Posse Incitatus

Three-Dog Day

Remember the rock group Three Dog Night from the 1970s?  ("Joy to the World," "Mama Told Me Not To Come," "Black and White," "Pieces of April" and "Shambala" were among its hits.)  The band got its name from a tradition among aboriginal Australians who would sleep with a dingo on cold nights; two of the wolflike canines on colder nights; and three of the mutts on extremely bitter cold nights.  So, a "three-dog night" is colder than a witch's (rhymes with wit).

Well, today I invented a new term to describe a hideously hot, muggy day: A three-dog day. A take-off on "dog days."

We Michiganders usually enjoy mild summers where the high is 78 or 80, and humidity is low.  We'll get a few 90-degree days, but not nearly as many as we've had this summer.  Sunday was miserable, today was, too, and the 90s are supposed to stick around through Wednesday.  As someone who has been driving for months in a car with non-working air conditioning, I have to say I hate it. I really, really hate it.

Southerners who move up north (perhaps because of a job, or because a spouse is from a northern state) usually complain vociferously about the cold, snowy winters.  Can't say that I blame 'em.  That's their prerogative.  Many Yankees, on the other hand, like moving down South and enjoying mild winters.  The hot, muggy summers don't faze them.

I'm the opposite.  Although the cloudiness and dreariness of Michigan winters, coupled with their excessive length, are tough to deal with, I don't really hate wintertime in Michigan as much as some people do.  But when I lived in Atlanta from 1990-99, I really detested dripping in sweat on the endless oppressive summer days.  The heat wilts me and makes me sluggish.

Perhaps I have a higher-than-normal body temperature, or my body doesn't dissipate heat well.  All I know is, I never hated Michigan winters as much as I loathed Atlanta summers (the traffic in Atlanta also drove me insane, but that's another story).  When my family moved to Michigan in 1999, I savored those summer days when I could mow the lawn or barbecue on the grill without being drenched in sweat. ("Hey, it's the middle of the afternoon, and I'm standing outside and enjoying it. I'm NOT drenched in sweat! Imagine that!")

So lately I've been miserable.  Today was another scorcher, and to make matters worse, I decided to get my oil changed in a town I don't live in (Ann Arbor) where I stay two nights a week at my nephew's apartment to avoid making a long commute every day of the week.  (I ride in a van pool from Ann Arbor to my office in downtown Detroit, so at least that part of the journey is air conditioned).

Anyhoo, I went to this place that I figured might charge about $27 for a full-service oil change (topping off all the fluids, checking tire air pressure, etc.)  Bad mistake.  Despite declining many extras they tried to sell me, I still got nicked for about $42.  What really turned me off was the three-person assault -- attendants dashing here and there between my vehicle and the two in bays on either side of me.  One guy was checking the taillights, brakes, headlights, blinkers, etc....Another guy was walking around with a clipboard and showing me options I had for synthetic motor oil and other exotic variations that would have jacked up the price another $15.  The third guy was removing air filters and piddling around under the hood just dying to find something he could claim needed replacing.

The clipboard dude showed me two different oil filters (one cost $15 more than the other and supposedly had some extra sophisticated filtering system).  The grease monkey under the hood tried to get me to buy a new air filter, which I declined, and he was ready to remove the cabin filter, but I told him to skip it.   The clipboard guy also said I was low on coolant, and asked if I'd like them to top it off for $6.  Can you say SCREW JOB?

Adding insult to injury, there was no air circulation in this garage, and I guess the heat of the vehicles must have made it seem even hotter.  I was drowning in miserable sweat.  When the air filter grease monkey asked if I'd like to replace the fuel filter, I mumbled something sarcastic about "I didn't plan on spending $100 in here tonight."

"Pardon me?" he asked. I couldn't hear you with that engine running (the car next to mine).

"Oh, nothing," I said.

It was a stinkin' hot, miserable finish to a tough Monday.  Ah, but Monday is now behind me, and a three-day weekend, plus the beginning of college football season are only a few days away.

So I live and learn.  I now know where NOT to go for an oil change.

I also know that every now and then it's fun to vent about something other than politics.  The flaming liberals, Vacationer-in-Chief and dumb-as-dirt mainstream media hacks can wait another day.

Now, for a nice cold Gatorade...

Questions Unasked

Leave it to the mainstream media to blow something out of proportion and all march in lockstep, running with the pack like mindless animals.

