair is about an inch long? Not so baldilocks anymore. A lot grayer, though.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>baldilocks

goldencalfworshipby baldilocks

17 And there was a man of mount Ephraim, whose name was Micah.

And he said unto his mother, The eleven hundred shekels of silver that were taken from thee, about which thou cursedst, and spakest of also in mine ears, behold, the silver is with me; I took it. And his mother said, Blessed be thou of the Lord, my son.

And when he had restored the eleven hundred shekels of silver to his mother, his mother said, I had wholly dedicated the silver unto the Lord from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image: now therefore I will restore it unto thee.

Yet he restored the money unto his mother; and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and they were in the house of Micah.

And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest.

In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

–Judges 17:1-6

I won.

–President Barack H. Obama

Conservatism as an objective political concept has no meaning anymore. Many who call themselves conservatives and vote Republican do so for one reason: the prospect of “winning.”

This woman doesn’t understand or subscribe to conservative concepts, nor does she want to do either and I believe that there are many more like her. And, in spite of distortions and falsehoods in the piece, her op-ed is a very useful read. It’s from 2014 and was a harbinger of things to come. There are even some hardcore truths in it.

I am a registered Republican. And I’m black.

I’m for civil and equal rights. A raise in minimum wage, I’m for a woman’s right to choose an abortion. My switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party was not about ideology but about power.

I looked at the Democratic Party as largely taking my vote for granted because close to 90% of blacks vote Democratic, according to the exit polls from the last five presidential elections. While the black community has delivered for the Democratic party, it has done little to deliver for the black community, which finds itself mired at the bottom rung of just about every statistical category from unemployment rates to incarceration rates.

My party affiliation change came with much thought. It happened during the 2010 mid-term election cycle when the Republican Party was catapulted to success on the coattails of a fractional element calling itself first Teabaggers [False] (until someone told them what that actually meant) [False]. The Tea Party Movement changed not only the face of the Republican Party offering up more than 130 candidates for Congress–50% elected to the Senate and 31% to The House. The Tea Party also pushed the Republican Party to the fringes on social issues, in particular [No evidence for this].

All emphasis mine.

That the woman is black and holds “black issues” at the forefront of her political calculations is of secondary importance to my point, which is: that those of us who base our political decisions on a concrete set of ideological and moral standards are in the minority.

Many of my Facebook friends who shared this piece pointed to it as evidence of the futility of conservative outreach in the “black community.” Partially, they are correct, but it’s a much broader problem than a racial one. It’s evidence of the futility of conservative outreach to any group which doesn’t recognize the effects of post-modern education on the thinking of the vast majority its members.

Where nothing is true, anything is true and the definition of a thing is whatever you want it to be. And, above all, the only thing that matters is power. That’s postmodernism.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>baldilocks

I saw a tweet from David Axelrod that made me laugh

and not just because it prompted this excellent counter

I smiled for several reasons, first the spectacle of Jeb Bush jumping through hoops trying to say things in the way that the MSM wants him to is quite amusing when you have the establishment of the party & media that had been so determined to crown him the heir apparent.

Even funnier has been the media’s attempt to crown a teenage girl who was maybe 4 when we went into Iraq and was 11 when Barack Obama as the greatest expert on war in the middle east since Lawrence entered Arabia

But the 2nd thing that makes me smile   Is the answer is so simple, that Jeb should be ashamed that he did not think of it.

Let me remind those in the media and the masterminds suggesting candidates denounce our efforts in Iraq that  the war in Iraq was won before Barack Obama decided he wished to lose it. The power and success ISIS in Iraq is completely on him.

I was in favor of the Iraq war & still think George Bush did the right thing, but David Axelrod has a point.  If I knew that Barack Obama was going to give our victory away to ISIS & Iran leaving the Iraqis out and causing our sacrifices of blood & treasure to mean nothing  to dry I wouldn’t have invaded either.

That is such an obvious answer that Jeb Bush  & the rest of the GOP should be ashamed for not saying it and putting the secretary of state at the time on the spot to defend the policy of Barack Obama.

The only pay I get from this comes from you.

If you want journalism owned by you instead of the left elites I would ask you to hit DaTipJar and help me pay for it.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.


Our May Premium for a tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Tim Imholt’s book: The Forest of Assassins

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits in May of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

The first half of the first decade of the 21st century was a horrible time for the enemies of the United States.

The 9/11 attacks which should have been the final nail in the coffin of a demoralized nation bitterly divided by a contested election had largely failed.

A president, who was supposed to be a dunce had managed, after long and contentious debates to unite enough of the country behind him to drive the country’s foes from a land that the Russians had failed to conquer and begin the process of civilizing it.

He had taken the battle to the foe bringing down one of the most dangerous dictators in the middle east and established American power there and even free elections.

He had surrounded one of the chief sponsors of terror in the world with a fleet to the south and Armies to its east, west and even bases to the north in territory once home to their enemies.

He managed to stimulate the economy to recover from the shock of the attack, new businesses were booming and tax cuts had encouraged others (although spending was more than it should be).

Socially the example of strength had given new respect for strong men in the armed services and police that had been marginalized in media for decades encouraging a whole new generation to that direction. Faith in God had increased as it does in a time of crisis and his own personal example of humility encouraged it.

In short a 2nd American century looked like it was in the works, particularly after the president bitterly contested the first time won re-election.

I can pictures those foes now, Islamic terrorists, would be conquerors, anti-capitalists and anti-christians, those who wanted their own power projected over certain parts of the world or rebuild shattered empires. I can imagine they’re dreaming of change, change they could believe in.

If only we could get a different leader in America a leader totally opposite of what he have now. I can see him in my mind’s eye…

A leader who didn’t have the familial experience of this one to draw upon a self-centered person who sees America as a problem not as a solution.

A leader charismatic made in the image that the media’s ideal.

A leader the nation who people would project their dreams upon but inexperienced, untested and unfamiliar with the true ways of the world.

A leader from a broken home, a person who had, rather than working for success had been granted it, simply by virtue of his race or creed or social standing

A leader who would be set up as practically a God, who would by his benevolent power calm the seas and save the world.

A leader who was a narcissist convinced of his own superiority, believing his own propaganda and interested primarily in his own entertainment and satisfaction rather than governing a great nation.

A leader who once elected would retreat from challenges rather than confront them.

A leader who would discourage the projection of American power and values beyond its shores.

A leader who would publicly speak to destabilize his allies and then demoralise them, failing to back them up in their times of need.

A leader who rather than strengthening the Armies of the country would use them as social experimentation grounds to divide and discourage those who would volunteer to fight for America.

A leader who would reverse success and take the pressure off of us so we can recover and thrive.

A leader so timid that he would even allow Americans to die rather than take the responsibility to fight for them.

A leader so committed to the illusion of his success he would redefine what a terrorist attack might be rather than confront it, even in his own soil.

A leader willing to attack the capitalist system, the economic backbone that pays for those troops and all else.

A leader willing to take over large chunks of the economy and then regulate them to the point of collapse, discouraging and dividing the population.

A leader willing to spend money he didn’t have beyond even the most irresponsible limits previously seen.

A leader willing even to break long-established rules and tradition of laws to cement political power.

A leader willing to push and encourage the destruction of American homogeneity.

A leader willing to balkanize the nation if it gave him political gain.

A leader disdainful of both American culture and the family Willing to shatter, divide and even redefine the American family and stigmatize those who did not agree.

A leader willing to exacerbate racial divides for his own purposes.

A leader happy to attack religious institutions, to dispose of 1st Amendment protections of them and even fine citizens & punish citizens for daring to cling faithfully to God over the commands of the state.

A leader who would work to disarm Americans and breed suspicion between races and religions and institutions beyond all those normally generated by human folly.

A leader willing to use the full power of his office not against us but against his political opponents in his own land.

A leader ready willing and able to ignore the law in order to discourage and defeat the people who might unite against.

A leader whose followers would be willing to use any tactics, no matter how blatantly corrupt to keep his opponents in check.

A leader who would have a loyal core of followers united either through race or religion or worldview who would consider any critique of him as blasphemy, racism or hate speech.

A leader whose core followers were so loyal that even their own oppression or economic failure would not cause them to abandon him.

A leader in whom his supporters were so invested that they would retreat into denial rather than acknowledge any failure.

A leader keeping America in such a state that it would be too weak to challenge us and would give the flexibility to do as we will for as long as he is in office.

In short A leader who would bringing America down to depths of discouragement and defeat, allow us to go on the offensive around the world.

I can see those discouraged enemies of America sitting down in despair in 2006 pondering their problems and daydreaming of such an American president and saying to themselves, if only.

And now the exit question:

If our foes had got together in 2006, put out a Help Wanted Ad for such a person, invented their time and invested their time and treasure in electing and re-electing him how would the last six years have been any different?

Update: No wonder The Orcs are winning and in the words of Glenn Reynolds: “I DUNNO, BUT In the U.S. and Europe, The Wormtounges seem firmly in charge

It will take many Rosaries to break Saruman’s spell.


Olimometer 2.52

If you think the coverage and commentary we provide here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below to meet our annual expenses.

Consider the lineup you get In addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?

