By Steven Hayward,  Powerline
OBAMA AND THE F-WORD

One of my holiday projects is to finish my rereading of the complete corpus of Whittaker Chambers (with a retrospective essay on his overlooked theological interests to follow eventually), and a couple days ago I read through an article Chambers wrote for The American Mercury in 1944 about the rise of Italian fascism.  Somehow this paragraph reminded me of someone . . . familiar (“let’s see, start’s with ‘O’ I think. . .”):

Civilized countries, like civilized individuals, like to keep their budgets balanced.  For years old-fashioned Italian leaders tried to make income and outgo jibe.  But in 1876 there came to power a modern politician for whom red entries had no terror, but even a certain charm.  Agostino Depretis, Italy’s first Liberal prime minister, started Italy on the road to fascism.  He was a journalist who discovered that the key to modern power politics is the masses and their mouthpieces, the Left politicians.  With their help, he managed to stay in power for eleven years.  He owed this achievement to a technique that seemed inspired then, but is familiar enough now: he had no program.  He simply promised every sort of reform regardless of whether or not his promises were contradictory.  Thus he promised to reduce taxation but increase public works, to restore prosperity but introduce social security.  This catholicity attracted men from all schools of thought.  Oppressed tenants and underpaid workers, reactionary landlords and big employers all sought to collect on the promissory notes which he issued on his way to power.


Seems to me you could easily rewrite this paragraph and apply it to Obama, spanning the range from the Occupy lowlifes to Obama’s Goldman Sachs financiers.

While we’re on the Chambers beat, I was surprised to discover that Chambers reviewed Saul Alinsky’s Reveille for Radicals in Time magazine in 1946.  Who knows what might have been edited out of the rather spare review that was printed, but what survived makes clear that Chambers clearly perceived that Alinsky was a not just an extreme liberal, but a Radical with a capital R, who had no use for American liberals or liberalism.  “A liberal is [a person] who puts his foot down on thin air,” Chambers quotes Alinsky from his book.  Chambers adds that “The author has glimpsed a vision which is greater than his ability to put it in practical terms.”  To the extent that Obama seems otherworldly, aloof, and/or clueless, it is because he really is a dedicated Alinskyite, whose desire to change America fundamentally should be taken seriously.  It helps explain why his heedless irresponsibility is in fact purposeful.

Enough said...

I am a Vietnam vet and I agree with the following words written by Mike Walker (Col. USMC, retired) in response to a note from a friend. I was always impressed with the Vietnamese people, their intelligence and sense of family. I've always thought that it would only be a matter of time that they would move to an open society.

Harry,

Thanks for the heads up on the Vietnam-HD show on the History Channel. Cannot imagine a presentation that balanced being made in the 1970's or 1980's.

In an ironic sense, the golf course is a good thing that came from the war. On balance, I think we did leave a mark on Vietnam that has proven to be more positive then negative.

The war, as any war, was horrific. After you get past that then the question for the current Government of Vietnam was to make sense of why we fought against them. 

When I got mobilized in 1990 found myself in Thailand for about a month with the Thai Royal Marines who were defending their border from the Vietnam-backed State of Cambodia (SOC). One of the things brought back to the G-2 was the SOC counterinsurgency structure developed by the Vietnamese to defeat the Khmer Rouge et al. It was an exact duplicate of the US structure used in the RVN, right down to Military Regions and a shoestring CORDS program. Obviously the NVA thought we were doing something right back then.

I think they looked to how we worked with Japan and Germany after WWII and how we stood by South Korea after the war there and then the Vietnamese looked to see how the Soviets and the Peoples Republic of China treated them after the war.

I think they finally concluded that we were wrong in their eyes but for honorable and respectable reasons. I think they realize that the United States is far better and stronger ally than any one else they could hope to find. Today, our military relationship with Vietnam is strong and growing.  As the golf course shows, American values and American concepts of economic freedoms are something to emulate in Vietnam. 

Perhaps in the end, the idea of what the United States was fighting for then in Vietnam proved to be more powerful than what happened geopolitically.

How the worm turns.

