It’s Tuesday, October 11th, 2011….and here’s the Gouge!

First up, two must-read articles forwarded by Tom Bakke.  The first, by Victor Davis Hanson courtesy of PajamasMedia.com, is entitled:

The Coming Post-Obama Renaissance

In every literary, historical or cinematic masterpiece, times must grow darkest before the sunrise and deliverance. Tolkien worked that classical theme to great effect. A sense of fatalism overtook a seemingly doomed Gondor — right before the overthrow of Barad-dûr and the dawn of a new age of men. The historian Herodotus, in literary fashion, also brilliantly juxtaposed the Greek collapse at Thermopylae (the Spartan King Leonidas’ head impaled on a stake), and the Persian firing of an abandoned Athens, with Themistocles’s sudden salvation of Western civilization at Salamis. In the classic Western film, hopelessness pervades until out of nowhere a Shane rides in.

What Was Hope and Change?

We are living in an age of such morality tales, though the depressing cycle reminds us that the gloom is hardly fiction or artistry. For those with a little capital there is only a sinking stock market. It seems to wipe out more of their 401(k)s each week, as if each month cancels out yet another year of prior thrift. Near zero interest means any money on deposit is only insurance, not any more a source of income. Millions are trapped in their unsold houses, either underwater or facing an end to any dreams of tapping equity by sale.

And for the greater number without savings? Stagnant GDP, 9.1 unemployment, another $5 trillion in debt, $1.6 trillion annual deficits, and sky-high fuel and food prices have combined to crush any notion of upward mobility. (If in 2004 5.7% unemployment was supposed to mark a “jobless recovery,” what exactly is 9.1% called? If Bush’s average $500 billion deficits over eight years were abhorrent, what must we say of Obama’s average $1.6 trillion over three? Really bad?)

In response, the Obama administration — let me be candid here — seems clueless, overpopulated as it is by policy nerds, academic overachievers, and tenured functionaries (cf. Larry Summers’ “there is no adult in charge”). They tend to flash Ivy League certificates, but otherwise have little record of achievement in the private sector. Officials seem to think that long ago test scores, a now Neolithic nod from an Ivy League professor, or a past prize translates into knowing what makes America run in places like Idaho and southern Michigan.

Yes, I know that Steven Chu is “brilliant” and a Nobel laureate. But that means no more than suggesting that laureate Paul Krugman was right about adding even more trillions to the debt. My neighbors know enough not to quip, as the know-it-all Chu did, that California farms (the most productive in the U.S.) will dry up and blow away, or gas prices should reach European levels, or Americans can’t be trusted to buy the right light bulbs, or a failed Solyndra just needed millions more of taxpayers’ money.

Solyndra and Van Jones are the metaphors of these times, reminding us of the corruption of the very notion of “green.” In the age of Al Gore, it has eroded from a once noble ideal of conservation to a tawdry profit- and job-scam for assorted hucksters and snake-oil salesmen. Without the lofty hype and shake-down, most otherwise would have had to find productive jobs. Tragically, “green” is the new refuge of scoundrels.

Costal del Sol Community Organizing?

I fear we have not seen such a divisive president since Richard Nixon. Suddenly there is a new fiscal Rubicon. Those crossing $200,000 in annual income now are to be suspect (“fat cat,” “corporate jet owner,” “millionaires and billionaires” [note how the two are sloppily associated — as if 1/1000 the wealth of one is still approximate to the other ]); those still on the other bank, are far more inherently noble (cf. Michelle Obama’s selfless legions, who, like the first couple, supposedly were to take her advice to turn down guaranteed riches in the abhorrent, but easy, corporate sector, to take on a life of noble service and relative poverty as hard-working community organizers and reps).

When did immigration law become embedded within the racial industry? If millions of Koreans were entering the U.S. illegally, would the National Council of La Raza insist on their amnesty, or be indifferent, or worry that such an influx might tax existing social services that provide for U.S. citizen poor? Did we ever have a president who issued a video (cf. 2010) appealing to constituents by their race, or suggested that border enforcement was equivalent to “moats” and “alligators,” or beseeched his Latino allies “to punish our enemies”? Is the president trying to turn enforcement of a federal statute into community organizing?