Update: left a Kate Upton line in the cut and paste

Da Magnificent Seven's John Ruberry
Da Magnificent Seven’s
John Ruberry

By John Ruberry

For pretty much the entirety of his first term in office, President Obama blamed the stagnant economy on his predecessor, George W. Bush. Of course the Obama economy is still in the doldrums and I wouldn’t be surprised if it remained dormant until after he leaves office.

Obama’s biggest, ahem, achievement as president is ObamaCare. He repeatedly claimed, in what was later named the Lie of the Year, his  ObamaCare “You Can Keep Your Plan” promise.  Obama’s half-hearted explanation of that lie and the botched ObamaCare website rollout didn’t measure up to an apology, let alone an acceptance of blame.

Contrast Obama’s misbehavior with that of Chung Hong-won, the prime minister of South Korea who resigned Sunday over his government’s mishandling of this month’s deadly ferry disaster. Last fall Valdis Dombrovskis, the prime minister of Latvia, quit after a deadly supermarket roof collapse that killed 54 people in the capital city of Riga. These men accepted Harry S. Truman’s adage, “the buck stops here.”

Now I am not suggesting that Obama resign over his derelictions. Government instability is the biggest weakness of  parliamentary democracies. Besides, is America ready for President Joe Biden?

But strong leaders admit their failures and they don’t duck responsibility. Twice, however, Americans voted for a symbol rather than a head of state.

In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. And we are getting just that.

John Ruberry blogs at Marathon Pundit. 


Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full time endeavor thanks to your support.

The reporting, the commentary and the nine magnificent seven writers are all made possible because you, the reader choose to support it.

For a full month of all of what we provide ,we ask a fixed amount $1465, under $50 a day.

This month we are behind with 3 days to go we need $1042 for a full pay month. We can make our goal if we can get $350 per day We need 14 $25 Tip jar hits for each of the next four days to make that goal..

If you think the work we do here for the conservative movement is worth it, please consider hitting DaTipJar below.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.

Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?


Last week, my husband returned from a six month deployment in Afghanistan.  So politics haven’t been on my mind much.  Mostly, we’ve just enjoyed family time.  The separation is hard, but reunion is the reward.

With hubby still cleaning the moon dust off his boots, I got a little curious.  How is it going over there?  And are they talking about it much in the mainstream news outlets?

My husband and I have lived the military life since before 9/11.  Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom have been a constant for us for a long time.  Also, we don’t have cable TV, and I don’t turn on the local news unless a hurricane is on the way.

It’s hard for me to get a feel for what is common knowledge and sentiment outside of the military community.  Now, President Obama has said for a long time that we were gonna be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.  So that is probably common knowledge.

But then recently I read that he wants Afghanistan’s President Karzai to sign a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that keeps US troops there until 2024.

Well that’s confusing.  So I started googling.  Here’s what I found.

Apparently, personnel designated as “combat troops” would withdraw under the BSA, but Special Forces and other counterterrorism personnel could remain another ten years.  This semantic hair-splitting allows President Peace Prize to continue claiming that the war will end in 2014.

I also found out that President Karzai might not sign the BSA, and if he doesn’t, then Obama might be forced to withdraw all troopsJust like Iraq.

Here’s some more tidbits that I found:

Duh:  Iran opposes the foreign presence in Afghanistan.

Oh really?  Thomas Jefferson used the Quran to devise the legal, moral and ethical stipulations for the American Constitution.

Good grief:  The US considered spending $4 billion of foreign aid to get Afghan men married.

Oh dear:  Both sides of the Afghanistan conflict are using Syria as a training ground.

And here’s some things I didn’t find:

I didn’t find much in the way of antiwar protests against the potential extension of the Afghanistan War.  I googled various key phrases, and the best thing I found was a HuffPo article (Amusing sidenote: guess which president is featured in the photo of this 2013 article?)  It’s about a handful of diehards that hold weekly protests in Montpelier.  Good for them, at least they are consistent.

I also didn’t find many recent official statements about the Afghanistan War, beyond the claim that it is ending soon.  Mark Levin recently lamented the lack of a definitive mission in Afghanistan, so I wondered whether that was true. was my first stop.  If you hover the cursor over “Issues,” a list that includes Defense pops up.  Oddly, the only specific subtopic is End of Iraq War.

Clicking on the topic Defense gets you some Guiding Principles.  There, we learn that President Obama’s new comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan

“will ensure that all elements of national power are engaged . . .  in an
effort to defeat al Qaeda to prevent attacks on the homeland and on our Allies
and partners.”

You have to click on the link to the new comprehensive strategy for more information.  There, you will find statements like

“We will achieve these objectives [by] . . . targeting the insurgency, working to secure key population centers, and increasing efforts to train Afghan security forces.”

“we are focusing assistance on supporting the President of Afghanistan and those ministries, governors, and local leaders who combat corruption and deliver for the people.”

So there is a mission, and maybe it is comprehensive, but it’s awfully confusing.  We will defeat Al Qaeda by targeting them?  What does that mean?  As long as we are going after them, that is a victory?  I guess the assumption is that Al Qaeda will give up after we target them long enough.  I wonder how long that is.

I had a look over at the Department of Defense, too.  They included Afghanistan as a specific subtopic in “Top Issues,” but disappointingly it was just a link to a NATO homepage.

What’s my conclusion?  Oh, I don’t know.  I hate forming opinions on policies that place friends and loved ones in harm’s way.  Please do share yours in a comment.  And remember all the deployed personnel in your prayers tonight.  And maybe every night until 2024.

Apparently due to the absolutely polarized nature of our political discussion and the rapid nature of mediums like Twitter many people no longer have the ability to pick up forms of humor such as sarcasm as they once did.

In the interest of the well-being of such folk The Emergency blog system for the humor impaired™ brings you this vital message.

When I re-tweet something like this:

This is an example of "Sarcasm"

I am not in fact claiming this attack happened because of “Islamaphobia” which is a term used by those who are:

1. Trying to suppress critiques of any action however barbaric by Islamic radicals

2. Actually “islamophobic” defined as “So afraid that if they don’t kowtow to radical Islam that they will be targeted.”

rather I am making fun of those who cry “Islamophoboa” at the drop of a hat as if this stuff doesn’t go on almost every day.

and when I re-tweet something like this:

Sarcasm example #2 This will be on the test

I am not in fact blaming my friend Pam Geller who I strongly admire; for the Muslims scalding a Christian convert in Norway:

A an ex-Muslim Convert to Christianity was attacked with boiling water and acid by Muslims at an ‘asylum reception centre’ in Norway on Friday.

“Ali” (Not his real name), an Asylum seeker in an immigration centre in Jaeren, Norway, had boiling water poured over him after he converted to Christianity and would not comply with Ramadan fasting rules. He and the other converts at the centre now fear for their lives

but am actually mocking those in the MSM and on the net who falsely tried to pin an act of mass murder on her in that very same country for the fools they are.

This concludes this message from the Emergency blog system for the humor impaired™. If you or someone you love is humor impaired I suggest an emergency dose of the Three Stooges or Monty Python. If it is an advanced case such as the Sarcasm impaired then administer doses of the Marx Brothers each day till they’ve seen all their movies.

Personally I think it’s all a case of Neo-Confederate-Sex-Panic.

When the initial Bush tax cuts were proposed the making of the tax cuts temporary was a compromise that democrats and liberal republicans managed to forge to keep their constituents happy. If they could not stop the Bush Tax Cuts they could at least make them expire thus giving some consolation to their progressive followers.

Although Bush over and over suggested the Tax cuts be made permanent he could not manage to find the votes.

Now we come to 2010. The economy is bad and unemployment is rampant and now Democrats who were so proud to keep the Bush tax rates from becoming permanent find themselves trapped once again!

Once again the left is screaming “tax cuts for the rich” and their supporters are screaming for them not to cave in figuring that even after the republicans take control in a month they will not have the votes to get it passed.

Meanwhile Republicans are pushing to make the Bush rates permanent.

And so the white house and their advisers are leaning toward compromise, another extension, maybe two years of the Bush Tax Cuts. And thus the trap is set again.

The smart thing for the administration would be to pass the cuts NOW and make them permanent for several reasons.

1.  This will take the issue off the table, every time they simply extend the “Bush tax cuts” it sets up democrats in an election years to defend increasing taxes on business. (You know the folks who actually hire people.)

2.   As long as they are not permanent they remain the “Bush Tax Cuts”. Once they are permanent then they just become the US tax rates. Keeping them temporary keeps them associated with republicans and George W. Bush.

3.   If a democratic congress passes the tax cuts, then they not the republicans will get (and actually deserve) credit for the positive economic results. If it is passed once republicans are in power, republicans will get (and deserve) the credit for the results.

4.  If they are not passed and the economy gets worse (as the result of the tax hike) Republicans can directly blame democrats. Great issue for 2012.

5.   And finally if this is done NOW, then democrats have two years to placate their base. It will be over and done with.

Making the tax rates permanent would be not only the right thing but also the smart thing. That’s why I’m positive the democrats will fall right into the trap and simply vote for an extension at best. Given the chance to do the right or smart thing, the Democrats can be counted on to miss the boat.

