Rep. King Promises a Lawsuit While Romney Takes a Knee

There's a poll out today from Bloomberg reporting that 64% of likely voters approve of Obama's decision to stop enforcing immigration laws:

Sixty-four percent of likely voters surveyed after Obama’s June 15 announcement said they agreed with the policy, while 30 percent said they disagreed. Independents backed the decision by better than a two-to-one margin.

That said, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air took a look at the Bloomberg polling data and has a few questions about the results.  He notes the absence of any demographic data as well as the absence of any party affiliation, so it's difficult to weigh the bias of the poll.  As to whether or not Obama "is winning" the immigration discussion, Morrissey also questions that:

Furthermore, we have other consistent data to check.  For instance, Gallup’s tracking polls would have already shown a significant bump in the rolling averages if this issue really moves the needle as Team Obama hopes.  As of this morning, Obama’s approval in the three-day cycle that included Friday and the two days following the announcement sits at 46/47.  The addition of Sunday’s data added a point to his approval and deducted two from his disapproval, which means Obama got some small bump over the weekend … but hardly a game-changer.  The seven-day rolling average on the head-to-head race went from Romney up over Obama 46/45 to a 46/46 tie. 

 And if you go by Rasmussen, according to Morrissey, "there's even less impact."

So did this dictatorial fiat help Obama?  Probably not, in the end.

Rep. Steve King was on Fox News this morning discussing his intent to sue Obama over the immigration mandate.  King insists this is an over reach and a rule "by edict."  He expressed even more Constitutional outrage in pointing out that "we take an oath to uphold the Constitution, too.  Our Founding Fathers envisioned that each branch of government would jealously protect the authority granted to it in the Constitution."  He called this a "vast and insulting" over reach.

King is suing on the separation of powers issue;  he also points to Article 2 that the laws of this nation be "faithfully executed" not created by the president.  Watch the whole thing:



The point is clear that this edict, or "mandate by press conference" that Obama has thrown down is a political move.  It's another pandering move by a politician who doesn't have a record to campaign on.  It's a continuation of his intent to separate and divide us all and initiate class warfare among Americans.  It's all he knows how to do.

Obama issued this edict intentionally before Sen. Marco Rubio could introduce his version of the DREAM Act which, according to Daniel Foster, has a passing chance at legitimate, bipartisan, lawful immigration reform:

It’s simple. On Friday, retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) told National Review editors that he expected the version of DREAM he cosponsored with Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) to be greeted with “tolerance by our most conservative friends, and enthusiasm from the rest.” 

Of course he said this even as the Obama administration was Friday-dumping the DHS memo on the public. Forty-eight hours later it was clear any momentum a Republican-friendly version of DREAM had was dead. As Rubio put it: “People are going to say to me, ‘Why are we going to need to do anything on this now. It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election. . . . And it is going to be hard to argue against that.”

This is a dangerous precedent that Obama has initiated and it must be struck down.  Lawful reform must prevail.


Romney's response to the whole mess was dispiriting.  Milquetoast.  Weak.  John O'Sullivan has what Romney said when asked if he would overturn this edict and what he SHOULD have said:

Interviewer: But would you repeal it? 

Romney: I hope that when I am inaugurated, this illegality will already have been withdrawn or ruled unconstitutional. It is not too late for the president to have wiser second thoughts. But if it is still standing, then of course I will withdraw it and ask Congress to consider a wider and more thoughtful review of immigration law — one that strengthens our borders and ensures that immigration and citizenship are determined by the American people and their elected representatives. You cannot have our immigration laws determined by some people who smuggle people into America and others who manage to evade the police once here. You cannot have U.S. citizenship granted to people who break into our country and manage to have a child before they are caught. You cannot have two presidents in succession breaking their vow to uphold the Constitution. The people must be able to trust those they elect.

Romney should take a lesson from O'Sullivan and from Rep. King.  The weak-kneed response he gave just reinforces the concerns that conservatives had about him in the first place.

Charles Krauthammer says Romney's deference is the correct move and he makes a valid point; Krauthammer says that any day Romney is not talking about the economy is a day that Obama wins.  I think the two issues are linked and Romney should make that clear.  With up to 800,000 new work permits on the line, that must certainly figure into American unemployment numbers.

Krauthammer suggests it is Congress who should be outraged and offended as Obama has usurped their power.  Unless we have a cadre of fighters like Rep. Steve King in Congress, I'm not expecting much from them.


(More at Memeorandum)

Loose Thoughts

If you're looking for debate coverage you might head on over to Legal Insurrection or The Other McCain.   I.Just.Can't.  Meh.

I've been busy at work and real life.  I tried to watch the State of the Union, got three minutes in, and had to bail.  When Obama starts spewing crap about "fairness and equity" and how the "rich" should give "their fair share" I start seeing spiders and creepy crawling things in my head and my head starts to spin.  I had to turn it off.

