First, congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama. He will be the 44th president of the United States. His life is a remarkable journey and a testament to how far America has come. We're a fair, decent, tolerant, open-minded nation, and once again we demonstrate the old adage that "anyone can become President."
President Obama will deserve our support when he's right and our loyal opposition when he's wrong. Unlike some Democrats four and eight years ago, there will be no derogatory, childish name-calling from us conservatives. It was unseemly when the Democrats attacked George Bush they way they did, and it would be just as unseemly for us to do so now. We won't file for impeachment the first day Barack Obama is in office. We won't insult his intelligence. We will not pursue idiotic conspiracy theories.
The Democrats sounded insane over the last eight years and somehow got away with it. Republicans sounded insane in the later part of the 1990s and managed to get away with it.
Republicans won't be so lucky in the future. So we won't act insane. There cannot and must not be an 'Obama Derangement Syndrome'.
President Obama is going to need a loyal opposition. Joe Biden was both right and wrong when he said that "Obama would be tested." That's absolutely correct, but it will not be President Obama who will be tested, it will be America that is tested. If we waver then we, not just he, will flunk that test, and we'll be worse off because of it. America and American lives will be on the line. So when the challenge comes, we are the loyal opposition.
Let's be clear: we conservatives will NEVER do what the Democrats did to our country over Iraq. We will NEVER try to make our country lose a war just to gain political advantage. Again, Democrats somehow got away with this, but we would never be able to do so, because it would dishonor us. Honor is important in a way that it has never been important to a Charlie Schumer or a Rahm Emanuel. We need to preserve ours.
America did not reject conservative principles so much as it rejected much of the last eight years. George Bush, an honorable man, got a number of things right and a number of things wrong. Our country has failed to recognize the former and has instead focused on the latter. It's strange in a way: despite all the caterwauling America is wealthier today than in 2000. We're considerably safer. Unemployment is the same, poverty has trended downwards, and the poor still live better in America than just about anywhere else in the world. Our culture is wonderfully diverse and our people can, within very wide limits, choose how they wish to live.
So for all the claims about how bad America is, it is still a marvelous country full of opportunity. Just ask Barack Obama.
So what do we do?
We stop fighting the last war. The hoary joke applies: when in a hole, stop digging.
Conservatives must advance ideas. John McCain, an honorable and noble man, has clearly demonstrated that simply running a good soldier and decent American is not sufficient to win a national election. Republicans must recognize that it can no longer nominate the next man (or woman) who is considered to be 'due'. We must put forward ideas and principles to which the country will respond, we must do the hard political work to set the stage for those ideas, and we must advance as our leaders those who subscribe to and will fight for these ideas. We did that in the early 1990s and won a great political victory in 1994.
We then spent the next twelve years giving all that away by focusing on personalities, political chicanery and Clinton derangement syndrome. We bought into Karl Rove's plans on how to divide the electorate. We allowed K Street to buy us and once again, the world is less forgiving of us than with Democrats when we allow ourselves to be bought.
Advance ideas. Today is not the today to speculate on who will be nominated in 2012. Today and the coming days are a time to listen to what Americans think the challenges are, and to start considering how we'll answer those challenges. Put forward ideas and plans even if they're knocked down in a Democratic-controlled Congress. Start forcing the issues. Winston Churchill once said, "it is the duty of the opposition to oppose." Conservatives must use the power of ideas to oppose the Democrats.
Stand up to the media. The MSM has demonstrated itself to be an enemy to Republicans and conservatives. It is time we recognize and respond to that. It does no good to whine that the media is unfair. Instead, fight back: oppose the Fairness Doctrine. Cancel subscriptions. Let advertisers know (respectfully) that you no longer patronize that newspaper, that magazine, that evening news broadcast, that cable channel. If Barack Obama can talk about bankrupting the coal industry, we can talk about bankrupting the media, and our job is easier than his: the country needs coal. It doesn't need the CBS Evening News.
Make our own lives meaningful. There is more to life than politics, and the best revenge comes from living well. Obama and the Democrats will challenge that, for theirs is a philosophy that wants to take away what is personal. Orwell understood that in '1984'. We must not be content to scribble in a corner where we cannot be seen. We must be forward and happy in our commitment to those things that matter more than politics. Be successful, be enriching, be charitable, and let those Democrats who gloat and screech define their party. Ronald Reagan was successful because he was seen as a 'happy warrior.' There's a lesson there for us.
We will be a party of ideas. We will be a party of commitment. We will be a party of good cheer. We will be a party of successful people.
And then we'll see about those upcoming elections.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/05/2008 01:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Screw polite. The mindless attack droid donks are getting what's coming to them. Attack after attack after attack and only kind ones when everyones looking. When their not, Murtha is a fat little bastard.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
11/05/2008 2:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
A sober, rational essay, Steve, befitting a citizen of a mature democracy.
And I say to hell with it. At least this part:
We won't file for impeachment the first day Barack Obama is in office.
I call for a Constitutional amendment that will mandate impeachment proceedings from the first day of each Administration until its last. That way we can get the suspense over with, and it will keep Congress off the streets. Also, any power-mad sociopath who aspires to the Presidency must already be corrupt. There'll be an impeachable offense in there somewhere, and if we can't find one, we'll make one. Serves 'em right.
#3
No, not impeachment -- just repay the Dems in kind for the crap that they pulled as the outside party before 2006. You know, impede EVERY piece of legislation, FIGHT each and every judicial nomination, FIGHT all of Hussien's Cabinet nominations that need Congressional approval, etc.
#6
How can Obama disabling credit card security checks to allow money laundering and foreign (illegal) campaign contributions be a conspiracy when it really happened?
#7
Democrats have the power. What will they do? What are the issues?
(in no particular order)
TAXES
Redistribution
Fairness doctrine
Israel
Military
2nd Amendment
Judges
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
11/05/2008 5:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Like it or not, America's fortunes are now tied to the "success" of President Obama's administration. We need to respectfully oppose him and force him to the center when he pursues policies we disagree with and support him when he takes a reasonable stand on an issue. But only if the Democrats put their extremists forward and center should we adopt the counterproductive confrontationalism which we have seen from the Left over the last 8 years.
Now is the time for Republicans to restore the grassroots appeal of our party, hopefully reconnecting with voters under the leadership of someone like Newt Gingrich as party chairman. We need to advance ideas on energy, tax and other policies which will sow the seeds for the renaissance of conservative governance.
#9
As the victor, Obama has to put the Obama Doctrine into place
My reading of the doctrine is that it is premised on a strong growing economy, which is no longer the case.
As Soros points out, the US has been consuming 5 to 6 % more than it produces for the last how many years. The only reason it kept going was the savings of the rest of the world, especially China. The cookie jar is now empty.
The only way Obama can put his policies into practice is by turning up the printing press without regard to inflation. Watch gold and silver skyrocket.
What to do?
Obama has used NLP/Hypnosis combined with Alinsky tactics to lull the electorate into a false sense of euphoria.
Alinsky warned the radical/organizer not to seek political office, because if they do they become the "enemy" and will be held hostage to the Alinsky tactics of performance.Obama, whatever his reason decided to disregard this advice.
The price of a successful attack is a
constructive alternative. you cannot risk
being trapped by the enemy in his
suddenly agreeing with your demand and
saying Youre right we dont know
what to do about this issue. Now you
tell us
So just say "right, you've got the field, now what"
As we know what is going to happen, alternative policies can be thought up, and using Alinsky tactics, used to skewer him.
As Patton said (Outmaneuvering Rommel): referring to Rommel's book, 'Infantry Attacks' or 'Infanterie greift an'] Rommel... you magnificent bastard, *I read your book*!
#11
Here's my inauguration gift to our new Marxist overlords: I won't be paying any taxes next year. Nothing illegal mind you, the numbers just work out that way :)
#13
We're a fair, decent, tolerant, open-minded nation, and once again we demonstrate the old adage that "anyone can become President."
Well, yesterday we were a lousy, rotten, racist, unfair piece of shit by their assessment. So what has changed since then? This one guy winning an election? Give me a break and just tell me how they are going to blame everything on republicans when they have a majority in both chambers.
#16
Oh what poor sports and cry babies. First give the man a chance before you sabotage America. Obama hasn't done one thing you accuse him of done yet.
Find a real reason before you try the impeachment AND most of all elect a majority in congress.
#17
it is going to be real hard for the left to ever again claim America is racist. Twon't matter a bit. Anyone who opposes the left's agenda will be tagged "racist" or worse. Doesn't anyone get it that "racist" is an ideological weapon, not a useful description of anything? The term is used for the same purposes as "blasphemy" is used in the Islamic world.
#18
I, for one, hope that the Republicans in the Senate are able to prevent confirmation of even one judge appointed by Obama, Pat Leahy, and Harry Reid.
#20
"John McCain, an honorable and noble man, has clearly demonstrated that simply running a good soldier and decent American is not sufficient to win a national election."
You think we would have learned our lesson with Bob Dole.
1) You must reconquer education: it is there where brains are molded and so called progressist ideas are forced into youngsters. That could go from having more conservatives trying to become teachers (hard) to suing professors who use their chair (and your money) to indoctrinate instead of teaching and schools/universities who allow this.
2) Apply the Geneva Conventions. Their basic idea is that the other guy is prevented from fighting dirty by knowing that if he does you will do it too so he will get nothing. When Obama beaks its promise of sticking to public financing then wait afew days, hammer that you regret it but you are forced to do the same. If the MSM edits an inteview of you then publish the raw footage. If your opponent resorts to illegal contributions and large scale voter fraud you don't conced gracefully like Nixon did in 1960 or McCain did yesterday. You make a Watergate of it. And if you are lucky enough to havce won despite fraud like George W Baush then you don't staty quiet about it (it is better when you don't look like you are trying to revetrt popular suffrage) you go as high as needed (yes, ven to Gore and Kerry if they were involved), jailing organizers. Then and only then America will have clean elections and the Democratic party will play fair.
#22
just tell me how they are going to blame everything on republicans when they have a majority in both chambers. They will blame the republicans when it suits them, and find other convenient targets of opportunity to blame as they will. Remember Herbert Hoover served as a convenient target for decades.
#23
You must reconquer education I think reforming existing such severely defective institutions is a lost cause. They cost far too much for what they provide. A parallel system will have to be created, perhaps with home-schooling as a model. suing professors Nah, slash their funding and send them home. State government income is falling rapidly, and that would be a good excuse.
#24
"John McCain, an honorable and noble man, has clearly demonstrated that simply running a good soldier and decent American is not sufficient to win a national election"
John F. Kerry, too.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
11/05/2008 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Can the result of the election be considered to be an obamanation?
#27
suing professors Nah, slash their funding and send them home. State government income is falling rapidly, and that would be a good excuse.
No. First of all you need to take control of the institution/state in order to do send them home while suing can be done by private citizens. Second: it doesn't punish enough to be a deterrent.
