Bummer Of A Birthmark, Barack

September 16, 2010

Michelle Malkin* and Hot Air are having some fun with the new logo that the Democrats have unveiled:

Why am I reminded of the old Far Side cartoon that pictured a deer with a target-shaped birthmark on his chest? This will just make it even easier for a certain moose hunter.


*I stand corrected. It’s Doug Powers writing at Michelle’s site.


Have Fun Stormin’ The Castle, Christine

September 15, 2010

Can you hear us now?

The media is buzzing over the fact that Tea Party fave, Sarah Palin-endorsed, Christine O’Donnell beat long-time Republican representative Mike Castle in the Delaware primary for the United State Senate. O’Donnell will now be gunning for Joe Biden’s old seat against Democrat Chris Coons. There’s no shortage of Republicans and conservatives who believe that O’Donnell is a weak candidate and that a Senate seat that likely would have been won by the Republican Castle will now be lost by the Republican O’Donnell.

Maybe so. I’m not heavily involved in the state politics of Delaware, and haven’t followed this campaign. I understand that O’Donnell’s got some financial baggage, including not making mortgage payments and unpaid college bills.

If the allegations are true, and I have no reason to believe they aren’t, then they’re serious insofar as they speak to someone who may prove to be financially irresponsible. But Mike Castle’s argument that being irresponsible with your personal finances will automatically make you irresponsible with public finances seems a stretch. In fact, it’s Mike Castle who has been absolutely reckless with public finances with his support for liberal programs and causes. It’s not like we’ll be turning over the Federal Budget to Christine O’Donnell and trusting her to get us out of debt. She’s going to be one of 100 Senators, voting yes or no on bills that were initiated in a different legislative body (the House of Representatives generates the budget). The fact that she’s had some financial troubles and has, according to her statements, overcome those troubles:

I’m an average hard-working American. I’m not a multi-millionaire like my opponent. Of course in this economy I’ve fallen on hard times. But I worked hard. I sacrificed. I made the decision that I needed to make things right. I came through to the other side in a very strong position. I made it through the difficult times. That’s what the voters are seeing. Financial responsibility is making your obligations right.

She is, of course, correct. Most people get into some sort of financial trouble at some time. Maturity and responsibility does not mean never doing the wrong thing; it means acknowledging the wrong and righting it when possible.

So to Charles Krauthammer, Ramesh Ponnuru, Jonah Goldberg and the other conservatives I deeply admire, I think it’s time we move on and give full support to the conservative candidate from Delaware. Hand wringing about her electability is counter-productive. In 2010, it is folly to count out any conservative in any race.


The Roundup: Michelle Malkin takes Karl Rove to task for his bashing of O’Donnell. At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey advises the GOP to quit whining. At The American Spectator, Robert Stacy McCain writes that This Changes Everything.


Touched By An Angle

August 27, 2010

If you listen closely, you can actually hear the conversation that went on in the White House.

“Jobs saved or created? What on earth does that mean?”

“Well, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s simply a meaningless phrase that will allow us to claim that the stimulus is working when anyone with a pair of eyes can see it isn’t true.”

“But it’s not working. We thought those gullible fools who swallowed all that ‘hope and change’ snake oil would believe it. Let’s face it, if they believed what the President said during the campaign, we figured they’ll believe anything. But they’re not believing this. Damn you, Glenn Beck! A pox on Fox!”

“We need a new angle. Some new phrase that will touch the lives of the rubes in the same way that ‘hope and change’ did. Something that will allow us to make even more grandiose claims about our stunningly successful stimulus.”

“Touch their lives? Joe Biden, you’re a genius!”

And so now there is a new metric to determine the success of the stimulus. “Lives Touched.”

No. Really.

From Mental Recession:

A spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explains:

“Lives Touched” is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds. This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act.

The reporting instructions indicate what constitutes a life that has been touched by the stimulus:

Reporting Data
1. Report the “Lives touched” headcount for all ARRA-funded contracts or releases
1. Total number of workers who have directly charged 1 or more hours of work time to a CHPRC contract.
2. A worker who charges time to more than one contract or contract release is counted as one life touched.
3. The “lives touched” headcount will remain the same or increase over time as new workers become involved with ARRA contracts. The total headcount will never decrease.
4. Administrative/Overhead personnel included in indirect rate pools should not be counted unless they are working full time on the ARRA funded contract.
5. Separate the headcount into labor categories on the reporting spreadsheet—but DO NOT separate the headcount by contract release.