The Black Caucus has sadly become a caricature of itself, (We’d maintain it’s never been anything other than a caricature!) bewildered that Great Society II has further decimated the black community — now in racial solidarity with a failing president, now lashing out at the Tea Party. Yet the latter’s advocacy of fiscal discipline, greater deregulation, oil exploration, smaller government, and entitlement reform would unleash the private sector — and, to use the administration lingo, really create for the inner cities “millions of new jobs.”

So we are all confused by this new Morgan Freeman-esque (one of my favorite actors) racial illogicality: electing Obama was proof of racial harmony; but criticizing him proof of racialism; wanting to end his policies (that have impoverished black America most of all) borders on racism; expanding what will further harm blacks is proof of racial harmony? So one was supposed to vote for Obama to prove himself not racist, and then to stay quiet to ensure that he was still not racist? *

Readers will add here the end of an investigative media, ObamaCare, the new Solyndra and Fast and Furious scandals, “lead from behind” foreign policy, spread-the-wealth demonization of business, crony capitalism, punitive measures against everyone from guitar makers to plane manufacturers, distrust of oil and gas producers, Eric Holder’s politicized Justice Department, and so on.

OK—So Why the Optimism?

Why, then, do I see blue sky and a break in the present storms? For a variety of very good reasons. (Which can be accessed through the link below.)

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-post-obama-renaissance/?singlepage=true 

The second, which we frankly found fascinating, is from Robert Merry in The American Spectator, and was forwarded via Tom by another old friend from the Class of ’76, Pat McKim:

Andrew Jackson: The Tea Party President

Back in the late 1990s, William Kristol and David Brooks, then colleagues at the Weekly Standard, fostered a boomlet of a movement called “national greatness conservatism,” the central tenet of which seemed to be that the country didn’t rise to sufficient grandeur to satisfy their national aspirations. That was the Clinton era, remember, when the Gross Domestic Product was expanding at an average 3.5 percent a year, and unemployment hovered around 4 percent. Federal coffers were overflowing with cash, and the national debt was actually shrinking. The world was relatively stable, America’s global position seemed secure, and young U.S. soldiers weren’t dying in far-off lands. Americans were generally happy with their lot.

And that was precisely the problem, said Kristol and Brooks. The country had become complacent, a society of “Bobos” marinating in materialism, unvexed and uninspired, taking peace for granted. The country, they suggested, needed a shot of adrenalin to juice up its metabolism. It needed an inspiring mission, a heightened sense of national purpose nurtured by a “limited but energetic” federal government. It needed, more precisely, a latter-day Theodore Roosevelt.

This was a strange choice for conservatives. The impetuous Roosevelt was a progressive and a biggovernment man. He believed in robust taxation, trade protectionism, and governmental intervention into commerce. He was the forerunner of his distant cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, and the political heir of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay. Perhaps Kristol and Brooks were thinking more of TR’s defense and foreign policy views. He glorified war, linking it to — yes — national greatness. He was an imperialist whose global ambitions were tempered only by his slow realization that colonial suppression of farflung regions had become untenable in the 20th century. But he still wanted to dominate the world through military and economic might.

Much has happened since this idea of American greatness conservatism emerged — and then quickly fizzled. Brooks went on to his New York Times column, while Kristol directed his magazine toward the advocacy of ever-greater global projects for the country. America got a Republican president in George W. Bush who  turned out to be a pretty close approximation of TR — an impetuous leader with a cowboy temperament who expanded the size and scope of the federal government and pursued the global goal of remaking other cultures in far-flung regions. His failures brought forth Barack Obama, who sought to aggrandize federal power to an extent not seen since Lyndon Johnson. That governmental zeal spawned in turn a counterforce in the Tea Party movement, which attached itself to the Republican Party with a conviction that never again would that institution be allowed to embrace the likes of Theodore Roosevelt.

But, if Roosevelt is no proper model, who among past presidents should Republicans turn to for lessons and guidance? Who is the Tea Party progenitor? Who offers the insight, outlook, and rhetoric for today’s GOP?

The answer is Andrew Jackson, who would have slapped down the notion of American greatness conservatism with utter contempt because he believed the country’s greatness emanated from its people, not its government. Jackson was the great conservative populist of American history, and his story bears study at a time when the country seems receptive to a well-crafted brand of conservative populism.