Third: The link is not clear enough between the reprehensible actiona and the punishment
Force them to refund teh whole of what they have been paid since they were hired and damages for loss of time and, career opportunities: "Yes your honor, my teacher ranted about Bush instead of teaching Maths like supposed to do so I didn't become an engineer resulting in the loss of loooooooots of menu. I demand for ten million dollars in compensation". Last but not least the instituytion who hired a Ward Churcill like professor and didn't fire him when it appeared he was usinhg his tenure as a tribune should be made bleed big money. It is the only way to break the liberalo-communist grip in teaching institutions.
There will be major problems overseas including to one degree or other:
1) Russian recapture of "lost" republics. They've already moved on Georgia again made noises about the Ukraine and announced increases in missles
2) Iranian surrogates attacking Israel. Hezbollah has already announced that Israel has to be constricted back to imaginary 1920 borders annexing much of North Israel to Lebanon.
3) Iranian stooges taking over Iraq. We'll see
4) China making some sort of strong move on Taiwan. We'll see
5) Venezuela making a move on Columbia. Can you say FARC boys and girls?
Economically we will see:
1) massive inflation due to soaring energy costs. Let's bankrupt 49% of our energy producers (aka coal) what will that do to the price of food or any other commodity? Oh, yeah and the tax increases on business.
2) large tax increases. Already planned. I figure the "rich" will be defined down to about $75,000 by the time they're done. Richardson has already got it down to $120k.
3) high interest rates. they have to go up given 1, 2 & 3. Ought to be real good for the construction industry just like it was last time.
4) high unemployment. As business fold due to 1 & 2 & 3; been there, done that circa 1978.
5) large restrictions on free trade will echo Smoot-Hawley. Re-write NAFTA is only the start. Hurting free trade will just exacerbate an already dicey global economy.
6) Massive federal deficit increases as more money is poured into the UN programs (Kyoto style scams and massive transfers from "rich" countries (AKA USA) to Africa) and welfare schemes (that gas has to be paid for), healthcare etc. I'm assuming they will live up to their promises.
Rights will be curtailed:
1) Free speech will be attacked via a new "fairness" doctrine that will also by expanded to include the Net and Cable venues, I expect the first part withing 3 months. Again, they've said they will do this ..
2) mass expansions of gun control beyond the re-imposition of Clinton "assault" rifle bans (see the Chicago & DC rules) .and this .
3) ultra-liberal judges will invent more "positive" rights ..and this
And this doesn't even include my extreme possibilities because I think the odds of them are too low to make the list though I wouldn't be terribly surprised.
1) Jihadists will be emboldened: they will see that you can kill thousands of Americans and that sooner or later (sooner likelier than later, Bush II came close to defeat in 2004) they will cut and run.
2) LOcal allies and informers will know thatb America's support is short lived: sooner or later they will abandon you and then the jihadists will kill you. If America neeeeeds again to occupy a country nobody will report on those who set IEDs. No more Anbar awakenings.
#31
On a positive note, it is going to be real hard for the left to ever again claim America is racist.
Bunyip, does that mean that America's original sin of slavery,is erased?
#32
To be honest if I was a bad guy running a nation that hates America I'd ratched down the Rhetoric while I built up my military. I'd say all the right things to make Obama and the lefties happy and hope the US pulls backs and perhaps disables some of the US military. Get all you can without conflict during the 4 years and then decide what to do during the next election.
And when i decided I'd time my actions with a few other evil-doers to make sure America couldn't react to all of us.
#33
Selfishness, ladies and gentlemen, is the order of the day. Get your slice of the government cheese. Apply for government bailouts, loans, subsidies. It's the new and shiny American way.
Bring our troops home and jobs. Stop subsidizing other nations development, retirement and party funds. 63 years of carrying the world's burden is more than enough. The natural position of America is the aloof, decisive third party. Meant to be courted, flattered and showered with gifts, not the one bearing blanks checks or getting our hands dirty in every little pissant dispute.
And, if you're over 50, consider shifting a lot more of your taxable savings to medium term tax free, but high quality, bonds next year. I can see demand for them skyrocketing once the size and scope of tax increases are revealed.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2008 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Great article, Steve W. Thanks putting your thoughts together and sharing them with us. Your ideas are always worth taking the time to read and consider.
Besoeker: new taxes are inevitable so I'm sure we'll be looking at taxes on internet commerce. Taxes on IPs are another one. The Democrats may not be able to push a Fairness Doctrine for the net but they'll tax us to use it (and then subsidize 'proper' use).
rjschwarz: yup. If the Mad Mullahs of Iran are smart, that's what they'll do. I don't think Short Round is that smart but the ayatollahs are. Back off publicly and keep those centrifuges spinning.
AlanC: I do think Russia will be frisky. Ukraine is in big trouble and I don't see Obama defending them. In Bambi's defense, I think most of the European members of NATO won't defend Ukraine either. Such a move will, however, put a spike in NATO.
China won't launch a military invasion of Taiwan. They won't need to. They'll sign 'trade agreements' like the one they just did and work to wear down the Taiwanese.
On tax increases, there is no way (as we all know) that Bambi can do the things he says he wants to do without massive tax increases, even if he cuts military spending by 10% (which is a near sure-thing). He needs something on the order of 200 to 300 billion a year in new revenue just to keep the deficit where it is. So open yer wallets, citizens.
But I don't see 'free trade' being curtailed as much as some fear, for the simple reason that other countries would retaliate. Obama is smart enough to recall 'Smoot-Hawley'.
I see hard times a'coming. We need to be sensible, prepared and forthright without ever being screechy or looney.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/05/2008 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#37
1) Russian recapture of "lost" republics. They've already moved on Georgia again made noises about the Ukraine and announced increases in missles
It did not take long, did it?
Medvedev: Russia to deploy missiles near Poland
By STEVE GUTTERMAN, Associated Press Writer Steve Gutterman, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 5 mins ago
MOSCOW Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.
Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia's war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.
He said he hoped the next U.S. administration would act to improve relations. In a separate telegram, he congratulated Barack Obama on his election victory and said he was hoping for "constructive dialogue" with the incoming U.S. president.
Medvedev also proposed increasing the Russian presidential term to six years from the current four, a major constitutional change that would further increase the power of the head of state and could deepen Western concern over democracy in Russia.
The president said the Iskander missiles will be deployed to Russia's Kaliningrad region, which lies between Poland and the ex-Soviet republic of Lithuania on the Baltic Sea, but did not say how many would be used. Equipment to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic will be deployed, he said.
He did not say whether the short-range Iskander missiles would be fitted with nuclear warheads and it was not clear exactly when the missiles would be deployed.
"Mechanisms must be created to block mistaken, egoistical and sometimes simply dangerous decisions of certain members of the international community," he said shortly after starting the 85-minute speech, making it clear he was referring to the United States.
The president said Georgia sparked the August war on its territory with what he called "barbaric aggression" against Russian-backed South Ossetia. The conflict "was, among other things, the result of the arrogant course of the American administration, which did not tolerate criticism and preferred unilateral decisions."
Medvedev also painted Russia as a country threatened by growing Western military might.
"From what we have seen in recent years, the creation of a missile defense system, the encirclement of Russia with military bases, the relentless expansion of NATO, we have gotten the clear impression that they are testing our strength," Medvedev said.
He announced deployment of the short-range missiles as a military response to U.S. plans to deploy missile-defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic former Soviet satellites that are now NATO members.
Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. not the Kremlin to seek to improve relations.
"I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," Medvedev said.
Tension in Russian-American relations has been driven to a post-Cold War high by Moscow's war with U.S. ally Georgia.
On the financial crisis, Medvedev said overconfidence in American dominance after the collapse of the Soviet Union "led the U.S. authorities to major mistakes in the economic sphere." The administration ignored warnings and harmed itself and others by "blowing up a money bubble to stimulate its own growth," he said.
Medvedev said the president's tenure should be lengthened to six years to enable the government to more effectively implement reforms. He said the term of the parliament also should be extended by a year to five years, and that parliament's power must be increased by requiring the Cabinet to report to lawmakers regularly.
The proposals were Medvedev's first major initiative to amend the constitution since he was elected in March to succeed his longtime mentor Vladimir Putin.
Putin, who is now prime minister and has not ruled out a return to the Kremlin in the future, has favored increasing the presidential term.
___
Associated Press Writers Vladimir Isachenkov and Lynn Berry contributed to this report.
#38
Steve White,
That's why I phrased it the way I did. I don't expect an invasion of Taiwan; more of "Let me make you a deal...." kind of approach with a military build up just sort of happening (no connection of course).
Poland will be left out to dry (again) by Europe so Russia will gain de facto control and of course there's always the natural gas weapon.
NATO will be history as anything other than a contract house for the UN.
#39
Poland will be left out to dry (again) by Europe so Russia will gain de facto control and of course there's always the natural gas weapon.
You can't really expect the EU to risk its neck for Poland. There are two kinds of territorial entities - provinces/states and countries. If you want to remain a country, you need to acquire the infrastructure to defend yourself instead of waiting for handouts from Uncle Sam, which is what Poland has done.
What Uncle Sam has been doing for 60-odd years - military welfare - is unsustainable. We can bear the financial and human costs, but why should we have to? What we've been providing for so many decades is the military equivalent of universal health care, with one significant difference - we are pretty much the only country that pays into the system. That can no longer fly.
#41
ZF I agree with you up to a point, BUT, Poland is a member of the EU and it did supply troops to help us out in Iraq.
They deserve the support of their ???????? What is the EU again? Russia could walk to the Channel and not have a finger raised against them by any of the "Old" European nati......What is the EU again?
#42
lotp I see a distinction without a difference. The US will be weighed down and prevented from taking decisive action by making NATO a de facto UN surrogate. We ARE NATO as far as actual capability goes.
#43
What I meant was that if NATO were formally disbanded it would leave us theoretically free to act without long and fruitless attempts to gain European cooperation. If it remains it is an 'entangling alliance' of little use except to make sure we cannot act easily or effectively.
#46
If I were Poland I'd be trying to make close friends with a bunch of other Central European states. Do not allow Western states in to avoid provoking the Russians. Do not let ex Soviet states in to avoid provoking the Russians. I'd call my alliance the Buffer states. I'd buy Russian gear as well so they saw me as a customer and not a challenge. I'd concentrate on defense weapons and fortifications. I'd volunteer my voluntary military for UN peacekeeping to ensure they were experienced (I'd be on the Ethiopian plan where I get paid for sending my troops).
I'd make the alliance a free-trade zone as well (anyone want to join that is welcome).
I think such a move would guarantee the Russians left the region alone.
WASHINGTONAfrican-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2008 08:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Laugh now, but I bet this is how they're gonna spin it after his first 100 days.
#2
They can spin all they want, but that will not relieve the pain & distress to be dished out on the electorate. Hypnosis doesn't provide much relief for major surgery except in isolated cases.
#1
An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:
- Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
- Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion
- Is firmly convinced that he is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special, unique, or high-status people (or institutions)
- Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, or failing that, wishes to be feared and notorious (narcissistic supply)
- Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his expectations
- Is interpersonally exploitative i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends
- Is devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others
- Is constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her
- Is arrogant, has haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted
That's describing at least half the Congress, a good third to a half of politicians in general, and most law professors with an Ivy League degree!