Speaking of SOTU, what did you think of Michelle's dress?  I thought it was ill fitting but I'm no fashionista.  You'll usually find me in blue jeans and a sweatshirt.  I liked the color and I even liked the brooch, but I thought the straps crossing above the boobs looked weird.  I didn't think it was tailored well for her.  I've read some blogs that criticized her for dressing as if she was going to a cocktail party rather than a SOTU speech but that part doesn't bother me.  I just didn't think the dress fit well.  It's not exactly "for the common man," either, at an estimated $2,400.  Not a Target dress.

Let them eat arugula.

Charles Krauthammer has some thoughts on the SOTU:

It sounded like the Clinton years with their presidentially proclaimed initiatives on midnight basketball and school uniforms. These are the marks of a shrunken presidency, thoroughly flummoxed by high unemployment, economic stagnation, crushing debt — and a glaring absence of ideas.

Of course, this being Obama, there was a reach for grandeur. Hope and change are long gone. It's now equality and fairness. That certainly is a large idea. Lenin and Mao went pretty far with it. As did Clement Attlee and his social-democratic counterparts in postwar Europe.

As for the Republicans, I'm sick of Newt and Romney going after each other.  When are we going to go after the incumbent, eh?  At this point I'd be just fine if they ate each other alive and Santorum came out on top.  

Surfing the links I see that Bride of Rove is struggling with some of the same issues.

Pundette is expecting Newt Fatigue to hit at any time.

As for me, tomorrow is Friday.  Centenary College will commemorate the 67th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz with a 12 hour loop screening of the testimony of local Holocaust survivors Rose and Louis Van Thyn.  I'm going straight from work to see both of them.  If you're around here I'd encourage you to go.

Speaking of the Holocaust, heck out this stunning poll (H/T: Mike).

Steve and I are headed to Minden on Saturday for the kickoff of Mardi Gras season; the Fasching Carnivale and parade will be the highlight of the day, plus some shopping with Milly Rose!

Oh, and I'm going to test drive a Jeep when we go, too!  Yay!

Out.

Brett Baier's Panel On the Debt Ceiling

I was watching The Fox Report a while ago and the panel (Juan Williams, Rick Klein of ABC, and Charles Krauthammer) discussed the debt ceiling debate.  Juan Williams said that "the American people side with the president in this debate." 

Both Stacy McCain and Ed Morrissey have posts to refute that CBS poll to which I believe Juan refers so I'm not sure Juan is entirely correct.  I would venture to say (even without a poll) that a large number of Americans are tired of the massive government spending and want a smaller government.

Juan Williams blamed much of Republican resistance on "Tea Party members" and said McConnell's plan was not accepted by the Tea Party members.  I suspect those freshman members remember quite clearly how they got to Washington in the first place and are reluctant to turn their backs on the constituents who sent them there with clear intent.

It does seem, though, that Republicans may have a communications problem as Charles Krauthammer said, "They're losing the PR battle.  Obama has managed ... to spin this" however he wants.  Krauthammer suggests there is one way out:  Republicans need to pass a short term, say five months, resolution with $1.5 trillion in cuts.  There is no way Obama can veto it with any reasonable argument.  While Obama insists we all rise above politics on this issue, he wants "a big deal" so it won't come up again before his election in 2012.  Talk about politicizing!  Krauthammer might be correct in supporting a short term deal as it would certainly avoid the dreaded default issue and it would all but remove the posturing.  For now.

Senator TomCoburn has his own plan - reduce the size of government, cut $3 trillion from entitlement reform, $1 trillion in defense, $3 trillion in discretionary spending, etc. Juan Williams discounted this plan as "too large!"  He says that if you have such a sharp cut in government spending it would drag the whole economy down.   I think Juan is missing a big part of the picture.  The private sector needs to be stronger, not government.

Rick Klein of ABC scoffed that Republicans "don't want revenue on the table at all."  Revenue is, of course, synonymous for "higher taxes."  It's the new euphemism.  

Krauthammer pointed out that Obama has increased discretionary spending over 25%.

On the 2012 election, Qunnipiac has romney ion the lead at 25, Bachman at 14%.

The panel then turned to the 2012 election and the possibility of Rick Perry's entrance into the race; Perry is feeling the call, he says.

All Baier's panelists seem to think that Perry will run.  Williams pointed out that Rick Perry has a good economy in Texas and he will take momentum away from Michelle Bachmann.  "He could be a big player," he said.

No mention on the panel tonight about Obama's plan to veto "Cut, Cap, and Balance" should it get to him, or his likely veto of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act which would actually cause Obama to put some skin in the game as he's asked us to do.

