The Incredible Amazing "Who Cares" Presidency

Victor Davis Hanson wonders about Mr Hopey Change

The Truly Amazing Fact [Victor Davis Hanson]

One wonders not that President Obama tells untruths (e.g. no middle-class tax increase, health-care "reform" will control costs, C-Span's airing of health-care debates, listing pending legislation on the internet for five days, closing down Guantanamo within a year, advocacy for all combat forces out of Iraq by March 2008, no lobbyists in government, an end to earmarks, and all the old ones about public campaign financing, the actual relationships with Wright, Ayers, Khalidi, Blago, etc.), since all politicians fib.

Rather the wonder is that he does it so serially, after promising such hope and change from the past political culture — and that his base and the favorable media care so little, the same media that for nearly a decade boasted that their signature was to care so deeply and passionately about presidential veracity. Factor all that in with a weak economy, 10 percent unemployment, astronomical deficits, polarizing appointments, and apologetics abroad, and, again, the amazing thing is not that Obama has fallen faster and further than any first-year president, but that in quite wondrous fashion, he still earns an average approval rating in the polls of 48 percent. Now that is amazing, and either a testament to his political savvy, the obsequiousness of the New York and D.C. media, or the hope by most that they can be included in the growing distribution of entitlements which now draws in nearly 30 percent of the population for substantial or near-complete subsidy.

Cartoon Controversy: Comedy Central wimps out; South Park guys deserve applauses; support

Freedom of Speech vs. Jihadist Intimidation.

You gotta give Trey Parker & Matt Stone kudos; and a big BOO to Comedy Central and all the other MSM wussies.

The Mo the Merrier [Mark Steyn]

My weekend column touches in part on Comedy Central caving in to Islamic intimidation.On CNN, Ayaan Hirsi Ali said:
If the entertainment business were to take this on and show how ridiculous this is, there'll be too many people to threaten. And at that time I won't need protection and the gentlemen from South Park won't need protection.

I made a similar point at the time of the Danish Mohammed cartoons:

The minute there were multimillion-dollar bounties on those cartoonists’ heads, The Times of London and Le Monde and The Washington Post and all the rest should have said "this Thursday we’re all publishing all the cartoons. If you want to put bounties on all our heads, you better have a great credit line at the Bank of Jihad. If you want to kill us, you’ll have to kill us all.
Despite being an industry that endlessly congratulates itself on its "courage", the press failed that test. Whether the showbiz set will prove any stiffer-spined remains to be seen. However:
Her point . . . was that only by sharing the risk of retaliation for blasphemy can the public help protect her, Parker, Stone and other insolent infidels. If each threat produces more blasphemers than it silences, then threats suddenly become counterproductive. Or at least, they do to rational minds. (A flaw in the theory?)

Hence, the first annual "Everybody Draw Mohammad" Day.

UPDATE: Just to underline the point, Kurt Westergaard has been involuntarily retired by his newspaper for "security reasons". So angry Muslims barely need to lift the ol' scimitar anymore. Just threatening to kill you will get your boss to end your career.

What Kind of Socialist is Barack Obama?

Good question from Jonah Goldberg ....

What Kind of Socialist is Barack Obama? [Jonah Goldberg]

As I've been hinting for a while, I have the lead essay in the new issue of Commentary on Obama and the socialism charge. It's long, but I think necessarily so. I tried to cut through a lot of the clutter on the issue. John Podhoretz has kindly taken it out from behind the firewall for folks who want to check it out. Please do, and let me know what you think. After the weekend I'll respond to some of the feedback.

Political Cartoon of the Day

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?id=530895

Obama Statement on Israel's 62nd Independence Day

What, no video ?

Obama on Israel Independence Day
By JPOST.COM STAFF 20/04/2010

In a statement released by the White House Monday, President Barack Obama shared his sentiments on Israel's 62nd anniversary."

On the 62nd Anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel, I join the American people in congratulating the government and people of Israel on this celebration of their independence," Obama said.

"Minutes after David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence, realizing the dream of a state for the Jewish people in their historic homeland, the United States became the first country to recognize Israel," he added.

"To this day, we continue to share a strong, unbreakable bond of friendship between our two nations, anchored by the United States’ enduring commitment to Israel’s security," Obama stressed.

"Israel remains our important partner and key strategic ally in the Middle East, and I am confident that our special relationship will only be strengthened in the months and years to come," Obama said in his speech.

"I look forward to continuing our efforts with Israel to achieve comprehensive peace and security in the region, including a two-state solution, and to working together to counter the forces that threaten Israel, the United States, and the world," Obama underlined.