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2008 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Come on, guys! If you're going to use abbreviations, please spell them out also!
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy." [1]
The narcissist is described as turning inward for gratification rather than depending on others and as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power and prestige.[2] Narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to self-centeredness.
More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
Sheesh, another 5 minutes from my life I'll never get back!
#4
"demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements"
To win a campaign as the Chance Gardner candidate, saying nothing of depth, breaking promises left and right and promising the impossible. He is a superior politician, he worked the electorate and he worked it well.
Things were a little easier in a bipolar world. The Soviets could only conquer destabalize so much. Now it's regional punks that will cause trouble, and allies who have been carried by Uncle Sam so long they aren't prepared to do anything about it.
Still, a bit of fear and those allies might learn to appreciate US intervention again.
Some postmortem thoughts on what went wrong for Republicans... (other than the mid-September meltdown and the celebrity charisma that surrounded our first serious African-American candidate that together made all else secondary.)
1. Spending. When Republicans spend at rates higher than Democrats they suffer the wage of hypocrisy, and discredit tax cuts, since the public blames lower taxes for mounting deficits even when they have been demonstrably proven to have brought in greater revenue. In the future, conservatives need to forget all the gobbly-gook about deficits being tolerable as this or that percentage of GDP— and just balance the budget, since the public deals in psychology and symbolism as much as abstract economic data.
2. People. Conservatism means an allegiance to past values and behavior. When the Republican Congress not only spent lavishly, but was marked by a series of scandals--Foley, Cunningham, Stevens, et al.--then Republicans lost that high ground as well. Conservative reconstruction must focus on being above the ethical norm, not indistinguishable from corrupt career politicians. By the same token, highly-visible appointments of incompetent sycophants like Press Secretary Scott McClellan or "Brownie" at FEMA remind voters that conservatives have standards no different from the alternative when they claim otherwise.
3. Populism. Joe the Plumber caught on because (finally) the case was made that confiscatory tax rates (40% on top income, 15.3% FICA/Medicare, once caps removed, 5-10% state income tax) mean that none of us can hope to have the financial success guaranteed to others by birth.
Down-to-earth, Fargo-talking Palin was a missed opportunity because almost immediately for some reason she was served up to the DC press in gottcha interviews and caricatured as a hockey-mom bimbo by NY-DC grandees of her own party. Eisenhower and Reagan worked because they were able to show the people that they came from, and were one with, them, and convince the people that they did better even when the rich were better off as well. The critical argument that the liberal party is now anti-populist and mostly one of the largely affluent who want government to enact a boutique, utopian social agenda, and the poor who want redistribution and guaranteed government 24/7 attention, was never seriously made.
PS. I think out-of-power conservatives have a real opportunity to show that they will express differences in a professional, constructive fashion that puts the country first and politics second, and that was not always true of the last eight years when we got everything from the Knopf novel Checkpoint to the Gabriel Range film to the (failed) effort to rename a sewer plant after the President.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2008 13:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah, this just reinforces my point that they are all a bunch of douche bags.
One really has to ask the obvious question: If Obamas economic policies work so well, why isnt Detroit a paradise?
In 1950, America produced 51% of the GNP for the entire world. Of that production, roughly 70% took place in the eight states surrounding the Great Lakes: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.
The productive capability of this small area of earth staggers the imagination. Virtually everything that rebuilt the industrial bases of Europe and Japan came from those eight states. Cars, planes, electronics, machine tools, consumer goods, generators, concrete - any conceivable item manufactured by industrial humanity poured out this tiny region and enriched the world. The region shone with widespread prosperity. People migrated from the South and West to work in these Herculean engines of industry.
The wealth, power and economic dominance of the region at the time cannot be overstated. Nothing like it has existed in human history.
Yet, a mere 30 years later, by 1980, we called that area the rustbelt and it became synonymous with joblessness, collapsing cities, high crime, failing schools and general hopelessness.
What the hell happened?
Obama happened.
Of course, not Obama personally but rather the same ideas that Obama espouses. What those ideas did to the Great Lakes states, they can do to the entire country.
What did they do wrong?
First, unions: Without any serious economic competition, unions could force virtually any salary, benefits and pensions they wished from manufactures. Worse, however, they could set work rules and conditions, effectively dictating the organization of a business and what technology, processes and methods it used. Since increasing productivity, by definition, means doing more work with fewer people, unions froze companies into the methods used in the mid-1950s and refused to let them adapt. Companies rode high for over 15 years, but by the late 60s they faced increasing competition and needed to change and adapt. The unions blocked this.
In the end, however, strong widespread unions turned out for workers to be merely a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Unions got workers in factories better wages, but the people who built the workers houses, cars, consumer goods and stocked their groceries also had strong unions and the price of everything went up. Strong public-sector unions kept taxes high and public productivity low, so workers taxes went up. By the time they paid all the increased cost of union labor in everything they consumed, the unions gave them little if any real increases in income.
Second, invasive government: People who grew up during the New Deal and WWII believed that government could solve almost any problem, and they supported high taxes so that government could fix society. Unfortunately, the supposed benefits of an expansive state, good schools, solid public infrastructure, low crime, etc. failed to materialize while zoning and land-use restrictions drove up housing cost and taxes and crime destroyed small businesses. Strong public-sector unions blocked tax cuts and reforms that could have saved them.
By the early 70s the states that once served as the industrial engine for the entire planet began to fall apart. Then came double-digit inflation and the energy crisis (both caused by leftist policies). By 1980, the industrial heartland of America lay in virtual ruins. People called it the rustbelt in analogy to the dustbowl of the Great Depressions. Even today, nearly 30 years later, the region lags behind the rest of the country in job creation and is steadily losing population to internal migration.
It can happen just that fast. A worker who entered the factories in 1950 at the age of 25 saw 20 good years before things looked bad. At 45 he saw repeated layoffs, and by 55 he was out of a job and his children had little hope of finding one.
Obama clearly plans to try to extend the rustbelt model to the rest of the country. Card check will let unions use intimidation to control workers. High taxes on capital gains will slow investment. Environmental regulation will starve workplaces of electricity and mandate inefficient modes of production. Great new bureaucracies will arise to restrain the freedom and creativity of the people.
Obama has no concept of business as a creative and experimental endeavor. On some deep unconscious level, he assumes that material wealth is something akin to a natural phenomenon for which no group of humans can take credit. Therefore, he sees distribution as the only serious economic issue and ignores how politics interferes with the actual process of wealth creation.
We may soon be living in a repeat of 70s and looking back at the years 1984-2007 as a golden era.
#1
On some deep unconscious level, he assumes that material wealth is something akin to a natural phenomenon for which no group of humans can take credit.
This article gives the bugger entirely too much credit. My take on it is he suffers from accute cognitive dissonance. If one feels he is destined to create an economic renaissance for a sector of the population, while at the same being keenly aware that that same sector is terminally tied to tribalism, crime, and societal failure... well then, you have a genuine problem.
#2
Liberals have the ability to equate what feels right with what must work despite numerous examples to the contrary. They just didn't implement it right in those other places and times. That's it.
#3
Detroit's never been a paradise. It used to be in better shape economically for a lot of the reasons mentioned in the article. We have been doing everything to shoot ourselves in the foot for a long time. Our society tends to favor attorneys and financial planners over engineers. Consequently innovation suffers. We don't manufacture things as we used to. Instead we have transformed our economy to a service-based economy. Even much of that has been sent overseas. We have shipped too much of our wealth elsewhere, manufacturing, jobs, etc. Henry Ford recognized that he had to pay workers enough money so they could buy the cars coming off the assembly lines.
A few readers have asked whether I think Sarah Palin will run for the Senate in the future. I think that would be a mistake, for several reasons, not the least of which is that, if successful, the decision would take an unique and popular outside-the-beltway executive and put her inside the Beltway as one of 100 legislators voting on every bill that comes down the pike.
For now, I hope Sarah Palin gets to take a vacation and spend some much-deserved time with that beautiful family. Her experience these past four months must have been simultaneously exhilarating, supremely frustrating, and thoroughly exhausting.
I hope Palin runs for a second term as governor and is reelected. This seems like a likely scenario.
Beyond that, her future is a blank slate. If she decided, after this rollercoaster experience, that she was no longer all that interested in national office, I could not blame her. But I suspect that she realizes the strengths she has and the opportunities that will await her.
The Republican base loves Sarah Palin. Many Democrats instantly loathed her, at least partially because they sensed an almost unparalleled threat; a few couldn't help but like her even if they disagreed with her. Independents concluded she wasn't ready -- not that she wasn't likeable, and not that she wasn't an impressive person, but that she wasn't ready. Yet. In four or eight years, after a full term or two of governing and involving herself in the conservative movement, . . . especially after the Obambi has gotten his fans all nicely disillusioned.
This flaw can be overcome with time and useful experience.
If Palin wants a future in national office, I hope she takes some time to deeply contemplate where she wants to take the country. I suspect she'll write a book about her experience on the campaign trail; I hope she writes a separate one, when she's ready, about her vision for the country.
She indeed could be the next Reagan; the challenge this time was that she was running as the Ronald Reagan of about 1969, after about two years as governor. It's easy to forget how much time Reagan spent touring and speaking at General Electric plants, a thousand radio addresses, newspaper columns, etc. He familiarized himself with every major economic, social, and foreign policy topic under the sun, and figured out what he wanted American policy to do and how it should go about doing it. Very, very few political figures think through these key questions so thoroughly. A lot of the Palin criticism was unfair, but the Peggy Noonans of the world have something of a point when they say she has as-yet incomplete political philosophy. Until the end of August, Sarah Palin didn't really need one; her natural instincts were sufficient to successfully navigate the treacherous world of Alaskan politics.
And there is really no deadline for her interest in national office. Palin is a strikingly young 44 years old. If she runs at Hillary's age, she will be running in 2024. You're going to hear a lot of buzz about her as a 2012 candidate, but I don't think that she needs to run in four years. (For now, life will keep her busy -- she has an infant to take care of, a son in Iraq, a grandchild on the way and a day job.) I don't think that love from the Republican base is going to dissipate in four years. She stepped up to the plate and hit the ball as far as she could this time around, and for about two weeks, she helped achieve the near-impossible: putting McCain ahead in a Democratic year.
Every once in a while I think about working on a political campaign, and almost always conclude that I like what I do on the outside too much to ever want to accept the inherent limits of working on the inside. But after the joy of offering a line that ended up in her convention speech, Governor, I'll make clear the exception. I'll answer that call anytime.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2008 12:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'd stay right where she is. This is the first time since 1960 that a senator has advanced to the presidency. Senators are good at photo ops. Governors actually have to accomplish something.
#2
One of the things I hold against Bush is his sticking to Cheney in 04.
I've nothing against the man, but, that last term needed to be spent in grooming a new power. I don't know who it should have been, but, by sticking with Cheney the 'pubs were left with noone for this run.
