Confession Soothes the Soul

I'm not a Catholic, but I married one. I'm pro-religion but not particularly religious myself. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ but pray everyday he has a sense of humor.
So, to borrow from the Catholic Church I shall now make a confession: I hate Americans. Yes it's true, Americans have become an insufferable pain in the ass. Not to say I necessarily like non-Americans, I don't, but Americans take the cake. Let me tell you why.

1) Americans are the worst drivers I personally have ever encountered. They either drive too slow (GET OFF YOUR ASS!) or too fast (MANIAC!). They have stupid traffic laws, which they either obey to an absurd degree or universally ignore. They either hate cars or obsess over them. They do things behind the wheel most intelligent people would not even think of, much less consider doing themselves. Things like texting, sexting, eating, and drinking. They drive drunk, high, senile and handicapped. They think it's great fun to get a BJ off some slapper on the way home from a bar where they've had 14 pints and 3 shots of Jagermeister. They strap their children in car seats like they on the Space Shuttle but then they'll throw a Kegerator in an open trunk that proceeds to fly out on I-95 in front of a semi that's carrying 40,000 cans of peaches. Most American shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a car.
2) Americans have taken complaining to a new level. We are now a country of the moaningest, groaningest, whineingest most bellyacheing bunch of malcontented snivelers in the history of sniveling.  All we do is bitch. Look, I'm always up for a good fight, and I believe there are things worth fighting over, but Americans complain about EVERYTHING. They never shut up. "I don't like the cherry McDonalds put on their milkshake". "Why can't they have a drive-thru for garden supplies?" "What, I have a co-pay?" "You have too much, I have too little." "Your tits are bigger than mine"... and on and on it goes. Listen up you dope, we were given a great gift in America. Great men gave us a system that provided a blueprint for peace and prosperity for all time, all we had to do was stick with it. Was it perfect, hell no, but what is? Our bitching and complaining and jealousy is destroying us.
3) Americans think they have all the answers. Well guess what? We don't. I too want the world to be just, and prosperous and healthy. But if Cubans want a Castro or Venezuela wants a Chavez, hell it suits me. I think most of the countries in the world are insane but that doesn't mean I want to change them. And it certainly doesn't mean I want to see Americans die or that we should empty our treasury to change them into whatever the hell we think we can change them in to. Let's try something different, let's mind our own damn business for a change. Then maybe the world will solve their own problems at their own expense. It's worth a try.

Well those are my top three, and since I'm doing this on my deck while smoking a Partagas Black Label and freezing my gonads off, I shall end this post. But I have a lot more, so stay tuned.

Why the GOP is Sticking to Its Guns on Sequestration

Former George W. Bush speechwriter and current slightly-right-of-center pundit/gadfly David Frum posted a Tweet a few hours ago that referenced his article "American Hawks: Behaving Badly" in Canada's National Post.  It caught my attention, as I have recently been deluged by questions from those on the left of the seeming hypocrisy of the GOP, claiming to be pro-defense while at the same time participating in a process that will so clearly weaken the military.  Seeing David Frum pick up this line of argument is not surprising to me, as he appears these days to make his bread from a continuous string of articles and appearances that can best be summed up as saying "Republicans would be much better off if they thought and acted like Democrats". 

That said, Frum (and others) raises a good point, one that has to be addressed. Why would GOP legislators be prepared to allow the sequester to continue and accelerate the ongoing hollowing of the U.S. military?

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) Answer:  Because the new breed of  "Defense Hawks" see the path the country is on as a greater threat to our national security than myriad traditional threats previously addressed by the decades-long national security consensus--that appears to have disappeared.  These Republicans are still very much "pro-defense", they are simply prioritizing other threats while assuming additional short term risk. 

Stipulated: The current situation is ludicrous, irresponsible, and under virtually any set of sane circumstances, inadvisable.  The sequester WILL make our military less ready and it WILL increase risk virtually across the board.

Stipulated:   No political party has a monopoly on patriotism.  Most politicians of both parties are very patriotic and have the advancement of the interests of the American public squarely in mind as they form their views.  Where differences occur is in the identification of those interests, and that process is invariably at least partially a function of ideology.

----------------------------------------------------

So here we are, in a situation in which the sequester has been ordered, a process that will invariably lead (at least in the short term) to an increase and acceleration of the hollowing of the military.   Where Mr. Frum and my Democratic friends have erred is in their understanding of the 21st century national security consensus, contemporary American politics and especially, the Republican Party.