"On this day, we once again honor the extraordinary achievements of the people of Israel, and their deep and abiding friendship with the American people. I offer my best wishes to President Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the people of Israel as they celebrate this happy occasion," he concluded.

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

In the real world:

AIFL slams humiliation of Israel
By JPOST.COM STAFF 17/04/2010

In open letter, pro-Israel group voices its concern over relations.

AIFL slams humiliation of Israel by Obama

In an open letter, the America-Israel Friendship League voices its concern over relations.The America-Israel Friendship League (AIFL) has sent an open letter to US President Barack Obama in concern over what it calls “deteriorating relations that appear to be developing” between the US and Israel.

The organization affirmed Obama’s commitment to relations between the two countries. But it urged the US president to reconsider his apparent intention of pressing Israel to abandon its longstanding Jerusalem policy, particularly regarding construction there, as a precondition to talks with the Palestinians.

The AIFL stressed the special “unbroken” link and place of Jerusalem in the tradition of Israel and Jews worldwide, and noted that Israel’s policy was to continue construction activities in the capital, as it has been doing for the past 40 years. The organization stated that such construction had not encumbered previous negotiations with the Palestinians nor peace treaties achieved between Israel and its neighbors during that period. Israel’s right to build in Jerusalem, it wrote, was recognized in the 2004 agreement between former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former US President George W. Bush, which “[Obama’s] administration has apparently decided not to recognize.”

The AIFL acknowledged the “poor timing” of Israel’s announcement of Jerusalem construction during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel, but wrote that it did not justify the “public criticism” of Israel nor an apparent attempt to “humiliate its prime minister,” suggesting that such matters have to be resolved “as befitting close allies.”

Both Democrats and Republicans on the AIFL board were “distressed by the actions of the [US] government in this very public shaming of Israel,” especially in light of the current “concerted campaign” by its enemies to de-legitimize Israel’s existence.

Obama’s actions, the AIFL stated, “were not in line with our values.” America’s alignment with the Arab league’s position regarding Jerusalem “reflects an unjustified change in the US Mideast policy.” According to the AIFL, any changes in Israel’s position regarding Jerusalem should only come in the course of direct negotiations with the Palestinians.

The organization questioned whether Israel’s failure to follow US policy would lead to any withdrawal of US diplomatic or material assistance to Israel. It suggested that such actions “could provide our common enemies with succor,” as well as encourage hatred and incitement of Israel and Jews.

At a time of “unparalleled challenges” faced by the world from Iran, “this is not a time to exacerbate any real or perceived slights.”The organization also raised the question of the US’s image among its allies. “If Israel can be disdained with such ease, what does this say about the US and its steadfastness with its other allies?” the letter asks.

The AIFL called on the Obama administration to engage in “an exchange of ideas” on the issues of Mideast peace and Israel’s security.

Free Lunch ?

There is a free iPhone app to help the uninsured find health care. . . .

Ummm, if you can afford the iPhone. . . . shouldn't you be able to afford healthcare ?

I see far too many uninsured people loaded w/ the latest tech gadgets ... priorities, priorities.

Why, indeed ?

Who Needs Apartheid? [Mark Steyn]

This is a question that should be asked more often:

Moshe Ya’alon, a former Israel Defense Forces general who now serves as Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategic affairs minister, posed the following query in an interview published in the Jerusalem Post: “If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the [Palestinian] insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews? Why do those areas have to be Judenrein? Don’t Arabs live here, in the Negev and the Galilee? Why isn’t that part of our public discussion? Why doesn’t that scream to the heavens?”

As Jonathan Tobin points out, the official goal of the Middle East "peace process" is a "two-state solution", in one of which Muslims live alongside Jews and have voting rights and representation in the legislature, while in the other there are no Jews at all and, as in "moderate" Jordan, to sell your house to a Jew is a crime punishable by death. There goes the neighborhood, right? When the western campus left holds its annual "Israeli Apartheid Week", presumably it's in philosophical support of the notion that you don't need to run an "apartheid" system if you just get rid of everyone who's not like you.

If Muslims are so revolted by Jews that they cannot tolerate any living among them, well, they're free to believe what they want. What is less understandable is the present position of the United States government. The President and his Secretary of State have made it very clear that they regard a few dozen housing units in Jerusalem as a far greater threat to Middle East peace than the Iranian nuclear program. Why is it in the interest of the United States to validate, enthusiastically, the most explicit and crudest bigotry of the Palestinian "cause"?

How Bill Clinton exploited Oklahoma City Bombing for political gain

and is still doing it !