I wonder if George W. saw all of this coming years ago and actually intended to set this trap for the left?

Crooks and Liars thinks the democrats have the GOP right where they want them. I’m telling you it’s just too easy. How do we ever lose elections to those guys?

Back in Aug of 2009 I ran this chart of Vietnam vets against the war on Google news in a story of how Vietnam vets against the war decided not to back up Cindy Sheehan’s protest against the Obama administration:

Funny how they dropped off the radar in Jan of 2009.

I was reminded of that story when I saw this:

Several factors — war fatigue; a deep, lingering recession; and the presence of a Democratic president they helped elect — have drained the energy from organizations that led the fight against the Iraq war. Some of the most influential anti-war activist groups that once summoned half a million people to march against the Iraq war and the policies of former President George W. Bush are straining to raise the money and attention to fight what they see as Obama’s military entrenchment in Afghanistan.
“We don’t have a very vibrant anti-war movement anymore,” lamented Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Codepink, one of the anti-war movement’s most visible organizations. emphasis mine

Politico seems to be confused by this. If they had been paying attention a year ago they would not be so surprised. Have they given the anti war much attention in print themselves? Or perhaps they might remember this famous line:

If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition’s arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation.

George Bush is no longer president, those who oppose him politically who provided finances and manpower and media coverage in an attempt to bring him down will absolutely not do the same with Barack Obama.

BTW I figured I’d update my check of Vietnam Vets against the war on Google News since last year.

Vietnam vets against the war updated graph

A blip, we have a blip! Is it a press release, is it a march, is it a national event, no? What can that one blip be?

This is defiantly NOT the time to get out of politics. Some people feel threatened by the Tea Party movement. While I don’t subscribe too many of their viewpoints, I welcome them to the political fray. Their movement is probably the best thing to happen in politics since the Vietnam Vets against the War staged a million person demonstration in West Potomac Park in March of 1973.

One mention in a side article on the tea party in February. That’s it?

Don’t despair Cindy, Medina, it takes time to create true believers. Come November 2012 I’m sure many on the left who decided that American Military power is not something to protest will suddenly come around. Rest assured that you will have all the support and manpower George Soros and the Democratic party can buy.

If you want to make a list George W. Bush’s friend and allies in the media it likely doesn’t include Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson or Peter Beinart. Yet the three of them seeing their hero Barack Obama floundering over the Ground Zero Mosque and the democrats on the defensive over their support of it expect George W. Bush to save the day:

There’s a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama’s waffling on the issue, they’re calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America’s relationship with Islam.

President Obama has spent most of his term in office bashing George W Bush and blaming him for everything except the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. The democratic strategy for 2010 has been blame Bush, now they are waiting for him to save them.

President Bush has politely refrained from critique of the current administration, I can’t see him bailing out these people who will not show any gratitude for it, even if he was so inclined. Does that mean that they will blame Bush for any political problem caused by Obama’s statements? Well DUH!

Memeorandum thread here.

Update: Corrected some spelling mistakes

Update 2: I absolutely love Doug Powers headline at Michelle Malkin’s site

Ground Zero Mosque Supporters Beg Greedy, Lying, Human Rights Violating War Criminal to Join Their Crusade

Update 3:
I could copy and paste these headlines all day:

To save Obama, Left cries out for … George W. Bush?

…to save author Gary Wills and people like him from embarrassment when they travel in Europe.

The author actually said on Morning Joe today this was the good thing about replacing George Bush with Barack Obama and the crew nodded in agreement.

I’m sure Mr. Willis is a smart man and his book on the “National Security State” might be pretty good, but I have a piece of advice for him. If you find people wanting to pity or laugh at you when you travel, you need to do one thing.


If a grown man can’t deal with what people abroad feel about him or his country then he has a lot more to worry about than who is president.

what many are thinking:

Even if one were inclined to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he had asked Former President Bush and Mrs. Bush to visit the wounded soldiers because the Bushes live in Texas, why would he ask this of his predecessor and not get on Air Force One overnight to get down there himself?

Why would he not go to be with those whom he is charged to send into battle and who were so horrifyingly betrayed by one of their own?

Because he doesn’t give a rat’s backside, that’s why not.

Sad to say this is a reasonable conclusion.

Take a look at this USA today opinion piece on rancor in political debate:

It closes with this line about the author:

Sandy Grady, who has covered eight presidential campaigns, is a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

Read the whole thing and see if you can find what is missing. It it’s too tough to do so then check out the comments, a particular one includes several links to help you out:

Do these people even pretend to know that the internet, video recording and audio recordings exist and have been invented?

Here comes that Kryten moment for those on the left (Hi Andrew) who were sure that George Bush was going to impose a religious test for free speech:

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.

I guess all you folks who took that idiotic Blasphemy challenge (which doesn’t actually work by the way) better watch out for Eric Holder and not Benedict XVI or George Bush.

To steal a line from Glenn from who this comes… They told me that if I supported Sarah Palin that free speech would be suppressed in favor of religious speech and they were right!

If there was ever a time that we will find out if the Obamacult is real this is it.

…a Nazi, hates black people , evil incarnate, a mass murderer, a torturer. A man so evil and depraved that a person could win a Nobel Peace Prize for simply not being him.

Now we remember a different George Bush:

President Bush drives us crazy. We want him to fight back. He won’t. We want him to “save” himself. He won’t. He won’t “save” his presidency, either. He won’t “save” his party. He won’t “save” his legacy.

President Bush is doing what is unthinkable – he is staying true to the task laid out before him, to serve all the people. He is remaining faithful to that and he is counting on his God to do the rest, as his God has promised.

One who wasn’t afraid to poke fun at himself or take a joke.

Now Michelle Malkin is a lot more caustic than George Bush so if we can be fed this about George Bush for almost a decade why would we expect those same people to be moderate concerning Michelle? Particularly when she keeps fighting back.

I crashed on the couch last night because the Sox game was on the west coast. When I woke up this morning and signed in AIM the headline was that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Being a normal and sane man I assumed I was still groggy or maybe still asleep and then turned on the TV.

Apparently not being George Bush counts for a lot. From what I’ve seen on Morning Joe even the White House seems a bit embarrassed.

I was always under the impression that you actually had to DO something to win the prize.

That makes three four US presidents. Teddy Rossevelt for his mediation in the Russian Japan war. Woodrow Wilson for the League of Nations, Jimmy Carter for Camp David and President Obama for… for… not being George Bush.

I guess we should be watching for international youtube videos of kids singing now.

I can’t think of anything that can illustrate the bankruptcy of the prize than this award. I’ve gotta run my kid to school but I’ll do some blog round up later.

Update: Forgot about Wilson. I still haven’t checked any other blogs but I can’t wait to do that.

Update 2: I must say this IS deserved. No US president since the Bush administration has not been more not George Bush than Barack Obama.

I figured that they would give Obama this win to compensate for the non-corporation that they will give him on Iran and Afghanistan:

I guess not.

Not only does he lose but he doesn’t even make it out of the first round.

What does that mean? It means that the perception internationally is there is absolutely NO COST for snubbing this US president.

Let see how the media spin this one. There must be some way to blame George Bush.

I really shouldn’t but I can’t help myself:

the sad thing is I’m directing this at the Obamacult, but the rest of the world is directing it toward us.

Update: Hotair is all out.

Update 2: The greenroom too!

Update 3: Michelle on fire. Rush has a great quote:

Who knew the IOC was racist?

I bet Charles Johnson did!

Update 4: Rio Wins! This proves that the crime issue wasn’t a primary consideration against Chicago. It’s all O’Keefe’s fault, if it wasn’t for him and Hannah Giles and her bikini pics Acorn could have helped stuff the ballot. (yes Rush said it first but he didn’t mention bikini pics!).

Update 5: Some media reactions

La Times:

The decision dashes the hopes of U.S. boosters — President Obama chief among them — who had put their reputations on the line to help win the games for Chicago. The announcement came as the president and first lady headed back to Washington after making a last-minute appeal to the International Olympic Committee as it met in Copenhagen.

UK Daily Mail:

IOC makes history – and humiliates Obama – as Rio de Janeiro is awarded 2016 Olympics

The State:

The IOC decision was a major blow to Mayor Richard M. Daley, who spent three years working, cajoling and insisting that the games would be a boon for his city. The 67-year-old Daley, who has been in office for 20 years, was already grappling with low approval ratings, though it was an open question whether a winning Olympics bid would help or hurt those numbers.

Update 6: The Anchoress talks sense

Did the IOC look at Obama -who treats his nations’ traditional allies rather dismissively, and her enemies with too much deference- and see “weakness”?

I’ll never forget what Osama bin Laden said about the decision to attack the US on her own soil, that he saw the United States, throughout the 1990’s as “the weak horse.”

Beyond all the media madness concerning these Olympic Games, Obama’s losing a bid for Chicago may well be sending another sort of message altogether to the wrong people: America is weak.

If that is the sentiment being projected, then our own media have a hand in creating the impression of weakness. Yes, it’s worrisome.

Riehl has his own suggestion:

Next time, perhaps they should consider relying on advocates who truly are proud of America and like her just the way she’s been. Yes, Sarah Palin does come to mind just now.