Dr. Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute and I recently had a conversation in which he put forward the following notion:  that the broad, bi-partisan national security consensus that has dominated American politics for seven-plus decades, is dead.   I don't know if he has written more extensively on this subject, so I won't attempt to lay out his argument here (in case he is writing something on the subject).  I will simply accept that it is true, or perhaps refining the metaphor a bit, state that it is on life support, waiting on the Death Panel to administer the final blow.

In my view, what made that consensus viable was 1) the presence of an existential threat and in its absence, 2) broad agreement on the role of the United States in the world 3) an economy that could support an array of domestic social programs and strong, expeditionary Armed Forces and 4) processes and customs in the legislative branch that contributed to compromise and consensus.  None of these conditions exists today in anything like the degree to which they did in past decades.  And the consensus has diminished as a result.  With the loss of the consensus, politics and ideology have grown more powerful in policy influence. 

Moving from the decline of the guiding national security consensus, one then considers the state of contemporary American politics and the role the Republican Party plays in it.

Whether or not President Obama and the Democratic Party are actually trying to alter the relationship between the government and the governed while increasing the scope of the welfare-state, a broad cross-section of voting Americans believe they are--and this group tends to vote for the modern Republican Party.   They have sent a group of legislators to Washington to represent their interests, and at a high level of abstraction, these people have told their legislators the following:

 "The present state of our economy and the trajectory we are on with respect to government spending but especially entitlement spending, represents the most important threat to our long-term national security.  We understand the requirements of citizenship and that taxes are the price we pay for a civil society, but we are increasingly uncomfortable with the growth of what government does and provides with the money we give it.  We are the Party of a strong and rational national defense, and to that end, we have prioritized the threat.  The threat is fiscal insolvency, and it must be addressed.  We must retain a strong military, but not at the cost of a weakened country."

And to these people, the "cost" cited in the previous sentence is at the heart of the grand bargain the President is using the sequester to leverage--and that is, higher taxes and more spending designed to alter the relationship between the government and the governed while increasing the scope of the welfare state.  

Therefore, this Republican Party is for the time being, willing to assume more risk in virtually all other threats to US national interests in order to address the one that they prioritize.  There is no hypocrisy here--these are "defense hawks" as Frum would term them, but they have chosen to re-define and prioritize against that which they seek to defend. 

Throughout most of the life of the former national security consensus, voices such as these on Capitol Hill could have been marginalized, leveraged into submission by the existence of nearly dictatorial Committee Chairmen and the carrot and stick attractions of earmarks.  Congressional reforms of decades past and Party driven term-limits have down-sized the power and authority of the Committee Chairmen, and the much over-done evil of earmarks removed an effective tool for intra-and inter-party-compromise.

And so we find ourselves in the time of the super-empowered Capitol Hill individual, where there is always a camera and a microphone to amplify one's views, and where the only responsibility a legislator has is to his/her conscience and constituents.  Loyalty to party leadership is a nice to have, and probably makes one's life on the Hill easier, but it is not required for job security nor for popularity with the folks back home.

Keep in mind--these conditions apply equally to liberals and Democrats.  And because both sides have diminished payoff from compromise and cooperation, less of it happens.

Which brings us back to the sequester.

We are where we are because the consensus has failed and because the ways of obtaining and sustaining consensus are more rare.  No longer do some Republicans see external enemies or capabilities as the most likely and imminent threat to our safety and security. 

Many commentators fail to grasp that the magnitude of the sequester is not nearly so injurious as its implementation scheme.  Had the various departments any real flexibility in how to arrive at the cut levels, this would be little more than a bogey drill--a difficult and meaningful bogey drill, but a bogey drill nonetheless, one that would in virtually all cases make the impact of the cuts less onerous.  Because the cuts are horizontal across virtually all accounts, there is little ability to prioritize and almost no ability to reprogram.  For instance, those who criticize the Navy for decisions to curtail current operations simply don't understand the degree to which the Service's hands are tied in being able to move money from one account to another. 

But complaining about the mindlessness of implementation won't get anything done, so there have been moves in both chambers to address the problem of flexibility, while maintaining the magnitude of the sequester.  There have also been moves to remove DoD from the sequester entirely.

