The Democrats have found their "do you support the troops" question.
I always cringed when Republicans tormented anti-war Democrats with that interrogatory. Do you support our troops who are in harm's way? It was a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" kind of question. If you did NOT support the troops you were the worst kind of freeloading ingrate, running down the way of life our fighting men have fought and died to keep. If you supposedly did support our troops, then how could you say such ugly things about our president and his war while our troops were in the field fighting for your freedom?
It was always an ugly spectacle.
Unfortunately, what goes around comes around.
Fast forward: the Democrats have found their cudgel.
"Do you hope the President fails?"
Of course not! His success will be our success. Right? I have written and articulated that line myself many times since November 4th.
The first time Rush Limbaugh said he hoped this president would fail I winced. I knew immediately that it was a horrible public relationships misstep. Worse than that, it struck me as the perfect example of partisanship run amok. Limbaugh obviously hated Democrats more than he loved America.
Why? We are in an exceedingly precarious position. Wishing for the failure of this president is tantamount to hoping for a national economic cataclysm. If this president does not meet the exigencies that threaten our union, the next president may be too late.
But that was before this president showed his true colors and proposed New Deal 3.0. Now that it is clear that this president is determined to turn back the clock on the Reagan Revolution and lead us into the promised land of a European-style welfare state, it is not so easy to say I hope he succeeds. In my heart of hearts, I am convinced his program of unabashed liberal restoration would be disastrous for our nation at any juncture--but especially so in our currently compromised state of economic weakness and indebtedness.
Therefore, I guess I am with Limbaugh for now. I hope the guy fails in his current push for radical transformation of American society.
Do You Hope the President Fails?
Get ready to be beat about the head with this malicious question as a basic measure of your patriotism and good will.
I always cringed when Republicans tormented anti-war Democrats with that interrogatory. Do you support our troops who are in harm's way? It was a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" kind of question. If you did NOT support the troops you were the worst kind of freeloading ingrate, running down the way of life our fighting men have fought and died to keep. If you supposedly did support our troops, then how could you say such ugly things about our president and his war while our troops were in the field fighting for your freedom?
It was always an ugly spectacle.
Unfortunately, what goes around comes around.
Fast forward: the Democrats have found their cudgel.
"Do you hope the President fails?"
Of course not! His success will be our success. Right? I have written and articulated that line myself many times since November 4th.
The first time Rush Limbaugh said he hoped this president would fail I winced. I knew immediately that it was a horrible public relationships misstep. Worse than that, it struck me as the perfect example of partisanship run amok. Limbaugh obviously hated Democrats more than he loved America.
Why? We are in an exceedingly precarious position. Wishing for the failure of this president is tantamount to hoping for a national economic cataclysm. If this president does not meet the exigencies that threaten our union, the next president may be too late.
But that was before this president showed his true colors and proposed New Deal 3.0. Now that it is clear that this president is determined to turn back the clock on the Reagan Revolution and lead us into the promised land of a European-style welfare state, it is not so easy to say I hope he succeeds. In my heart of hearts, I am convinced his program of unabashed liberal restoration would be disastrous for our nation at any juncture--but especially so in our currently compromised state of economic weakness and indebtedness.
Therefore, I guess I am with Limbaugh for now. I hope the guy fails in his current push for radical transformation of American society.
Do You Hope the President Fails?
Get ready to be beat about the head with this malicious question as a basic measure of your patriotism and good will.
27/02: Victory in Iraq?
Today the President announced the intended withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
While I am grateful that he seized this moment to salute our military and briefly recognize the most-overlooked hero in the recent happy turn of events in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, the President took great pains NOT to characterize the wind-down to this six-year conflict as anything resembling success.
Even as this President inherits a world in crisis, ironically, we can point to Iraq as one of the few areas of the world in which the situation on the ground is greatly improved over its condition eight years previous. President Obama can rest a little bit easier each night knowing that Iraq no longer poses a grave threat to American interests or regional security; in fact, the new Iraq, incredibly, today stands out as one of the few bright spots in an extremely troubled Middle East.
An Aside: the implicit trade off seems to be that President Obama will allow Secretary Gates and Generals Petraeus and Odierno to hammer down the hard-won victory in Iraq--as long as no one mentions that inconvenient fact publicly. We'll take that deal.
One more thing: for years we have heard the opposition harangue President Bush over the cost of the war in terms of blood and treasure.
The human cost has been high (over 4250 American soldiers killed in action).