Not a Chance, Sarah Palin is much too smart to risk US prestige in this way.

Glenn tweaks the left:

That’s too bad. I was kinda looking forward to seeing President Palin speak at the opening ceremonies. . . .

Update 7: Apparently we are all unpatriotic for laughing at the Obamacult and their God’s ineptness. That is the line of the blogs of the left. Don Surber answers them:

The left confuses standing beside the nation in wartime — something the left by and large failed to do — with hoping an arrogant president and the corrupt City Hall machine that backs him fall flat on their faces on an international stage.

The left is now fully vested in the Cult of Personality, blindly following this twerp wherever he may lead.

The president risked all for a trifle.

But there is a grain of truth in the complaint from the left. But not for the reasons they stated.

“Chicago’s dismal showing today, after Mr Obama’s personal, impassioned last-minute pitch, is a stunning humiliation for this President. It cannot be emphasised enough how this will feed the perception that on the world stage he looks good — but carries no heft,” Tim Reid wrote in the Times of London.

That is what hurts the nation and the world. President Obama pissed away the prestige of the presidency so the boys back home could line their pockets with kickbacks on an Olympian scale. In the sober aftermath, America did lose today. Obama — not the IOC — is to blame.

As I said at the top, we are laughing at the shock of the Obamacult, the rest of the world is laughing at us. As for the left which seems to have decided on their talking points, the last word goes to the blogfather:

Whatever Soros is paying, it’s too much.

the Iranian response:

HA ah HA HA HA AH ah HA hA ah HA…(please do not make these demands while we are drinking).

I’m with Michael Graham. If the international community couldn’t muster the will to hold Qadaffy to his ten minutes you think that they are going to stop Iran from getting Nukes?!?!

Mika and company are shocked SHOCKED! They hope that the president will make strong demands from Iran.

I’m sure he will, that will put the fear of Allah in them!

Let’s look back at some early posts I did over the first three months of the blog. I’m going to be busy today so it’s a quick filler post thing:

Back in December the Jammie Wearing Fool predicted that the birth of Bristol Palin’s son would be the death Knell of the Trig Truther Movement, at the time I said this:

You have to think of people who follow conspiratorial type stuff as people following a religion. Excuses will be followed by clarifications but in the end the belief will not be dropped, remember William Miller and the 2nd coming.

The only thing that will be missing is the tax-exempt status. (Believe me the collection plate WILL exist).

The other McCain, Dan Riehl and Aaron Gardner prove me almost totally right but Anne Briggs proves the last sentence wrong as she didn’t use her Trig Truther fame to improve the Amazon Rankings of the book (#2,761,947 as of this morning). No collection plate there.

Speaking of a collection plate back in January I did a post on the New Quarter Sovereign coin offered by the British Royal mint and said this:

The glory of the British Empire is long past but if you want a chance to get something to remember it by the quarter sovereign is a solid and inexpensive choice. The mint is getting £47.95 each for them at the current exchange rate that works out to around $63 each for a gold coin in it’s first year of issue.

I grabbed 3 since that’s all I can afford, If I had a job I’d grab 10.

In case you forgot the design:

Same design used for all size sovereigns
Same design used for all size sovereigns

Not only has gold gone up and the Royal Mint raised its price to £65 but the exchange rat is now favoring the pound so I hope you jumped on the coin when you had a chance. It’s still worth getting as a first year issue gold coin.

I posted quite a bit about Israel going into Gaza. I mentioned this about the cease fire:

It is now up to the Palestinians are they going to stop the rockets or are they going to go through all of this again. That is when we will know if the war is actually over or not. It also remains to be seen if Israel is going to be willing to go back in during an Obama administration.

Well looking at the blog The Muqata which live blogged the war along with Israellycool looking under the category “Qassam Rockets” there is not an entry newer than Jan 18th that mentions a launch. The section under “Gaza” doesn’t either.

It looks like the war is over, but once the Palestinians are done killing each other I’m sure they’ll manage to try again.

Also in January I decided I arrived because of an increase in Spam. I’ve actually had a drop in spam lately but I’ve had an increase in comments so I guess a few more people are reading me, if you are thanks.

Considering the political landscape this post is Ironic, I hit Marc Ambinder over suggesting it was a bad idea for Republicans to vote against the stimulus bill due to the 70% Obama approval. I said this:

This is the same advice that might have been given to republicans in the first two years of the Clinton administration. Not taking it gave them control of the house for the first time in 40 years.

Anyone who thinks a vulnerable republican congressman who goes along with this plan will survive a primary challenge is silly. Remember our democrat friends were the same ones who told us McCain was the man to win with.

Bold prediction time: Anyone who thinks Obama will have approval ratings in the 60’s in two years is dead wrong. They will not be above 50%. It would not surprise me to see his ratings in the low 40’s.

That one is looking pretty good (I even used the battered wife example later in the post that Glenn uses today) and the Bold prediction is not looking so bold these days. One note, the first two sentences were in a block quote, I either missed the link or I accidentally put it in the block. I can’t find the quote elsewhere online so it might be mine but I should be more careful.

Another post that looks like it could have gone up this week is this one:

The question then is why? Why make the big deal, and why the big fuss over republican votes when the democrats have the power and the votes? Easy.

They want cover, they want power but not responsibility. They want someone to blame. They remember 1994 and the Clinton Tax increase. They also know that this country is still a 51-49 country and that the blue dogs in the house are not going to keep their seats if they go too far left.

Mark my words when things get worse (they will) the congress will get worried. In 2010 with the recovery hasn’t taken place (much too soon) Democrats in congress will be trying to deflect blame and ask for patience.

Remove the word “stimulus” and replace it withhealthcare” and it could go up now.

Several “linked” posts have particular relevance today. I promoted something from comments:

his president has already made it clear that he is above the press by his actions. It is as if he is royalty and bestowing his favors on his faithful subjects. I can’t believe that the members of the press are going to be willing to take this treatment for long. Oh they will keep their mouth’s shut for a while. Their resentment will be whispered and building, but it will take only one prominent reporter on the left to say it aloud and it will come pouring out. I actually have an opinion as to which two reporters/opinion journalists will do it. But I’m keeping that to myself for now.

It will be hard for the press to re-direct their anger to conservatives when we have so little power.

I hate to admit it but I totally forgot who those reporters were, but we have seen some of this from the base and from reporters, but it is the next line that mattered:

The whitehouse will use the Blame Bush stratagem to deflect this when it comes but I think it will come.

Ok so the White house is having trouble with their base, but I didn’t think they would be so desperate to mollify the base to risk the consequences mentioned in these two posts:

The democrats are all talk and smoke on this subject. They will try to go though some motions to mollify their guys but there is no way at all they will pursue this. It is a high risk move at a time or crisis with the only upside being among fanatics.

My explanation is here, my money quotes:

You can take this to the bank: Any successful attack on American soil during an Obama administration is going to be wholly owned by not only that administration but the Democratic party…

…Any kind of trials will be drawn out affairs and would likely be still going on during a successful attack. How much worse will it be for those who failed to protect the country if those who succeeded in protecting the nation are on trial during their failure?

It was my opinion at the time that the President would offer the pardons as he cares not what the press think. From what I’ve seen about the way the press and the news has been treating not only the incoming president but the outgoing crew even in his last days, I think the smirk is going to win. He is savvy enough to know what this would do to the Democrats they will be forced to either engage their far left base or take the risk I said above. These people won’t do it and it they did it would destroy them. It will be his final victory against them.

All the risks still exist, I think this is sheer panic to change the subject. He has fallen into the final trap laid by George W. Bush.

It was interesting reading those old posts, I’ll do it again when I hit the 1000 post mark or my year anniversary.

UPDATE: I looked at the wrong column, it was 900 comments. Pass me my idiot mittens.

I mentioned this in passing but thought i’d put the full letter out there for you to see:

From: Da-Tech-Guy []
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:30 AM
To: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Subject: Current activities of Vietnam Vets Against the War


I was writing a blog post concerning attitudes about Iraq and Afghanistan since the election. To this end I checked out your web site and noted that it had been over a year (June 2008) since you had a press release.

Considering the attention or lack thereof by the media over Cindy Sheehan’s activates on Martha’s Vineyard I was curious what you guys thought so I have the following questions:

Do you still oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? If not why not?

Presuming you still oppose one or both wars what public events have you had over the last 6 months to publicize this opposition?

If the number of activities is significantly smaller then during previous years why is that?

Why have you had no press releases over the last year?

Does VVAW have a position concerning Ms. Sheehan’s current activities?

Does VVAW agree with Charlie Gibson who when asked about Ms. Sheehan’s current activates said “Enough Already”

Any information on these questions would be most appreciated.



P.S. a FYI when I clicked on Robert Gronko on the e-mail list my anti-virus went nuts so he might want to check his yahoo account and run a good anti-virus.

All of those e-mail addresses are publicly listed on the VVAW site. I’m figuring it will be at least 24 hours before I hear anything and I have important personal business tomorrow so unless I happen to catch something today I likely won’t have a full follow up post on it till Wednesday.

Today on Morning Joe Scarborough asked Carl Bernstein about this article that asked: “Could Afghanistan become Obama’s Vietnam?”