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-Clinton-exploited-Oklahoma-City-for-political-gain-91267829.html


How Clinton exploited Oklahoma City for political gain

By: Byron York Chief Political CorrespondentApril 18, 2010


With the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing Monday, former President Bill Clinton is playing a starring role in the liberal effort to draw what the New York Times calls "parallels between the antigovernment tone that preceded that devastating attack and the political tumult of today." The short version of the narrative is: Today's Tea Partiers are tomorrow's right-wing bombers.

On Friday, Clinton spoke at a symposium on the bombing organized by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, founded and run by John Podesta, the former Clinton White House chief of staff who also directed the Obama transition. The theme of Clinton's remarks was that movements like the Tea Party, characterized by extreme right-wing rhetoric, could lead to political violence. In the last few days, news accounts in the Times ("Recalling '95 Bombing, Clinton Sees Parallels"), Newsweek ("Hate: Antigovernment extremists are on the rise -- and on the march"), and ABC News ("Watch your words") drove home Clinton's point. "This is a legitimate thing to do," the former president said, "drawing parallels to the time running up to Oklahoma City and a lot of the political discord that exists in our country today."

What Clinton and his supporters do not talk about is the way in which Clinton, aided by pollster/adviser Dick Morris, exploited the bombing to make a political comeback from what was the lowest point in Clinton's presidency to that time. (The Lewinsky scandal was still three years in the future.) In the days after Oklahoma City, Clinton and Morris devised a plan to use the bombing to discredit and outmaneuver the new Republican majority in Congress.

Clinton was in deep political trouble in April 1995. Six months earlier, voters had resoundingly rejected Democrats in the 1994 mid-term elections, giving the GOP control of both House and Senate. Polls showed the public viewed Clinton as weak, incompetent and ineffective. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his GOP forces seized the initiative on virtually every significant issue, while Clinton appeared to be politically dead. The worst moment may have come on April 18, the day before the bombing, when Clinton plaintively told reporters, "The president is still relevant here."

And then came the explosion at the Murrah Federal Building. In addition to seeing a criminal act and human loss, Clinton and Morris saw opportunity. If the White House could tie Gingrich, congressional Republicans and conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh to the attack, then Clinton might gain the edge in the fight against the GOP.

Morris began polling about Oklahoma City almost immediately after the bombing. On April 23, four days after the attack, Clinton appeared to point the finger straight at his political opponents during a speech in Minneapolis. "We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other," he said. "They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."

At a White House meeting four days later, on April 27, Morris presented Clinton with a comeback strategy based on his polling. Morris prepared an extensive agenda for the session, a copy of which he would include in the paperback version of his 1999 memoir, Behind the Oval Office. This is how the April 27 agenda began:

AFTERMATH OF OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

A. Temporary gain: boost in ratings -- here today, gone tomorrow
B. More permanent gain: Improvements in character/personality attributes -- remedies weakness, incompetence, ineffectiveness found in recent poll
C. Permanent possible gain: sets up Extremist Issue vs. Republicans

Later, under the heading "How to use extremism as issue against Republicans," Morris told Clinton that "direct accusations" of extremism wouldn't work because the Republicans were not, in fact, extremists. Rather, Morris recommended what he called the "ricochet theory." Clinton would "stimulate national concern over extremism and terror," and then, "when issue is at top of national agenda, suspicion naturally gravitates to Republicans." As that happened, Morris recommended, Clinton would use his executive authority to impose "intrusive" measures against so-called extremist groups. Clinton would explain that such intrusive measures were necessary to prevent future violence, knowing that his actions would, Morris wrote, "provoke outrage by extremist groups who will write their local Republican congressmen." Then, if members of Congress complained, that would "link right-wing of the party to extremist groups." The net effect, Morris concluded, would be "self-inflicted linkage between [GOP] and extremists."
Clinton's proposals -- for example, new limits on firearms and some explosives that were opposed by the National Rifle Association -- had "an underlying political purpose," Morris wrote in 2004 in another book about Clinton, Because He Could. That purpose was "to lead voters to identify the Oklahoma City bombing with the right wing. By making proposals we knew the Republicans would reject…we could label them as soft on terror an imply a connection with the extremism of the fanatics who bombed the Murrah Federal Building."

It was a political strategy crafted while rescue and recovery efforts were still underway in Oklahoma City. And it worked better than Clinton or Morris could have predicted. In the months after the bombing, Clinton regained the upper hand over Republicans, eventually winning battles over issues far removed from the attack. The next year, 1996, he went on to re-election. None of that might have happened had Clinton, along with Morris, not found a way to wring as much political advantage as possible out of the deaths in Oklahoma City. And that is the story you're not hearing in all the anniversary discussions.