Semper Fi,

Mike

http://www.dananggolfclub.com/  

OBAMA’S JOB-DESTROYING MACHINE GRINDS ON

John Hinderaker, Powerline

I can’t figure out whether it is due to malice or incompetence; all I know is, if you wanted to hurt America’s economy, you would do pretty much everything the Obama administration does. Energy policy is the absolute worst. First Obama delayed (and perhaps killed) the Keystone pipeline. Michael Ramirez sums up that decision, which can be explained only as an economically irrational attempt to shore up the president’s liberal base in advance of next year’s election:

It seems that every day brings a new Obama administration outrage. Today, it was the USDA’s decision to delay shale drilling in Ohio:

President Obama’s United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by cancelling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists, on the pretext of studying the effects of hydraulic fracturing. …

Speaking of the WNF gas drilling, one environmentalist group spokesman suggested that moving forward with drilling “could turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley,” even though Wayne National Forest already has nearly 1300 oil and gas wells in operation which this study does not affect.

It has been estimated that that drilling in the Utica shale will produce up to 204,500 jobs by 2015. The Obama administration claims that those jobs have only been delayed and are not gone forever. Sure. In the unlikely event that Obama is re-elected, the only constraint on his economically destructive policies will be gone, and we can expect him to do everything possible to kill energy production and destroy job creation.

Contradictions galore.....

Obama ♥ the Big Guys

Big government, big labor, and big business in bed together.

Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard

By his own account, President Obama is the champion and protector of the little guy. He said last week he wants no one left “in a second-class status in this United States of America.” He’s “determined” to “make sure that nobody out there is going bankrupt just because somebody in their family is getting sick.” He’s committed to making Washington “responsive to the needs of people, not the needs of special interests [and] not just people who are hurting now, but also responsive to future generations.” Obama identifies himself with the 99 percent.

Yet the winners in the nearly three years of Obama’s presidency are the big guys — big business, big labor, and big government. Corporate profits have reached record levels. The influence of the biggest labor unions has surged in Washington, where it matters most. The federal government has grown in size and reach.

Meanwhile, the weak economy has hurt small business, the country’s number one job creator. Temporary tax breaks haven’t helped, and the threat of new taxes and a fresh barrage of regulations have put a crimp in expansion and hiring. Big business isn’t expanding or
hiring much either. A headline in Slate reflected this: “More Profits, Fewer Jobs.” 

Labor leaders have entrée at the White House and federal departments and agencies as never before. The most frequent visitor to the White House in Obama’s first year was Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union. The president delayed trade treaties with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia until they were altered to satisfy labor officials. If Obama understands that higher levels of unionization are associated with greater joblessness, he’s never let on.

Big government is a cliché that’s all the more true in the Obama era. Federal employment grew by 140,800 in Obama’s first two years, and the clout of federal officialdom has increased substantially. The Environmental Protection Agency has mounted a regulatory offensive the business community and Republicans have challenged but failed to halt. Obamacare, scheduled to go fully into effect in 2014, would give Washington control over the way health care is dispensed, financed, and regulated — not a takeover, but close to it.

“If you are big in today’s Washington, you lead a charmed life,” Washington consultant David Smick says.

In Obama’s case, there’s more to the gap between what he professes and what his administration has produced than meets the eye. Yes, his hypocrisy is breathtaking. But it represents the way he prefers to govern. Dealing with a few big institutions, even if they are dinosaurs, is easier than consulting more widely. So is relying on government to remedy every national ill, rather than letting markets, private groups, and individuals play pivotal roles.

“What an irony for an administration that claims populist roots,” Smick says. “Policy prescriptions for the most part use the top-down approach. Bring out the GE guy and various big labor bosses to deal with the jobless nightmare when the bulk of the solution involves fostering small business start-ups.”

Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric’s CEO, happens to be chairman of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. GE is famous for having paid no corporate income taxes in 2009 and 2010 and shipping thousands of jobs overseas. The council’s membership consists of 23 corporate chiefs, two labor leaders, one economist, one biologist, and zero representatives of small business.

For contributions to his reelection campaign, Obama has tapped the segment of big business he’s referred to as “fat cat bankers”: Wall Street. According to the Washington Post, he has raised more from financiers and bankers than all of the Republican presidential candidates combined. He’s raised more at Bain Capital than Mitt Romney, who cofounded the firm.

Wall Street has reason to be grateful. “During Obama’s tenure, Wall Street has roared back, even as the broader economy has struggled,” Zachary Goldfarb of the Washington Post wrote last week. “Wall Street firms .  .  . earned more in the first two and a half years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration.”

