Bravely Bold Sir Barry

June 8, 2010

I love this. “I’m here to give permission for sand berms and to kick ass, and I’m all out of permission slips.”

“I was down there a month ago, before most of these talkin’ heads were even paying attention to the gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standin’ in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. and I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”

How very butch. I can see the oil rushing to go back into the pipe from which it is spewing, threatened by the fear of the new, feisty Obama.

What I find especially revealing is that the President is congratulating himself for going down to the Gulf a month ago, before those “talkin’ heads.” He must have forgotten that the news coverage is now keeping track of the days like they did during the Iranian hostage crisis. So while Barry’s beating his chest and bragging about how he’s been on the case for the past 30 days, he’s forgotten that this crisis is now 50 days old.

His advisors have apparently told him he needs to show some emotion and some empathy, but that’s way too difficult to fake. What we’re left with is the least convincing display of toughness since Jimmy Carter beat up a killer rabbit.

Hot Air calls it pathetic. Guest blogging for Michelle Malkin, Doug Powers has the best line I’ve seen: “You ask for John Wayne, you get the Apple Dumpling Gang.”


A Teachable Moment For Malia

May 30, 2010

This past Thursday, President Obama gave his first press conference in nearly a year and received a lot of questions about the Administration’s response to the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

In his typical style, the President managed to blame British Petroleum (correctly?), the Bush administration (incorrectly, but by now it’s a verbal tic), and to insist that he (the President) is on top of the entire situation and that he is in control of the response. To highlight the emotional gravity of the situation, he told the press corps how his daughter Malia came to him and asked “Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?

When I woke this morning and I’m shaving and Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peeks in her head and she says, “Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?” Because I think everybody understands that when we are fouling the Earth like this, it has concrete implications not just for this generation, but for future generations.

I grew up in Hawaii where the ocean is sacred. And when you see birds flying around with oil all over their feathers and turtles dying, that doesn’t just speak to the immediate economic consequences of this; this speaks to how are we caring for this incredible bounty that we have.

And so sometimes when I hear folks down in Louisiana expressing frustrations, I may not always think that they’re (sic) comments are fair; on the other hand, I probably think to myself, these are folks who grew up fishing in these wetlands and seeing this as an integral part of who they are — and to see that messed up in this fashion would be infuriating.

So the thing that the American people need to understand is that not a day goes by where the federal government is not constantly thinking about how do we make sure that we minimize the damage on this, we close this thing down, we review what happened to make sure that it does not happen again.

I can certainly understand where Malia is coming from. Her father is the most powerful man in the world when you get right down to it, and she’s only 11 years old. But this was, as the President has been known to say, a “teachable moment” for his daughter, and for the President himself.

The oil spill in the Gulf is an environmental catastrophe. Oil is pouring out of a hole in the ocean floor and creating an enormous amount of damage to the immediate eco-system, as well as obliterating the livelihoods of those Gulf residents who make their living as fishermen. The financial cost of this will likely run into the billions, and the environmental impact is staggering. What President Obama needs to understand, and what he should have told Malia, is that there isn’t anything the Federal Government of the United States can do about it at this time.

That isn’t to say that the Federal Government plays no role here. In a very real sense, this is a defense of our nation and the Feds do play an important part. But when it comes to “plugging the hole,” the Federal Government, for all of its trillions of dollars and millions of employees, is useless. Unless the President can somehow recruit Aquaman to join the ranks of the Administration, the government is powerless when it comes to stopping the leak.

The Left keeps insisting that conservatives are saying that this is “Obama’s Katrina,” but I think most of that talk is coming from those who believe in an all-powerful government. Conservatives…at least the ones that I read and with whom I speak…understand that the oil leak is not Barack Obama’s fault and that the government is not responsible for plugging the leak. I assume that Barack Obama also knows this, which is why I find it so odd that he keeps insisting otherwise.

The Federal government’s role in all of this is to give whatever help it can to the Gulf states to prevent the oil from washing up on shore. That may mean using the Army Corps of Engineers to create sand berms that will act as a natural blockade. It may mean something else entirely. And this is where President Obama is, in fact, failing. When Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal said that he wanted to create sand berms he got held up in a Federal bureaucracy as the government told him that he could not build the barriers until they had completed an “environmental impact” assessment. Are they kidding? Millions of gallons of oil are heading towards the shore and we need to see if creating some sand bars might harm the environment? This is government at its worst: slow, ineffective, bound by red tape. Obama should tell Jindal that he has the green light to do whatever is effective and we’ll worry about the red tape later. “Need men? Here’s the National Guard. Need underwater help? Let’s bring in the Navy. Would a submarine be useful? Here you go.”

