Tag: politics

Actually, considering some of the people who have emailed me, it wouldn’t be all that surprising. In any event, I’m not the only one who is contemplating a primary challenge to the Magic Negro.

PAT BUCHANAN: [Anti-Vietnam sentiment] drew an anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy, first into the New Hampshire primary, and after he did fairly well with 42%, it drew Robert Kennedy in against their own president, tore the Democratic Party apart, and led, of course, to a Republican era. If the president is still hanging in to Afghanistan in 2011, 2012, do you see an anti-war candidate coming out of the Democratic Party?

ED RENDELL: It’s possible, Pat. It really depends on how far it deteriorates [emphasis mine]. But on the other hand, if troop withdrawal begins in 2011, if there’s some signs that we’re trying to get out of there, and I heard, I think you were talking about, if there are only 3,000 American troops, we still have a presence. But if we start to begin to reduce our presence, I think that’s probably enough to keep an anti-war candidate out of the race.”

As Instapundit noted, the important thing here isn’t that Rendell is the governor of Pennsylvania, but that he is a known Clintonista. And from my perspective, what’s intriguing about taking a foreign policy line of potential attack on Obama rather than his unpopularity among white voters and negative effect on other Democratic politicians is that whereas practically any Democrat could make a case for himself on the basis of the former, there is only one individual who is in a uniquely advantageous position to utilize the former.

The Secretary of State.

Due to her Cabinet position and foreign policy focus, the Lizard Queen is uniquely positioned to credibly declare that the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and become untenable. Should she resign her position next year to run against an Obama who has continued the wars, contra to his promises in the 2008 primaries, she will have no trouble obliterating him in the 2012 campaign for the nomination. Now, the fact that she COULD do this doesn’t mean that she WILL; after all, she didn’t move to oppose immigration and the wars when doing so could have guaranteed her both the nomination and the election last time.

But given the growing signs that Obama may soon not only continue but extend what is increasingly beginning to look like an American-Islamic war, it is clear that he is likely to be extraordinarily vulnerable if the Lizard Queen elects to strike against her current boss. The first indication that she intends to do so will be a growing chorus of elite Democratic opinion against Obama’s conduct of the war, particularly with regards to Afghanistan and Pakistan. (I doubt they will criticize anything related to Iran, assuming there is anything to complain about, in order to placate potential donors in the Israel lobby that has been banging on the Iran war drum ever since Baghdad fell.) But the more significant indicator would be her resignation from the Cabinet next year.

The assumption of Obama as the automatic Democratic Party nominee in 2012 takes another hit:

If you haven’t read today’s Wall Street Journal column by Senator James Webb (D-VA), you owe it to yourself. The key line is this one, where Webb argues that our “present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.”

What makes it key is: Why now? Why write this column today? What brought this particular issue out at this particular moment?

These questions are important, because Webb’s column is a virtual declaration of war on President Obama — at a time when Obama’s head must be already spinning after two weeks of racial strife from the NAACP and Andrew Breitbart. And a “recovery summer” that’s anything but. So it’s not often I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan, and when I do — even only partly so, like today — I always wash afterwards. But when Buchanan says that the White House is in a “panic” because it “fears it is losing white America,” he’s absolutely right.

But what Obama really ought to fear is losing his own party — because Webb’s column is just the most recent sign.

I just thought it was worth pointing this out, given that it appeared precisely one day after I was accused of being a political moron for stating that Obama is going to lose control of his party and will pushed to the exits during the 2012 Democratic primary, presumably in favor of the Lizard Queen. Now, I could quite clearly be wrong, and after all, the safe bet is to assume the status quo. After all, my original prediction of Obama as a one-term president is looking pretty good right now and I could have simply rolled with that if I was at all concerned about credibility as a political analyst.

But I’m not a political analyst and I find it much more interesting to follow trains of thought as they happen to occur. Go read Nate Silver and listen to his many convoluted explanations of why the polls prove the Democrats will hold the House and Senate this fall if you want professional political analysis. (My opinion is that they’ll lose both.) The point is that when you look at where the economy appears to be headed in the next two years and combine that with the probable Democratic electoral debacle this fall as well as the growing panic among Democratic office-holders and Obama’s increasingly disastrous poll numbers, it adds up to what I see as an unusually volatile Democratic primary.