Friday Sift - Williams, Noonan, and More

It's Friday morning and the end of a wild work week; not to go into too much detail here, but it's homecoming week and, well, things are a little out of order during homecoming week which always presents new challenges.  It seems students do best with structure and things during homecoming week are, well, shall we say a little less structured, so I think we're all actually looking forward to getting back to normal next week even though it's all been a lot of fun taking part in the various homecoming activities.  I've got to get to school a little early today so I'm in a rush this morning.  I'll share a Happy Friday picture with you of Milly's cute dogs for our Friday sift:

Here are some quick Friday links:

Be sure to catch Peggy Noonan's column; this makes two weeks in a row I've pointed to her work.  The woman that waxed rhapsodic over Obama seems to be coming back to the light, but let's not get our hopes up yet.  She does, however, correctly assess the role of the tea party, I think, when she writes:

The first: the tea party is not a "threat" to the Republican Party, the tea party saved the Republican Party. In a broad sense, the tea party rescued it from being the fat, unhappy, querulous creature it had become, a party that didn't remember anymore why it existed, or what its historical purpose was. The tea party, with its energy and earnestness, restored the GOP to itself.

snip

The tea party did something the Republican establishment was incapable of doing: It got the party out from under George W. Bush. The tea party rejected his administration's spending, overreach and immigration proposals, among other items, and has become only too willing to say so. In doing this, the tea party allowed the Republican establishment itself to get out from under Mr. Bush: "We had to, boss, it was a political necessity!" They released the GOP establishment from its shame cringe.

There's more; read it all.

Charles Krauthammer is in classic form this morning:

Opening a whole new branch of cognitive science — liberal psychology — Obama has discovered a new principle: The fearful brain is hard-wired to act befuddled, i.e., to vote Republican. 

He seldom misses the mark and he is, this morning, discussing Obama's explanation for his falling numbers.

Emilio Karim Dabul has a nice defense of Juan Williams:

Anyone who cares about freedom of speech should protest what has been done to this decent and fair man. And even if that were not the case, even if Mr. Williams' views made him a detestable ogre to most, he still has the right to voice them. For many Americans, NPR's consistent tilt to the left has caused them to reject it as a viable source of news. 

That conversation got some lively play in the comments on this blog yesterday.

In a "got to see it to believe it moment," here is Harry Reid claiming to have saved the world.

Finally, would someone go down to The Keys and poke Bride of Rove?  She's too quiet and I'm getting worried about her. 

Have a Happy Friday; the weather is gorgeous here and I'm going to enjoy some of that this afternoon, then Steve and I are off for Prime Rib at the Barksdale Club tonight ... and then over to Hangar 2 to visit our mugs.

Where's the Outrage?

It's Friday!

The usual Friday sift:  Noonan explains how we all have to be accountants now, regardless of our actual profession.  It's the deluge of new forms, rules, and regulations.  Nothing new, she says, just worse.  We know, Peggy, we know.

Krauthammer takes note of our incompetent Congress, citing their failure to pass, or even offer, a budget, the failure to extend the Bush tax cuts leaving all of America in uncertainty as to their tax rates on January 1, and on top of all that, the buffoon who invited Stephen Colbert to speak to Congress.  Fail.

My reading stack (of articles, not books, this time) is pretty full; there's been some great analysis out there lately and I'm going to get caught up on it this weekend.  My blog mojo is coming back after nearly two weeks of Oktoberfesting.

I'm ready to get back to "hand to hand combat" as Obama said yesterday.  Where's the outrage on THAT one?  When Sarah Palin suggested that the Tea Party not retreat, but reload, CNN accused her of "inciting violence."  Where's the outrage?  You can ignore the Joe Biden comment about "strangling" Republicans because, well, it's Joe Biden, and anyone can take a joke, right?  I mean, he was joking, wasn't he?

CNN accused Palin of "inciting violence" with her "don't retreat, reload" comment, but it's okay now to say if Republicans take the majority in November there will be "hand to hand combat" on Captiol Hill?  Okay.  Double standards in the media - alive and well.

I can see November from here!

O'Donnell Will Have to Represent Delaware, Not the Tea Party

The party fallout over Christine O'Donnell's victory in Delaware continues to dominate the blogs and Memeorandum.  Charles Krauthammer, for example, in his column today reaffirms his statements from earlier in the week that her election is a win for the Democrats and the the Palin and DeMint endorsements were reckless and irresponsible

Can O'Donnell win in the general election?  This article in the CSMonitor suggests that she has become a more mature candidate over time, which seems to indicate that should she run a smart campaign, she could indeed win. Linda Feldman, author of the piece quotes political scientist Joseph Pika who says:

“Democrats could be overconfident,” he continues. “Democrats could be overaggressive – she could quickly become a more sympathetic candidate if everyone seems to pile on. If Democrats seem to practice politics as usual – be seen as committing character assassination, for example – they could confirm the basic appeal she has of challenging the establishment and ‘politics as usual.’ ”

What is important to remember, Tea Party or not, is that the Senator from Delaware must represent the interests of Delaware, not the Tea Party.  If the Tea Party got Christine O'Donnell to the general election, she will still need to convince Delaware voters that she will represent their interests.  She may have to, at times, cast an unpopular vote if it's in the best interest of her state as Scott Brown has had to do for his state.  However, Delaware voters cast their ballots for her so there is apparently some longing for a more conservative track.