Smaller community banks haven’t fared as well. Wall Street banks have the manpower to comply with new restrictions endorsed by Obama and passed by Congress. Small banks don’t. Big banks are thriving while interest rates are near zero. The loan business of small banks suffers because of these rates.

At the same time, corporations are sitting on nearly $2 trillion amassed during the Obama era. If invested, the money would surely stir economic growth and job creation. But Obama has refused to remove impediments to investment, chiefly future tax hikes and regulations.

Organized labor is also a big-time funder of Obama’s campaign, as you might expect given the president’s sensitivity to every need of big unions. He’s turned the National Labor Relations Board into a knee-jerk advocate of the most extreme pro-union positions. And his Labor Department no longer requires labor leaders to disclose many specifics of their expenditure of union money. This hamstrings government oversight and leaves union members in the dark.

In Obama’s strengthening of big government, the biggest beneficiaries are unelected bureaucrats. They’re unleashed. The new health care law would create 159 new boards, commissions, or programs, including the Independent Payment Advisory Board with power to decide what Medicare pays for and, by extension, what private insurance companies cover. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created with sweeping authority over how money is loaned to consumers. The bureau is empowered to write its own rules and decide its budget without depending on Congress for funding. The Federal Reserve delivers the money.

Last week, Obama veered from his top priority with unemployment at 9 percent: more jobs. A Canadian company plans to hire as many as 20,000 workers to build an oil pipeline from the province of Alberta to Texas. Its application, pending since 2008, has sparked growing protests by environmental activists. Obama promises to decide personally whether to approve the pipeline. And last week, he took a preliminary step, delaying the decision until after the 2012 election. So for now, the little guy lost. The winner: big green.

Mike Ramirez really has a way... gets another "hat trick"...

Occupy Wallstreet Nonsense… contributed by Mike Walker…

Here is the reality of the "war on corporate greed." Simply brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY8LKII_MNA

Here is the reality of the "war on corporate greed."

There are a lot of people that need this math class.

You know this is an elitist thing. The opportunity to say, "I was there." This is not how change is made. These guys are disorganized and relatively incoherent. It is a diversion and another symptom of our lack of common purpose.

Why S&P downgraded the U.S.- this puts it in perspective...

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385

Hope this helps!

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired) shares his educated views on international politics that have far-reaching consequences...

All,

I will skip the arguments that the U.N. had the right idea in the first place when it urged a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.  An inverse twist to the logic of Winston Churchill comes to mind: The United Nations always gets it wrong after trying everything that was right.

The problem with the Palestinian application for statehood is not its primary objective. Anyone with any sense must admit that the Palestinian people must have statehood. The problem lies in its position on Israel. Anyone with any sense must admit that Israel has a right to be a state. Therein lies the rub.

For the U.N. to admit a state that has an avowed mission to destroy another member state is to destroy the United Nations. It is intellectual, moral, and ethical fraud to ignore that reality. On 29 November 1947 the U.N. adopted a dual-state solution (U.N. Resolution 181 (II)). The reaction in the Arab region at that time, to include the Palestinian leadership, was to destroy by any means possible U.N. Resolution 181 (II). The sole objective was the destruction of any Jewish state. They failed, and rightly so. Thus, here we are, nearly 68 years later, and heirs to that destructive policy, the heirs to those who sought the destruction of the 1947 U.N. dual-state plan, now propose to maintain their hate-filled aims and be rewarded for it.

It would be better to rename the United Nations the Warring Nations. Let us embrace the concept that entrance into the U.N. can be predicated on the goal of the destruction of fellow member states. Let the weak states beware. Let us embark on the path to World War III and be done with it.

Semper Fi,

Mike

Remember how this was going to be an administration that was set apart from the past... what's with all the blame? Especially as we close in on almost three years of constant blame... with no solutions but lots of opportunities to "spend"... and, well, blame!

Didn't we know? Didn't the national media have a responsibility to report on Barry's lack of experience and his tendency to side-step issues as a state senator in Illinois. Now it has come to this. An incompetent administrator being steered by a gaggle of academic visionaries to the utter detriment of the American people and the people of the entire world. BH

Can a president truly become irrelevant?