Republicans--those Mr. Frum sees as acting against their own interests--have championed these initiatives, in both cases acting according to their interests and hopefully, Mr. Frum's understanding of those interests.  In both cases, however, the President has declined their offer.  In doing so, he has reinforced for many Republicans the wisdom of going through with the sequester.  That is, the President has played directly into the logic of their intractability.  Whereas they have come forward with plans that would alleviate some of the pain of the sequester in ways that would impact military readiness less while cutting spending more, the President insists on hewing to the path that results in MORE pain in order to gain political leverage designed to pursue policies (taxing, spending) that Republicans already see as a greater threat than a diminished military.

So when Frum and others wonder aloud where the Defense Hawks have gone, they're right there in front of their noses, in the Republican caucus.  Their desire to defend the country is no less than before--they simply see new threats.

UPDATE:  Welcome Ace of Spades and thank you for the link!

Cross-posted at Information Dissemination

Time For a Red Card

    There's a saying in European football that goes like this: "The referee was wearing 'Liverpool' underwear" (you pick the team). What this means is one team received a lot of favorable calls and the officials are either corrupt or stupid. Well in America the officials are wearing Democrat underwear. The reasons are the reasons and they're moot at this point, but don't think this is entirely the Democrats doing. To the contrary my Allen-Edmonds wearing friend, in large measure it's the Republican's fault.
    Ok, we as conservatives have a problem, we've got a corrupt media, NOT a biased media but a CORRUPT media (as I and everyone else have said many times ad nauseam). This isn't a new situation, they've been strongly biased for decades now. But what's different now is the Soros money has them organized and focused, with no tolerance for dissent (look how they've gone after Bob Woodward).
    Here in banjo country we have a couple of very illustrative scandals going on that could be devastating for North Carolina Democrats, but I'm sure won't be. First we've got the Chairman of the State Board of Elections (as was, a Mr. Gary Bartlett) who's job was to ensure the integrity of elections (but perhaps thought he was Obama's NC campaign manager) cooperating extensively with a far left, Soros funded advocacy group called Democracy NC. They shared strategy and emails detailing internal meetings at the NCSBE, they coordinated attacks on Republican legislators...minor stuff like that. Plus Mr. Bartlett knowingly and with forethought broke North Carolina election law. I quote the Civitas Institute (a local conservative think-tank)...
In a blatantly partisan move, the staff of the North Carolina State Board of Elections (SBE) successfully subverted state law to facilitate online voter registration in North Carolina by the 2012 Barack Obama campaign. In doing so they coordinated with partisans behind closed doors, lied about the NC Attorney General’s Office concurring with the SBE staff on the issue, and dodged oversight by their own board and the legislature. The end result was to add thousands of people to the North Carolina voter rolls illegally.    
Will Bartlett go to jail? I doubt it. He's since resigned but currently the Chairman and Secretary of the SBE are Democrats along with two more Democrat members and two Republicans. So someone will spill coffee on the computer and that will be that.
    The other scandal involves a hardleft, Soros funded (funny how his name keeps cropping up) "charitable organization" Blueprint NC that issued an internal memo (that leaked) which stated they intended to "eviscerate, mitigate, litigate, cogitate and agitate" the newly elected Republican legislature and Republican Gov. Pat McCrory. Hmmm, has the I.R.S. expanded the parameters for charitable organizations because this sounds a lot like A.C.O.R.N. to me? Of course after initially admitting authoring and distributing the memo now they deny it (apparently they 'misunderstood' the question from the reporter). But not to worry, they'll be out of the news real soon as the big NC papers have no interest and WRAL's owner, well known limousine liberal Jim Goodman is a damn contributor to these pack of thugs.
    The point is the media and the Democrats are one and the same. Until we develop a strategy for addressing this problem we will continue to lose. The problem is not policy (that's the Democrat's problem), the problem is messaging and our ability to relate our message coherently to the voters without going through the liberal sieve. We either crack this nut or the Republicans (and conservatives) are done.
 

On the Storming of Courts, Etc.

Last night whilst I was comfortably jetting across the country from Dallas, the Wahoos beat Duke.  Yes Duke.  #3 in the country Duke.  Duke--4 time national champion Duke.  The team (Duke) that beat UVA every single time we played during my four years at UVA.  That Duke.  I followed the last two minutes of the game on my Blackberry savoring every second.