#3
Alan: If all you do is change out the VP and everything else stays the same, I don't see Bush's VP doing any better than McCain.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2008 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Geraghty is correct about what Palin needs to do. The Senate would be a killer for her. She should be a two-term governor, work very hard to soak up knowledge and ideas about our country and the world, and spend the time doing the intellectual heavy-lifting to ensure she has herself organized.
Then decide what to do, and go do it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/05/2008 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It also requires that other egos among the Trunks be told to sit down and take a number. When you can draw the crowds that she could, you have someone who can rally the base. That is more important than all the good o'boys messing around jockeying for position to just tank another opportunity. Get behind this one early to remove that stupid game.
#6
Already onboard. I was contacting my local GOP org on this very subject. Palin needs to stay out of the senate, and build on her executive experience and run a tight ship. She's already been vetted by the worst the dems and media could throw at her and she came out pretty darn clean. Another run as Gov and she's GTG - if that's her choice.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/05/2008 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The problem of leadership on the right goes much deeper. Palin is interesting and her positions on economic development and personal freedom is good, but she is not the strongest candidate that could be put forward. The talk of putting forth a Petraeus signals the underlying problem that there is no leadership development in the Republican party. Part of it is the disdain on the right for maximum leaders on white horses. Part of it is the belief in laissez faire. Laissez faire does not and did not cut it. Right now, we get a crop mostly of the moneyed, ambitious and self serving who claim to lead but mostly dip into the public treasury.
The military recognizes this and develops promising candidates for command positions. The problem with relying on them for leadership (other than scaring the shit out of leftists, which is good in my opinion), is that you are as likely to wind up with a Colin Powell or Wesley Clark than Eisenhower. Even Eisenhower, the last general to be elected president and rather bipartisan, would be eaten alive in today's political environment.
The Marxist elements and the billionaire backers of the Democratic party have been grooming Obama for years and their support has paid off beyond their wildest dreams. The right needs a similar, though better program. That means identifying at a young age a cadre of the top 1% in intelligence, integrity, common sense, core beliefs, personality and looks (yes, that's important in a TV dominated world), exposing and mentoring them for 20-30 years in increasingly complex, powerful and public private positions. The most successful of these are then put forward for national elective offices.
Let them loose to compete with and trounce the Bloombergs, Bushes, Pelosis, Murthas and Obamas. But this requires a smart, disciplined and strong party, not the county club drunk fest that currently controls the helm.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2008 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The left studies political SCIENCE. The right dabbles in it like a hobby.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2008 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#11
comparing Cheney ( an industry insider and long time DC op ) to Palin the one time mayor of a microscopic little town in the far reaches of the Empire and the short time Govener of the same way the hell out there state of Alaska ( Though she must be very familiar with the oil industry ) is like comparing beauty queens to Really Hard Core Washington Insiders.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2008 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Lumpy, I thought you Obama-campaign blog trolls had a contract only through November 4th. Am I mistaken?
For your information (not that you care or will even be back), Gov. Palin is the reason why McCain got 46% and not 36% of the vote. In early August McCain had a dispirited base, slack fund raising and little clear sense of direction. Palin fixed the first two of those, but Mac couldn't fix that last one. Or the economy.
Palin was never supposed to be Cheney. Had McCain found another Cheney-type, he would have lost badly.
Palin has real promise. She has to do her homework, win re-election as governor, and see where the party is in 2011. In the meantime, the party has to rally for 2010, work on its ideas and ideals, clean house, and find good candidates for the federal and state legislatures.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/05/2008 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Yeah, Palin is definitely an outsider, far away from the major players in the center of power. The chances of her gaining any sort of national office is as unlikely as, say a former Hollywood actor / ex-governor becoming president.
#17
NRO pointed out that in 2024 Mrs. Palin will be the same age as Sen. Clinton is today. I wonder if she can accomplish anything in the next 16 years?
#18
The chances of her gaining any sort of national office is as unlikely as, say a former Hollywood actor / ex-governor becoming president.
Who lost the primary against the 'bi-partisan' party frump and acting president Ford. We got four years of Carter and are still cleaning up on aisle Iran four because of it. Sarah showed she had the burn in the stomach for the game far more than Fred Thompson. Let Sarah be Sarah and tell the party hacks to either follow or get the hell out of the way.
#19
I agree w/2k. She needs to do like Reagan - learn every facet of the game and all the issues. Then handle business on all the nay sayers next cycle. I wish her well. A lot of supposed professional women & definite lib feminists hate her, partly out of jealousy and partly because she has accomplished through sheer force of will more then they ever will. Let's face it, as a red blooded American male I dig that chick - She's NRA, knows how to hunt, ride an ATV, knows sports, has a sense of humor and is quite a looker. Batting damn near 1000 methinx. Of course all the clog wearing denim skirt fixated femi-trolls hate her - most of them either secretly want her or want to be her. Kind of like when I hear people that are extreme homophobes.
#20
For thsoe that say Gov Palin cost McCain the election..
Exit polls prove you dead wrong. Go read at Michelle Malkin, she has hard numbers.
This is my argument - and it is solid:
Had McCain won CA and FL he would have won the election, we can agree on that.
McCain lost by a HUGE margin in California. He also lost Florida. We can agree on that.
Yet in CA Prop 8 *PASSED*. And in FL the ban on gay marriage passed, not only by majority, but by 62%. Those are FACTS, and not open to negotiation.
Those measures won where McCain lost - and they won by getting FAR more votes than McCain got in either state. That's the truth, the facts of the matter.
Explain then, if social conservatives are so unpopular, how they managed to get their laws enacted?
Did Sarah Palin drive off those people? NO! She was in line with the measures, which allowed for social contracts and legal protections for gays, but reserved marriage for 1 man and 1 woman. In fact she attracted support from Social Conservatives that had abandoned McCain and the GOP prior to her nomination. Poll show it, as to fundraisers, and crowds at rallies.
So Sarah Palin did nto cost McCain the votes of social conservatives.
Then whats that leave you? It leaves McCain.
If those social conservatives got 62% of the vote in Florida, and a majority of votes in California, then how many socially conservative voters abandoned McCain for Obama?
Do the math - its ugly.
Here's the final undeniable answer:
If McCain had simply run as well as Prop 8 in CA and the Gay Marriage amendment in FL, he would have been elected president.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it you social conservative and Palin bashers.
#22
Oldspook, the anti gay marriage referendums passed due to anti gay sentiments of blacks and Hispanics, not to some social conservatism on their part.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2008 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Actually, its not anti-gay, its pro-traditional-marriage. There are a lot of church-going Hispanics and Blacks. The GOP never reached out to them where they had significant common cause.
#24
And I believe McCain and Palin's chances were doomed when they and the entire Republican leadership failed to respond to Democrats and media (I'm being redundant) slamming them for the subprime mortgage market collapse. Until then they were doing quite well and had even taken the lead in polls.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2008 22:34 Comments ||
Top||
#25
And ed, your answer sounds suspiciously like the typical liberal presupposition of ignorant bigotry on the part of people who have socially conservative viewpoints.
#26
The referendums may have been worded to be more pro traditional marriage than anti gay. But growing up in heavily minority communities (primarily Hispanic w/ black minorities) leaves no doubt that the openly expressed anti gay sentiments are not because they are pro marriage.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2008 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
#27
And ed, your answer sounds suspiciously like the typical liberal presupposition of ignorant bigotry
Call it what you want. I call it my observations and experience while growing up and into my 20's. If you check the demographics of those who voted for the Defense of Marriage laws, I believe you will find I am right.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2008 22:42 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Demographics... Like us Catholics who voted for it?
Ive gotten used to living in a moonbat state, Im just not sure how well Im going to adjust to living in a moonbat nation.
Heres how bad this election was. The night before every election, in the final hour of my radio show, I always give any candidate who calls in one minute to make a final pitch to the voters.
Monday night, I had 29 candidates call in, from two states, from U.S. Senate to county commissioner. Yesterday at least 27 of them lost, maybe more, and Im only sure about one guy who won - Sen. Scott Brown.
Last night for Republicans was like 1994 or 1980 for Democrats. They were standing on the shore when a tidal wave hit. The only Republican congressional candidate I saw who ousted a Democrat incumbent was down in Florida. That guy - one of the Rooneys of Pittsburgh Steelers fame - was lucky enough to be running against a one-term incumbent whod just been outed for paying off a female campaign worker $121,000 for sexual harassment.
The Republicans couldnt even take out John Murtha in Pennsylvania after he called his own constituents racists and rednecks.
For once I agree with the moonbats who will shortly run the nation: Its all Bushs fault. Maybe it would have been better if Kerry had knocked him off in - no, I wont go that far, not even now.
Not to sound too much like a 12-step program, but sometimes in life you do have to hit bottom. The Republicans reached their nadir last night.
But lets look on the bright side. Question 2 passed. Marijuana possession has been decriminalized, officially, as opposed to unofficially, which happened here around 1970.
Everybody must get stoned.
I cant believe Question 1 to abolish the state income tax lost by more than 2-1. This now gives everyone at the State House whos not going to Washington carte blanche to raise taxes. You know what the hacks will say: The people of Massachusetts are too smart not to know that they need higher taxes for the children.
All Im left with is an ancient Mr. Dooley column that sums up the devastation when one party gets wiped out. Heres what he said, with the dialect removed:
Something will turn up, you bet. When the lads that are baskin in the sunshine of prosperity find that the sunshine has been turned off an their fellow-baskers has relieved them of what they had in the dark, well take the boys by the hand and say, Come on over with your own kind. Now that youre down well not turn a cold shoulder to you. Come in and well keep ye - broke.
Steve den Beste You probably remember Steve's "USS Clueless" blog from the early days of the WoT; he even made the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal a couple of times. Steve "retired" from commenting on current affairs to devote his writing skills to Japanese anime in 200*. (I couldn't give a fig about anime, but I still read his anime blog because I like Steve's writing.) He's come out of retirement, so to speak, to comment on the election results, and he's spot-on, as always.
It's easy to let yourself go in despair and start thinking things like "We are well-and-truly fucked" or "This is the worst of all possible outcomes". But it isn't true.
I think this election is going to be a "coming of age" moment for a lot of people. They say, "Be careful what you wish for" and a lot of people got their wish yesterday.
And now they're bound to be disappointed. Not even Jesus could satisfy all the expectations of Obama's most vocal supporters, or fulfill all the promises Obama has made.
I think Obama is going to turn out to be the worst president since Carter, and for the same reason: good intentions do not guarantee good results. Idealists often stub their toes on the wayward rocks of reality, and fall on their faces. And the world doesn't respond to benign behavior benignly.
But there's another reason why: Obama has been hiding his light under a basket. A lot of people bought a pig in a poke today, and now they're going to find out what they bought. Obama isn't what most of them think he is. The intoxication of the cult will wear off, leaving a monumental hangover.
And four years from now they'll be older and much wiser.
A lot of bad things are going to happen during this term. But I don't think that this is an irreversible catastrophe for the union. I've lived long enough to absorb this basic truth: the US is too large and too strong to destroy in just 4 years. Or even in 8. We survived 6 years of Nixon. We survived 4 years of Carter. We even survived 8 years of Clinton, God alone knows how.