This is why Obama won’t be on the ballot in 2012:

A year after President Barack Obama’s political honeymoon ended, his job approval rating has dropped to a negative 44 – 48 percent, his worst net score ever, and American voters say by a narrow 39 – 36 percent margin that they would vote for an unnamed Republican rather than President Obama in 2012, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Of course, if the pollsters had asked about any Disney cartoon character, Obama would have fared even worse. While I have no doubt that the Republicans would like to do their utmost to throw the election by nominating a RINO in the Dole/McCain vein, they’re going to be far too busy attempting to discredit Ron Paul and co-opting the Tea Party to pay much attention to laying down for Obama. The real threat to Obama comes from within the Democratic Party; the Lizard Queen has been remarkably quiet for the last eighteen months and I don’t believe for a second that she has abandoned any of her presidential ambitions.

She’s reinvented herself as a moderate in comparison with Obama, and now that the first black president is a failure, she can still hope to break new ground as the first female president. And she won’t be the only Democrat to challenge Obama, in fact, she probably won’t even be the first. Once a fringe challenger begins to look capable of upsetting Obama’s primary nomination, the party elders will begin putting pressure on him to stand down in favor of a more popular, more moderate Democrat, like the Secretary of State.

One more thing. If you look at Obama, does he look like a man who enjoys being president? I think he knows he’s in way over his head and might even welcome the chance to get off the hot seat.

This American Spectator article has been going around and is well worth reading. I’m posting the economic section here, but the bit on the difference between the ruling class’s interests and the rest of the country are arguably the most important part:

By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. While the economic value of anything depends on sellers and buyers agreeing on that value as civil equals in the absence of force, modern government is about nothing if not tampering with civil equality. By endowing some in society with power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices — even to buy in the first place — modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. Thus if you are not among the favored guests at the table where officials make detailed lists of who is to receive what at whose expense, you are on the menu. Eventually, pretending forcibly that valueless things have value dilutes the currency’s value for all.

Laws and regulations nowadays are longer than ever because length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally. For example, the health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others because their senators offered key political support, but more importantly to codify bargains between the government and various parts of the health care industry, state governments, and large employers about who would receive what benefits (e.g., public employee unions and auto workers) and who would pass what indirect taxes onto the general public. The financial regulation bill of 2010, far from setting univocal rules for the entire financial industry in few words, spends some 3,000 pages (at this writing) tilting the field exquisitely toward some and away from others. Even more significantly, these and other products of Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses empower countless boards and commissions arbitrarily to protect some persons and companies, while ruining others. Thus in 2008 the Republican administration first bailed out Bear Stearns, then let Lehman Brothers sink in the ensuing panic, but then rescued Goldman Sachs by infusing cash into its principal debtor, AIG. Then, its Democratic successor used similarly naked discretionary power (and money appropriated for another purpose) to give major stakes in the auto industry to labor unions that support it. Nowadays, the members of our ruling class admit that they do not read the laws. They don’t have to. Because modern laws are primarily grants of discretion, all anybody has to know about them is whom they empower.

By making economic rules dependent on discretion, our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support. Thus in the 1990s and 2000s, as Democrats and Republicans forced banks to make loans for houses to people and at rates they would not otherwise have considered, builders and investors had every reason to make as much money as they could from the ensuing inflation of housing prices. When the bubble burst, only those connected with the ruling class at the bottom and at the top were bailed out. Similarly, by taxing the use of carbon fuels and subsidizing “alternative energy,” our ruling class created arguably the world’s biggest opportunity for making money out of things that few if any would buy absent its intervention. The ethanol industry and its ensuing diversions of wealth exist exclusively because of subsidies. The prospect of legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions and allot certain amounts to certain companies set off a feeding frenzy among large companies to show support for a “green agenda,” because such allotments would be worth tens of billions of dollars. That is why companies hired some 2,500 lobbyists in 2009 to deepen their involvement in “climate change.” At the very least, such involvement profits them by making them into privileged collectors of carbon taxes. Any “green jobs” thus created are by definition creatures of subsidies — that is, of privilege. What effect creating such privileges may have on “global warming” is debatable. But it surely increases the number of people dependent on the ruling class, and teaches Americans that satisfying that class is a surer way of making a living than producing goods and services that people want to buy.