The great liberal lion of a reporter answered emphatically No!

Well there is this wonderful time machine called google and if you do a search for Afghanistan and Vietnam and exclude the words Obama and 2009 there are 18 million results..

They started right away in October 2001 from small sites to more famous writers like R. W. Apple in the New York Times and continue to Anti-war dot com in November.

And it continued through the years from John Pilger in the new statesman, Ted Kennedy in 2005 and all the other usual suspects.

Only still carries the flag. I checked Vietnam Vet’s against the war. They haven’t had a press release since Mid 2008. I’ve sent them an e-mail on the subject and will let you know what they say.

I wonder what might be different today as compared to the last 8 years?

Afghanistan is not doing well, there are bombs in Iraq, Democrats are eating their own on health care, deficits are soaring, the white house is spamming Americans, and the Gay community is having enough of don’t ask don’t tell and even some reporters are wondering if president Obama has Floyd Patterson’s jaw. What is a democratic administration with filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a large majority in the house to do?

Why investigate the Bush Administration of course:

The Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

This is the one thing that democrats can agree on. This has one purpose and one purpose only to distract their base from their failures. The question is will they fall for it?

Update: It made the hotair headlines.

Update 2: And gateway pundit

Update 3: Rush echos me today on the show today. Great minds think alike, I don’t know what my excuse is.

I started reading Andrew Sullivan back in the year 2000. It was one of the first blogs I ever read and it was the source of a lot of good opinion and observation.

I have watched his blog degenerate into the morass it is today, it shows flashes of it’s old self but mostly it is not worth a person’s time.

As I have observed Mr. (Dr?) Sullivan for considerably longer than he has observed Trig Palin I feel competent to diagnose the problem. After years of observation I have concluded that he suffers from an acute case of Bloggers Alzheimer’s hereafter known as Sullivan’s Syndrome.

The syndrome is characterized by a singular obsession with a particular issue that causes all other issues to be viewed from that prism. Once the trigger is activated the subject views and opinions on any and all subjects can only be judged from the view of the particular issue.

In Mr. Sullivan’s case the trigger was gay marriage. Once this because an issue anyone who dissented from said issues motives were not only not to be trusted but were to be attacked.

At the syndrome progresses the issue shapes one writing on everything until even friends on the base issue might be rejected due to acceptance or agreement with any previously rejected party. (Re: Glenn Reynolds) The subject himself will believe himself totally unchanged.

In its later stages a person who poses any external threat to the base issue becomes an obsession to truther conspiracy levels. (re: Trig)

Like regular Alzheimer patients some brief periods of lucidity may emerge (re Iran) but when exposed to the “external threat” again (re: Palin) the syndrome re-asserts itself. And the patient will often make an object of adoration of any opponent of the external threat.

No current treatment is known for Sullivan’s syndrome but readers are advised to avoid prolonged exposure to the subject as the syndrome can spread to the point where the infected person can become the trigger for the syndrome in others.

Update: Diagnosis confirmed!

One of my favorite lines in The Screwtape letters is letter 13 and it concerns reality:

The characteristic of Pains and Pleasures is that they are unmistakably real, and therefore, as far as they go, give the man who feels them a touchstone of reality. Thus if you had been trying to damn your man by the Romantic method—by making him a kind of Childe Harold or Werther submerged in self-pity for imaginary distresses—you would try to protect him at all costs from any real pain; because, of course, five minutes’ genuine toothache would reveal the romantic sorrows for the nonsense they were

When president Bush referred to Iran as part of an Axis of Evil he was widely derided one of the calmer statements was from the BBC:

Dissenters from Washington’s “axis of evil” say that the concept can only radicalise Tehran further, make the work of Iranian moderates and reformists far harder and in the long run destabilize the region.

as for Iranian Nukes

Less easy to establish is Washington’s assertion that Iran is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, that might threaten the US and its allies.

Ah those carefree days of 2002; but we can see as recently as February of this year see a US “realist’s” rose colored view of Iran:

Despite growing concern about the regime’s suspected nuclear weapons program, Iran’s assistance in the war on terrorism, and the gradual evolution of liberal thought there puts it in a different category from Iraq or North Korea, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said in an interview. “The axis of evil was a valid comment, [but] I would note there’s one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a democracy differently,” Armitage said.

Well Mr. Armatage here is your “democracy” burning in the streets. Lets check with Chris Hitchens first on the nukes:

Mention of the Lebanese elections impels me to pass on what I saw with my own eyes at a recent Hezbollah rally in south Beirut, Lebanon. In a large hall that featured the official attendance of a delegation from the Iranian Embassy, the most luridly displayed poster of the pro-Iranian party was a nuclear mushroom cloud! Underneath this telling symbol was a caption warning the “Zionists” of what lay in store. We sometimes forget that Iran still officially denies any intention of acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet Ahmadinejad recently hailed an Iranian missile launch as a counterpart to Iran’s success with nuclear centrifuges, and Hezbollah has certainly been allowed to form the idea that the Iranian reactors may have nonpeaceful applications. This means, among other things, that the vicious manipulation by which the mullahs control Iran can no longer be considered as their “internal affair.” Fascism at home sooner or later means fascism abroad. Face it now or fight it later. Meanwhile, give it its right name.

and then on Iranian “elections”

There is a theoretical reason why the events of the last month in Iran (I am sorry, but I resolutely decline to refer to them as elections) were a crudely stage-managed insult to those who took part in them and those who observed them. And then there is a practical reason. The theoretical reason, though less immediately dramatic and exciting, is the much more interesting and important one.

Iran and its citizens are considered by the Shiite theocracy to be the private property of the anointed mullahs. This totalitarian idea was originally based on a piece of religious quackery promulgated by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and known as velayat-e faqui. Under the terms of this edict—which originally placed the clerics in charge of the lives and property of orphans, the indigent, and the insane—the entire population is now declared to be a childlike ward of the black-robed state. Thus any voting exercise is, by definition, over before it has begun, because the all-powerful Islamic Guardian Council determines well in advance who may or may not “run.” Any newspaper referring to the subsequent proceedings as an election, sometimes complete with rallies, polls, counts, and all the rest of it is the cause of helpless laughter among the ayatollahs. (“They fell for it? But it’s too easy!”) Shame on all those media outlets that have been complicit in this dirty lie all last week. And shame also on our pathetic secretary of state, who said that she hoped that “the genuine will and desire” of the people of Iran would be reflected in the outcome. Surely she knows that any such contingency was deliberately forestalled to begin with.

Michael Rubin agrees:

I had the pleasure of visiting the Islamic Republic twice as a student, and it was absolutely fantastic. But the Iranians I would meet on the street had no say in their governance, any more than the ordinary Afghans I met in Kabul and Qandahar in March 2000 had any influence over the Taliban. This is where Fareed Zakaria is so ridiculous when he writes about Iran. In countries like Iran, it’s the guys with the guns that matter in policy. The ordinary citizens are the victims.

We see that the Iranian “Democracy” is trying to control communication, again the BBC:

It is important that what is happening in Iran is reported to the world, but it is even more vital that citizens in Iran know what is happening. That is the role of the recently-launched BBC Persian TV which is fulfilling a crucial role in being a free and impartial source of information for many Iranians.

Any attempt to block this channel is wrong and against international treaties on satellite communication. Whoever is attempting the blocking should stop it now.

And social networks,

‘The blocking of access to foreign news media has been stepped up, according to Reporters Without Borders. ‘The Internet is now very slow, like the mobile phone network. YouTube and Facebook are hard to access and pro-reform sites… are completely inaccessible.'”

And reporters are targets:

A British reporter in Tehran tells FOX News that regime thugs are beating reporters on the streets of Tehran. The regime wants reporters out of the country. Iranian thugs are keeping reporters hiding in their hotels:

Israel thinks it knows why:

Without support from the United States and other Western countries, Iranian opposition groups will likely stop demonstrations against the Iranian regime and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declared victory in Friday’s presidential elections, senior Israeli defense officials said Sunday.

Why all of this? The Gloria center has a thought:

I certainly expected Ahmadinjad to win but figured the regime would play out the game. He’d either genuinely gain victory in the second round or they’d change just enough votes to ensure his victory. What no one expected is that the regime would tear up the whole process like this. Their brazen way of doing so–if you don’t like it you can go to hell, we’re going to do whatever we want, and we don’t care what anyone thinks–signals to me that this ruling group is even more risk-taking and irresponsible than it previously appeared.

This is the key point: the problem with Iran’s regime isn’t just that it is a dictatorship, it’s that it is such an extremist, aggressive dictatorship.

The only logical explanation for why the regime did this is that Ahmadinejad’s opponents got so many votes that it frightened the regime. It also shows that the regime is wedded to Ahmadinejad and his approach.

Amir Taheri thinks so:

Many in Tehran, including leading clerics, see the exercise as a putsch by the military-security organs that back Mr. Ahmadinejad. Several events make these allegations appear credible. The state-owned Fars News Agency declared Mr. Ahmadinejad to have won with a two-thirds majority even before the first official results had been tabulated by the Interior Ministry. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main rival, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, retaliated by declaring himself the winner. That triggered a number of street demonstrations, followed with statements by prominent political and religious figures endorsing Mr. Mousavi’s claim.