However, the projected trillion-dollar price tag for the transformation of Iraq, relative to the events of the past month, suddenly seems like a drop in the bucket.
While I am grateful that he seized this moment to salute our military and briefly recognize the most-overlooked hero in the recent happy turn of events in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, the President took great pains NOT to characterize the wind-down to this six-year conflict as anything resembling success.
Even as this President inherits a world in crisis, ironically, we can point to Iraq as one of the few areas of the world in which the situation on the ground is greatly improved over its condition eight years previous. President Obama can rest a little bit easier each night knowing that Iraq no longer poses a grave threat to American interests or regional security; in fact, the new Iraq, incredibly, today stands out as one of the few bright spots in an extremely troubled Middle East.
An Aside: the implicit trade off seems to be that President Obama will allow Secretary Gates and Generals Petraeus and Odierno to hammer down the hard-won victory in Iraq--as long as no one mentions that inconvenient fact publicly. We'll take that deal.
One more thing: for years we have heard the opposition harangue President Bush over the cost of the war in terms of blood and treasure.
The human cost has been high (over 4250 American soldiers killed in action).
However, the projected trillion-dollar price tag for the transformation of Iraq, relative to the events of the past month, suddenly seems like a drop in the bucket.
27/02: Romney in 2012
I have said before that Bobby Jindal is likely to be the next Republican elected president of the United States. Some of the bloom came off his rose this week, but c'est le vie politique. Climbing the greasy pole is, by definition, not easy; the journey to the Oval Office is not usually a rocket ship to the moon. No matter, the youthful governor of Louisiana continues to impress me as the most articulate and dynamic young face in the GOP, and, reminding you that nobody knows anything--and that goes double for me, I stand by my prediction. Having said that, for myriad reasons, he should not be our candidate for 2012.
Who's it going to be? Mitt Romney, who gave a rousing speech today at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Why?
He is ready and willing. Defeating an incumbent Obama will be a daunting task in 2012 (I say impossible). Most ambitious Republicans will be hanging back to position themselves for the better window for victory in 2016. For a number of reasons (age being one of them), Romney will be reluctant to sit out a cycle. Moreover, if the planet does not slip off its axis between now and then, he will also be in position to finance his own campaign, if necessary.
But that won't be necessary. Romney emerged from 2008 as the conservative favorite in the race. Conservatives had to hold their noses as John McCain, the epitome of center-right Republicanism, won the nomination and went on to lose the General Election in a big way. Never mind that 2008 was a year so poisoned for Republicans that a resurrected Abraham Lincoln would have faced an uphill battle, the McCain campaign proved to many that moderation is a losing hand. Right-wing Republicans will rise again during the next cycle, arguing that it is time to run an ideologically pure movement conservative. Romney now fits that bill.
Romney is a handsome man and a talented orator (albeit with some limits). He exudes an aura of confidence and competence on economic issues. Right now, we think the next election will center on the economy (of course, conventional wisdom held for a long time that the previous election would turn on progress in Iraq--ooops). Mitt Romney can present a cogent and compelling case for conservative fundamentals.
Any Republican candidate is likely to lose the next election. Romney probably has a better chance than most of pulling off an upset. If he does not, he will run with integrity and vigor--and we won't waste any of our promising young guns in a brave but fatal charge against Cemetery Ridge.
Who's it going to be? Mitt Romney, who gave a rousing speech today at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Why?
He is ready and willing. Defeating an incumbent Obama will be a daunting task in 2012 (I say impossible). Most ambitious Republicans will be hanging back to position themselves for the better window for victory in 2016. For a number of reasons (age being one of them), Romney will be reluctant to sit out a cycle. Moreover, if the planet does not slip off its axis between now and then, he will also be in position to finance his own campaign, if necessary.
But that won't be necessary. Romney emerged from 2008 as the conservative favorite in the race. Conservatives had to hold their noses as John McCain, the epitome of center-right Republicanism, won the nomination and went on to lose the General Election in a big way. Never mind that 2008 was a year so poisoned for Republicans that a resurrected Abraham Lincoln would have faced an uphill battle, the McCain campaign proved to many that moderation is a losing hand. Right-wing Republicans will rise again during the next cycle, arguing that it is time to run an ideologically pure movement conservative. Romney now fits that bill.