Short of providing that type of help, the simple truth remains that our government is not all-powerful. There are things that happen in this world that the government can not prevent, nor turn back. What happened on that oil rig was a horrible accident and maybe there are ways of preventing this type of accident from ever happening again. But there are no ways of preventing some other type of accident from happening. Accidents happen and sometimes people are to blame because they cut corners or were inattentive to warning signs. The time for determining whether British Petroleum is at fault for the accident, as distinct from being responsible for the effects, will come. In the meantime, Obama should tell his daughter that there are many aspects of life that the President simply can not control, that he is willing to give whatever help BP or the Gulf states need to stop this mess but that, in the end, he must leave the effort in the hands of those who have the skills to do the job. Yes, BP has failed so far, but we are in uncharted waters. When you need to stop an oil leak a mile below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, you need to call in those companies that have the knowledge of the subject and the equipment to do the work. The last people you should call are politicians.


What Last Night’s Elections Really Mean

May 19, 2010

The spinmeisters on all sides are out in force today with their ruminations on the meanings of last night’s elections, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate things we can take away from the results.

  • President Obama is now 0-for-4. Obama would be more than happy with Joe Sestak in the Senate, but it was Arlen Specter for whom the President stuck out his neck. When added to the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections from last year, and Scott Brown’s stunning upset in Massachusetts earlier this year, Obama has a perfect track record of supporting losers. It’s true that Obama distanced himself from Specter when it looked like Sestak would win the Pennsylvania primary, but his support for Specter was clear and strong, right down to offering Joe Sestak a job in order to get him to drop out of the race. Sestak’s win doesn’t hurt Obama, but it further points out that the President’s coattails are non-existent.
  • The Tea Party is a major player. In Kentucky the conservative son of libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, an eye doctor who had never run for public office, defeated the hand-picked GOP heir to Jim Bunning’s Senate seat. Trey Grayson had the support of almost every major Republican and is by all accounts a conservative. However, the Tea Party backed Rand Paul, who is more libertarian than Grayson but less libertarian than his father. The more conservative political neophyte beat the GOP favorite, and the reason is the Tea Party.
  • The special election doesn’t really tell us what the Democrat spinners are saying it tells us. The word on the street is that the Democrats are relieved that Democrat Mark Critz defeated Republican Tim Burns. The Dems feel that this bodes well for November, that the Republicans are not an unstoppable electoral machine. While they may be right about that, the special election for the seat formerly held by the late corruptocrat John Murtha isn’t exactly indicative of future results. For starters, it’s a heavily Democratic district, even though they tend to be Reagan Democrats. Secondly, there was a Democratic Senatorial Primary which naturally led more Dems to come out and vote than Republicans. Thirdly, that House seat had been the resting place of a Democratic derriere for almost 40 years. I think it would have been a major upset had Burns won, but the odds were stacked so heavily against him that it’s neither surprising nor a “lesson” that he lost. The fact that he came within shouting distance should be a warning for Dems.
  • Your Senate votes will count against you. Down in Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln learned that her votes for bailouts and Obamacare carried a price even among Democrats. A year ago Blanche Lincoln was considered a shoo-in to get re-elected in 2010. But that was before she vacillated on Obamacare, eventually voting in favor of bringing the bill to the Senate floor. Result: she failed to get 50% in the primary and now has to face a runoff election. She will probably win the runoff, but her Senate seat is now considered to be leaning Republican.
  • The “anti-incumbent” crowd are missing the point. There’s much talk about how the voters are fed up with “business as usual” in D.C. and how no incumbent is safe. Even Republicans are worried about this, as seen in the primary defeat of Republican Senator Bob Bennett in Utah. I think the “anti-incumbent” argument is more of an attempt at rationalization by politicians of both parties who are now being haunted by their previous votes. Bob Bennett did not lose in Utah because he was an incumbent. He lost because he voted for TARP and the bailout culture. Blanche Lincoln is not fighting for her political life because voters are sick of her face. She’s fighting because of her votes for bailouts and Obamacare. Arlen Specter did not lose because he’d been in his seat too long. He lost because he was rightly seen as a career opportunist who would do anything and say anything to keep his seat. Incumbency is not the problem. How you behaved in office is the problem. It is increasingly clear that on the major issues of the past few years—TARP, auto bailouts, bank bailouts, Obamacare—a vote in favor of more government and more spending is a vote against you in the election. Incumbents who can run on standing up to Leviathan have nothing to worry about.