Then something unprecedented happened. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on all issues of national life, published a long statement hailing Mr. Ahmadinejad’s “historic victory” as “a great celebration.” This was the first time since 1989, when he became supreme leader, that Mr. Khamenei commented on the results of a presidential election without waiting for the publication of official results. Some analysts in Tehran tell me that the military-security elite, now controlling the machinery of the Iranian state, persuaded Mr. Khamenei to make the unprecedented move.

And events in Iran seem to support that to wit:

Ahmadinejad decides it’s prudent not to leave the country on a scheduled trip to Russia. “Plainclothes militia” authorized to use live ammunition. EU officials express “serious concern.”

And this:

Grand Ayatollah Sanei in Iran has declared Ahmadinejad’s presidency illegitimate and cooperating with his government against Islam. There are strong rumors that his house and office are surrounded by the police and his website is filtered. He had previously issued a fatwa, against rigging of the elections in any form or shape, calling it a mortal sin.

And this too:

Via Raymond Jahan on Twitter (h/t Allahpundit), tens of thousands of anti-A-jad protesters have taken to the streets in Iran (click here for full-size).

And reactions like this:

Best-case scenario is that they “merely” beat him into unconsciousness. Rather than give you just the video of the beating, though, I’m embedding a kaleidoscope of 14 clips put together by to show you how widespread and violent the protests already are. If you can’t spare a few minutes to watch them all, at least watch the first three plus the seventh, where you’ll find the Basij — essentially Iran’s answer to the Nazi SA — riding by on motorcycles with batons and taking swings at anyone wearing green to indicate support for Mousavi.

And more video and photos here.

As you might have guessed the best coverage is from Michael Totten, but that’s not a surprise. He talks about the moment that the regime most fears:

We don’t know whether the policeman and the man on the edge of the crowd already realize what has happened. The man has stopped being afraid – and this is precisely the beginning of the revolution. Here it starts. Until now, whenever these two men approached each other, a third figure instantly intervened between them. That third figure was fear. Fear was the policeman’s ally and the man in the crowd’s foe. Fear interposed its rules and decided everything.

Now the two men find themselves alone, facing each other, and fear has disappeared into thin air. Until now their relationship was charged with emotion, a mixture of aggression, scorn, rage, terror. But now that fear has retreated, this perverse, hateful union has suddenly broken up; something has been extinguished. The two men have now grown mutually indifferent, useless to each other; they can now go their own ways.

Accordingly, the policeman turns around and begins to walk heavily back toward his post, while the man on the edge of the crowd stands there looking at his vanishing enemy.

Zaneirani agrees:

Today it is even more evident that something really really funny is going on. Rafsanjani’s house is apparently surrounded by security forces. Let’s face it Rafsanjani has the most to lose here. His and his sons head is on the line. If there is any chance that this trend is going to be reversed, Rafsanjani will be the key player. Today is the day that the Islamic Republic officially transformed from a theocracy supported by Pasdaran to a Junta supported by a handful of clerics.

Dan Riehl reminds us of history:

I’m not prepared to say this is it for the regime. It depends on what cards they are willing to play. This could end with successful counter-revolution, or mass slaughter. And if Carter hadn’t been the weak, misguided President he was, it wouldn’t have been necessary. This is also the regime Obama couldn’t wait to say he would talk to despite election irregularities. Insurrection Day 2 and Carter 2, as well.

Good point what is the administration doing here? Lets see:

Hillary Clinton expresses the wait-and-see approach of the Obama Administration:

“We, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said during a visit to Niagara Falls, Ontario, on Saturday. “We obviously hope the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people.”

In one sense, this unsatisfactory response is entirely consistent with the nuanced approach that President Obama laid out in his Cairo speech.

Seem familar?

It reminds me of of George H. W. Bush’s reaction to the events preceding the fall of the Berlin Wall. The best word to describe both administrations is flatfooted. I guess this is the way that all “pragmatists” react when their neat, little assumptions about the world order run into reality. An ideologue might actually have a position on a revolution against thuggish tyrants.

Well it would seem a Carter vote in the Arthur Carter watch but not so fast, we all know who is really to blame don’t we? Yes you got it. It’s all Bush. Ahmadinejad is Bush! Really! After all Laura Secor says so in a story called Meet Iran’s George W. Bush.:

This ought to be a no-brainer: Ahmadinejad has made a mess of the economy, clamped down on political dissent and social freedoms, militarized the state, and earned the enmity of much of the world

This is a fair description of how the left views the ex-president. But there is some confusion maybe he is Rove or Palin:

Ahmadinejad’s bag of tricks is eerily like that of Karl Rove – the constant use of fear, the exploitation of religion, the demonization of liberals, the deployment of Potemkin symbolism like Sarah Palin

This confuses some:

What’s going on here? Does the American Left – after eight years of whining about make-believe tyranny – not know how to react to actual tyranny when it sees it in action?

Angers others:

Really, Sully? I mean, really? WTF goes through someone’s mind when they dream up an idiotic comparison between (a) Karl Rove, a Republican political strategist, and (b) Mahmoud Ahmadinejed, a Jew-hating genocidal maniac?

You might as well compare Rove to Charles Manson or Pol Pot. Please note that Sullivan’s comparison involves no hypotheticals. It does not appear to be any sort of parodic humor, except unintentionally. He evidently means to suggest in all seriousness that Ahmadinejad and Rove are similar in some meaningful way.

Whatever you think of Karl Rove — and I am certainly not his biggest fan — there is something absurdly puerile in the suggestion that his political strategies involve “the deployment of Potemkin symbolism like Sarah Palin” (???).

But for all the rhetoric where does this leave us? Bill Jacobson thinks its all bad news:

A classic no win situation. If there were fraud, then the Iranian people unwillingly will be subjected to the consequences of pursuing Ahmadinejad’s policies. If there were no fraud, then the result is the same. In either case, it is no win for the prospect of a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, unless the West, Israel and the U.S. capitulate.

Max Boot channels Eric Idle seeing the bright side:

Even the Obama administration will be hard put to enter into serious negotiations with Ahmadinejad, especially when his scant credibility has been undermined by these utterly fraudulent elections and the resulting street protests.

That doesn’t mean that Obama won’t try–but he will have a lot less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Mousavi. And that in turn means there is a greater probability that eventually Obama may do something serious to stop the Iranian nuclear program–whether by embargoing Iranian refined-petroleum imports or by tacitly giving the go-ahead to Israel to attack its nuclear installations.

So in an odd sort of way a win for Ahmadinejad is also a win for those of us who are seriously alarmed about Iranian capabilities and intentions. With crazy Mahmoud in office–and his patron, Ayatollah Khameini, looming in the background–it will be harder for Iranian apologists to deny the reality of this terrorist regime.

Allahpundit says the something has to happen:

Now comes the moment of truth: Does he really believe that? Does he honestly believe, after years of stonewalling, with the country maybe a year away from being able to build a bomb, that they’re going to throw in the towel now? If not, then walk away. There’s no downside and potentially a tremendous upside if the regime falls or a grateful Mousavi ends up being installed as president. And needless to say, from a moral standpoint, he’d be on the side of the angels.

Back to the Gloria Center:

Is a regime that just committed itself irrevocably to the most extreme faction, most radical ideology, and most repressive control over the country going to compromise with the West on nuclear weapons or anything else?

I think Karl puts it best when he calls it the reality bomb:

Obama’s immediate problem is that the naked power grab ongoing in Iran has exposed to even the casual observer that “the Iran we have” is the Iran we have always had. Obama’s larger problem is that still seems to hold the notion that he can “deal” with Iran in the sense of “engagement,” even after the reality bomb has detonated.

That takes us back to the start of the post. What Iran is, what the Mullahs are and what Ahmadinejad is and their collective goals have always been what they are. No amount of posturing, clever words, talking heads or wishful thinking changes this.

A supporter of Iran’s hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds up a poster bearing a picture of Jerusalem’s holy Dome of the Rock mosque with the slogan “Our war will culminate with the takeover of Palestine”, during a massive rally to celebrate his victory in the presidential elections in Tehran’s Valiasr square on June 14. (AFP/Olivier Laban-Mattei)

With the riots and the repression on screen it breaks down the atoms of the fake picture some drew for their political gain or personal comfort. Who knew Russel T. Davies could be so prophetic:

In a classic TV show it is easy to spot the bad guy. Hopefully this reality bomb allows us to see what is there. People may want to deny or disguise the face, but this election and the reaction detonates the reality bomb and shows us what’s behind the mask. We see the face of actual evil and protesters fighting it. Not feel good protests against phony tyranny but the real thing with their own lives on the line.

Now it right in front of us. The bottom line is what are we as a nation going to do about it?

Update: Rush has a montage of people comparing this to Florida and a “stolen” election I see what they mean other than the people shot and slashed in the streets this is just the kind of thing you would expect from the old Bush administration. Will the reality bomb be strong enough to affect the MSM or Obama?

Haven’t done this for a while and since I have a 2nd interview this week I might as well get it in when I can.

6:01 a.m. Nasty weather coming for the whole east coast

6:04 a.m. First Gitmo prisoner now in NY. The guy is actually being tried for a pre-9/11 attack on embassies.