After the win, Wahoo fans stormed the court, as you can see in this video.  Coach K (I refuse to try and spell the name) had some thoughts after the game about the safety/security of players and coaches in the midst of such bedlam.  I'm sure he's tired of these things, as every time Duke loses, it is the game of the season for the other side.

I have some thoughts of my own on the subject.

I am quite positive that if we had beaten Duke even one time while I was in college, I would have been right there with my fellow Wahoos.  You can't even begin to understand the height of my envy of the success of their team, and my frustration with their mastery of our team.  Duke was The Yankees, General Motors, and Apple all rolled into one. 

But this is not that time.  Duke is good, but they are not great.  The "one and gun" rule in college basketball--in which players come in for a freshman year and the great ones leave for the NBA--has created parity in the game to a degree I have never seen, while simultaneously diminishing the quality of play.  These developments have to some degree, benefited UVA Basketball.

Beating Duke is a big deal, a huge accomplishment.  But it should no longer be a "court rushing" event.  As a matter of fact, I don't think ANY ACC opponent should merit that honor.  My new rule is that the only acceptable court rushing is when you 1) beat a #1 ranked team and 2) they are an out of conference opponent.  Like the Hammer says, make it seem like you've done it before, that beating Duke isn't such a big deal.  Maybe then, it will begin not to be.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

What's got you so glum, Chester?  Upset that your carrier isn't deploying?  Pissed that there will be one less person standing around doing nothing at the airport security screen?  Get it off your chest--better out than in!

A question for readers--is anyone going to the bottom of the blog and checking out my Twitter  posts? 

The White House and the Press....Perfect Together

The story of Watergate legend Bob Woodward receiving a little "Chicago-love" from an unnamed White House aide (but thought to be Gene Sperling) has the chattering class of Washington aflutter.  Woodward's as big a fish in the Press Corps as they come, and you don't trifle with him lightly.  But there are an awful lot of miraculous conversions going on as Conservatives leap to Woodward's defense.  Conservatives should be careful not to get too caught up in all of this.  So the White House threatened Woodward--what's the big deal (keep in mind, I'm not one of those people who deny that he was threatened)?  Access is the coin of the realm, and the White House gets to control it.  Although it works to conservatives' advantage now to be aghast at his treatment from the White House, in general, we should be careful about running to the rhetorical rescue of Mr. Woodward.

Dispatch from the Road

As hard as I try to be a hard-hitting, insightful analyst of the nation's political scene, I tend to receive much more positive feedback on my posts that are "real-life" oriented.  This is troubling, as I actually have to work and think about the political stuff, whilst the other stuff seems to write itself.  Dammit, appreciate me for my hard work.

But once again, I find myself at the airport, BWI to be exact, awaiting a flight to Dallas and then onto Lawton, OK, home of the Air Defense Artillery Branch of the US Army. 

BWI is loaded with Hassidim today, and I saw something you don't see very often.  Two male Hassidim walking with a female--who was not wearing the female, demure version of the "uniform", but was instead accoutered in skin-tight yoga pants and a tight top to reveal her voluptuousness.  Nicely done, fellas.

This will be a quick trip, back tomorrow.  BWI really is a nice airport, and no matter where I want to go, it seems to be able to get me there relatively painlessly and cheaply.  Today, I have eschewed the BWI to OKC Southwest flight (sometimes direct, sometimes through STL) in favor of an AA channel that brings me directly to Lawton.  I've tired of the hour drive across flat, featureless Oklahoma that greets me with each landing in OKC.  I'll use that time tonight to have a bit of steak.

We are readying ourselves around the household for another lengthy absence of the Kittens.  They (and their mother) will leave next week for a spring break trip abroad, leaving me with the rambunctious lab and the two cats.  I shall muddle through.

Dined last night with three Navy buddies and brother Tom in DC.  I served extensively with two of the three, and there were a lot of stories flying around the table.  Brother Tom would have made a fine naval officer.  As you already know, he is an amiable travel companion and fine company at table.  Our bartender (before being seated) bore a striking resemblance to the actress (name escapes me, sorta unimportant) who plays the CIA admin woman in the Bourne series.  I think she did a dance movie too.  Fetching.  Brother Tom decided to try out his French on her, as he is traveling to Paris late in April.  The man is simply not happy unless he has an audience--even of one. 