BY JAZZ SHAW, HotAir 

When Barack Obama draws criticism from Republicans and conservatives, it’s about as much of a breaking news flash as Dog Bites Man. We begin to move into Man Bites Dog territory, however, when a mounting wave of unrest comes from his own left flank – a scenario which has not only come to pass, but shifted into a significantly higher gear this past week. One of his latest detractors is found coming from the sector which would normally contain his biggest cheerleaders. This just in from Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast.

More dispiriting news, this time about the White House overturning the EPA’s proposed new rules on smog. That comes a few hours after the jobs report from Friday morning, one of the bleakest yet. And it comes a few days in advance of what everyone expects will be a small-thinking, modest, blah jobs speech by the president. It’s not only getting to the point where it’s getting hard to see him winning reelection. It’s getting to the point where it’s hard to imagine people taking him seriously for the remaining 14 months of his current term…

I keep thinking back lately to that candidate and team I watched in 2008. The candidate really had his finger on something. The team almost never made a serious mistake. When a mistake did happen, they did a respectable job of digging their way out of it. They had some fight in them. Well, I’ve learned something new from these folks: Up until now, I’ve thought that running a strong presidential campaign is a sign that one can probably govern fairly well too. But there appears to be little correlation between the two.

Tomasky’s article is not coming from some default position of criticizing the White House. In fact, he goes to great lengths to continue the recent meme about how Republicans are intentionally fighting job growth to damage the president’s reelection prospects. (An interesting theory, all things considered. It’s as if they seem to believe that there’s a magical switch deep in the bowels of the US Capital Building which could suddenly put everyone back to work, but John Boehner is refusing to flip it so the GOP can pick up a few more seats next year.)

But the complaints being aired are interesting none the less. A couple of them are the usual recent gripes about Obama “backing down” on the ozone regulations and “giving in to the Republicans” on spending cuts. But the one I found the most telling was the comment, “a small thinking, modest, blah jobs speech..”

What is driving President Obama from a position where he can exert any real influence on the political process – even from inside his own party – is not failed or detrimental policies. (Though there have been more than a few of those.) It’s the image he has come to project of being completely impotent in the face of any opposition, petulant when people fail to immediately go along with his brilliant vision, and incapable of wielding the power of the Oval Office to any tangible extent.

This isn’t exactly something new, either. The first warning signs should have come when Obama was negotiating the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Instead of turning the chore over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, (as he did on so many other issues like the health care law) he appointed himself chief negotiator with the GOP. Obama wanted the middle class tax cuts, but wanted to end the one for the highest rates. The Republicans, on the other hand, wanted all of the tax cuts. So Obama compromised by giving the GOP everything they wanted, which included the piece Obama wanted. I remember doing a radio hit during that period where I characterized the negotiations like this:

REPUBLICANS: OK, Mr. President. What we want is for you to buy us this really expensive dinner, complete with filet mignon, truffles and a bottle of sixty year old scotch. We know it’s expensive, but if you’ll do this, we’ll let you buy us lunch too. And that’s going to cost a lot less

OBAMA: (scratching chin) Well… I really did want to buy you lunch. OK. I’ll take it!

Not exactly Donald Trump level deal making skills on display there…

There were more examples where his base was disheartened, but they were just leading up to the speech debacle this week. Without rehashing the entire thing, it was one of the most childish, petulant displays of an ineffective temper tantrum I’ve seen in ages. But perhaps the worst part – at least in the eyes of his progressive supporters – was that he once again immediately backed down the moment Boehner showed the slightest sign of resistance. And now he is scheduling one of the most rare of Washington occasions – an address to a joint session of Congress which is not the State of the Union speech – and even his die-hard supporters seem to be considering watching a re-run of Benny Hill that night instead. Nobody seems to think this will be more than another flaccid campaign appearance which will waste one of the chief executives’ most powerful tools for zero results.

Moves like this leave the Democrats adrift in terms of strategy, with the titular head of their party effectively Missing in Action on the political battlefield. Is it any wonder so many of them are throwing up their hands in dismay? It’s not that Obama isn’t pursuing the correct policies to make them happy. It’s that he’s completely ineffective in getting any of them accomplished, despite controlling the White House and the upper chamber of Congress.

All of this brings us back our joint entry and exit question: can a sitting president ever become completely irrelevant in American politics? And has Barack Obama already achieved that dubious distinction?