Beyond patronage, picking economic winners and losers redirects the American people’s energies to tasks that the political class deems more worthy than what Americans choose for themselves. John Kenneth Galbraith’s characterization of America as “private wealth amidst public squalor” (The Affluent Society, 1958) has ever encapsulated our best and brightest’s complaint: left to themselves, Americans use land inefficiently in suburbs and exurbs, making it necessary to use energy to transport them to jobs and shopping. Americans drive big cars, eat lots of meat as well as other unhealthy things, and go to the doctor whenever they feel like it. Americans think it justice to spend the money they earn to satisfy their private desires even though the ruling class knows that justice lies in improving the community and the planet. The ruling class knows that Americans must learn to live more densely and close to work, that they must drive smaller cars and change their lives to use less energy, that their dietary habits must improve, that they must accept limits in how much medical care they get, that they must divert more of their money to support people, cultural enterprises, and plans for the planet that the ruling class deems worthier. So, ever-greater taxes and intrusive regulations are the main wrenches by which the American people can be improved (and, yes, by which the ruling class feeds and grows).

I’ve been saying for years that America as we knew it is over. The incipient battle between the rulers and the ruled will determine what its replacement will be. Fortunately for the ruled, the economic meltdown combined with the ruling class’s dedication to macroeconomic guidance is adding a high degree of difficulty to their effort to finish reducing the citizenry to serfdom.

In fairness, he probably wasn’t even eligible for that one-term anyhow:

Contrary to pretty much every projection until now, Democratic control of the Senate is also starting to coming into question. While Mr Obama’s approval ratings have continued to fall, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the fate of his former colleagues in the Senate looks even worse.

In the past few days polls have shown Republican challengers taking the lead over previously safe Democratic incumbents, such as Barbara Boxer in California and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Indeed, given the uniformly negative direction in the numbers, it is now quite possible the Republicans could win the Senate seats formerly held by both President Obama in Illinois, and Joe Biden, vice-president, in Delaware.

Add to that the continuing woes of Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader, in Nevada, where the Republican party’s recent nomination of Sharron Angle, a far-right and highly eccentric Tea Party supporter, appear to have had no positive effect on Mr Reid’s prospects, and the Grand Old party has a good shot at taking control of both houses of Congress. Worse for Mr Obama, political scientists say that at this stage in the calendar, there is almost nothing he can do about it.

Forget re-election, I don’t think Obama is even going to be on the ballot in 2012 regardless of whether Democrats lose the House or both the House and Senate. And this doesn’t have anything to do with various state efforts to force presidential candidates to prove their natural-born citizenship, I think that he’s going to face multiple challengers in the Democratic primary and end up withdrawing ala LBJ.

If you’re a Democratic politician, you have to be terrified right now. As bad as Obama has been for the country, he has been even worse for his political party. They’re facing a difficult choice between internecine insurrection and total obliteration in 2012.

It only looks like you’re going onward and upward until you go over the cliff’s edge:

Who has driven America to this precipice? Certainly part of the blame belongs to the politicians, primarily Democrats, who created and enlarged these entitlements without imposing taxes anywhere near sufficient to sustain them, and otherwise seriously mismanaged the programs’ finances. On a deeper level, however, the blame belongs to the late-19th- and early-20th-century Progressive movement. Despite recent claims that the Progressives had little impact upon the development of liberalism in the New Deal and beyond, including in the realm of social insurance, the Progressives were in fact the founding fathers of social insurance in America. Far from making a break with Progressivism, accordingly, the enactment of these programs during the New Deal and Great Society represents the clear policy fruit of the philosophical revolution as to the end of government, and the fundamental conception of morality underlying it, that the Progressives fought so vigorously to effect.

Of course, persuading many Americans that Progressivism initiated a struggle over the soul of America is a hard sell. For decades, liberal scholars and politicians have attributed the 20th-century growth of government to changes in the mere material circumstances of American life. The Progressive era’s progressive reforms, we have been told, were the necessary and inevitable response to problems created by the closing of the frontier, the rise of huge corporations and a transition to large-scale factory production, population shifts out of the countryside and into the city, large waves of immigration, etc. The New Deal, in turn, was simply a response to the economic hardships caused by the Great Depression. By attributing these periods’ reforms to America’s changing material circumstances, the orthodox view implies that there was no change of philosophical or moral import likewise under way. More to the point, it implies that the Progressives’ reforms were guided by the principles of the American Founding.

And yet this is demonstrably false.

How I love those two words. “Demonstrably false”. That, all ye of the Dread Ilk, is the hallmark of a writer who knows what she is talking about and is calling her shot. It’s a very good article showing how Progressivism is intrinsically hostile to natural and individual rights and has replaced them with government-granted, situational privileges. And she even shows how it is ultimately self-limiting given the inexorable requirements of increasing debt involved.