I have grown weary of Winter, and look forward to Spring.  Each day as I go outside at the house, I see more little wildflowers poking through, and I hear birds making more noisy evidence of their presence.  Soon, the golf clubs must emerge.

Ok--sorry this one was a bit light on...well, anything.  Talk with you later.

California Dreaming

Oh boy, California is at it again. I don't know if you saw this story but hold on to your knickers, California pays worker's comp to professional athletes. Let me explain; Terrell Owens played seven years for the Denver Broncos, he was rookie of the year (and proud recipient of a $6.8 million dollar five year contract) as well as Super Bowl MVP. He is arguably one of the all-time best NFL receivers (although burdened with a pissy attitude and a big mouth, of which I can sympathize). And according to the L.A. Times, since retirement has received nearly $200k from the good people of the State of California in worker's comp benefits. He received this money even though he played just 9 out of 88 career games in state. But Owens isn't the only one. Over the years Sacramento has awarded millions to athletes most of whom played elsewhere. One individual had played only one game in California his whole career but as did the others received compensation due to the "cumulative effects" of his professional career.

The thing is worker's comp is funded by employers and not a penny from the state. And if a professional athlete plays in California or Illinois or Texas, then that state gets the contributions. But no state pays for "cumulative effects" or out of state athletes. You would think the State of California, especially with the shape they're in would be a little more careful with other people's money, but you would be wrong.

WaPost Tries, and Fails, to Criticize the President

The title of this morning's WaPost editorial was "Sequester Offers President Obama a Time to Lead".  From it, one could potentially gather that from the standpoint of the WaPost Editorial Board, he was not leading. 

Next, the following sentence could also be viewed as leading one in that direction: "That’s what makes the minimal presidential leadership on entitlement reform so baffling."

Then, there's the Posts complete acceptance of the President's culpability in suggesting the Sequester as a tactic, and his acceptance of NO ADDITIONAL REVENUE as a condition of putting off the debt limit ceiling discussion until after the election.  So far so good.  But then, the Post returns to form and lives up to its role as a mouthpiece for the DNC.

You can always tell when the Bought and Paid For Media believes that Democrats are in the wrong...that's when they blame both sides.

This is yet another example of the practice, though in the end, the Post comes to ACTUALLY lay the blame on irresponsible Republicans while urging the ever-responsible and above ideology President Obama to "lead" on the issue.  Dig this paragraph:

"Most Republicans in Congress have been utterly irresponsible in this debate. They pretend that they could balance the budget without more revenue, an arithmetical impossibility, and they have failed to put forward realistic, near-term entitlement reforms. But we take little comfort in Mr. Obama’s being less irresponsible. He is the president; his party colleagues are increasingly intransigent on entitlement reform; and it will be his — and their — progressive goals that suffer most if the nation continues on its current path."

There is so much to unpack here--so much water carrying for Democrats.   Who are these "most" Republicans who have been "utterly irresponsible" for "pretend(ing)" they could balance the budget without more revenue?  Did we not just have a $600B tax increase?  Have Republicans not time and again offered tax reform ideas that would close loopholes and increase revenue?  And as for "realistic" entitlement reforms, there has been ONLY ONE PARTY that has put forward realistic entitlement reforms--while the President has done nothing.

Nice try, WaPost.  But another swing and a miss in the cause of balanced media coverage of the current situation. 
 

Hey Beretta--Vote with Your Feet

Sometime during my time in the Navy, we moved from the Colt .45 to a 9mm Beretta for the side-arm of choice aboard Navy vessels.  Each time I stood a quarterdeck watch, or when the ship went to security alert (drills), or even when I used flotsam as target practice from my bridgewing while in command--I would look down at the Beretta and see "Accokeek" stamped on the side, the site of Beretta's US 9mm plant in Prince George's County Maryland.

Now it seems that the State of Maryland--like other states--seeks to impose additional gun laws upon its law-abiding citizens, laws that would make the 9mm manufactured there illegal for sale in the state.

Pack up and leave, Beretta.  Go where you're welcome.  Lots of states would love to have your jobs and your tax revenue.  Perhaps Maryland can make up for the loss with some more "community activist" jobs at non-profits.

