What was hard to bear is sweet to remember.
Portuguese proverb
Guest Blogger Excerpt of the Day
All these Libyan developments took place against a backdrop of “lead from behind.” Was it wise for American officials to brag that the world’s largest military had taken a subordinate role in removing Moammar Qaddafi — in a military operation contingent on approval from the United Nations and the Arab League but not the U.S. Congress.
No one knows what to do about the mess in Syria. But when you do not know what to do, it is imprudent to periodically lay down “red lines.”
News that the FBI scrutinized and then apparently forgot about unhinged Islamists such as Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Major Nidal Malik Hasan sent the wrong message to terrorists. Was the Obama administration more worried about hurting feelings than it was concerned to prevent further attacks? - Victor Davis HansonHanson basically says that Obama talks the (politically correct) talk but doesn't walk the walk. The convoluted Obama Administration crap conflates politically correct sound bites with foreign policy, not to mention pettiness and temper tantrums masquerading as diplomacy, whether walking out of a meeting with the Israeli prime minister or canceling a summit with the Russian president. Gregory in the below video gives a "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" critique of Obama's lecturing Putin on Russian homosexual policies and the Snowden stand-off. He points out that Obama knew Putin was never a choir boy before now, and it didn't stop him from talking to Putin in the past, even suggesting they could make progress after the 2012 election. Note that Gregory is no fan of Putin's record on individual rights
Political Potpourri
When Drudge linked to Dowd's "Madam President" piece, I groaned: not another fawning treatment of Hillary in the next of the "firsts" identity political trifecta (the last I heard they were grooming San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro to be the first Latino; the "progressives" probably drool with anticipation over a Clinton/Castro ticket). Whereas Dowd would no doubt prefer anyone the Dems served up against the GOP in 2016, she seems to recognize that Hillary lacks the political charm of Bill and Barry and despite Obama's implicit endorsement, Madam President will be more of a #42 than a #44 Presidency, which may not be that good a thing:
But in other ways, Hillary is not such a natural successor. The Clintons are ends-justify-the-means types with flexible boundaries about right and wrong, while the Obama mystique is the opposite....What he doesn’t seem to realize yet is that Hillary’s first term will be seen, not as a continuation of Obama, but as Bill Clinton’s third term.That "Obama mystique" wore off quickly for conservatives and independents when he slipped into into conventional partisan rhetoric mode; instead of focusing on building a unity government, the Democrats sought to run up the score on their wishlist while they held super-majorities. This made it difficult for the Democrats to share blame for a lackluster recovery and what many moderates and independents saw as a preoccupation on ideology over job #1, the economy.
I personally think that Hillary Clinton will be whipsawed by baggage from both the Clinton and Obama legacies. I strongly suspect that in a change election, nobody wants to see a continuation of the Clinton or Bush dynasties, and I think it will be difficult for her to distance herself from Obama's lackluster economic record and struggling foreign policy; as I write, Obama reached as low this weekend as 41% approval rating in Gallup, and 3 of the last 4 August polls on RCP show Obama at 42%. The next President will inherit over a $20T debt, likely an ObamaCare nightmare, and an unsustainable entitlement burden. I think this any kind of major problem, say, a new recession, more Detroit-like bankruptcies or a Middle East crisis, would make it difficult for any Democrat to win. I don't think Clinton can argue a return to the flush times of the 1990's--Obama hired the top Clinton economists, many of them now gone. I don't think Clinton will want to go through the hell of a campaign where her honeymoon period will be short-lived, and she will face renewed scrutiny over Benghazi, Whitewater, her highly "progressive" voting record. etc. But she is clearly the marquee name on the Dem side, and there is a wide perception that she has paid her dues--even just her nomination would be historic, and the lure may be irresistible. But be careful of what you wish for.
A big headline over the weekend is Sarah Palin's decision to side with Rand Paul versus Chris Christie. I have been a critic of Ms. Palin since the 2008 campaign, but I will admit that she has undeniable charisma, something totally lacking in Hilary Clinton. And regardless of one's political perspective, she has an uncanny way of getting at core concepts in a pithy way, like "death panels" in ObamaCare. She sees Christie as part of the GOP establishment; she, of course, sees herself as a maverick, not unlike Rand Paul, having primaried an incumbent governor and going on to beat a former governor in a strong Democratic election cycle of 2006. It's easy to see what Christie is up to; he knows that the Democrats are targeting those House Tea Partiers, many of them libertarian-influenced, so he is whacking Rand Paul to show independents and moderates he's pragmatic and not one of the crazies; he's a "responsible Republican" Dems can work with. He's hoping to run up the score in his reelection this fall, so he can argue in 2016 that he not only can hold the Romney electoral votes, but many of the battleground states, if not blue ones like his home state of NJ. I strongly feel that the GOP in 2016 needs to distance itself from the Bush/Obama economic/foreign interventionist legacy, and I'm not sure Christie is the right person. I think in one respect like George W. Bush (not on issues), Rand Paul is a better politician than his father; Ron Paul has a way, for instance, of making it seem that 9/11 was inevitable based on our prior meddling in the Middle East and Gulf region, which drives neo-cons crazy. Rand is more likely not to go there, focusing more on the fiscal constraints on empire building. To a certain extent you can see a pragmatic nature in Rand Paul's nuanced stand on immigration and border security (there is a libertarian argument to be made, e.g., the risk to one's life and property by violent trespassers).
Finally, the Donald hinted on Sunday talk soup that he was willing to spend whatever it took (hundreds of millions out of his billions) if he felt he was needed by the GOP to beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. Let me be clear, Donald: the GOP nomination is not for sale. Granted, I would vote for a yellow dog before I wasted my vote on Hillary Clinton, but the idea that Republicans are going to run a man even richer than Mitt Romney in 2016 is not even a reasonable pipe dream. No, Santorum doesn't have a snowman's chance in hell either; the only reason he had any measurable impact in 2012 is because he was the only real alternative to Romney, whom he supported in 2008. I don't think Gov. Perry or Ted Cruz; I think Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan will be the early favorites, and I think any one of those could easily beat Hillary Clinton, and it won't even be close. I could see Rand Paul selecting a governor as Veep, possibly Jindal or Martinez, in addition to Christie
No, Judge, the Mother Can Name Her Child 'Messiah'
In one of the weirdest stories I've heard this year, in the case of a disputed surname of a seven-month-old boy, Ms. Martin was shocked to hear Tennessee Judge Ballew reassign the boy's first name with her surname and the father's surname assigned as the boy's last name. ('Messiah', according to SSA, is one of the highest-rising boy names over the last year.) The judge openly admitted that she had religious reasons for rejecting the boy's given name, insisting it belongs to Jesus Christ. (I can already hear Jews objecting to this reasoning.) This is clearly unconstitutional, and Ms. Martin will win on appeal. In the meanwhile, I suggest that Latino parents naming their sons 'Jesus' avoid appearing under Judge Ballew's jurisdiction.
Political Cartoon
For unknowing readers, this is a play on words involving a new feature film about the late Apple Co. co-founder.
 |
| Courtesy of Steve Kelley and Townhall |
The Beatles, "Don't Let Me Down"
