The Obama White House is shameless and unprecedented in its blatant manipulation of the liberal mass media. First in recent memory is White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' patently absurd attempt to co-opt the recent election victory by Massachusetts junior US Senator Scott Brown by claiming a commonality between Obama's 2008 victory and Brown's campaign. Brown explicitly rejected the Obama progressive agenda, its handling of terrorism and the recent Christmas underwear bomber, the unprecedented federal deficit and contrasted the bipartisan dealings in Massachusetts with the Congressional majority's attempts to ram a progressive agenda down a center-right nation's throat, not to mention Obama's stumping and doing campaign spots for Coakley, Brown's opponent in a deeply blue state which until then had a solid Democratic Congressional delegation.
Gibbs points to certain exit polling, but he's dishonestly spinning results. Even if he's claiming that those in the exit poll still favor "health care reform", the devil is in the details. Scott Brown openly campaigned as the 41st senator, i.e., denying the Senate a filibuster-proof majority on partisan health care. The Republicans (e.g., Paul Ryan) have pushed many of the same health reform ideas I've discussed in this blog, including high risk pools, equal protection for tax benefits, small business cooperatives, and allowing health insurers to market across state lines with a basic bundle of required mandates. However, I don't want to rehash the health care debate here; I didn't cast a vote in the Massachusetts vote, but I want to point some of the things that were on the table while Brown was erasing Coakley's massive lead in the polls: high unemployment, despite the Democratic Party Stimulus Bill; an unprecedented deficit (and this is before handling structural problems in social security and Medicare), lack of focus on the economy by the Dems over the last 6 months as they focused on cap-and-trade and health care, with corrupt deal making to pass a high-cost partisan measure; and the Christmas bomber and the decision to try him and KSM in civilian courts vs. military tribunals.
I think Massachusetts voters were heartened by Brown's vows to be a problem solver, not an ideologue, and to vote issues on the basis of merit; for example, he said he supported the bipartisan Massachusetts health care program but would be the 41st senator (to enable filibuster against corrupt partisan health care measures). They are angry about Obama's lack of results on the economy, policies and priorities. Everybody believes there's need for reform; progressives think that more government--the government that created conditions for the real estate bubble with irresponsible guarantees, lack of regulatory oversight, etc.--is the answer; conservatives believe government itself--which pays roughly half of health care costs--is part of the cost problem. But the bottom line is--if voters really identified with the spin from Gibbs on exit interviews, they would have voted with Obama's choice, Martha Coakley.
Second, there was an unusual spin move by the White House in response to former VP Cheney's appearance on ABC by sending VP Joe Biden and General Jim Jones on the other major networks (CNN, Fox News, NBC, CBS) in a clear attempt to explicitly counterbalance Cheney. I listened to almost all the appearances (except for CNN), and Cheney held his own, particularly in refuting Democratic talking points.
Finally, there was yesterday's attempt for Obama to spin his absurd spin that the stimulus bill prevented a second Depression and also sending out other White House propagandists to spread the word that the massive spending bill "saved" millions of jobs. First of all, if anything served as a shock absorber in keeping banks from collapsing under the sudden economic tsunami, it wasn't the stimulus bill: it was the TARP legislation and the Fed's deft dumping of liquidity into the system. It certainly didn't "stimulate" the economy by bailing states out of their own spending bubbles, giving the average wage earner another $15 a pay period in tax credits, or funding politically popular boutique infrastructure projects (e.g., a high-speed rail project between Orlando and Tampa). According to recovery.gov, $272.2B out of $787B (almost 35%) have been paid out; remember how Obama insisted on no time to debate the partisan bill, signing the measure less than a month after taking office. Was it really necessary to rush a supersized bill into law without bipartisan participation, when a year after its enactment, over half the money has yet to be spent? As to liberal talking points: they are so intellectually dishonest that it hardly seems necessary to dignify them with a refutation; I'll simply point out a recent CBS poll, only 6% believe the "recovery act" has created jobs, and more than half of polled Americans don't believe Obama has a clear jobs plan. But the idea that funding government sector jobs is a "stimulus" is patently disingenuous: why are government jobs "more equal" than private sector jobs? Government jobs are not stimulus by definition: government workers are explicitly funded by the private sector economy and are a cost. This nuanced crony capitalism, e.g., picking winners and losers in the energy industry, is not the kind of broad-based stimulus which would drive hiring across the economy. This "trickle up" conceptualization of the economy cannot overcome gravity.
Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher Overstays His 15 Minutes
Ohio resident Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber aspiring to purchase his boss' plumbing service, became an accidental celebrity as candidate Obama walked through his neighborhood, struck up a conversation with him and in a rare campaign gaffe explained to Joe that it's good "to spread the wealth around". To the McCain campaign, which didn't seem to have a coherent game plan against the charismatic younger senator, the issue was like found money: it fell into their laps. I remind you that Obama responded to the McCain tax cuts in a very predictable way: by making an already too progressive tax system, with some 40% of the working Americans effectively not paying towards the federal government expenses, even more progressive, with refundable tax credits. What did the McCain campaign think Obama meant by giving tax cuts to people not paying federal taxes? In any event, Obama himself gave McCain a pithy way of describing his political philosophy.
"Joe the Plumber" immediately became a prominent figure in campaign speeches and debates, and Joe joined John McCain on the campaign trial, endorsing him. Well, I'm not going to reproduce here the entire transcript of the plumber's interview on a recent Hannity show. It seems that he thought that McCain was the lesser of two evils, but he didn't consider him to be sufficiently conservative, regards him as a career politicians whom is part of the problem in Washington, and won't endorse him during McCain's reelection campaign this year.
I have written a number of posts criticizing McCain's 2008 campaign, and I disagree with him on some issues, but I strongly support McCain's reelection. I believe that pragmatic politicians whom can bridge the partisan divide are particularly valuable. I also see incumbency or political experience more as a positive than a negative. Ideological purists have unrealistic expectations in a pluralistic society. Political skills, like most things in life, improve with experience. The issue I have with some in the Tea Party movement, particularly when they go the third party route, is you can fragment the center-right vote, allowing something like a GOP House seat for over 150 years going to a Democrat. (There are some rumors about a third party challenge in Nevada, which could allow Harry Reid to get reelected by a divide-and-conquer strategy.) I'm also concerned about how constructive, flexible and effective newbies will be, given a diversity of views. It's easier to be negative, e.g., run against Obama's inept economic leadership; it's more difficult to get a law through Congress, given the fact that, for example, Democrats, at minimum, will be able to mount filibusters after the election and Obama will exercise the veto. So I STRONGLY recommend voting in politicians with strong views but flexible, just like Reagan, whom made deals with the Democratic Speaker of the House, including raising social security taxes and signing an immigration bill.
More John Brennan Nonsense
Obama's Counterterrorism Czar has been taking a more combative tone recently, including his recent USA Today op-ed where he blasted criticisms of booking foreign terrorists as criminals, instead of bringing them before constitutionally-protected military tribunals: "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda." But the latest salvo--comparing recidivism among Gitmo terrorists with ordinary criminals--goes too far: "People sometimes use that figure, 20 percent, say 'Oh my goodness, one out of five detainees returned to some type of extremist activity. You know, the American penal system, the recidivism rate is up to something about 50 percent or so, as far as return to crime. Twenty percent isn't that bad."
Earth to space cadet Brennan: You should read more about recidivism rates, which vary by crime classification. They tend to be highest among categories like robbery and illegal weapon trafficking; some of us would compare terrorist recidivism more on a par with homicide, which has something like a 1.2% rate over 3 years. Some think Brennan's estimate of 20% too high, but I would also point out the nature of homicide differs from methods, targets, and rationale of terrorists. Recall that less than 2 dozen terrorists caused massive numbers of casualties and economic costs on 9/11.
Political Cartoon
Dana Summers is symbolizing the fact Barack Obama is proposing to freeze a limited amount of federal spending.
Musical Interlude: Simon & Garfunkel ( Group)
This is the first installment of a new series on soft rock/pop music.
"The Sound of Silence"
"Bridge Over Troubled Water"
Paul Simon, "I Am a Rock"
[Technically, this cut is the Simon & Garfunkel version, but Paul, who sings lead, first released it from his 1965 solo album.]
"What a Wonderful World" (with James Taylor)
[my favorite version, even though the guys were no longer pups;
'pup' is a term a female professor used in describing me as a rookie professor]