Maryland produced...for now

Conned Once Again

Don't you get tired of being conned? I do. We have 85 billion dollars in automatic "cuts" coming up with sequestration (in fact with baseline budgeting they aren't cuts at all, just cuts in the rate of growth). But to hear the Obama administration tell it this is the end of the world (or government) as we know it. Defense Sec. Panetta said he would be forced to furlough or cut 302k defense employees and other cabinet members have indicated national parks will close, air traffic controllers laid off, TSA employees kicked to the curb, fire departments, emergency services, police; my God it's a catastrophe! And I agree, that's the word that best describes this situation; It is catastrophic stupidity by the American people.

According to the latest figures we spent $3.796 trillion in 2012 with revenues of $2.469 trillion for a deficit of $1.327 trillion. We will spend more this year than last, regardless of what happens with sequestration. $85 billion represents about 2% of the budget or 2¢ out of every dollar, so they want us to believe they can't save 2% out of a nearly four trillion dollar budget? Hey, let's look around a bit first. According to the GAO there was at least $45 billion in fraud in the Medicare program last year. With all the government workers, all the bureaucracies, are they telling us they can't police a program any better than this? And this is just one program. Just police the waste, fraud and abuse and they'll find 2% almost immediately.

But the sad fact is Obama is winning the argument. OK I know we've got some real idiots out there (very loyal idiots as it turns out), and I know we have a press that is positively in Obama's back pocket, but I blame the Republicans. This is just the kind of government you get when Rockefeller Republicans are in control. The Republican are like a Woody Allen character in therapy; "Well I'm not sure about this and gosh this sounds really stressful and I just wanna get under the covers."  In another ten years guys like David "We need to be more like Muslums" Cameron will be running the party. When that happens "conservatives" won't be trying to repeal the welfare state, they'll be trying to better manage the welfare state.

When are we going to get some conservatives with a set of balls?

Don't Think They're Not Out There

    This is a pretty typical exchange I regularly have with certain people (or entities) on Facebook. Please pardon the language but I don't use FB the way one normally uses FB (because I'm not that normal), in fact I use FB much the same as Democrats use FB. I see my mission as a search and destroy campaign targeting professional leftist propagandists. My methods include the foulest, most vile language you could imagine (and that I can get away with) coupled with a steady dose of insults and derogations. I always speak the truth as I understand it, but my goal is to make the lives of these miserable people as miserable as possible and to defend the conservative/libertarian position.
    My activities aren't limited to just Facebook. I comment at news/entertainment sites such as Politico, sites of leftist personalities like John Stewart, Randi Rhodes, Bill Maher, newspaper letters sections; just about anywhere really.
    Now we've all heard about Obama's internet/social media savvy, and it's all true. Their machine has paid professionals (I guess you could call them professionals) monitoring and trolling, ready at a moments notice to knock down any idea not to their liking, and make no mistake, this is an organized effort. Their modus operandi is to use pseudonyms so several individuals may operate under the same name. Their job is to manipulate the narrative and their methods are whatever works. THESE are the people I seek out.
    Now if you doubt what I'm saying, have a look at the exchange between Original Tea Party and myself, he/she/it admits as much. THIS friends is the battleground. THIS is why we're losing the next generation, and as Reagan said, we're only one generation away from losing our freedoms.
    So if you think my methods are harsh then you are correct, they're intended to be. But we're fighting a different kind of war here, Reason and logic are not so much the tools as verbal one-upmanship. After all we're playing to the Idiocracy. And I know my enemy, I know their tactics and I will concede nothing. I will beat them at their own game, because people are watching.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

Fast becoming my favorite BFFFFA pic!

What's the matter, chum?  Wondering if your sequester-driven days off will coincide with nice golf days?  Bummed that you're in jail for providing strippers to your boy's 16th birthday party? Down about Matthew Crawley's untimely demise?

Share your pain, folks.  We're here for you.

Crying Crocodile Tears for the White House Press Corps

Target of Press Corps Hissy-fit

The usually pliant White House Press Corps is in high dudgeon, kept at arms length throughout the President's boys-only golf weekend in Florida.  Twitter has been aflutter with passive aggressive posts from the Bought and Paid for Media, in a tizzy that they were not afforded access to the President while he presumably golfed, played cards and had a few beers with the boys--activities I commend to the obviously over-stressed Press Corps.