Indeed, conservative populism is the essence of the Tea Party — opposed to big, intrusive government; angry about the corporate bailouts of the late Bush and early Obama administrations; fearful of the consequences of fiscal incontinence; suspicious of governmental favoritism; wary of excessive global ambition.

These concerns and fears were Jackson’s concerns and fears 180 years ago when he became president, and his greatest legacy is his constant warning that governmental encroachments would lead to precisely the kinds of problems that are today besieging the country — and roiling the Tea Party. That legacy deserves attention. (And can be accessed through the link below.)

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/07/andrew-jackson-tea-party-presi/print

In a related item, courtesy of Noel Sheppard and Newbusters.org, the….GASP!….Associated Press describes a man Jackson would likely have despised as a prevaricating poltroon!

SPIN METER: Obama disconnects rhetoric, reality

In President Barack Obama’s sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington.

When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.

When the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.

And when he calls on Congress to “pass this bill now,” he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities. Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.

To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.

The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans. He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don’t always fit in if they don’t help make the case.

For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan….

But never fear; the rest of the MSM is more than willing to live down to your expectations, as today’s “MSM Bias….WHAT Bias?!?” segment, again courtesy of Newsbusters.org, details:

CBS: Daily Kos Radical Leftist is Merely a ‘Wall Street Protester’

Aimless Obama walks alone

 The reports are not good, disturbing even. I have heard basically the same story four times in the last 10 days, and the people doing the talking are in New York and Washington and are spread across the political spectrum. The gist is this: President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government. He talks mostly, and sometimes only, to friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett and to David Axelrod, his political strategist. (And they likely require copious amounts of Dramamine prior to each encounter!)

Everybody else, including members of his Cabinet, have little face time with him except for brief meetings that serve as photo ops. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner both have complained, according to people who have talked to them, that they are shut out of important decisions.

President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government.

The president’s workdays are said to end early, often at 4 p.m. He usually has dinner in the family residence with his wife and daughters, then retreats to a private office. One person said he takes a stack of briefing books. Others aren’t sure what he does.

If the reports are accurate, and I believe they are, they paint a picture of an isolated man trapped in a collapsing presidency. (More like an grossly over-matched fool whose idolatrous chickens have come home to roost!) While there is no indication Obama is walking the halls of the White House late at night, talking to the portraits of former presidents, as Richard Nixon did during Watergate, the reports help explain his odd public remarks.

Obama conceded in one television interview recently that Americans are not “better off than they were four years ago” and said in another that the nation had “gotten a little soft.” Both smacked of a man who feels discouraged and alienated and sparked comparisons to Jimmy Carter, never a good sign.

Blaming the country is political heresy, of course, yet Obama is running out of scapegoats. His allies rarely make affirmative arguments on his behalf anymore, limiting themselves to making excuses for his failure. He and they attack Republicans, George W. Bush, European leaders and Chinese currency manipulation — and that was just last week.

The blame game isn’t much of a defense for Solyndra and “Fast and Furious,” the emerging twin scandals that paint a picture of incompetence at best.

Obama himself is spending his public time pushing a $450 billion “jobs” bill — really another stimulus in disguise — that even Senate Democrats won’t support. He grimly flogged it repeatedly at his Thursday press conference, even though snowballs in hell have a better chance of survival. If he cracked a single smile at the hour-plus event, I missed it. He seems happy only on the campaign trail, where the adoration of the crowd (Still hand-picked, pre-approved and unable to ask questions the answers to which haven’t been well-rehearsed in advance!) lifts his spirits.

The public increasingly shares the sentiment. A new Quinnipiac polls finds that 55 percent now disapprove of Obama’s job performance, with only 41 percent approving. A mere 29 percent say the economy will improve if the president gets four more years.

The election, unfortunately, is nearly 13 months away. The way Obama’s behaving, by then we’ll all be talking to portraits of past presidents, asking why this one turned out to be such a flop.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch and The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight, Townhall.com‘s Guy Benson offer this….

Report: Senate GOP to Retaliate for Reid’s Nuclear Salvo

….The Hill reports that Republican lawmakers are plotting to use the (remaining) tools at their disposal to make Reid’s life as miserable as possible:

Senate Republicans vow they will retaliate for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision to unilaterally change the Senate’s rules Thursday without prior warning or negotiation. Republican aides say their bosses will now be even more reluctant to allow the Senate to conduct routine business by unanimous consent, forcing Reid to gather 60 votes for even the most mundane matters. “Reid fired a major salvo and it’s hard to imagine a return shot won’t be fired. Maybe over the weekend they’ll come up with something and try to make it less worse than it already is,” said a Senate GOP leadership aide.