Barry stated right from the get-go that he would stand on his principles even if it meant that he was a "one term President"..... he has. Most (96%) of his Senate votes and Illinois Senate votes were cast as "present" not "yay" or "nay"... he didn't want to "position" himself politically. That is his "principles" then and now. He doesn't want to stick his neck out. The only leading that he does is from the "bully pulpit" not from legislative skill. The grandest accomplishment was his "Obamacare" which was entirely driven and written by the minions of Pelosi and Reid, thus it is earmarked with all of their liberal pork barrel inclusions and the entire massiveness of it has doomed it. The general idea was great, provide medical care where needed. Pelosi and Reid saw the sign saying "free donuts" and went crazy with their feeding frenzy! What was needed was leadership that balanced social need and financial resources.


Do you remember how long it took him to setup a surge in Afghanistan? It took like 4-5 months ... and well into the waiting the US general in charge was asked what he had said to Obama and he responded that the president had never gotten in touch with him, ever! I'm afraid that this is typical of his principled approach... BH



Top 10 Reasons Obama Won’t Win Reelection
by  http://www.humanevents.com/ 



With bad news seemingly everywhere, here is something to give hope to conservatives: the Top 10 Reasons Obama Won’t Win Reelection.




1.  Jobless rate too high:  With the latest Labor Department report showing the unemployment rate at 9.1%, jobs will likely remain the No. 1 issue for voters.  Well over 2 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office, and he wasted a trillion dollars on a stimulus bill that didn’t stimulate.  Unfortunately for the American people, his policies will keep the jobless rate high, right up to November 2012.




2.  Economy in doldrums:  It’s not just jobs, but everything about the economy remains snake-bit.  With housing slumping and the stock market tanking, all Americans are feeling the impact of the down economy.  With the threat of a double-dip recession looming, don’t expect a turnaround in time to help Obama’s reelection.




3.  ObamaCare looms:  With health care costs continuing to rise, it is clear that ObamaCare wasn’t the answer.  As the implementation of the highly unpopular health care measure nears, more workers will be dumped from their employers' health care plans, taxes will rise and fewer doctors will be available—giving voters more reasons to dump its architect.




4.  Out-of-control debt and credit downgrade:  The debt-ceiling deal did little to fix the long-term debt problem, as the U.S. is still on tap to borrow $7 trillion over the next decade, adding to the $4 trillion Obama has already racked up since taking office.  With the S&P downgrade, Obama goes down in history as the first President to lose America’s AAA credit rating.




5.  Depressed base:  Progressives are having buyer’s remorse and are trying to convince everyone that Obama is not even much of a liberal.  The anti-war left certainly won’t be out in force on Election Day.  Nor will black turnout match 2008’s historical number.  More of the young will stay home.  The excitement of electing the first black President has worn off and even his staunchest supporters are disappointed that Obama hasn’t fulfilled their expectations.




6.  Opposition energized:  The Tea Party didn’t even exist in 2008, and the 2010 midterm elections showed the country rejects the President’s big-spending policies.  No matter which Republican gains the party’s nomination, expect an energized grassroots opposition to Obama’s second term.




7.  Changes in battleground states:  The terrain that Obama faces in his reelection bid will be more difficult to navigate in 2012 than four years ago.  He starts out by losing six Electoral College votes from states he carried in 2008 due to population changes registered by the 2010 Census.  Then the 2010 midterm elections saw Republicans win governors’ races previously held by Democrats in key battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan—all states Obama won in 2008.




8.  Foreign policy mess:  From the Libyan war to mixed signals given to Middle East protesters, from the Russian “reset” to China’s economic belligerence, there is not much that Obama can tout as a foreign policy success.  Now with deficit hawks setting their sights on the Pentagon, Obama is likely to preside over the dismantling of America’s superpower status.




9.  Media less a adoring:  Obama will still have most of the media on his side for his reelection bid, but they certainly won’t be getting thrills up their legs, admiring the crease in his pants, or writing how the seagulls were awed.  Even Obamaphile Chris Mathhews has turned on the President, saying a recent Obama speech sounded like a Fox News commercial, a harsh epithet coming from the MSNBC host.




10.  Aloof, inept:  Now that America has seen the President up close for nearly three years, the magic that many believed in during his hope and change odyssey is clearly gone.  His aloof personality and scolding partisanship will not endear him to the electorate this time.  As his falling approval ratings attest, he increasingly looks pathetically inept and not up to the job he was elected to do.