The President of the United States is the most powerful political figure in the world, but as national executives go his powers are actually quite restricted. Obama will become President, but he won't be dictator or king, let alone deity. He still has to work with the House and the Senate, and he still has to live within Constitutional restrictions, and with a judiciary that he mostly didn't appoint.
The main reason this will be a "coming of age" moment is that now Obama and the Democrats have to put up or shut up. Obama got elected by making himself a blank slate, with vapid promises about "hope" and "change" -- but now he actually has to do something. Now he has to reveal his true agenda. And with the Democrats also having a majority in both chambers of Congress, now the Democrats really have to lead. And they're not going to do a very good job of it. It's going to be amusing to watch.
And the people who fell for the demagoguery will learn an invaluable lesson.
Oh, the Democrats try to blame failure on Republican filibusters, of which there will be many. But that's always been a factor in our system, and many people believe it's an important check on government excess. The tradition in the Senate is that it is supposed to be a buffer against transient political fads, and the filibuster is a major part of that.
If the Democrats go all in, and change the filibuster rule, then they'll have truly seized the nettle with both hands and won't have any excuses any longer. That's why they won't do it. It's their last fig-leaf. But even with the filibuster rule in place, they'll be stuck trying to deliver now on all the promises implied, or inferred, during this election. The Republicans can only filibuster on bills the Democrats have already proposed.
And it ain't possible for the Democrats to deliver what's been promised. Gonna be a hell of a lot of disillusioned lefties out there. A lot of people who felt they were deceived. A lot of people who will eventually realize that the Obama campaign was something of a cult.
Disillusionment will turn to a feeling of betrayal. And that will, in turn, convert to anger.
In the mean time, Obama and Congressional Democrats will do things that cause harm, but very little of it will be irreversible.
I would have enjoyed watching lefty heads explode if McCain had won. But we're going to see lefty heads exploding anyway; it's just going to take longer.
In the mean time, those of us who didn't want Obama to be president have to accept that he is. And let's not give in to the kind of paranoid fever dreams that have consumed the left for the last 8 years. Let us collectively take a vow tonight: no "Obama derangement syndrome". Obama is a politician. He isn't the devil incarnate.
So what are the good sides of what just happened?
1. It is no longer possible for anyone to deny that the MSM is heavily biased. The MSM have been biased for decades but managed an illusion of fairness. That is no longer possible; the MSM have squandered their credibility during this campaign. They'll never get that credibility back again.
2. Since the Democrats got nearly everything they hoped for in this campaign, they'll have no excuses and will have to produce. They'll have to reveal their true agenda -- or else make clear that they don't really have any beyond gaining power.
3. Every few decades the American people have to be reminded that peace only comes with strength. The next four years will be this generation's lesson.
Now, a few predictions for the next four years:
1. Obama's "hold out your hand to everyone" foreign policy is going to be a catastrophe. They'll love it in Europe. They're probably laughing their heads off about it in the middle east already.
2. The US hasn't suffered a terrorist attack by al Qaeda since 9/11, but we'll get at least one during Obama's term.
3. We're going to lose in Afghanistan.
4. Iran will get nuclear weapons. There will be nuclear war between Iran and Israel. (This is the only irreversibly terrible thing I see upcoming, and it's very bad indeed.)
5. There will eventually be a press backlash against Obama which will make their treatment of Bush look mild. Partly that's going to be because Obama is going to disappoint them just as much as all his other supporters. Partly it will be the MSM desperately trying to regain its own credibility, by trying to show that they're not in his tank any longer. And because of that they are eventually going to do the reporting they should have done during this campaign, about Obama's less-than-savory friends, and about voter fraud, and about illegal fund-raising, and about a lot of other things.
and 6. Obama will not be re-elected in 2012. He may even end up doing an LBJ and not even running again.
One last thing: I'm not saying I'm happy with this outcome. I would much rather have had McCain win. But this is not the end of the world, or the end of this nation. We've survived much worse.
And now we need to show the lefties how to lose. Our mission for the next four years is to be in opposition without becoming deranged.
UPDATE: One other good thing: no one will be spinning grand conspiracy theories about this administration's Vice President being an evil, conniving genius who is the true power behind the throne.
Let me add one minor observation to all this excellence: As Steve says:
...Gonna be a hell of a lot of disillusioned lefties out there. A lot of people who felt they were deceived. A lot of people who will eventually realize that the Obama campaign was something of a cult.
Disillusionment will turn to a feeling of betrayal. And that will, in turn, convert to anger.
And when it does, we need to be ready. At that moment, those people who invested so much emotion in Obama will be ripe for conversion. They will be persuadeable. We can make conservatives out of a lot of them if we engage them intelligently and with respect and by presenting ideas in logical fashion. (The Daily Kos approach of TYPING IN ALL CAPS AND INSULTING THE STUPID M----- F---ERS WITH A WHOLE F------ LOT OF F------ PROFANITY AND EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!! is not persuasive. If anything, insult will only make them dig in harder.) I want to win the next round, and the one after that, and that means winning converts.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2008 09:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mike, I believed in making converts.
I stopped talking to AB for nine months or so because he thought it was useless.
We just had eight years of a republican that believed in crossing the aisle and the essential goodness of his opposition. They'll possibly put him on trial somewhere for that.
And we ran a candidate who agreed with the Democrats on a lot of big issues more than he did the republicans. From global warming and immigration to Campaign Finance Reform. (How'd that work out, btw?) Oh, and who tried to run against Bush despite both him and Bush being in agreement about being further to the left than the republican mainstream on all the issues I've talked about.
#4
As usual, Steven DenBeste's essays are logical, sequential, and well thought out. His words are somewhat reassuring. I think that he is right about the left will be disillusioned and angry once they realize that their utopian dream will not come to full fruition.
However, I believe that the damage to this country will be major. A lot will depend upon how moderated democrats, like Hillary react to the openly Marxist agenda that the left will push.
Who will Obama put in his cabinet? US Attorneys? Sec Def? He will have court appointments. Those appointments will be there for a long time. The agenda of the radical left will be pushed. It will be hard to undo it.
Indoctrination by the left will continue and pick up in our universities.
And now the big fly in the ointment. The US is bankrupt. Last month we appropriated almost a trillion dollars in a bailout scheme that the public did not know about. Obama's dream will sink the economy. There is not the revenue to pay for his grand economic plan. Our enemies hold our treasury notes.
I think that it will be the economy that will sink the Obama Dream.
Both the republicans and dems have sucked at the trough so long that they consider it business as usual. Now that the dems control the govt, the decline will accelerate.
This is a time for stout hearts. Take care of your family, your friends, your community. Nobody else will. It is going to be one hell of a ride.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/05/2008 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Holy shit! Steven den Beste!!!
His writing on arab politics and some other foreign stuff really got me into socio-politics. He introduced me to Jacksonian America... which I guess is where I am today.
#6
Good article and good comments. I think Obama's a one-term President for pretty much the same reason Den Beste does. That is assuming Conservatives don't get filled with anger as they did under Clinton. Even when justified that kind of anger just drives people away.
#8
TFSM: Please take what I am about to say in the spirit of friendship in which I offer it.
Do not give up on persuasion. Simple unfocused rage will not get us anywhere. Persuasion does not mean compromising on principle, it means approaching the wavering, disillusioned members of the opposition (when they start wavering and dissilusioning here in a few months) in a way that gets them to agree with us and join our side. Grumbling and grouching and insulting won't do it.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2008 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Sorry I can't agree with the relatively positive spin. The country is now Center-Left -- and it's still lurching that direction. America has passed the point of return.
The schools, media, and culture have created too many non-rational minds; most can't be reached, let alone converted.
Borders. The infiltration will continue at a renewed pace and our culture will become even more unrecognizable.
Obama's victory has now institutionalized corruption -- the voters preferred an obviously corrupt politician -- declaring it no longer matters.
Posted by: Captain Lewis ||
11/05/2008 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Is it too much to ask that the wind be blowing in the right direction when Israel goes down?
I would imagine that Israel will take out the bulk of the ME main population centers if they think they're going down. At least I hope they would. Might teach the surviving gomers a lesson.
#14
Wishful thinking. My guess is that Israel will dither and give in to massive colonization by Palestinians. "Israel" will persist but it won't be a Jewish state any longer. And the triumphant crowing will be echoed by the black nationalists here as well as muslims all around the world. Along the way Europe will go majority muslim in 15 years or so, at a guess.
#17
I dunno, y'all dithered and dithered when it came to letting Syria have Lebanon as its own personal human shield for attacks on Israel, why should the next step in the process be any different?
#20
I'm with Mike all the way! Conservatives managed to overcome tremendous odds after the sixties and seventies through just such tactics as Mike and the author recommend. Are we really at more of a disadvantage now than we were then?
And we have one tool now that we didn't have then: the internet. We talk to each other and support each other, and we're all onto the mass media game. In fact, I was a Clinton supporter back in the day. Discussing politics and reading the wide variety of opinions on the internet made it impossible for me to sustain my belief in my former ideas. I was no longer dependent on a limited amount of information filtered by the Dan Rathers of the world. In fact Steve den Beste, the author of this article, was particularly influential in getting me to understand transnationalism and its relation to the war on terror. It would have been highly unlikely for me to have read him before the digital age.
There are a lot of logical, well-intentioned, but misinformed people out there that can be convinced through reasonable discussion combined with having events show you to be right over time. Let's get out there and do the hard work of winning back voters, one American at a time. In our two party system, one party's high point is usually the start of the other party's comeback. Let's try and keep the pendulum from swinging too high during its leftward swing, and then be ready to give it a good shove the other way when the time is right. People of faith know that God works in mysterious ways, and skeptics know the same about Fate or Time, so let's have a little self-confidence and do what needs to be done.
#21
I think that the real damage that has been done - possibly irreversibly - is to the US process for selecting a President. Obama's victory has validated the following approaches as being not only permissible, but actually rewarding - or even vital:
1. Creating a campaign funding approach that encourages illegal contributions, and makes it impossible to account for who is funding a candidate.
2. Setting a standard that pertinent biographical and historical information - such as college transcripts, passports showing (or perhaps not showing - if holder was using a passport of another nationality) travel to prohibited destinations - is permissible to conceal.
3. Establishing ground-level canvassing operations - orchestrated by a centralized interstate entity - that systematically engages in racketeering to carry out massive voter fraud.
4. Cultivating an environment where unfortunate non-professionals - ordinary citizens who have the misfortune to be identified while exercising an opportunity to question, challenge, or criticize a candidate's stand on a controversial issue - face systematic shredding of any semblance of privacy or confidentiality of any information stored in government records.
All in all, I fear that the 2008 Presidential campaign set a new standard that will used as a fundamental baseline, from which ever more outrageous conduct will germinate.
Obama is living, breathing proof that if you lack the fitness to earn the Presidency you can make up for it by sufficiently aggressive thuggery.