Maybe is it just all an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment backlash.  Either way, O'Donnell can still carry the day in November.

Peggy Noonan today explains that Tea Party candidates are being elected partially because voters want them to go to Washington and temper the out of control spending.  Noonan constructs an elaborate yardstick and clock analogy, but she makes a valid point when she says:

"So there's a sense that dramatic action is needed, and a sense of profound urgency. Add drama to urgency and you get the victory of a Tea Party-backed candidate".

The left is already throwing everything they can at Christine O'Donnell, who incidentally has hit the money bomb since Tuesday.  TPMDC, in particular, is dredging up every word and utterance O'Donnell has made in the past twenty years, and O'Donnell is, so far, handling this gracefully.   In a candidate forum yesterday she said

“I was in my twenties and very excited and passionate about my newfound faith. But I can assure you, my faith has matured and when I go to Washington, D.C. it’ll be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs,” she explained Thursday to cheers.
 

She is definitely a candidate that can win; she's proven that now.  It the end it is important to remember that the Republicans dug the hole they're in themselves and did it a long time ago.  To place the peril of a potential Senate majority in the lap of Christine O'Donnell just isn't fair.  And at this point, I'm not sure if the Republican establishment just may be doing her a favor by railing against her.  While one would hope that the Republican party could unite and come together for the good of the party, it appears that the time for some pruning may be in order.

Christine seems to be doing just fine without them.

(AP Photo)

Repbulicans v. Conservatives in Delaware

Here's the video, via Matt Lewis, of  Krauthammer's negative outlook I posted yesterday of Christine O'Donnell's chances in Delaware today:



Stacy McCain scoffs and thumbs his nose at Dr. Krauthammer...meanwhile, John McCormack, who has been pulling against O'Donnell from the beginning, notes that the Democrat in that race polls 26 points better than O"Donnell.

This race has pitted Republicans against conservatives in a way I've never seen before. 

Follow the thread at Memeorandum today.

Down to the Wire in Delaware

The Delaware Senate race is getting all kinds of buzz today because of the latest PPP poll putting Christine O'Donnell ahead of Mike Castle.  This race has garnered the attention of nearly every pundit from one end of the country to the other, including Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. 

In this particular race the lines are sharply drawn and people feel strongly about their position.  Mark Levin is convinced that O'Donnell is the right candidate while Charles Krauthammer just told Brett Baier that a vote of O'Donnell is simply self-indulgent as she cannot win.  Krauthammer believes that Republican control of the Senate could rest on this one race.  He's not alone in that position, either; Ed Morrissey at Hot Air writes:

If control of the Senate comes down to this race, and it very well might, would it be better to have a Republican squish holding the seat and give the GOP control of the Senate floor and all the committees, or to hand it to either Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer for the next two-year period in which we’ll see at least one Supreme Court retirement and Obama still attempting to push through his radical agenda? 

Rush Limbaugh takes the opposite stance.  On his program today he drew parallels between O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, and Sharron Angle, suggesting that they threaten the ruling class because these women are "not like them."  Limbaugh points out that O'Donnell, for example, isn't being attacked because of her stance on any issues.  She's been attacked for numerous personal grievances, as Palin was, but not on the issues.   Nobody is digging into Mike Castle's personal life; just O'Donnell's. 

By the way, Rush also quoted from Professor Jacobson's blog today, too.  Big Time!  He referenced this post (which wins the Great Title Award of the Day) by the good Professor in which he said,

The "nuts and sluts" defense is a common employment law tactic whenever a female employee brings a claim.  It doesn't matter what the claim is, the defense -- after the usual legal mumbo jumbo -- will be something like this:

"She's nuts.  And by the way, pssst, she may be a slut."

That is the mode of attack Democrats use against conservative women.  Sarah Palin is the prime example, as she routinely is called crazy and is sexualized by the left (to the silence of liberal feminist groups).

The nuts part of the attack is being used against Christine O'Donnell in Delaware by the local Republican establishment, and also by two leading conservative magazines, The Weekly Standard and National Review. 

Rush said, "A Senate full of Mike Castles isn't going to get us anywhere...if that's our majority with a bunch of Mike Castles in there, we're in trouble."

So where do you go with that?  If you're a Delaware Republican, do you vote for the RINO just because he's supposedly electable?  Charles Krauthammer insisted Castle will win the general election:  "They'll call off the fight in the first round," he said.  O'Donnell, he said, doesn't stand a chance.

Does it really come down to how badly one wants the majority?  Can O'Donnell win the general election should she win the primary?  She's collected a number of big endorsements, including the NRA, Sarah Palin, Tea Party Express, and Senator James DeMint, yet FreedomWorks won't sign on.
Daniel Foster at The Corner suggests that O'Donnelll could actually win if she ran a smart campaign in the general election.

Michelle Malkin lays out the case for O'Donnell here.

It's a huge gamble, isn't it!  So much at stake.

Either way, the debate will be moot this time tomorrow.  We'll know how Delaware feels about it all soon enough.