HUMAN EVENTS is the news source President Reagan called his "favorite newspaper" and we still hold high the Reaganesque principles of free enterprise, limited government and, above all, a staunch, unwavering defense of American freedom. 

Big win for Wisconsin and the rest of us...

Wisconsin GOP's Stand Could Reverberate Elsewhere

Associated press

Madison –  A stand by Wisconsin Republicans against a massive effort to oust them from power could reverberate across the country as the battle over union rights and the conservative revolution heads toward the 2012 presidential race.

Democrats succeeded in taking two Wisconsin state Senate seats away from Republican incumbents on Tuesday but fell one short of what they needed to seize majority control of the chamber.

Republicans saw it as a big win for Gov. Scott Walker and a confirmation of his conservative agenda, the hallmark of which was a polarizing proposal taking away most collective bargaining rights from public workers.

"Republicans are going to continue doing what we promised the people of Wisconsin -- improve the economy and get Wisconsin moving back in the right direction," Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said in a prepared statement after the victory.

Walker attempted to strike a bipartisan tone in victory, saying that he reached out to leaders in both parties.

"In the days ahead I look forward to working with legislators of all parties to grow jobs for Wisconsin and move our state forward," Walker said in a prepared statement.

Democrats and union leaders tried to make the best of the historic GOP wins. There had been only 13 other successful recalls of state-level office holders nationwide since 1913.

"The fact of the matter remains that, fighting on Republican turf, we have begun the work of stopping the Scott Walker agenda," said Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate.

Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, said voters sent a message that there is a growing movement to reclaim the middle class.

"Let's be clear, anyway you slice it, this is an unprecedented victory," he said.

Still, it was far less than what Democrats set out to achieve. And while they still plan to move ahead with recalling Walker, maintaining momentum for that effort which can't start until November will be difficult.

Sen. Luther Olsen, one of the four Republicans who won, said he hoped the victories would "take the wind out of the recall for Walker, but I'm not sure."

Two Democratic senators face recall elections next week, but even if they prevail, Republicans would still hold a narrow 17-16 majority.

Four Republican senators held on to their seats Tuesday. They were Olsen and Sens. Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls, Rob Cowles of Allouez, and Alberta Darling of River Hills. Two Republicans -- Randy Hopper of Fond du Lac and Dan Kapanke of La Crosse -- were defeated. Former deputy mayor of Oshkosh Jessica King beat Hopper and Democratic state Rep. Jennifer Shilling beat Kapanke.

A ninth senator, Democrat Dave Hansen of Green Bay, won his recall election last month.

Collectively, more than $31 million has been spent on the recalls, largely from outside conservative groups, unions and others.

Republican and Democratic strategists were leery of reading too much into the results heading into next year's campaign in which Wisconsin is expected to be a key swing state.

Democratic strategist Chris Lehane said the results could provide "some early radar warnings" about the 2012 races.

"At a minimum, we already know that the conservatives are providing energy for progressive to fight back like an angry badger that otherwise may not have existed," he said.

Lehane said Wisconsin's tumultuous year since November's elections has been a microcosm of the current "rollercoaster" era of U.S. politics.

Wisconsin voters had mixed emotions about the necessity of the recalls.

Wayne Boland, 41, a Whitefish Bay man who works in marketing for a medical equipment maker, said he voted for the Republican Darling "not because I entirely agree with everything the Republican Party has done or the governor" but because they're working toward addressing the state's problems.

Republicans won control of both houses of the Legislature and the governor's office in the 2010 election just nine months ago.

Democrats had hoped enough wins in the recalls would have allowed them to block the Republican agenda, but the GOP will hold on to their majorities that have allowed them to rapidly pass bills through the Legislature.

The elections were also closely watched in other states undergoing similar partisan battles.

A coalition of unions and labor-friendly groups fighting a Wisconsin-style collective bargaining overhaul in Ohio said the outcome of the recall elections will have little bearing on whether Ohio's law is repealed this fall.

The effort in Wisconsin was about recalling specific Republicans who voted for the anti-union bill while the push in Ohio is about repealing the law itself. That makes it difficult to compare the two states, said We Are Ohio spokeswoman Melissa Fazekas.

Supporters of the Ohio law also are distancing their state from the fight in Wisconsin.

"We're not focused on Wisconsin, and Ohioans aren't looking to another state to tell them where they should stand," said Jason Mauk, spokesman for Building a Better Ohio, a group defending the collective bargaining law.