I was thinking today about where I would fit Obama's ascendancy to the Presidency within my spectrum of "painful tragedies that the entire United States has had to endure".
I started my list:
1. The US Civil War
2. Slavery
3. World War II
4. The Great Depression (possibly soon to be rechristened "The First Depression")
5. The attacks of 9-11
6. The seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran
7. The influenza (Spanish Flu) outbreak of 1918
At Right about this point, I started considering that I was "getting warm" as far as inserting Obama into the list. But - I then figured that the tragic phase really has not yet transpired. So - we will just have to give Obama time to put his imprint of the national character.
I have a really bad feeling about the future that awaits the US in 2009 and 2010. The threats that America will face will not necessarily originate from anything that Obama did - but we will have to respond under Obama's leadership. He does not impress me as someone to instill confidence during a crisis.
#22
I agree with a lot den Bese says. I enjoyed his "USS Clueless" until he quit writing there. I also need to comment on something that one of the Powerline writers said: that Obama is President of ALL the United States, and deserves our support (and prayers) in that position. I agree with that to a point. As long as B.O. follows and respects the Constitution, and the legal structure of the United States as it currently stands, he will have my grudging but full support. If he crosses the line, however, and begins doing things that are against the Constitution of the United States, he will become my enemy, regardless of the position he holds. I'll give him a fair hearing, but I won't stand for tampering with the guarantees of individual freedom in the Constitution. We'll also have to watch the Democratic congress as they attempt to circumvent the Constitution with things like the "Fairness Doctrine" and other unConstitutional bullsh$$.
Colorado elected a second Democratic senator yesterday, mainly on the strength of his showing in the Denver metro area. We now have two (D)s. That won't stop me from hounding them into the ground if I feel they've stepped out of line, and the Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News is going to get quite sick of my letters.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/05/2008 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#23
In the meantime, let the GOP house cleaning begin in earnest. Today. Let's build on the new blood we have and expand it. The one demographic that heald strong for the GOP was the working middle class. Throw off the RINOs and get back to Reagan's coalition of Middle America, and do not get in the way of the Dems hanging themselves.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/05/2008 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#24
It has started already!
Medvedev: Russia to deploy missiles near Poland
By STEVE GUTTERMAN, Associated Press Writer Steve Gutterman, Associated Press Writer 54 mins ago
MOSCOW Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.
Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia's war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.
He said he hoped the next U.S. administration would act to improve relations. In a separate telegram, he congratulated Barack Obama on his election victory and said he was hoping for "constructive dialogue" with the incoming U.S. president.
Medvedev also proposed increasing the Russian presidential term to six years from the current four, a major constitutional change that would further increase the power of the head of state and could deepen Western concern over democracy in Russia.
The president said the Iskander missiles will be deployed to Russia's Kaliningrad region, which lies between Poland and the ex-Soviet republic of Lithuania on the Baltic Sea, but did not say how many would be used. Equipment to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic will be deployed, he said.
He did not say whether the short-range Iskander missiles would be fitted with nuclear warheads and it was not clear exactly when the missiles would be deployed.
"Mechanisms must be created to block mistaken, egoistical and sometimes simply dangerous decisions of certain members of the international community," he said shortly after starting the 85-minute speech, making it clear he was referring to the United States.
The president said Georgia sparked the August war on its territory with what he called "barbaric aggression" against Russian-backed South Ossetia. The conflict "was, among other things, the result of the arrogant course of the American administration, which did not tolerate criticism and preferred unilateral decisions."
Medvedev also painted Russia as a country threatened by growing Western military might.
"From what we have seen in recent years, the creation of a missile defense system, the encirclement of Russia with military bases, the relentless expansion of NATO, we have gotten the clear impression that they are testing our strength," Medvedev said.
He announced deployment of the short-range missiles as a military response to U.S. plans to deploy missile-defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic former Soviet satellites that are now NATO members.
Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. not the Kremlin to seek to improve relations.
"I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," Medvedev said.
Tension in Russian-American relations has been driven to a post-Cold War high by Moscow's war with U.S. ally Georgia.
On the financial crisis, Medvedev said overconfidence in American dominance after the collapse of the Soviet Union "led the U.S. authorities to major mistakes in the economic sphere." The administration ignored warnings and harmed itself and others by "blowing up a money bubble to stimulate its own growth," he said.
Medvedev said the president's tenure should be lengthened to six years to enable the government to more effectively implement reforms. He said the term of the parliament also should be extended by a year to five years, and that parliament's power must be increased by requiring the Cabinet to report to lawmakers regularly.
The proposals were Medvedev's first major initiative to amend the constitution since he was elected in March to succeed his longtime mentor Vladimir Putin.
Putin, who is now prime minister and has not ruled out a return to the Kremlin in the future, has favored increasing the presidential term.
#25
Lone Ranger, add to the list our own birth. The American War of Independence was a long painful experience. The war in the southern colonies was for all intents and purposes a civil war in its own right. It took a major adjustment for many to admit they had to give up on expecting justice from the King and crown for which up till then they held as family. Benjamin Franklin and his son, a royalist, never reconciled and the latter joining thousands of Tory Crown Loyalist in departing the newly independent nation.
From that period, the words of Gen. Nathaniel Greene - "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again."
#26
Folks, Republicans have only themselves to blame for this:
Bush was obviously blindsided by the mortgage meltdown and that was huge. It was like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. No Republican president should ever let the donks put him in that position again without at least screaming bloody murder beforehand. And you gotta watch 'em. You cannot underestimate their corruption and cynicism. And don't try to tell voters how it all started with Jimmuh Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act because, sadly, they won't understand. There wasn't enough time to make them understand.
Republicans need a candidate who is younger, who looks stronger and, yes, sexier on TV. It's sad but true. A full head of hair helps and it's better if the hair isn't white. Vitality helps. Maybe I'm describing Mitt Romney or maybe Sarah Palin. I ended up with a lot of respect and admiration for McCain. I believe he really is a heroic figure who sacrificed more than most people can even imagine. But you just can't put a beat up old man against the likes of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama with all their sex appeal and charisma.
Republicans need a conservative candidate in 2012 but one who is also personable enough to appeal to moderates and independents.
Republicans need to clean house. I believe most voters see them as being just as crooked as Democrats, if not even more so. They all had the faces in the trough.
And, personally, I'd would prefer a candidate who is alarmed like I am about sending our money to China and Soddy Arabia and who can propose some realistic remedies. I understand about globalization but these people are our enemies. It's foolish and dangerous to pretend otherwise.
I'd also like a candidate who will raise hell about the border and forget about amnesty. Republicans lost California because they allowed it to be overrun with illegal aliens. I noticed that Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico also went blue. Once the Hispanics become settled and prosperous it may be possible to convince them to vote Republican. But that will take years, generations. In the meantime aliens vote Democrat and they made conservative voters believe that Bush and McCain are crooked.
We don't have to strike Iran. Between Mugambi's economic policy (looting the middle class on behalf of the proles)---which will bring on a Depression relating to the "Great" the way WWII related to the "Great War" and his environmental policies, the price of oil will keep dropping. Not just Iran, but Arab oil ticks as well, will no longer will be able to bribe their subjects and oilless neighboors into complacency. Arabs especially, are going to fight each other like a pack of starving dogs over a bone. Iran will do slightly better---they're a real Nation rather than a pack of tribes pretending to nationhood---nevertheless social order will colapse and with it any threat of a concerted action against Israel (we may have to retroactively abort a few thousand Paleos and Leb Shias in the interium).
#28
Good point g(r)om - however there is that thingy about nations, when in dire straits, tend to do dire things in the name of national unity.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/05/2008 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Ebbang: Something to take note of: Proposition 8 (the marriage definition) passed in California because conservative Blacks and Hispanics voted for it. There are people in the "Democrat" demographics who are with us on at least some major parts of the conservative agenda. We can swing 'em over to our side. It may be sooner than you think.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2008 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#30
"Republicans need a conservative candidate in 2012 but one who is also personable enough to appeal to moderates and independents."
Schwarzenegger would be ideal, were it not for the "natural-born" restriction.
Being the governor of a state as blue as California (his term limited to 2010) ought prove he qualifies for the "appealing to moderates" part. But of course an amendment would be required beforehand. I don't think many liberals would be opposed to it either so it might pass.
#32
We'll see, gromgoru. The Saudi and Gulf royals are quite well diversified in their investments. They need oil revenues to pacify the younger generation, though. As far as knowing Israel, I've been there and done business there - including with the defense establishment. But you all have changed a lot in the last 20 years and not for the better.
#36
The Democrats were desperately in need of a charismatic leader. They saw their hope in a needy man, a narcissist who portrayed himself as self assured, eloquent and authoritative and had sex appeal. It was love at first sight and they set on to polish him as their candidate. In this relationship the Democratic Party became the co-dependant of the narcissist Obama. They needed someone to shine so they can bask in his splendor. And Obama needed them to fulfill his delusions of grandiosity. This is how codependency works. It is a sick symbiosis of two needy parties. Behind every successful narcissist, there is always a co-dependent.
When the co-dependent and the narcissist team-up the result can be catastrophic. Now we have folie à deux. The delusional belief of the narcissist about himself is transmitted and shared by another needy, but ostensibly smart person. The codependent validates and encourages the narcissist's delusion. As the result, the narcissist becomes bolder, more assertive, more authoritative and more confident. The partnership of the narcissist and the codependent dons their delusion with the mantle of credibility. The codependent will then do everything to persuade others as well. The narcissist's cause is himself. The codependent will champion that cause. By recruiting others, they find validation for their own belief about the narcissist. Soon the folie à deux becomes folie à trois, then folie à quatre, and when you are a presidential candidate and are followed by a hoard of journalists and cameramen, before you blink there will be folie à plusieurs (madness of many). Recent psychiatric classifications refer to the syndrome as shared psychotic disorder.
The masses of people have no first hand knowledge of the narcissist, but they jump on the bandwagon thanks to a very human trait, misnomered as herd mentality. They reason, how can so many people be wrong and satisfied by this fallacy blindly join the cult of personality worship.
#37
"The US is too large [big] and too strong to destroy [defeat] in just 4 years. Or even in 8..." > YEP, WHICH IS WHY THE ISLAMISTS + ALIGNED ARE PRAGMATICALLY GOING AFTER STATES OTHER THAN AMERICA.
Radical Islamism is going all-out to de facto destabilize iff not destroy the present Eurasian and World Order, NOT RIGHT AWAY BUT OVER TIME,starting in ASIA VEE RUSSIA, CHINA, INDIA whom coincidentally are also not only NUCLEAR POWERS/STATES = REALIST SOURCES FOR PROCUR ADVANCED NUC/MILTECHS, ETC RESOURCES BUT WHOM ARE ALSO GEOPOL COMPETITORS TO [future] DESIRED GLOBAL ISLAMIST ORDER.
Just watched Wonder Boys speech. Hmph. Callused hands? When did he ever have callused hands?
All right, I'm sour. The most liberal member of the U.S. Senate! And that shakedown-artist of a wife, with the permanent frown! And Joe Biden!