Romney is a handsome man and a talented orator (albeit with some limits). He exudes an aura of confidence and competence on economic issues. Right now, we think the next election will center on the economy (of course, conventional wisdom held for a long time that the previous election would turn on progress in Iraq--ooops). Mitt Romney can present a cogent and compelling case for conservative fundamentals.
Any Republican candidate is likely to lose the next election. Romney probably has a better chance than most of pulling off an upset. If he does not, he will run with integrity and vigor--and we won't waste any of our promising young guns in a brave but fatal charge against Cemetery Ridge.
18/02: Burris Needs to Go
As I was fairly early on the scene with my assertion that the Senate should seat Roland Burris, I feel obligated to join the castigation chorus post haste.
I associate myself with these remarks from the Washington Post :
"Mr. Burris should resign."
I associate myself with these remarks from the Washington Post :
"Mr. Burris should resign."
16/02: Me and Judd Gregg
Poor Judd Gregg.
What was he thinking?
That seems to be the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question. Actually, I know exactly what he was thinking. The country is in trouble. Our party played an indispensable role in getting us where we are. Can I be part of the solution?
The old system has broken down--so much so that my party seems wholly disconnected with our traditional principles and original raison d'etre. Does this president from the other side of the aisle see the folly of his caucus--as I see the folly of my own? Can we come together and do the right thing for the country, transcending the old rules and creating a new political paradigm imagined long ago by the framers?
Okay. You guessed it. I am talking about me as much as him.
What was I thinking?
Judd and I were desperate--and desperate people do desperate things.
Why so desperate? After decades of Republican ascendancy, the electorate snatched away the keys as the country lurches toward our most lethal national crisis since the Civil War. Team Pelosi seems absolutely intent on pressing the accelerator to the floor as we approach the on-coming cliff, happily reminding the world that George Bush pointed us in this direction.
What to do? The Republican brand is busted, and it will be decades before Americans begin to forgive and forget the great GOP betrayal. What can we do right now?
Frantic questions in real time: what if this fellow really is something different? What if his plea "to be my president too" is sincere? What if he is smart enough to realize that Nancy Pelosi only wants to drive us off into the abyss? What if I could be one of the courageous statesmen who helps him inaugurate an entirely new American era?
I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee
Clouds in my coffee, and...
In the end, Judd Gregg and I could not coexist in a coalition in which Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman call the shots. Somebody had to go. Unfortunately, it was us.
What was he thinking?
That seems to be the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question. Actually, I know exactly what he was thinking. The country is in trouble. Our party played an indispensable role in getting us where we are. Can I be part of the solution?
The old system has broken down--so much so that my party seems wholly disconnected with our traditional principles and original raison d'etre. Does this president from the other side of the aisle see the folly of his caucus--as I see the folly of my own? Can we come together and do the right thing for the country, transcending the old rules and creating a new political paradigm imagined long ago by the framers?
Okay. You guessed it. I am talking about me as much as him.
What was I thinking?
Judd and I were desperate--and desperate people do desperate things.
Why so desperate? After decades of Republican ascendancy, the electorate snatched away the keys as the country lurches toward our most lethal national crisis since the Civil War. Team Pelosi seems absolutely intent on pressing the accelerator to the floor as we approach the on-coming cliff, happily reminding the world that George Bush pointed us in this direction.
What to do? The Republican brand is busted, and it will be decades before Americans begin to forgive and forget the great GOP betrayal. What can we do right now?
Frantic questions in real time: what if this fellow really is something different? What if his plea "to be my president too" is sincere? What if he is smart enough to realize that Nancy Pelosi only wants to drive us off into the abyss? What if I could be one of the courageous statesmen who helps him inaugurate an entirely new American era?
I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee
Clouds in my coffee, and...
In the end, Judd Gregg and I could not coexist in a coalition in which Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman call the shots. Somebody had to go. Unfortunately, it was us.
12/02: Largest Number Discovered
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
10/02: More on Taking the Census
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Last week I commented with suspicion on the move by Obama to bring the decadal census under the control of the White House. Here. Imagine if it were a Republican White House and the Census was reporting to Karl Rove. The MSM and fellow-travelers would be having a fit.
John Fund in a Wall Street Journal essay offers his thoughts.
Here are excerpts:
"There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."
. . .
Mr. Chapman worries about a revival of the effort led by minority groups after the 2000 Census to adjust the totals for states and cities using statistical sampling and computer models. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House that sampling could not be used to reapportion congressional seats. But it left open the possibility that sampling could be used to redraw political boundaries within the states.