6:06. a.m. They mention the Palin interview. Barnicle immediately attacks and they all talk her down….

6:15 a.m. …then proceed to agree that she has a solid points. It is only bad because she said it. They refer to her as Dan Quayle and marginalized.

6:17 a.m. How about that Obama mentions Jesus a lot more than Bush in speeches.

6:20 a.m. They hit Palin over the Stevens was acquitted the democrat should resign.

6:22 a.m. Stormy Daniels is brought up, apparently they know Rule 5.

6:24 a.m. They complement Obama on fighting release of docs.

6:28 a.m. There will be an 8 a.m. web chat with Joe, maybe I’ll ask about the Palin stuff.

6:38 a.m. Newt says Obama owns the stimulus they ask Harold Ford, he says the stimulus was needed.

6:40 a.m. Ford says it is Bush’s fault that the bill was needed.

6:50 a.m. Yankees vs Red Sox tonight at Fenway

6:53 a.m. Willie and Barnicle make a good baseball team.

6:58 a.m. Colbert in Iraq, the “but my ears are that big” is a good joke.

7:00 a.m. Joe on the Today show in a few min, will be simulcasted. Joe’s book is out today.

7:05 a.m. Mika was invited to throw out the first pitch at Fenway.

7:07 a.m. Ford says 54% disagree with Newt’s statement about we’d be better off, but what would they say today if the election was held today.

7:08 a.m. Mika point out that if you check out the words and forget that she said them you would agree. She mentions that it seems unfair.

7:12 a.m. North Korea comes up, nothing about what the president seems to be doing about it.

7:18 a.m. As you can see just because he is part of NBC doesn’t mean he doesn’t get an attack interview from Lauer.

7:27 a.m. Norah O’Donnell boy she is going to be nice to Palin.

7:31 a.m. Mika points out that what she is saying is legit. O’Donnell doesn’t want to go there tweaks her for saying “evolving” vs “devolving”.

7:34 a.m. Barnicle points out the 65th anniversary of D-day and we are talking about kids PC injuries.

7:46 a.m. It’s a start but not in my district says Cummings.

7:48 a.m. Joe: “Do you side with the CIA or the ACLU on the release of info.”, answer “I’m on the liberal side but we have to be careful.” It’s a real difference when you actually have the responsibility isn’t it?

8:00 a.m. Shouldn’t Joe mention the flip in NY?

8:03 a.m. How many House seats has New England lost in the past 20 years? Those house seats have gone south and are Republican.

8:13 a.m. Robinson hopes that Obama can pull off the gitmo prisoner stuff.

8:31 a.m. We can have Colin Powel in the party, but it would be nice if he voted republican.

Via Laura at the Green room come a link to this incredible story:

The cause gained momentum in August 2007 when Obama, then an Illinois senator, introduced Pigford legislation about six months into his presidential campaign.

Although the case was hardly a hot-button political issue, it had drawn intense interest among African-Americans in the rural South. It was seen as a way for Obama to reach out in those areas, where he was not well-known and where he would need strong support to win the Democratic primary.

The proposal won passage in May as sponsors rounded up enough support to incorporate it into the 2008 farm bill.

Except for now the president is opposing his own bill and trying to limit claims. As Laura says:

If Obama gets his way, those black farmers who he himself said were unjustly victimized by the USDA will now get about $1500.

He’s just blown over three trillion dollars and is poised to spend even more. Another three billion is a drop in the bucket. He could allow banks to pay back their TARP funds if he’s too short on cash to repay debts that he said just a year ago the federal government legitimately owed.

He disproportionately taxes the poor. He didn’t race to the scene of a natural disaster. He refuses to spend money on black students and now on black farmers. So according to the rules and standards set by the left over the last eight years, doesn’t Obama qualify as a racist?

The head of the National Black farmers association John Boyd is confused:

“You can’t blame it on the Bush administration anymore, I can’t figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn’t want to implement a bill that he fought for as a U.S. senator.”

I can. This president has been compared to Abe Lincoln an awful lot but he is like Lincoln in only one way; Lincoln was famous for keeping a promise only as long as he considered it was worthwhile: “Bad promises are better broken than kept.” he said.

A lot of Americans are going to be finding out over the next 3 3/4 years how many of this president’s promises he considers “bad”.

Some general thoughts for the last few days.

First when you are sick it is amazing how little the vagaries of the political world matter. When you are lying in bed with fever you don’t care what joke the president cracked or no.

That being said if President Bush had said that…etc etc etc.

Is it just me or it it almost becoming a cliché to say those words “if George Bush had done that”, it’s pretty sad that this is the case only two months into a presidency.

And slate is still doing Bushisms. They just can’t help themselves. Hot Air is answering with their Obamateurism of the day.

I actually thought that the Comedy Central show “That’s my Bush” was actually kinda funny. think it’s safe to say we won’t see a comedy central show called Obama & Mama about a president dealing with his mother-in-law living in the White house. The concept of a mother-in-law comedy in the White house does have possibilities but it would never happen.

This won’t be our first post racial president until we can laugh at him like any other president.

Then again I don’t recall laughing at the president being normal until Nixon. In fact other than Carter and Bush #1 every president from Nixon on has been the butt of public jokes. That is a real change in my mind or maybe I am whitewashing history.

In my opinion Ezra Klein’s attack on Ann Althouse is dishonorable.

It’s hard to remember sometimes that only 4% of president Obama’s first term is done. There is still a lot of time for him to make things work out.

Then again after calling for Imus to be fired for insensitivity his special Olympics joke was really stupid. Not so much the joke which was kinda lame but that the President cracked it. Where was the teleprompter when you need it. Wasting its time blogging!

Of course he could have said it was candlepin bowling. That takes real skill. There has never been a perfect game in Candlepin Bowling.

And can someone tell me how a protest of 25 people at AIG make the top of Yahoo news while 3000 “tea party” protesters don’t warrant a mention?

Bert Blyleven and his Dutch team have done the sport of baseball a great service. All baseball fans should be very grateful…

Unless you are from the Dominican Republic.

This by the way is the first time that a Cuban baseball team didn’t make the semi’s of a tournament in 50 years, I’m heartbroken.

Is it just me or is there just nothing worth going to the movies to see anymore? I haven’t been excited about a movie since the LOTR trilogy.

And I still can’t believe they cut out the death of Saruman from the theatrical release. Buy the extended version instead.

Rich’s comic blog is nearing the end of his Doctor Who strip that has run 210 pages so far since march of 2007. If you are even the least bit of a doctor who fan and you haven’t already checked it out you are missing something wonderful.

I sure hope there will be an actual physical comic, I would very much like to buy it.

I have not checked for Dr. Who Audio’s on ebay now for several weeks, April 12th can’t come fast enough for me.

Eventually the normal business cycle will turn and the country will be back on its feet again. The only question is when it will happen and who will be in a position to take credit for it when it does.

And it would be nice if Catholic Colleges can have pro-life rather than pro abortion speakers at their commencements.

And those quarter sovereigns that I picked up at £47.50 (or 47.10s if you want to go old style) are now selling direct from the royal mint at £67.50 That is a £20 increase in under 3 months. I hope you followed my advice way back when and picked some up.

Oh and they make that Darwin coin in gold too. Price £625.

The Marxists, and Answer are still protesting the war. Gotta do something to keep that bankroll full.

And Gateway Pundit has more pictures from his tour of Spain and Morocco amidst his political blogging. They are really something. Just keep scrolling down.

And finally before I hit the sack and get rested up for tomorrow I want to thank one of my favorite fellows of the left Mike for his good wishes during my illness. If you haven’t figured out that good friends come from left right and center then you spend too much time on the web and are too angry to enjoy real life.

…comparing Bush to Bad Nazis.

You know that you’ve fallen far as a columnist when you can be safely put in the same category as Dennis Kucinich.

Oh and the information from Sullivan’s link comes from interviews with Al Qaeda terrorists who would cut his throat for being Gay as soon as look at him. Sullivan’s link doesn’t make that clear but NPR does.

There is a point where someone has gone so far over the edge that you just have to ignore them. I’m very sorry to say that Andrew has reached that place.

The outrage comes but that is the bill we HAD to pass.

6:08 a.m. The argument to justify the Bonus’ is being made. It reminds me of a 50 year old family fight over a piece of property.

6:14 a.m. Might as well have fun when you are the white house press secretary. Just remember we boys never truly grow up.

6:18 a.m. The Seattle PI decided to insult half of their potential customers, so I’m not going to cry a tear. This is not being mentioned by anyone on this show.

6:21 a.m. A contract is a contract is a contract of course if we let them going into bankruptcy then the contract could have been broken

6:34 a.m. The LA times makes my point.

6:37 a.m. The NYT reveals the shocking idea that a business is using the law for their advantage. They favored the bailouts as i recall.

6:41 a.m. “Previous Administration”, “Previous Administration”, “Previous Administration”; sounds like a parrot.

7:05 a.m. When you can’t answer a man like Cheney you attack Limbaugh.

7:09 a.m. Yeah he is fun but who cares if he is being an ass.