But this weekend is just the latest example of the complete and utter control this Administration has extended over the sheep reporters who cover it, and the extent to which it shapes and manages its own message through social media.  Poltico has a decent story about this today, generally informative though it does attempt to keep up the fiction that the Press Corps is not in the bag for Obama:

"Conservatives assume a cozy relationship between this White House and the reporters who cover it. Wrong. Many reporters find Obama himself strangely fearful of talking with them and often aloof and cocky when he does. They find his staff needlessly stingy with information and thin-skinned about any tough coverage. He gets more-favorable-than-not coverage because many staffers are fearful of talking to reporters, even anonymously, and some reporters inevitably worry access or the chance of a presidential interview will decrease if they get in the face of this White House."

This is of course, rubbish.  Or partially rubbish. Conservatives do not assume a cozy relationship, though they clearly exist.  Conservatives are able to see clearly how the President's team manages the news and keeps reporters at bay.  And yes, Conservatives also understand that reporters are reticent to "get in the face" of the White House for fear of having access cut off.  But the 800 lb gorilla here is blithely dismissed...and that is, that the White House Press Corps is generally supportive of the policies of the President and so gives him a pass when such largesse was clearly not extended to Presidents less to their liking....such as George W. Bush.

The Cat Still Purrs....

January 10, 2010--the day I brought her home

Just dropped her off for her 100K service.  What an absolute pleasure to drive.  They gave me a 2013 XF as a loaner, and if possible, the car is only getting better.

Updating Reaganomics: Ponnuru on a New Republican Approach

Ramesh Ponnuru is a really smart guy, and on economic/policy matters, he's got an even-keeled, common sense approach.  He should be listened to.

He's got an NYT op-ed out that urges Republicans to think anew about our current challenges, rather than just resorting to re-doing what Reagan did thirty years ago under dramatically different circumstances.

Ponnuru has always argued for family friendly policies and against focusing on the federal income tax rather than on payroll taxes.  For instance, he's often gotten my dander up in his view that Republicans who talk about those who pay no income tax are missing the point--that payroll taxes take a huge bite out of voters we want to win over.

It is hard for me to walk away from the view that everyone should pay SOMETHING in income taxes.  If Ponnuru would agree that everyone ought to pay SOMETHING (maybe a 1% bracket?) in income taxes while focusing primarily on the tax that makes the most difference in voters lives (the payroll tax), I might join him

But he is right about the general charge--it is intellectually lazy to say "if it was good enough for Reagan, it is good enough for me."  We need updated thinking.

Report from the Field: SC-1 Sanford Campaign

I drove down to Charleston SC on Friday to spend a little time with the Sanford Campaign and to look in on the Freedom Works Candidate Forum on Saturday.  The election is on the 19th of March, and if no candidate gets more than 50% in the primary, a run-off will occur on April 2.  The general election is May 7.  The district is heavily Republican, and most observers believe that the district will stay Republican irrespective of who wins the Primary.

There are 16 candidates vying for the Republican nomination.  Some novices, some with name recognition, some with State government experience.  A mixed bag of folks. 

I got to my hotel on Friday evening and decided not to venture out--it was a long drive and I was pretty tired.  Mark Sanford told me earlier in the day about a gun show in Charleston on Saturday morning, so I decided to venture out before the Candidate Forum and see what was up at the gun show.  It was, incidentally, my first ever.

Gun Show Line near Charleston SC

I was greeted by a HUGE line.  I posted the photo above on Facebook with an estimate of 80 yards long--but there were another 40 once you got through the gates.  The veteran gun show folks in line with me all testified that they'd never seen anything like it before.  There is a real sense of fear among law-abiding gun owners that the second amendment is under siege. 

Once inside, I was gobsmacked by the number and variety of weapons for sale.  Most of you know I'm not much of a gun guy, but you can't help but be a little excited by the sight of some of the goods for sale there.  Plenty of ammo for sale too, and the rising prices of both guns and ammo were a constant topic among show-goers.  Econ 101 prevails, once again.

After a quick look around--made difficult by the dense crowd--I headed back to the hotel where the candidate forum was to take place.  I made contact with both the political director of the Sanford Campaign and the Campaign manager--both of whom were really bright, young motivated guys.  It brought home for me once again the degree to which American politics depends on the labor of such people.  For anyone who knows Sanford and his legendary capacity to be tight with a buck (which extends to being tight with the taxpayer's buck--the reason I support the guy), his campaign is a high-speed low drag affair.  Just a few folks, a bunch of volunteers, and high energy. 