It's the five-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, and the dinosaur networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) as well as CNN and Fox, are falling all over themselves with in-depth coverage of what went down in August-September 2005 in New Orleans -- the mistakes made, what we could/should have done better, current conditions, what the future holds, and how the locals are feeling.

This morning I watched "Meet the Press," normally hosted by David Gregory but today hosted by substitute Brian Williams.  Williams unwittingly did his best parody of the typical clueless journalist, interviewing actors Brad Pitt and Wendell Pierce.  He also interviewed Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu and her brother, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu. (Kind of a leftist gaggle, no?)

Williams parroted many of his inept colleagues regarding Katrina.  So much of the questioning and conversation revolved around the performance of FEMA, the Bush administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  Questions and comments on the efforts to rebuild the levees, the incompetence of former FEMA director Michael Brown, and the need for more federal financial commitment to rebuild New Orleans.

But something really irks me, and this is something I've bitched about many times in the past: Not a word was spoken about New Orleans' and Louisiana's disgraceful record for waste, corruption and mismanagement and how those maladies contributed mightily to the fiasco following Katrina's wallop.

Very little discussion of the utterly incompetent Mayor Ray Nagin, who failed to execute his evacuation plan and waited way too long to convey a sense or urgency to his city's residents.  And failure to mention the obvious: that many of those who were stranded in the flooded streets were, frankly, foolish to think they could just stay put and ride the storm out.

It's well documented that much of the money intended to maintain, repair and upgrade levees in New Orleans and surrounding parishes was squandered by corrupt levee boards. This report details inappropriate spending (i.e., corruption) by the New Orleans levee board.  This type of crap went on with many of the local levee boards that controlled their own little fiefdoms and succumbed to petty politics rather than look out for the well being of their fellow citizens.

I'm not sure if it's a desire to bash Bush and the Republicans, or whether the media worries about "blaming the victim" by inquiring about corruption and piss-poor judgment on the part of thousands of New Orleans residents.  Or is it just plain ignorance of the massive, prevalent corruption that has defined New Orleans and Louisiana for decades?

Whatever it is, the media's coverage of Katrina leaves a lot to be desired.  And goes a long way toward explaining why millions of Americans have little respect for our Fourth Estate.

 

 

Newsweek is a POS

I'm kinda-sorta joking, but not really.  Let me explain.

First of all, for those who do not engage in texting or reading Internet forums, "POS" stands for "piece of sh*t."

As I may have mentioned in past posts, I used to subscribe to Time (20 or so years ago) and Newsweek (as recently as 2003).  Time always impressed me because of its stellar photography as well as its quality writing and thorough coverage of the issues.  But gradually, the leftists vitiated this once respectable organ and turned it into a worthless, shrill leftist rag.

Newsweek, which always did have some lefty tendencies but retained a semblance of professionalism and talent, also began sinking further and further into People magazine territory back in the 2001-2003 era.  Way too many cover stories about Hollywood personalities, comedians, musicians, etc.  The magazine gradually went off the deep end, wallowing in John Murtha-like demagoguery that slandered American troops (the old "Blame America First" B.S.).

Today I heard a radio talk show discussing a Newsweek story reporting on poll results that heap derision, condescension and scorn upon those who do not believe in evolution.

It just reaffirmed my belief that the vast majority of mainstream media reporters and editors are heavily biased against conservative, mainstream America.  They live in an alternate universe in which their worldview is the rational, reasonable, realistic reality, and those to the right on the political spectrum are nut jobs.

Screw 'em.

How 'bout Them Lions!

For long-suffering Detroit Lions fans, the first two exhibition games of the 2010 NFL season have been exciting, fascinating, and reason for hope.

This is a franchise that has been horrible for a decade, thanks in large part to the incompetent doofus Matt Millen, probably the worst (and most overpaid) general manager in the history of pro sports.  Millen's consistently poor draft choices and coach hiring decisions took a mediocre team in need of improvements and tweaking, and ran it so far into the ground that it is taking years to rebuild.  What Obama has done to the economy, Matt Millen did to the Detroit Lions.

The last couple of years, since Millen's ouster in September 2008, wiser heads have prevailed.  Draft choices and the signing of key free agents have quickly improved the Lions' talent level.  These include high draft picks like former Georgia quarterback Matt Stafford, hard-hitting defensive back Louis Delmas of Western Michigan, fleet running back Jahvid Best of California, and the awesome defensive lineman/wrecking ball Ndamukong Suh of Nebraska; plus the signing of key free agents such as defensive lineman Kyle Vanden Bosch and cornerback Dre Bly (this is his second go-around with the Lions).