On Out of Control Government, "Local Issues," the Taliban, Hiroshima, and Noonan

I've got another busy day ahead.  I've got some business to take care of this morning and then Steve and I are taking the afternoon off and getting massages at one of the casino spas.  Neither of us has ever had a "professional massage" so I'm looking forward to this.  I'm sure I'll be addicted.  The literature assures me it will alleviate stress and "release toxins" from my body.  Heh.  Okay.  I'll go for that!

Around the web a couple of things have caught my eye which I don't have time to get into very deeply this morning.  Enjoy this pretty picture (left) that my niece took, and consider...

This column from Charles Krauthammer.  As usual, I agree 100% and it sort of goes to my Farm Dust post earlier in the week.  Governing by fiat.  The money quote:

In the modern welfare state, government has the power to regulate your life. That’s bad enough. But at least there is one restraint on this bloated power: the separation of powers. Such constraints on your life must first be approved by both houses of Congress.  That’s called the consent of the governed. The constitutional order is meant to subject you to the will of the people’s representatives, not to the whim of a chief executive or the imagination of a loophole-seeking bureaucrat.

This post by Pundette, which addresses the goofy comment by Robert Gibbs that Obama doesn't want to weigh in on "local matters."  Pundette:

A local matter. What a cowardly approach to an issue that most Americans care about intensely. Obama's missing something essential: Basic love of country? Common human sympathy?

And she quotes Rush, who said,

Isn't this fascinating? Not gonna get involved in local decision making. Wouldn't you love to be hearing that in Arizona? Let me ask you a question, was it just New York that was attacked on 9/11, or was it the country? It was the country, was it not? United States of America was attacked on 9/11. They're getting involved in our local health care decisions. They're getting involved in the kind of cars that we buy. They are getting involved in virtually every aspect of our lives they can insert themselves.

No kidding.

This column at Fox in which the son of Brig. Gen. Paul W. Tibbets, Jr. laments the decision to send our Japanese ambassador to the Hiroshima commemoration.  He sees it as a sort of apology and says his father would not have approved:

"It's an unsaid apology," Tibbets, 66, told FoxNews.com from his home in Georgiana, Ala. "Why wouldn't it be?  Why would [Roos] go? It doesn't make any sense.  "I know it's the anniversary, but I don't know what the hell they're trying to do. It needs to be left alone. The war is over."

I heard Oliver North speaking to Sean Hannity about this earlier in the week and he was equally outraged. The ambassador did not give a speech at the event, but some quoted in this piece believe the U.S. should apologize for dropping the bomb.  I have no doubt that Obama will get around to that.


And finally, consider this post from Andy McCarthy in which he notes the fact that our government still has not designated the Taliban as a terrorist organization.  WTF?!

Yesterday, after three months of delay, the State Department finally issued its congressionally mandated annual terrorism report. It shows that the United States has not even designated the Taliban as a terrorist organization — not in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.

I'd like to know the reasoning behind that one.  Read McCarthy's piece to see why this is such a big deal.

And if all that isn't enough to keep you going, here is Peggy Noonan lamenting the fact that America is at a boiling point and that for the first time, we don't expect our children to have things better than we did.  'Scuse me, Peggy, but weren't you over there singing glorious about the potential of The Great Obama, before the election?  Yeah.  Hush, now, okay?  Just, hush.

Krauthammer Warns of Four More Years

I'm off to the hospital again this morning but I can't start Friday without my weekly Krauthammer, which this week is sort of depressing.

I seldom disagree with Dr. Krauthammer on anything, but I would point out when he suggests that Obama will spend the next two years running for re-election, Obama has been campaigning ever since...well, the campaign.  He's never quit running for office.  But, that said, I understand Krauthammer's point.  The first two years of this nightmare presidency have been to push through the massive entitlement expansions and deficit hiking programs that he dreamed and now he has to tweak those and campaign for four more years in order to complete his decimation of the country.

It depresses me to no end to think of the possibility of another four years of this.  I can't bear it.

Krauthammer tells Republicans, "Don't underestimate Barack Obama."  Good lord, there's no way I would.  He scares the hell out of me.  In my "Pollyanna" worldview, I have to believe, however, as the effects of Obamacare become more evident to those who didn't pay attention during the debate of the issue, and as the tax cuts expire soon, and the Obama tax hikes kick in, at least some of the people who put him in office will see the light. 

What's in store for us if he gets re-elected?  According to Krauthammer:

The next burst of ideological energy — massive regulation of the energy economy, federalizing higher education, and “comprehensive” immigration reform (i.e., amnesty) — will require a second mandate, meaning reelection in 2012.

I hate to see what he'll do to education, "higher" or not,  having seen his pick of Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings.  God help us.

Krauthammer is correct to warn of complacency, however.  We can't bear another four years.  I'm not even sure we can recover from the first four.  And to that end, I'd warn the Republicans that it is imperative to put the right person up front.  I don't know who it is yet, but it's about time to start figuring out who will be the right person to retake the White House.  I'm not thrilled with any of them out there so far, or at least, any that have been touted as possibilities.  While there are things about each that I like, as the total package, I'm not seeing it. 