I'm sour about the GOP too. What did it all get us, those 8 years of pandering and spending? If GWB had turned his face against new entitlements, closed the borders, deported the illegals, held the line on calls to loosen mortgage-lending standards, starved the Department of Education, and declined those invitations to mosque functions, would the GOP be in any worse shape now?
What won this election was the packaging skills of David Axelrod, the swooning complicity of the media, the ruthless opportunism of Barack Obama, and the unprincipled thuggishness of his supporters.
What lost this election was the cloth-eared cluelessness of George W. Bush, the timid squeamishness of John McCain, and the deep lack of interest in conservative principles among Republican primary voters.
Sour? You bet Im sour. Where was conservatism in this election? Where was restraint in government? Where was national sovereignty? Where was liberty? Where was self-support? And where are those things now? Where are they headed this next four years? Down the toilet, thats where. Pah!
#1
If GWB had done everything Derb wanted, he would have been someone else. Saying the swooning complicity of the media doesn't begin to get at the essence, that the media has abdicated its role of informing the public and become a propaganda organ.
#3
We have close to 2 1/2 months before he is POTUS officially. In that time anything can happen that will test him ex officio - Israel and Iran? China and Taiwan? The economy responds by going further in the tank? The media tries to resurrect their honor and lost revenue by becoming belatedly skeptical and inquiring? Oil zooms to new heights during a cold winter? People feel entitled to take and take and riots in the streets ensue? Ayers, Wright, Klonsky re-emerge as more than just neighbors or preachers? Rezko spills more than his guts? ACORN indictments? Rush, Hannity, Boortz, et.al. get really in your face since the fairness doctrine is now clearly in play? At this point in time he has a 52+% approval rating. What do you think it will be by inauguration day?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
11/05/2008 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Inauguration is a while off but Pelosi and Reid will call Congress back into session immediately and push major packages through well before then.
#5
Maybe George will grow a set of big ones on domestic issues and veto everything the dems vote on in the lame duck session.
what a bunch of crap. The Republicans were dealt a pat hand with the dems nominating a nobody and they blew it.......big time.
McCain's squeamishness? You betcha, he should have gone after BO's associations, his corrupt fund raising, Odinga, Khalidi, Ayers, the Mortgage crisis, the Do Nothing Congress, All of this could/should have played to McCain' advantage. Obviously McCain has no killer's instinct when it comes to politics.
Can I say that flyboys don't know how to get their hands dirty, if there is a dirty job to do, bring in a ground pounder.
Can we nominate Patreaus the next time?
Posted by: James Carville ||
11/05/2008 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Since Ike there has been only one time when a party has controlled the Presidency for more than two terms. That was Reagan/Bush. Americans don't like anyone in control for too long these days so to some extent it was inevitable. Add to that the other issues Derb mentioned and it's a miracle McCain did as well as he did.
Don't see generals being partisan. One McCain is enough.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2008 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Don't see generals being partisan. One McCain is enough.
McCain was not a general. Generals and admirals eg Admiral John S Thatch (Thatch Weave, big blue blanket, important contributions to doctrine on anti-submarine warfare) are supposed to have bigger brains than pilots eg McCain who don't reach this stage.
#9
General Colin Powell, and whatisname who ran for president after he almost started a war with the Soviet Union over Bosnia. But most of them are pretty smart about keeping their opinions out of the spotlight.
I think Senator McCain retired as a colonel, after having commanded a base for one year.
I have been told that in the US armed forces there is a BIG divider between colonels and generals both in power and in numbers, far more than between colonels and liuetenant-colonels (do you have such?) or inside the general body.
In other words colonels are a dime a dozen. Generals are different thing
Posted by: AZ Driller ||
11/05/2008 17:26 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Nope but they have something with basically the same pay and attributions. They also the divide between admirals (be they full, rear or fleet) and c
Posted by: ot ||
11/05/2008 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
#13
"the deep lack of interest in conservative principles among Republican primary voters."
Consider that most of the "Republican Primary Voters" that put McCain in there are not Republicans at all.
Put NH and Iowa LAST. No more open primaries, especially in BLUE states.
#2
I believe his ONENESS will become quite attached to the personal trappings of power of POTUS. As such HE, personally will do nothing to upset the electorate and so that he can HOPE for no CHANGE in 2012. What he WILL do is appoint a series of appointees to do all the unpopular stuff, and toss each one under the bus in turn. While his ONENESS remains above it all.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
11/05/2008 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I agree with the Minister of Funny Walks but I do hope Obama outlaws the term "thrown under the bus" we've got to be able to come up with a better metaphor, no bus could handle the carnage so far, and no bus driver would continue forward with someone tossing people willy-nilly beneath his tires.
I was just watching numerous young Obama fans celebrating on the Fox News channel and read the stats scrolling across the bottom of the page. They stated that over 60% of voters who were worried about the economy voted for Obama. That, for me, summed it up in a nutshell. So many right-leaning types are trying hard to figure out what they did, what the Republicans did, and why they lost. Each election cycle, there's always a theme. For the last two elections, it was Iraq and national security.
Now those issues are in the background and this time around, it's the economic crisis, with a little (or a lot) of help from the media in pushing it to the forefront in people's minds. Why is this important? Because rather than think the country is going through some incredible demographic shift of Republican-hating left-wing ideology, it is rather comforting to know that the major reason people voted for Obama in this election was the economy. McCain was actually polling pretty well right before the economic crisis. Next election cycle, it will be something else. It might favor the Republicans or it might not. But to think that the entire philosophy of individual rights, small government, national security and gun rights is lost on a new generation of voters based on this one election is not only foolish, it shows a degree of cynicism that may not be accurate. The next two or three election cycles will need to be evaluated before we can can say that America has rejected the ideas of free markets and free minds.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2008 13:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Obama will be given three envelopes by George Bush who'll advise him to only open them sequentially when the crap hits the fan. He'll open and use the first one even before election day - Blame everything on your predecessor. [George Bush only got till April of his first year before the media stuck him with the economy, but being good lap dogs, they'll be able to cover till the start of the third year.] That's when he'll open the second envelope - Reorganize. [Knowing that the next election is now fully on the way, he'll have to sacrifice some staff who'll need to move on for 'other job opportunities' or for 'family'.] Shortly before the 2012 election when things are tight, he'll open the third envelope which will read - Prepare three envelopes.
#2
The financial meltdown was reflected in polls swinging 10% to Obama (-3 to +7).
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2008 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think Dr. Smith is right. From the first days of the primary campaign, every political analyst understood that the ONLY way for a Republican to win in November was to have the economy chugging along briskly. That didn't happen and we got Obama as a result.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/05/2008 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
When the US Economy is humming we are that shining beacon on the hill with power to spare both hard and soft. I'm amazed that so many politicians lost site of that and kept digging.
#5
...it's the economic crisis, with a little (or a lot) of help from the media in pushing it to the forefront in people's minds.
A little help from the media? How about that the MSM was in the bag for BO? How about the incessant drumbeat day after day for BO and the negative press for McCain. How about the fact that the MSM never, ever has really looked into BO's background or experiences or if they did, we never heard anything of it.
Barack Obama had been running for President ever since he was elected to the Senate--maybe before.
#6
Delusion and panic of crowds never fails to amuse. At least FDR's one of FDR's lies sounded good "we have nothing to fear . . .", when, of course, there was plenty to fear.
Though it may be long remembered for what may prove trivial - "the first black man . . .", this may also be remembered as a pathetically normal election. Given how close the past few elections were, and how weird the repeat Perot/Nader influences were, this is merely a return to the norm - a close, but clear decision, nothing near blowouts of the recent past ('84, '72, '64) nor the more distant past ('32, '20, etc.)
If the dems overreach claiming a mandate, as W did to a brief extent, they're almost certain to tempt fate and lure the compliant media further into bankruptcy.
As always, couple best wishes with low expectations.
#7
Okay, I'll bite [again], iff Jan. 2009 - 2012/2016 Post-Dubya Period = SOCIALISM IN AMERIKA [Budget-National Regressionisms], and in the absence of ANY CLEAR WINNER IN THE GWOT NOR FOR ONE NATION OR CAMP TO DOMINATE OR EVEN SET UP ANY DESIRED OWG-NWO, WHY DO MANY AMERICANS = AMERIKANS THINK MOULA BOULLAH US $$$, NOT REGRESSIONS, WILL BE FOREVER AND PERMANENTLY A'COMIN THEIR WAY???
IRAN, etc. wants the US out of the ME, whereas ASIA = RUSSIA, CHINA, + INDIA, etal CAN'T DECIDE IFF THEY PREFER OVERTHROW-MINDED LOCAL ISLAMISTS + PERENNIAL VIOLENT SECTARIANISM, VERSUS HAVING A US-WESTERN MIL PRESENCE IN EAST-SOUTH ASIA!?
#8
Actually, this may be weird to say, but this fits within my own End Times theory, re iran, iraq... anyway, what must happen happens, so there's no use in crying over spilt milk, just wait & see. It's not the End of The world (despite my bit above). Also, if I may be selfish, I just hope this will lessen a bit the idea than europeans are a breed apart. Given the same constraints (massification & crubmling down of the public education system, msm & entertainment complex as a political actor bent on shaping society, welfare-based clientelism, nurtured white guilt & ethnomasochism), well, you got the same results. You basically have the same problems as we euros do, with the same threats to face, and while your culture probably is healthier in its fundamentals, we're on the same boat. obama is a perfect storm, not a singular anomaly out of nothing, out of a pre-60's America.
#9
Its democracy folks. The people have spoken. In a democracy we respect that, and we respect our president. We the people elected him.
Bush came to office as a peacetime leader with a functioning economy.
He's left embroiled in 2 wars that are being lost (though he claims they've been winning for 5 years or more) and an economy that is in tatters. And still he can't find those WMDs.
Its unsurprising that the people voted for something else.
Live with it. You lost. Obama won. He's the people's choice. This is the USA. Its how it works. The economy is wrecked and we're losing 2 wars. Things will get better because Mr Bush has ensured they can't get any worse.
#12
Its democracy folks. The people have spoken. In a democracy we respect that, and we respect our president. We the people elected him.
Indeed.
Bush came to office as a peacetime leader with a functioning economy.
On the ass end of the dotcom bubble bust and on the cusp of a massive terrorist attack being executed which required those two wars.
...t embroiled in 2 wars that are being lost (though he claims they've been winning for 5 years or more) and an economy that is in tatters. And still he can't find those WMDs.
Wars being prosecuted without the support of almost half the country with men and women in harm's way which almost half the country lies and undermines their own support for every step of the way. Thanks, lefty, for your help.
Oh, by the way. I support Barak Obama. I just don't support his policies. You will be hearing a lot of that over the next four years.
Its unsurprising that the people voted for something else.
Live with it. You lost. Obama won. He's the people's choice. This is the USA. Its how it works. The economy is wrecked and we're losing 2 wars. Things will get better because Mr Bush has ensured they can't get any worse
Very droll, and thankyouverymuch, I have to "live with it" just as the element in our society that voted a left wing government in place.