Translating the bureaucratese into English: any person who worked for one hour or more on a project that received any stimulus money is counted as a “life touched.” Even if the person in question worked only one hour, the headcount is added to the list and never removed even though the person is no longer working.

The result of this is that instead of using made up numbers and claiming them as job created or saved, they can now make up even bigger numbers and claim that these lives were “touched” by the stimulus.

At the most comical element of this farce, this is a warp speed spin. At it’s core, this is all too emblematic of the contempt in which this administration and Washington D.C. in general holds the American people. It all boils down to this: If they’re not buying the lie, change the wording. It’s a new angle on the same old withering disdain that these people have for you and me. They believe that we are so stupid that if we don’t believe one lie, we might believe a bigger lie.

Well, we’re not going to fall for this one, either.


Today’s Lesson In Progressive Politics: Ronald Reagan

August 17, 2010

I never thought it would be possible to miss a politician. Really, honest to God, miss a politician. But I do. This video, brought to you by the Republican Study Committee, should be required viewing for all Americans.



Obama Misses The Meaning Of The Message

August 16, 2010

Showing the political instincts of a retarded turtle, Barack Obama has once again made an unforced error. He does this sort of thing a lot, whether it’s weighing in on the arrest of a Harvard professor or, as Doug Powers points out, claiming that he and his daughter went for a swim in the Gulf of Mexico when they didn’t. Now, after weeks of claiming that the Ground Zero Mosque was “a local issue,” the siren song of the Philosopher King has proved overwhelming.

At a dinner celebrating the end of Ramadan, Obama came out strongly in favor of building the mosque.

“I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.”

That seems pretty unequivocal to me. However it seems that after the dinner one of Obama’s handlers whispered the news that building this mosque is wildly unpopular, even in the heart of the city that is only a shade less blue than San Francisco. So then he backtracked, claiming that he had spoken only of the right to build the mosque, and made no comment on the wisdom of doing it.

Got it.

But then the White House issued another statement clarifying their clarification that the first clarification was not a clarification and that the original statement was the statement that the President is sticking with.

Wow. If they clarify this any more their heads are likely to pop off.

Obama’s initial refusal to comment on this issue was the correct one. Here I disagree with some of my conservative brethren. The building of the mosque at Ground Zero is a New York issue and while the President (or anyone) is entitled to have an opinion about it, this does remain a local issue. I understand and agree with the idea that Ground Zero was an attack on all of America, not just New York, but the building of the mosque approximately two blocks away is an issue best decided by the New Yorkers who will have to live with it.

However, the President did weigh in on the subject in a prepared set of remarks. It is now incumbent upon him to finish the thought. Saying that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the right to build the mosque according to the local laws is only half an answer. It is like saying that the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to peaceably assemble without acknowledging what the issues really are.

Nobody that I’m aware of disputes the basic premise that a religious group can build a house of worship based on its adherence to local zoning laws, etc. The fact remains, however, that if Imam Rauf had even the slightest sense of decency he would not be building the mosque at this location. Obama should have remained silent about this issue, but since he chose to wade into these waters he is obligated to tell us his opinion of the propriety of the mosque, not simply adopt his usual above-the-fray professorial tone. The question put before the President has never been “Can this mosque be built?” It has always been “Should this mosque be built?” Refusing to answer at all is one thing, but answering one question when you’ve been asked another is simply political cowardice.

This mosque is an insult aimed directly at the heart of America, proposed by a man who blames the West for inciting Muslim terrorist attacks and who repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the simple truth that Hamas is a terrorist organization. The mosque has received an endorsement from Hamas and from the terrorist sympathizers at CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations). Now I know that this is not the first time Barack Obama has found common cause with terrorists, but you’d think that he might not want to be seen on the wrong side of this explosive issue.

There is more to jihad than flying airplanes into buildings and strapping dynamite to your chest. Hand in hand with those who seek to destroy us through violent means are those who seek to impose their will on us through political means. The building of this mosque at Ground Zero is nothing less than a victory dance for Mohammed Atta and his cronies. Barack Obama once called the Islamic call to prayer “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset”. Maybe so, but playing it on the streets of lower Manhattan, having it reverberate at the site of the September 11 Memorial, is a dagger aimed at our hearts. Not all terrorism results in physical injury or death. Some of it is meant simply to send a message.

So tell us, Philosopher King Obama…now that you’ve weighed in on local zoning laws, what do you have to say about the meaning of the message?