I suppose there is time for that, but in the meantime, we must focus on November.  Retaking the House and Senate should be our first priority, although Krauthammer suggests this will give Obama an easier time in 2012. 

One step at a time.

Narcissism and Arrogance, Again

Ah, Charles Krauthammer is excellent today.  I love the very simple, clear way Mr. Krauthammer finds to say what everyone....well, most everyone, is thinking.

Most of us have known for a long time what an arrogant putz Obama is, and Krauthammer nails it.  I've never actually noticed this before...

Notice, too, how Obama habitually refers to cabinet members and other high-level government officials as “my” — “my secretary of homeland security,” “my national security team,” “my ambassador.” The more normal — and respectful — usage is to say “the,” as in “the secretary of state.” These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and protect the Constitution — not just the man who appointed them.

...but of course I will now.  It's true.  Now that I look back on it, Obama does do this and Krauthammer makes a good point here:

It’s a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama’s exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies — both about himself.

Heh!  True. We've noted that before but it does go to his supreme arrogance.  As Krauthammer says, "But it is odd to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence — yet not of his own country’s."

All this was precipitated by Charles Bolden's explanation of NASA's outreach to make Muslims "feel good about their historic contribution" to the sciences. 

I can't remember another president, at least in my lifetime, completely trashing American exceptionalism the way this one has.  Krauthammer contrasts Obama's position that America can't get to Mars without the help of other nations with Kennedy's confidence of landing a man on the moon within the decade. 

This is what Obama does, in word and in policy, is denigrate America.  It's ironic because America elected HIM. 

To me, it's all a way of puffing himself up even more.  America is immoral, hostile, arrogant and needs his "historic" leadership and "his" Cabinet to lead us out of depravity and make the world love us again.  It's the old "Obama as savior" meme of the campaign.

I'm still not convinced.  He can crow about himself all he wants to and he can write ten more autobiographies, but I'm firmly convinced that he doesn't like this country and doesn't want anyone else to, either. 

Waiting for November.

*Love* Charles Krauthammer!

Awwwwwwww man!  I LOVE Charles Krauthammer!

On Brett Baier's Special Report Krauthammer just quoted Graham Greene in referencing Arlen Specter.  Krauthammer said, "You've almost got to feel sorry for Arlen Specter..." because he has so much trouble keeping his positions straight.  He said, "He's almost like that protagonist in that Graham Greene novel who said 'I prefer telling the truth because it's so much easier to memorize.'"

Heh!

I don't feel sorry for Arlen Specter at all, but I do love a man who can quote Graham Greene on a moment's notice!

Krauthammer on The Summit

Charles Krauthammer from last night's All Stars on the health care summit:

“I think this is not about real compromise or finding a middle way, this is all about theater. It’s a two act production tomorrow six hours long…an Obama production that pits the Children of Light against the Apostles of Nihilism. That’s exactly how he’s staked it out and I think his whole idea is to present an event in which he gets the upper hand or the Republicans produce a sound bite that is embarrassing and it encourages the troops in the House and the Senate because he then has to go into reconciliation which is a tricky maneuver, and a parliamentary maneuver, and which is extremely problematic. Tomorrow is all about theater and after that is real legislation.”

On reconciliation and Biden’s criticism of the Republican power grab when they used reconciliation:

“It’s a three-bank shot. And I think it gets stuck int he House because Pelosi lacks the votes and in the Senate because it allows the Republicans endless amendments, but I want to add one thing: I want to see the text of the prayer that Biden is now offering that Democrats not nakedly grab power. I’d love to have that liturgy so we can all repeat it.”

Good theater coming up!

Quote of the Day

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills, and an ideological compass in tune with the public’s, the country was indeed governable.

Charles Krauthammer

Friday Quick Links

It's Friday so it's Krauthammer day. I look forward to Charles Krauthammer's columns and today he scores once again. This one is subtitled "From Mr. Wonderful to The Grinch in Twelve Months."

Krauthammer looks at Obama's falling popularity and puts a sharp assessment on what happened:

It’s not about style; it’s about substance—about which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society—health care, education, and energy.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Today's Peggy Noonan column is also critical of Obama. I have long since lost patience with Peggy Noonan and now when she criticizes Obama or finds fault with his "cool" I just want to scream. She was pretty smitten with his "cool" during the campaign and spent many a column waxing rhapsodic about how wonderful it could be. Now, not so much. Now she discovers that he is disconnected from the American people:

The real story is that his rhetorical and iconic detachment are harped on because they reflect a deeper disconnect, the truly problematic one, and that is over policy. It doesn't really matter how he sounds. It matters, in a time of crisis, what he does. That's where the lack of connection comes in.

Seriously? She's just now discovering this?

Read the whole thing. Maddening.