Triggering what has come to be known as the chamber’s “nuclear option,” Reid overturned Senate precedent that allowed Republicans to force votes to proceed to non-germane amendments. He did so by voting with 50 of his Democratic colleagues to overturn a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian.  The controversial procedural tactic hasn’t been used in years. In a chamber where it requires the consent of all 100 senators to dispense with the reading of a bill, changing the rules unilaterally is considered bad form.  Former Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) predicted Thursday’s blow-up on the floor would have aftershocks.

“It’s obviously consequential and significant,” he said of the surprise rules change.  Eric Ueland, who served as chief of staff to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), also predicted repercussions. “Usually if you set off a nuke, you’re responsible for the fallout,” he said. “There’s likely to be fallout here to the extent members on either side of the aisle feel this new gag rule impedes their ability to legislate. That has ramifications down the line.”

Never fear, America.  Reid and Chuck Schumer are mulling a “bipartisan caucus meeting” to allow members to “vent” their various frustrations over Democratic leadership’s stunning violation of a previously agreed-upon gentlemen’s agreement:

Reid halted Senate business in the middle of consideration of the China bill Thursday night and rescheduled a return to work for Tuesday, giving angry Republicans time to cool off.  He and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ messaging and strategy guru, have also proposed a bipartisan caucus meeting, to give lawmakers on both sides of the aisle chance to talk out their frustrations.  Reid said he would be happy to sit down with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in an effort to mend fences.

Next up, today’s Money Quote, courtesy today of Jake Tapper, who may well be the only true journalist left at ABC News:

“An OMB official seemed to think Solyndra may be the tip of the iceberg. “(W)hat’s terrifying is that after looking at some of the ones that came next, this one started to look better,” the official emailed. “Bad days are coming.”“

On the Lighter Side….

And in the Crime Blotter, we learn a….

Town’s Entire Police Force Held for Investigation

More than 100 officers, the entire police force of the town of Linares, Mexico–75 miles (120 kilometers) southeast of the northern industrial city of Monterrey– were herded into buses and driven to a nearby town, Linares Mayor Francisco Medina Quintanilla told Milenio Television on Sunday.

They are being held for investigation of possible corruption and ties to organized crime. Mexican soldiers and Nuevo Leon state police are patrolling instead.

California bans use of tanning beds by minors

Minors in the state of California will no longer be allowed to use tanning beds after Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill on Sunday prohibiting anyone under the age of 18 from using ultraviolet tanning devices. California is the first state in the nation to ban minors from using tanning beds, legislators said. Previously, California had banned minors under the age of 14 from using tanning beds, but allowed those between 14 and 18 years of age to use tanning beds with parental consent.

The bill was part of a cluster of legislation signed on Sunday designed to “improve the health and well-being of Calfornians,” according to a statement from the Governor’s office.

“I praise Gov. Brown for his courage in taking this much-needed step to protect some of California’s most vulnerable residents — our kids — from what the ‘House of Medicine’ has conclusively shown is lethally dangerous: ultraviolet-emitting radiation from tanning beds,” the bill’s sponsor, state Senator Ted Lieu, said in a statement. “If everyone knew the true dangers of tanning beds, they’d be shocked. Skin cancer is a rising epidemic and the leading cause of cancer death for women between 25 and 29.”

Lieu….Lieu….where have we heard that name?!?  Oh,….yeah,….

Sorry, that’s Wu, not….

….Lieu.  Like, having sponsored such an idiotic piece of legislation, there’s any significant difference!

In a related time, Governor Brown signed legislation closing all California’s beaches and parks, and enacted legislation banning anyone under the age of 18 from any outdoor activities involving direct exposure to sunlight.

The Golden State’s public schools will, however, continue to offer California’s youngsters grossly inadequate educations, as well as encouraging their participation in indiscriminate premarital sex, vampirism, drug use and other non-UV-related activities.  But hey; at least their odds of contracting skin cancer will be reduced by 1/1,000th of 1%!!!

Magoo