Ohioans will vote Nov. 8 on whether to accept or reject the union-limiting law signed by Republican Gov. John Kasich in March that limits bargaining rights for more than 350,000 police, firefighters, teachers and other government employees.

Unlike Wisconsin, Ohio's Constitution makes no provision for recalling elected officials.

The Economy

A word from Mike Walker, Colonel USMC (retired)

All,

OK, so things are getting tough.  Sorry, grew up a while ago and my first “American” instinct is to roll up my sleeves, tighten my belt, and get things going in the right direction.  

That means I have a big heart plus a ready and helping hand for those who are in need but little or no sympathy for whiners, enablers, and “self-defined victims.” In other words, I am a progressive that puts a lot more faith in Ben Franklin who liked to quote Aesop than a far too cynical Saul Alinsky.  “God helps those who help themselves” is my motto.  That means I have no political friends.

Nonetheless, here is my gratuitous advice.  

We got it wrong.  By “we” I mean Democrats and Republicans, Wall Street and Elm Street, all the branches of government and the other cats and dogs to boot.

America needs jobs and jobs means focusing like a laser on small businesses.  

We had our chance when it was an easy fix and blew it (was preaching this when George Bush was president in 2008 and have not changed my tune by one note).  Now we need to do the best we can in the circumstances we are now facing.

Bush and Obama gave me a nice little tax break as a middle class American in the name of “stimulus” that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.  Shame on both of them.   Giving me a couple of hundred dollars is nice but those bucks gave me no ability whatsoever to create a job. 

 

Now, based on some super-duper macroeconomic theory of trickle-up or trickle-down or trickle-on-your-pant-leg after too many beers this is supposed to create jobs.  Bunk.

Focus like a laser on small businesses.  

To be truthful, Uncle Sam is largely out of the game.  I write that because the odds that the collective bureaucratic wits in DC will do everything in their power to create federal rules, guidelines and laws to help creating wealth for small businesses who then hire people is a bridge too far.  

The DC crowd has a greater understanding of what it takes to put an astronaut on Mars than they do in removing barriers to small business wealth and job creation.  

The ability to create jobs in the political realm now largely lies with state and local governments.  The most important component is helping community banks extend responsible loans and lines of credit to small businesses.  

That was the big failure of TARP.  I supported TARP and still do but it was flawed.  It was crippled by the myopic mind-set that overwhelmed the judgment of DC and Wall Street (the NY Fed, banks, and insurance firms behind all the CDS’s) when TARP was created in 2008.  The lesson is that macroeconomic solutions will ultimately fail if you don’t address the underlying microeconomic issues.  

In this case the underlying issue was helping community banks.  When the national monetary policy is to set the Federal funds rate as close to 0% as possible you hurt the cash flow to Main Street.  If you add the increased and prudent requirements for financial institutions to keep cash to cover the sour and reckless loans on their books from years ago you virtually starve small banks.  

How can a community bank borrow cash to make loans when it can’t help but come in last in return on investment in a 0% world? They can’t and thus get far too little money from the big boys now desperate for higher returns.  When Federal fund rate is at 0% no one in the depository system and beyond wants to loan money to the little banks that fund small businesses that drive job creation.  

Even if the little banks tried to attract the money from the big boys by offering a higher return on the loan they would be committing suicide.  Why?  Because everyone would assume they are offering a better return on the loan because they are so desperate for cash that they MUST BE IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE.  Kill them!

Thus, not enough money goes to community banks so small businesses are cash starved and hundreds of thousands of new jobs are never created.

To hell with the close-minded  Keynesians from their perch atop Mount Olympus.

Regards,

Mike

Obama Is and Is Not Carter

By Victor Davis Hanson  

There is a lot of anguish on the left that Barack Obama is starting to resemble Jimmy Carter, as if his whining, ineffective style and lack of intestinal fortitude will doom the liberal agenda in the way that Carter once did as well. That analysis is upside down. Obama remains a formidable, albeit teleprompted, speaker, about the best emissary of the leftist worldview imaginable. He is young and vigorous in a way Bill Clinton was and Jimmy Carter was not. The problem is not Barack Obama the person, but Barack Obama’s hard-core leftist agenda. Bill Clinton evolved into a centrist who eventually reflected usually what 51 percent of the electorate wanted. In contrast, Jimmy Carter was, like Obama, an ideologue, but with an ideology that few Americans embrace. 