While you're doing all that, I'm off to work. Today my 10th graders are wring in-class essays and then we're off for a three-day weekend. I'm watching for the UPS truck this weekend; sick to death of my Vista laptop with a slow processor, I've ordered a shiny new super fast kick-ass laptop which will hopefully make me very happy. It's due to arrive any day now. Not sure what I'm going to do with the other laptop - I'd like to put it in the road and run over it.

Happy Friday!

It's Been A Good Week for the Terrorists

It's been an amazing week in the war on terror, and a mixed bag; from the Christmas Day Panty bomber to the decision to release Qais Qazali in a prisoner swap for British citizen Peter Moore, we're decidedly less safe going into 2010 than we were at the beginning of 2009. The Obama approach to terrorism has been basically to pretend it doesn't exist.

Charles Krauthammer sums it up pretty well in his column today:

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

Incomprehension, indeed. It's incomprehensible to me how anyone thinks that a criminal justice approach to terrorism is the right path given the mistakes made in the past with that approach.

More Krauthammer:

This is all quite mad even in Obama’s terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

So this week alone, we've forfeited the opportunity to obtain information from an active terrorist about planned attacks, co-conspirators, etc., and we've released other known terrorists back into the jihadi fold.

Tell me again how this administration makes me safer?

(H/T: Memeorandum)

"It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool. "

I'm wondering why we can't get Charles Krauthammer to run for Congress. His plan for health care reform is just plain good common sense.

In his weekly column, Krauthammer first points out the problems with the current plans offered on Capitol Hill: the mandates, the subsidies, the increased taxes, the penalties, etc., pointing out that "The bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool."

Amen to that!

(Does the Senate really have a swimming pool?)

Krauthammer's more simplified plan incorporates those things that Republicans have been saying all along such as portability across state lines. I'm loving his "oranges" example here:

Second, even more simple and simplifying, abolish the prohibition against buying health insurance across state lines. Some states have very few health insurers. Rates are high. So why not allow interstate competition? After all, you can buy oranges across state lines. If you couldn’t, oranges would be extremely expensive in Wisconsin, especially in winter. And the answer to the resulting high Wisconsin orange prices wouldn’t be the establishment of a public option — a federally run orange-growing company in Wisconsin — to introduce “competition.” It would be to allow Wisconsin residents to buy Florida oranges.

It just doesn't get any more simple than that, folks? Why in the world do we need a 2000+ page bill to correct or reform something that could be done so easily and without creating over 100 new boards, bureaucracies and commissions?

It makes no sense.

Read the whole thing - there's more and Krauthammer is spot on today.

Charles Krauthammer Speaks to Der Spiegel

Readers of this blog know I adore Charles Krauthammer; I think he's brilliant. I almost always agree with what he says - not always, but almost. I like him because he challenges me; I have to look up some of his references or allusions. Kind of like Dennis Miller. But not exactly.

Krauthammer has a really nice interview in Der Spiegel. He says some things that depress me though, like this:

SPIEGEL: Do you basically think Obama is going to be a one-term president?

Krauthammer: No, I think he has a very good chance of being reelected. For two reasons. First, there's no real candidate on the other side, and you can't beat something with nothing. Secondly, it'll depend on the economy -- and just from American history, in the normal economic cycles, presidents who have their recessions at the beginning of their first term get reelected (Reagan, Clinton, the second Bush), and presidents who have them at the end of their first term don't (Carter, the first Bush). Obama will lose a lot of seats in next year's Congressional election, but the economy should be on the upswing in 2012.

I know in my heart he is right; but oh my, it's a concept that just makes my heart sink. Right now I feel like I am on guard every single second, waiting, waiting to see what ambush is coming from the left next. I think I'm all focused on Obamacare and then out of the bushes comes Cap 'n Tax again, sneaking out of the Senate. Waxman-Markey in new clothes. Always on the watch. About the only bright light I have is that it might get better in 2012 - hell, even 2010 if the elections go well. My optimism hasn't left me completely.

On the "Obama Doctrine," Krauthammer had this to say:

SPIEGEL: You famously coined the term "Reagan Doctrine" to describe Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. What is the "Obama Doctrine?"

Krauthammer: I would say his vision of the world appears to me to be so naïve that I am not even sure he's able to develop a doctrine. He has a view of the world as regulated by self-enforcing international norms, where the peace is kept by some kind of vague international consensus, something called the international community, which to me is a fiction, acting through obviously inadequate and worthless international agencies. I wouldn't elevate that kind of thinking to a doctrine because I have too much respect for the word doctrine.

SPIEGEL: Are you saying that diplomacy always fails?

Krauthammer: No, foolishness does.

I couldn't agree more with that. Yet it, too, is depressing. Especially combined with the thought that we might have to hold on by our fingernails until 2016. Crikey!

Ah well. I adore Charles Krauthammer and I think I'll add an extra prayer for him and for our country tonight. It couldn't hurt.