Such a move would prove controversial. "Sampling potentially has the kind of margin of error an opinion poll has and the same subjectivity a voter-intent standard in a recount has," says Mr. Chapman.
Starting in 2000, the Census Bureau conducted three years of studies with the help of many outside statistical experts. According to then Census director Louis Kincannon, the Bureau concluded that "adjustment based on sampling didn't produce improved figures" and could damage Census credibility.
The reason? In theory, statisticians can identify general numbers of people missed in a head count. But it cannot then place those abstract "missing people" into specific neighborhoods, let alone blocks. And anyone could go door to door and find out such people don't exist. There can be other anomalies. "The adjusted numbers told us the head count had overcounted the number of Indians on reservations," Mr. Kincannon told me. "That made no sense."
The problem of counting minorities and the homeless has long been known. Census Bureau statisticians believe that a vigorous hard count, supplemented by adding in the names of actual people missed by head counters but still found in public records, is likely to lead to a far more defensible count than sampling-based adjustment.
John Fund in a Wall Street Journal essay offers his thoughts.
Here are excerpts:
"There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."
. . .
Mr. Chapman worries about a revival of the effort led by minority groups after the 2000 Census to adjust the totals for states and cities using statistical sampling and computer models. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House that sampling could not be used to reapportion congressional seats. But it left open the possibility that sampling could be used to redraw political boundaries within the states.
Such a move would prove controversial. "Sampling potentially has the kind of margin of error an opinion poll has and the same subjectivity a voter-intent standard in a recount has," says Mr. Chapman.
Starting in 2000, the Census Bureau conducted three years of studies with the help of many outside statistical experts. According to then Census director Louis Kincannon, the Bureau concluded that "adjustment based on sampling didn't produce improved figures" and could damage Census credibility.
The reason? In theory, statisticians can identify general numbers of people missed in a head count. But it cannot then place those abstract "missing people" into specific neighborhoods, let alone blocks. And anyone could go door to door and find out such people don't exist. There can be other anomalies. "The adjusted numbers told us the head count had overcounted the number of Indians on reservations," Mr. Kincannon told me. "That made no sense."
The problem of counting minorities and the homeless has long been known. Census Bureau statisticians believe that a vigorous hard count, supplemented by adding in the names of actual people missed by head counters but still found in public records, is likely to lead to a far more defensible count than sampling-based adjustment.
09/02: Watching Obama Live
Note to Republicans:
To get an idea of where we are, try to wrap your mind around this calculation:
This fellow is incredibly likable and the most telegenic American politician since Reagan. He is smart and light on his feet. Even when he is patently disingenuous and/or obtuse, he is engaging and appealing.
Multiply these qualities by the fact that the media love him and are invested in his success.
What does it add up to? This is going to be a long and frustrating eight years for partisan opposition.
To get an idea of where we are, try to wrap your mind around this calculation:
This fellow is incredibly likable and the most telegenic American politician since Reagan. He is smart and light on his feet. Even when he is patently disingenuous and/or obtuse, he is engaging and appealing.
Multiply these qualities by the fact that the media love him and are invested in his success.
What does it add up to? This is going to be a long and frustrating eight years for partisan opposition.
07/02: More Mourning in America
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Quote from one of my favorite colleagues (an ultra insightful giant of a man, center-right in his politics):
"I feel like my man lost, but we still won the election."
I have happily shared that sentiment. Until now.
The Bad News: we finally lost the election this week.
"I feel like my man lost, but we still won the election."
I have happily shared that sentiment. Until now.
The Bad News: we finally lost the election this week.
06/02: Obama Apointments
Can't anybody play this game?
Tax problems, tax problems, tax problems. Obama's process for nominations seems even more incompetent than Jerry Jones on draft day.
Here is another good one: David Ogden for Deputy Attorney General. The man has argued against anti-pornography filters at public libraries and other cases for pornographers, plus pro-abortion advocacy.
Seems to me that Obama needs to raise hell with his vetting group, fire some folks, and bring in competent people for his nominations team.
Wizbang has more.
Tax problems, tax problems, tax problems. Obama's process for nominations seems even more incompetent than Jerry Jones on draft day.
Here is another good one: David Ogden for Deputy Attorney General. The man has argued against anti-pornography filters at public libraries and other cases for pornographers, plus pro-abortion advocacy.
Seems to me that Obama needs to raise hell with his vetting group, fire some folks, and bring in competent people for his nominations team.
Wizbang has more.