I support Barak Obama: I just don't support his policies.
#13
Its democracy folks. The people have spoken. In a democracy we respect that, and we respect our president. We the people elected him.
He bought this election in good part with massive financial and voter fraud, aided and abetted by the media. He muscled his way into the nomination by, among other things, physically preventing Clinton supporters from casting their votes in caucuses.
I for one won't forget that. *I* didn't elect him - the untraceable money from Europe and the Middle East and the Arab phone banks did.
#17
Obama says different things in front of different groups. he has not actually done much of anything, other than win elections. He votes "present" whenever possible.
Our first look at WHO Obama really is will be his appointments. I expect a jar of acadamia nuts.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
11/05/2008 7:56 Comments ||
Top||
#18
The "flee to Canada" thing was an emotional response when the lefties were whining after the Bush re-election, but for some people, moving to another country is now something to be seriously considered, because Congress has threatened to tax retirement savings. It is a version of the "wealth tax" idea. Since we are now being told by Congressman Rick Moran that Republicans have the "simplistic" idea that people should be allowed to keep their own money, it seems the wealth tax idea is now on the table.
The financial models for retirement are pretty sensitive to contingencies, such as an upturn in inflation, poor investment returns (very relevant now), insurance premium costs, taxes, etc. A perfect storm in these variables can make or break a secure retirement. Of course one could always get a job, but working in Macdonalds at age 75 is not very appealing. So my question is, anyone know a good tax haven country? I understand that Switzerland has a very high cost of living. And another question, what tax penalties are there for taking money out of the country?
#19
Nah, our leading indicator of how successful Obama will be is the number of illegal aliens we have.
Seriously consider that before you laugh it off. If life in Sinaloa looks pretty good by comparison, and they stay home or "voluntarily self-deport"....I'm sure it's not long before potential legal immigrants make the same calculation. The headaches of staying here legally ain't worth it if the situation (economic/civil liberties) doesn't reward the applicant.
Foreign investors probably won't like what they see going on here either in that case, and no amount of unicorns farting rainbows can change that.
#20
QYWR, the video of the woman saying that Obama was going to pay her mortgage and put gas in her tank is a window into why Obama got elected.
Envy, the little soul-killer. In its ugliest rendition - that breed of envy that pretends to be concern for "economic justice".
Don't kid yourself that his election was based upon a whole lot more than envy plus Gramscian decay of the West.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/05/2008 8:06 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Look into Mexico Thor Grairt5784,
They have no income tax, you don't have to explain where the money comes from since they don't have an IRS, and cost of living is still quite low if you are prepared to walk more than 100ft. to the beach.
Last time I looked, the peso was 13.125 to a dollar, the girls are cute, the beer is cold, the weather is warm all year. What else could you ask for? Just get your shots before you leave.
#22
Bush came to office as a peacetime leader with a functioning economy.
The first war with Iraq brought a cease-fire not a peace. Bill Clinton maintained continuous troop rotations through Kuwait and combat air patrols over Iraq for eight years because there was not peace. Osama had already declared war against the United States and while the Clinton Administration treated it like a law enforcement issue, the war was carried not only through installations overseas and against our embassy in Kenya and Tanzania [oh, how you forget], his agents were already well long in the way to a direct assault upon the US [oh, forget 9/11 too, that just spontaneously happen overnight]. We were at war, the main characters just played as though it didn't exist till it couldn't be ignored anymore.
If you were actually concerned about FACTS, the economy was already on the way down when Bush took office in January 2001 and the media as early as April were tagging him with the recession that was developing.
As already noted, we've won the one in Iraq. So take your drivel and sell it to the gullible.
You must be thinking like George W. I believe he bought 100,000 acres there a coupla years ago. If the Dummos start prosecuting him for "war crimes", look for him to be visiting there on an extended basis.
#24
Also, if I may be selfish, I just hope this will lessen a bit the idea than europeans are a breed apart.... You basically have the same problems as we euros do
Yes - it took massive illegal campaign financing from Europeans and the Middle East but now we're brought down to the same level. No doubt that is a comfort to all on the continent.
#25
bigjim, thanks for that info. I didn't know about their tax policy. I wonder about the stability of the country though, what with drug lords running amok.
#26
After reading QuitYerWhingingRednecks' comments, I am now convince that the automated CommieBlocker is malfunctioning again on Rantburg. Would someone please fix it.
#27
The social issues don't bother me.
The economic issues will have essentially the same treatment regardless of administration.
Socialized medicine was inevitable (cost increases are unsustainable), even though it is no panacea.
Gun control sucks, but the population doesn't have the guts for a revolution anyway.
Energy will continue to be mismanaged. Just differently mismanaged.
That leaves defense. Including the war with Islamofascism. I fear we just surrendered. It just may take a few years to realize it.
#28
No doubt that is a comfort to all on the continent.
Lotp, no confort for me, rest assured of that, this really disturbs me, because I see that election as the last bastion falling. I don't know where the USA will go from there, but what I see as the West has been sliding into a rising sea of socialism since the 20th century, and now the only land left aside has been engulfed by the waves. Believe me, I really think this is a sad day.
As for the confort to others in Europe, well, let them enjoy that, why not? I mean, I don't watch the french msm, but I figure they're extatic... the chattering class must be too, all the anti-americans (left & right) as well... the people in power must be a bit wary of having to cope with such an unknwon and unproven quantity, but they must see that as a good develoment (everything that weaksn the USa is good for France/the EU)...
Hey, at least, when those people and the msm-spoon fed french public will celebrating that over the coming weeks, they won't think about the 20-25% and growing of non-european in the french population, with aging and non-fertile white europeans crowded by younger africans (about 30-40% of birthes already), about how since 30 YEARS, the french state has to borrow 25% of its budget JUST to keep the machine flowing, how 17% or so of french people are the only productive part of the economy that is milked to subsidize the unproductive parts, how unemployment is actually around 19%, not 7-8%, how our social security system taxes 50% of even minimum-wages workers, to proovide substandard service, and a retirement ponzi scheme that simply CANNOT work much longer and will collapse in less than a decade,...
There will be major problems overseas including:
1) Russian recapture of "lost" republics.
2) Iranian surrogates attacking Israel
3) Iranian stooges taking over Iraq
4) China making some sort of strong move on Taiwan
5) Venezuela making a move on Columbia
Economically we will see:
1) massive inflation due to soaring energy costs
2) large tax increases
3) high unemployment
4) high interest rates
5) large restrictions on free trade will echo Smoot-Hawley
6) Massive federal deficit increases as more money is poured into the UN programs and welfare schemes (that gas has to be paid for), healthcare etc.
Rights will be curtailed:
1) Free speech will be attacked via a new "fairness" doctrine that will also by expanded to include the Net and Cable venues.
2) mass expansions of gun control beyond the re-imposition of Clinton "assault" rifle bans.
3) ultra-liberal judges will invent more "positive" rights.
#31
I feared this. We're getting the government we deserve. I'm investing in canned food and shotgun shells.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
11/05/2008 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#32
There will be major problems There already are major problems.
There already is an immense economic crisis unfolding. Its ultimate dimensions are unknown. Economists, financial wizards and the best and the brightest world and business leaders have proven themselves totally inadequate to comprehend, much less deal with, what is happening. The media has failed to do its basic job, which is to simply describe what is happening.
A massive tax increase will just guarantee economic collapse, more than would otherwise happen. High unemployment is inevitable -- business profits & activity have been supported by insane amounts of leverage, when this leaves, so will jobs. High interest rates are extremely likely once lenders (especially foreign ones like China) grasp the situation they are in. Spending vast amounts of national treasury to import oil from people who want to destroy us is no substitute for a rational national energy policy. We already have a massive federal deficit increase with all the bailouts & other scams currently in play.
It looks like Iran will go nuclear. It doesn't look like Israel will consent to annihilation by Iran without putting up one hell of a fight.
#34
Talk of leaving the nation is foolish. Either leave (I suggest Australia) or stay and help fix the country and convert people to your way of thinking, but don't whine or even joke about bolting. That's so Alec Baldwin.
#35
SDB also said the press has lost its credibility. Whatever the press goes on to for the next 4 years, some of their companies will go out of business.
#36
Re: 34. Spot on! This country is worth fighting for, and we all survived the Clinton years, didn't we? I thought the belly-aching and spineless whiners who run away from every challenge were on the Left?!
Alec Baldwin ain't my role model.
Posted by: Dar ||
11/05/2008 15:40 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Some press maygo out of business, but not because they've lost credibility. The vast majority of Americans are oblivious to just how manipulated this election was.
Press may go out of business due to the Internet - or won't, if the Dems pass sufficiently protective fairness legislation.
#38
Dar, I'm no wimp and I'm in it for the country But Clinton was not elected through massive voter fraud and even more massive acceptance of illegal foreign funds. (His were lesser and came in a couple big chunks rather than hundreds of millions of dollars that cannot be traced.)
That makes a difference. The press did all they could to keep Obama's open solicitation of funds from Europeans from being a major campaign issue. They succeeded. And so now we have the precedent of brazen flauting of basic election laws being embraced by a good part of the electorate.
Along with that we saw Murtha, Jefferson and Stevens re-elected easily. How obvious can it be that a lot of voters are perfectly happy to have corruption in Congress so long as they think they will get a handout in exchange?
It depresses me deeply to see so little regard for our constitutional processes and for integrity.
#41
I am from down here in TEXAS. You know, the place the voted SQUARLEY AGAINST Hussein. Well, when Hussein opens the border to Mexico and them Meskins start flooding in we are going to meet them at the border with free transportation. Cattle Trailors. And we are going to take them straight up to DC and dump them out on the White House lawn.
This is going to be the most fun turd throwing 4 years in American History! YYYEEEEEEEEHH
HHHHHAAAAAAWWWWWWW!!
#44
FYI you dumbfuck Mao-bama fools, *I* did not lose. McCain did. He ran as a decidedly non-conservative, and ran one of the more inept campaigns in recent times - he gave nobody a reason to vote FOR him, he waffled, he bailed out the big banks, and never found a proper voice fro economics until Joe the Plumber said something -- he also did not call into question the funding fiasco and felonies committed by ACRON on behalf of the Obama campaign and all the illegal donations as well, the repeated lies and self-contradictions of Obama, and the repeated broken promises of Obama, not to mention the lack of experience under pressure, and the large number of questionable associates of Obama.
I could go on and on. McCain LOST. Not me, nor my principles - since McCain did not run as a conservative but as a "bipartisan".
Want evidence? Prop 8 passed. The Gay Marriage ban in Florida passed. Exit polls show the following breakdown in self identification: 34% conservative, 44% moderate, 22% liberal
All that happened is that the press hid the REAL obama, and the GOP did nto run a conservative, but a mushy Bush type.
#45
VARIOUS NET POSTERS > a COVERT MASSIVE SOCIALIST TAKEOVER OF THE US-WORLD HAS OCCURRED = IS OCCURRING, AND US VOTERS HELPED DO IT, AS PER AMERICA, AND WID THEIR EYES OPEN???
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