Obama’s lackluster polls do not necessarily reflect any sudden lack of charisma or a distracted president chumming it up on the golf links, but the growing awareness of the American people that they, for a variety of reasons in 2008, elected another Carter-like liberal whose economic policies of higher taxes, bigger government, and larger deficits don’t work, and whose ill effects are enhanced, rather than mitigated, by presidential jawboning aimed at the very productive classes who do most of the hiring. He is proving a sort of national catharsis, presenting statist, centrally planned ideas in their most attractive passage, and in the process, as the economy stalls, souring Americans on the substance rather than the style.

So there is one difference, and a very important one at that, between Carter and Obama. The so-called progressive community for over 30 years could blame the Carter implosion on his own inept delivery, wooden personality, and grating preachy style. But in Obama they had a figure right out of central casting — young, charismatic, non-traditional, ‘post-racial,’ glib, and at times eloquent. So the present mess, unlike that of 1977–80, cannot so easily be attributed to packaging rather than content, a fact which has far more profound consequences to the leftist cause.

As I understand most liberal critiques, it goes something like this: “Carter’s ineptness doomed an otherwise noble cause; Clinton’s political mastery proved a success, but at the expense of compromising the cause; Obama at last has Clinton’s flair but is a committed liberal, and therefore will succeed where the two others failed.”  I think we are seeing that such analyses are flawed, and a far better one will prove to be: “Even a Barack Obama cannot advance a fundamentally unsound agenda.”

Buckle up, venture to this site to get your lunch handed to you... http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Debt Crisis Shows Obama Lacks Presidential Skills

By MARY KATE CARY

As the negotiations and the vote-getting on raising the debt ceiling have dragged on these last two weeks, it's became clear that President Obama really is not a good negotiator. Several times, just as a deal seemed imminent, the discussions have collapsed—and very publicly. There were leaks from the administration, he-said-she-said accounts from both sides, angry White House press conferences—just a "parade of horribles," as lawyers would call it. The result is a rising tide of public disgust and frustration. Not only has he lost bipartisan support in both the House or the Senate, his lack of ability to persuade people to join his cause has cost President Obama the vital center of the electorate.


According to yesterday's Pew Research national survey, with results collected just this week, only 31 percent of independent voters want to see Obama re-elected, down from 42 percent in May. Two months ago, Obama held a 7 point lead among independent registered voters two months ago, but independent support has swung 15 points the other way, giving an 8 point advantage to a generic Republican. "This is consistent with a drop in Obama's approval among all independents. Currently, a majority (54 percent) disapprove of Obama's performance for the first time in his presidency," according to Pew.


Maybe it's because Hillary Clinton's "three in the morning" ad was right—maybe he just doesn't have the experience to be president. Of the top 100 jobs that would qualify one to be president, being a law professor isn't one of them. A plumber would be better qualified than a law professor. Seriously—a plumber is a problem solver who has to keep customers happy. A used car salesman knows how to close a deal. A UPS deliveryman knows how to meet a deadline. A diplomat knows how to be, well, diplomatic. Meaning he doesn't lecture people about "eating their peas" when he needs them to jump on board.


Think about some of our former presidents and their qualifications for the job. Bill Clinton had been a governor, a job that involves being an executive decision-maker. Ronald Reagan had headed the Screen Actors Guild and worked for General Electric, in addition to being governor. President Bush 41 had served as ambassador to the U.N., liaison to Communist China, head of the RNC during Watergate, director of the CIA during its most difficult years, and had even served as a freshman Republican in a Democratic Congress. Harry Truman had run a men's clothing store that failed in a recession and narrowly escaped bankruptcy—certainly something that would have prepared him for the job today. Surely some of them got elected for reasons other than their qualifications—after all, the desire for economic or political change can be a powerful force among voters, no matter who is running— but certainly some presidents' past experiences helped them once they got in office. 


Peggy Noonan writes today that "the secret of Mr. Obama is that he isn't really very good at politics, and he isn't good at politics because he doesn't really get people."  I think that's right. Being a plumber or a used car salesman—or a union organizer or a men's clothing store owner or the liaison to Communist China—requires you to know how to deal with people and how to negotiate in good faith. Being a law professor doesn't.