Friday's Quick Reads

In a rush this morning, but here are a couple of things that caught my eye today:

First the Krauthammer article this morning regarding the White House war with Fox News. And have you noticed the shift on Fox this week, ever since Axelrod and Rahm came out last weekend saying Fox isn't a news channel? I've seen a new ad running that shows Fox reporters in war zones, hurricanes, natural disasters, protests, and at political conventions reporting hard hitting news stories. The language in the ad is all about Fox NEWS, with the emphasis on NEWS. When Shepard Smith would break for commercial last night and do his lead out, he'd say "...on Fox NEWS channel" or "....coming up on Fox, the place for NEWS." Shepard Smith is the master of manipulation of tone, and the intent was clear - "we're a news channel!"

The Fox war sort of ties in with what Peggy Noonan is writing about today as well. Her main point is that it's time for Obama to own this presidency and quit blaming Bush for everything. It's undignified and it's not presidential. In the same vein, this war with Fox is also not presidential. Trying to shut Fox out of the pool access to the pay czar yesterday - not presidential. Noonan attributes Obama's tanking poll numbers to his failure to own this presidency: "At some point, you own your presidency. At some point it's your rubble. At some point the American people tell you it's yours. The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up: That's the American people telling him."

I think that's part of it, but most of it is a difference in policy; Americans aren't getting what they thought they voted for.

And speaking of presidential, I don't want to hear anybody criticize the way George W. Bush speaks EVER again when now what I have to listen to is this:

Democrats, he said to the Democratic audience, are "an opinionated bunch." They always have a lot of thoughts and views. Republicans, on the other hand—"the other side"—aren't really big on independent thinking. "They just kinda sometimes do what they're told. Democrats, ya'll thinkin' for yourselves."

As Noonan says, I hate it when he tries to get all folksy, and down home. It's embarrassing.

One other item to note today is the Palin endorsement of Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 race. That news broke all over the blogosphere last night and now makes the race a national news story; now everyone is paying attention to it. Did you see that Hoffman's campaign war chest doubled in just a week?! Spectacular! And many are calling for Scozzafava to pull out of the race after her brouhaha with the police and John McCormack of the Weekly Standard earlier in the week.

All this, and just think - the Friday News Dump is still to come.

Where Will We Be in A Year?

Update: Welcome Instapundit readers!

I took the advice of Bride of Rove and Mary Katharine Ham and spent the afternoon reading Charles Krauthammer's essay on the decline of America. It took me a while because it's long (9 pages printed out) and I wanted to really absorb and understand what he said. It's a fascinating piece and should be required reading.

Since the CBO report on Baucus-care came out, and since it's becoming more and more clear that Obamacare will be paid for by the middle class and seniors, it's becoming more and more clear that we are in real trouble. Add that to what Krauthammer says about the state of America now, and in the near future, and one has to wonder where, exactly, we will be, say, one year from now. Should Obama's foreign and domestic policies continue unchecked, and should this health care reform issue pass as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi plan to write it, there will be plenty of Americans seriously hurting.

Consider first the fact that some kind of health care reform is going to pass. Some form of it. Every possible plan on the table involves a tax increase. There will be tax increases on insurance providers to pay for all of it which will be passed on to the consumer. There will be tax increases on the wealthy, too. There will be fines for non-compliance.

Well, okay. Say you are fine with that - you don't mind paying a little more so that others can have the same coverage you do. But consider that there are also other huge increases on the horizon. Waxman-Markey has already cleared the House. Should it clear the Senate there will be massive hikes in your energy bills. Massive. Huge. Add that to the extra cash you're paying to pay for health coverage for other folks, and well, it adds up.

But wait. Nancy Pelosi wants to talk about a Value Added Tax. That's going to hit the middle class very hard. So add THAT to the health care tax increase, and the Cap 'n Trade increase and you're getting hit on multiple levels.

Meanwhile, we are still forbidden from tapping our own energy sources and rely on imported oil. Despite our own vast offshore reserves and our Arctic reserves, we continue to import. No nuclear plants in the works. Energy costs will continue to rise. We are held hostage to Venezeula and others for our energy.

Then you factor in one thing that Krauthammer mentioned, the devaluation of the dollar, which he points out will lead to hyperinflation. Yet the more our national debt increases, and it's exploding, baby!, the less valuable our dollar becomes. Krauthammer reminds us that more and more voices are calling for the replacement of the dollar as the world currency.

So where will we be one year, or even six months, from now? Two years? The whole point of Krauthammer's peice is that we are headed in a very dangerous direction. I think when you compound the points he makes about Amercian ascendancy and decline, on top of all these inflationary issues and tax increases, we are, in fact, in grave danger. People are going to feel the pinch in that paycheck.

There is no doubt that some form of health care reform will pass; the Democrats don't need Republicans to do that. It will happen. Waxman-Markey is already in the pike. And if Pelosi wants a VAT, she's likely to get it; the Dems have to pay for their massive social agenda and domestic agenda somehow.

Pay close attention, folks. And remember, 2010 is coming.