Stevens Retiring; Let’s Get Ready To Rumble

April 9, 2010

Justice John Paul Stevens has made it official. He’ll be retiring at the end of the current court session in June.

Stevens is the leader of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, so Obama’s pick to succeed him probably won’t be appreciably worse than Stevens. However, this is yet more evidence that elections have consequences because this will solidify the liberal bloc of the Court for years to come. It’s a good bet that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will also retire sometime before 2012 since she’s getting up in years and suffers from poor health. Hopefully by then there will be a Republican majority in the Senate that can curb Obama’s worst impulses.

But right now that majority does not exist and there is nothing the Republicans can do short of a filibuster to prevent Obama from appointing one of his radical fringe fellow travelers to the highest court in the land.

Sonia Sotomayor was a lousy pick. She was qualified, but the assets that got her the job were her ethnicity and her willingness to legislate the liberal agenda from behind black robes. With the Democratic majority in jeopardy after November, this may be Obama’s last chance to appoint a hardcore radical. It’s a chance he won’t give up. Look to the most radical president this nation has ever had for the most radical nominee ever made to the Supreme Court.

Here’s Michelle Malkin on the retirement, and Hot Air believes this may present problems for the Democrats. We shall see.


Not Knowing When To Hold ‘Em: Obama Tips His Hand On Nukes

April 6, 2010

I can remember back to the 1980s, when America had a President, and the worried talk in the halls of my college was about impending nuclear war.

“I’m worried about Reagan”…”he’s a cowboy”…”there’s going to be a nuclear war…”

Of course, those comments were from the professors. The student body was amazingly fine with Reagan, but then I didn’t go to Harvard. At that time, with visions of mushroom clouds dancing in their fevered heads, there were two schools of thought for the anti-nukes crowd. The first of these was called the Nuclear Freeze Movement, and it essentially was a moratorium on building new nuclear weapons. “We have enough to destroy the world a dozen times over,” they would say. “Why build more?” This involved the dream that the Soviet Union would agree to this, which wasn’t going to happen.

But the Freeze people were downright sane compared to the Unilateral Disarmament folks. These were the people who believed the United States should systematically destroy all of their nuclear weapons immediately. This, it was believed, would set a moral example to the rest of the world and the other nuclear powers would similarly disarm out of a sense of newly found morality. No, really, that’s what they thought. It should be noted that neither of these beliefs won the Cold War, though either might well have lost it.

Lots of words leap to mind, including “stupid” and “naive.” Today, another word leaps to mind: “Obama.”

In a stunning example of naivete, President Obama has announced to the world that we won’t use nuclear weapons, ever, against non-nuclear countries even if they were to hit us with all of the biological and/or chemical weapons at their disposal. Why is he doing this? From the New York Times:

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

That sounds a whole lot like the old Unilateral Disarmament rationale to me. Obama might want to explain to folks how our disarming “provides incentives for countries to give up nuclear ambitions.” A quick look at a world map would lead you to think the opposite.

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

Except that’s exactly what you’re not doing, Mr. Obama. You’re not preserving “all the tools that are necessary.” You are, in fact, promising that we will not respond with the biggest trump card we’ve got. And since the United States does not use biological or chemical weapons, you are putting us in the position of responding to such an attack (which theoretically could be as bad as a nuke) with insufficient force. Even a cyberattack could have the effect of destroying the economy, the infrastructure, the financial system.

The new policy tells all tyrants and tyrant wannabes that they can use a chemical weapon in New York City that kills a hundred thousand people and we will not respond by blowing their countries to smithereens. Does such a policy embolden our enemies? You bet it does. Does it weaken our bargaining hand as we enter into diplomacy with truly vile people who seek to harm us? That would also be a yes.

For decades, the stereotype of the Democrats has been that they are soft on foreign policy. President Obama’s “no nukes” policy is just the latest reason that stereotype still rings true.

At Hot Air, Allahpundit raises valid points and questions.