I sat at the Sanford table for a while, talking with voters and handing out pamphlets--folks were very nice and happy to hear that he'd decided to run.  After a while, the campaign manager informed me that Sanford wanted to talk for a while, and so I followed him to one of the "breakout" rooms where Sanford was preparing.

We had a really good conversation.  The guy's obviously been through a lot, and he doesn't back down from it.  I asked him if voters ever get really unpleasant with him--and he answered that they occasionally do.  I asked how he handled it.  "I listen, and I take my lumps".  A pretty good answer.  We talked a good bit about my work, we talked a bit about foreign and defense policy, we talked about the size of the Navy and we talked about his kids and the Kittens.  I asked a couple of tough questions about strategy and I came away with a good sense that he's moving in the right direction  About twenty minutes later, the campaign manager grabbed us because the forum was going to start.

Fuzzy picture of the candidate forum

My assessment:  this is a guy who is at peace with himself.  He's earnestly trying to promote a small-government ideology and he thinks he can win.  Most likely, he'll face Ted Turner's son "Teddy" in the primary, if polls are to be believed.  I talked to some folks there and no one thought anyone in the field could get the 50% needed to obviate a run-off. 

The race is ALL about spending.  There were a lot of Tea-Party folks in the audience, and the "fair tax" had a good bit of airplay.  The forum format was pretty bad--sixty second opening statements and then a series of questions to the candidates to which they were limited sixty seconds in reply.  But only two or three candidates got to answer the question.  Then a new question.  So Sanford got three total questions and about five total minutes of talking (between openers, closers and answers)--everyone else only got the same amount too.  I'm not sure that voters were entirely well-served, but with 16 folks it is hard to do much better.  The three weeks in between the primary and the run off should be very interesting, when the field is winnowed down to just two. 

Again--there is no question that Sanford screwed up royally.  Folks who hesitate to support him do so from very defensible positions.  My support comes from a belief that we are out of control, and that we need folks in Congress who look at the world like Mark Sanford does and who have a demonstrated record of actually reining in government.  There are some good people running in this race, but none has the record that he does in actually DOING what the people of the district want done--getting the nation's fiscal mess squared away.

If you have a few extra dollars lying around, why not contribute to Mark Sanford for Congress?

Coulda Been Worse

    I had the flu last week, probably the worst dose I've had in ten years. The all time worst was when I was a sophomore in high school (I thought I was going to die) and the second worst was in Italy when we had something go through the barracks that was unGodly awful (guys were soiling themselves in bed, not very pleasant). I recall we were so shorthanded some of the NCOs and officers actually had to get off their lazy, useless friggin' asses and actually do some work.
    But for some unknown reason I've always been interested in pandemics, as least as they relate to history. And one of the more interesting for me was the 1918 influenza pandemic. It appeared out of nowhere, killed millions and disappeared just as quickly, in fact almost overnight. It was so widespread and so deadly it could have potentially changed the course of World War I (unfortunately for the Kaiser it hit the German Army just as hard as the Allies). 600,000 Americans died from the "Spanish Flu", between 50 and 100 million worldwide (they're not really sure). One could wake up feeling fine, have a 105º temperature at noon and be dead by five. It struck all ages indiscriminately; the young, the old, the healthy, the sick, it made no difference whatsoever. It's was like a plague of Egypt, some folks got it, some didn't and for no rhyme or reason. Some became infected and recovered, but most didn't.
    As it turns out this was a hybrid virus sort of half bird flu, half human flu. But what made it unique it had a particular combination of amino acids (proteins) that allowed it to attack the pulmonary sacs in the lungs which for some reason are normally imune to virus. So the victim suffocated, which of course explains why they turned blue before they died.
     By the by, that sweet young thing pictured is an Alaskan Inuit woman who died from the stuff and was buried in permanently frozen ground above the Arctic Circle. Along with her contribution and lung samples from a few soldiers from Fort Devens and Fort Riley, CDC geneticists were able to piece together the what, why and how of this killer.
   So, if you get the flu this year just keep in mind, you're gettin' off easy.

Big Fat Friday Free for All

Cruise ship vacation not going as planned?  Career unexpectedly derailed by taking a sip of water?  Initially afraid to visit this blog today because you might see a revolting picture of an obese person, like last week?  Let your hair down folks, and let it down here.