7:14 a.m. Grassley is talking like a nut.

7:26 a.m. “I’m all in favor of dissidents I’m not in favor of criminals!” That is the best statement I’ve ever heard a secretary of state make. Kudos for Mrs. Clinton for saying it out loud!

7:49 a.m. Maria of the beautiful Italian eyes (sigh) regretfully admits that the bonus have to be paid due to contract. No Italian American like myself can look at eyes like that and not melt.

8:16 a.m. Cummings is correct that White collar workers are treated differently than blue collar workers, this is due to $$$ donated.

8:35 a.m Tone matters

8:51 a.m. Sinise story here is awesome. He has the oomph to get this on a show like this.

…as the Washington Post notices:

“What the administration is involved in now is the politics of attribution,” said Lawrence R. Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. “Each week that goes by with falling job numbers and Republican criticism of the administration’s flaws means falling approval ratings. What’s the antidote? That the guilty party is George Bush.”

“The trick,” Jacobs said, “is how do you shift blame to George Bush and retain any credibility on the idea that you are looking past partisan warfare? This looks like a doubling down on a very partisan approach.”

And don’t think the old team doesn’t notice:

“There’s a fascinating behind-the-scenes trend taking place for someone who remains a very popular president,” said Ari Fleischer, a former Bush press secretary, describing the decline in Obama’s approval ratings and an increase in disapproval numbers. “His response to that trend is to turn up the blame on George Bush and everything that came before him. And he was the one who talked about getting past partisanship.”

It looks the fight with Matthews has made Ari the goto guy on all of this. And a good job he did.

I predict that president Bush is going to totally ignore this himself and enjoy life, but when he starts making speeches watch the press follow him and ask.

…then I know I’m on the right track:

Seems increasingly like all the “Fascist Bush” caterwauling was the usual fake, dishonest theater meant as a means to an end – the end being to destroy the hated “election stealer” and his legacy, and not much more.

But you know, for someone who “did everything wrong,” his policies suddenly seem wise and right to some surprising people.

It’s easy to campaign and criticize. It’s much more difficult to govern, especially knowing that if you don’t keep the country safe, you don’t get re-elected.

And if you don’t get re-elected, good heavens! How can you continue and complete the coup?

Even with restrictions to free speech and the press watching your back as much as possible, and destroying all possible rivals, it will be very hard for them to spin it if people start saying, “at least Bush kept us safe, not like Obama.”

The whole article is one of the best things I’ve read in a while. She put it much better then I did and launches a defense of the Bush Administration that is well deserved.

There are two new votes for my economic plan A today. One (via glenn) is from Philip Greenspun’s blog:

What did these guys want the government to do? Nothing, basically. “Back in the 19th Century, there were a lot of steep crashes, guys got wiped out, and the economy came back quickly.” What’s different now? The government is a lot bigger and more powerful. Rich companies and people can put some of their wealth into lobbying and demand that the government prevent them from getting wiped out (or at least slow the process).

Barack Obama promised on Monday not to rest as long as this economic downturn persisted. He promised to act decisively, change whatever had to be changed, spend whatever had to be spent. This is precisely what worries the investors to whom I spoke. They’d rather see the audacity of doing nothing.

The second comes from the news itself:

Sales at U.S. retailers unexpectedly halted a record six-month slide in January, an advance that may not be sustained as job losses climb.

The 1 percent increase followed a 3 percent drop the prior month, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Excluding cars, the gain was 0.9 percent. Last month’s rise reflected higher gasoline prices and more spending on items including clothing and food.

Perhaps our democratic friends don’t want to risk a recovery that they can’t take credit for. If they can postpone it for say 18 months it might look really pretty come election time.

Even worse if it comes too fast then someone might think to Blame Bush for it!

Comedy is hard, particular when your man is in power:

The old ways are dying hard. Colbert went into the vaults, all the way back to 2000, for a Bush/Gore joke. Jon Stewart did a Bush joke, as well. Ferguson set a record for Day 15; going way last century with a Bill Clinton joke (Clinton will lead the investigation into the accidental showing of porn during the Super Bowl). Stewart and Leno did Joe the Plumber jokes, Letterman did a couple Dick Cheney jokes and a Sarah Palin joke.

You can hear the cricket’s chirp about the president but his cabinet has got a few hits:

The tax situation has been a godsend to Late Night writers. Now they can make fun of the administration without having to actually go after Him. Six out of seven hosts (Kimmel abstaining) found humor in the tax problems of Obama appointments. The funniest was Conan, who suggested the stimulus package could be cut by $50 billion if Obama’s cabinet just paid their taxes.

And of course there is Biden the gift that keeps on giving.

I tend to agree between the domestic policy stimulus bill the rest of the world finding us an easy mark there isn’t very much funny going on.

Hey this is what we voted for we have it coming.

As a follow up to the last post I thought I’d check to see what Andrew Sullivan had to say about the change. I found that all pigs are equal but some are more equal than others:

What some on the far right seem not to grasp is that opposition to torture is not about being soft on terrorism. It is about being effective against terrorism – ensuring that intelligence is not filled with torture-generated garbage, that we retain the moral high-ground in a long war against theocratic violence, and that we can better identify, capture, kill or bring to justice those who threaten our way of life. Rendition and temporary detention are tools in that effort – tools that now need to be as closely monitored and assessed as they were once recklessly abused.

Yeah they will be as closely monitored as the tax records of senior democrats when they are not considered for cabinet positions. Andrew is a good writer, the first blogger I ever read. His “view from your window” feature is one of the nicest things on the web but if he believes this he’ll believe anything.

UPDATE: Patterico takes a less charitable view of Andy than me (and my view isn’t all that charitable).

You might think that I’m outraged over President Obama’s letter to the president of Iran.

You would be wrong.

Do I think it will help? Likely not. Do I think the Iranians will use it as a propaganda tool? Likely they will. Do I think that Iran will use this to demand concessions from us? Sure. Do I think that they will use any contacts to stall us while they build their bomb? Without question.

Then why no outrage?

Listen if anyone at all thinks that the president was going to take strong decisive action to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities you have been smoking something, in fact his actions suggest he won’t even support democratic movements in Iran. This is not even slightly a surprise and I don’t get outraged over stuff I already know.

Bush Derangement Syndrome means that the only way we can convince our liberal friends that this stuff won’t work is to let it be tried and fail. It still won’t convince some of them, in fact some may actually want Iran to have the bomb, but it will convince some and until reasonable people on the left get a chance to try things their way they won’t consider the alternative.

And hey anything is possible, maybe it works out.

I’m counting on Israel on this one. They know what is coming down the pike and they aren’t going to consent to become a glowing spot on the Mediterranean Sea just to make the rest of the world happy.

Hey we had an election, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

Nordlinger’s column and the new Blame Bush catagory has prompted me to promote this from comments:

As far as the press goes I actually think that there is a chance that the worm might turn on this one. This president has already made it clear that he is above the press by his actions. It is as if he is royalty and bestowing his favors on his faithful subjects. I can’t believe that the members of the press are going to be willing to take this treatment for long. Oh they will keep their mouth’s shut for a while. Their resentment will be whispered and building, but it will take only one prominent reporter on the left to say it aloud and it will come pouring out. I actually have an opinion as to which two reporters/opinion journalists will do it. But I’m keeping that to myself for now.

It will be hard for the press to re-direct their anger to conservatives when we have so little power. Of course as we get nearer to an election their dislike of us may override their abuse, just like the fear of being alone will sometimes keep an abused woman with a violent husband. I think it can’t last for the full four years but it might make it through two. I could be wrong of course. We will see.

The whitehouse will use the Blame Bush stratagem to deflect this when it comes but I think it will come.

Haven’t talked about Jay Nordlinger lately. In his Impromptus column today he as always makes great point but has two in particular that need to be quoted at once:

“Don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh,” say the Obamas and the Powells and some other people. They are giving “free advice” to the Republicans. Well, since when has the GOP listened to Rush? If it did, we would not have nominated Senator McCain last year (for all his virtues, which are considerable). Moreover, Rush did not ask for many of the policies of the Bush administration, particularly in the domestic realm.

Rush says what he regards as true, political consequences be damned. He is not a party strategist, or a party anything. He’s a man with opinions, and they are sound, and that’s why so many people are drawn to him, and them.

Keep it up, Rush—and stay “in their heads.”

The second touches on something I wrote:

The question was raised in our office late last week, “How long will the Obama administration be able to blame George Bush for every problem under the sun?” And the answer is, Indefinitely—because the media will permit it, and abet it: participate in it (given that so many in the media share the worldview and attitudes and style of the new administration).

Is that too dark and cynical a view? Well, I hope so. Maybe we should revisit this subject at regular intervals.

I think that’s a great idea, I’m going to create a Blame Bush Category to cover that from this point on.

They are talking about the president’s speech last night which I missed. Barnicle pointed out something. Quote might not be exact as I’m typing while getting ready:

“Obama is now saying how difficult it is going to be to close Gitmo, he is now seeing the same intelligence that President Bush has seen for the last 6 years.”

That is the big thing. In 3 days the president elect will own it all and he doesn’t want to be the guy who blows it.

Update: somehow dropped the “something” when saving post.