Having watched parts of the Lions' first two exhibition games, I was astounded at how much heat their first-string defensive line put on opposing quarterbacks.  Also, how stingy the Lions' D-line was against the run.  Neither of these traits have been a part of the Lions' defense in at least 12 to 15 years.

The Lions' secondary is still shaky, but at least it will benefit from opposing quarterbacks having less time to check down their receivers, and being more likely to have to throw on the run.  Up until this season, opponents' QBs could stand back in the pocket all day and thoroughly review their options before throwing to a usually wide open receiver.  I recall one painful Thanksgiving Day game against Green Bay a few years ago where Brett Favre completed 21 passes in a row against the Lions' pathetic secondary.  This is downright hideous, and should not happen in an NFL game.  It would be like a pitcher giving up 20 runs in one inning, or walking 10 batters in a row.  It just doesn't happen.  But it did.

It's only the exhibition season, and the Lions still have plenty of flaws, including a shaky offensive line, weaknesses at linebacker, and, of course, inexperience and a talent void at cornerback and safety.

But from what I've seen so far, I believe this team is on the rise, and it should at least be competitive in most of its games this season rather than getting blown out all the time.  Maybe they're good enough to go 9-7 and squeak into the playoffs, but 6-10 or 8-8 seem more likely.  Either is a vast improvement over 2008's infamous 0-16 and 2009's 2-14.

I'll have a few things to say about the Michigan State Spartans in the coming days, but for tonight, the Honolulu blue and silver are on my mind.

Am I READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?? Damn right I am!

RECOVERY SUMMER — Who was the Einstein who came up with THAT idea?  The fact that the Obama administration thought it could go out and spin away about how the economy was recovering and the stimulous program was working when all the evidence points to continued economic stagnation, shows how inept these losers are.  This idea is so colossally stupid, it sounds like something Joe Biden might have dreamed up.  The Democrats have just set themselves up for some of the most derisive, mocking TV ads in the history of politics.  I could write the script in my sleep: Laid off workers lined up at the unemployment office, foreclosure notices stuck on front doors of empty homes, shuttered storefronts and factories, newspaper headlines about massive layoffs, 9.5 percent unemployment, and governments that are broke... If this is recovery, I'd sure hate to see depression.

 

Just when I thought it was safe to buy ammo again...

I’ve been remiss in gun blogging of late, but I was about to note that the bullet bubble seems to have subsided.  All the major stores in the area are fully-stocked and some calibers are even on sale.  Of course, even the “sale” prices are higher than the “normal” prices a few years ago, but still, things were looking up.

And then I saw this.

Seriously? 

I guess I’d better buy a few boxes before the shelves are cleared.

I like to think that someone in the White House’s political office is reading this and shouting “Are you *@#!ing kidding?!  Do you want us to lose every election this fall?!” 

The last thing the Democrats in Congress need is EPA to attempt a de facto gun ban and demonstrate that this administration is totally clueless.  The NRA had been pretty quiet of late.

Well, not any more.

EXIT QUESTION:  Will the EPA chief be given the Sherrod treatment before this is over?  Just asking.

Signs and portents on the gridiron

It’s a dangerous thing to predict the future and nowhere is this more fraught with peril – and less consequential – then when speaking of sports.  So let’s dive in!

As a Spartan fan, it is impossible for me to be truly objective in my assessments.  Of course I want us to win, and of course I want U-M to lose.

At the same time, I am a veteran Spartan fan, and have lived to see my team fecklessly turn on itself in a fashion that can only be described as “Lion-esque” (to coin a phrase).

Still, if even the most hapless franchise in the NFL can achieve gleams of sunlight now and again, surely my beloved Spartan gridders might attain a level of consistency that is somewhere in the same time zone as their exalted counterparts on the hardwood.

I carefully watched the Big Ten Network’s preseason preview of MSU this weekend.   I liked what I saw.  This is a serious team that has been through a lot in the past year.  They had an opportunity last season to go 9-3 but instead settled for 6-6 and then, after a spectacularly ill-advised off-field stunt, guaranteed a humiliating defeat in what should have been a marquee bowl game.

Of course the show was Big Ten Network product, so we saw what they wanted us to see, but as someone used to deconstructing spin, spin is often indicative.  MSU wants to project a serious image, one of hard work rather than style and glamour.  The coaches wore plain gray athletic shirts, the players were in battered practice helmets.  Everyone, even the head coach, had a tape stripe with their last name on it.  It is a very military-style approach, and one that was designed to inculate a no-nonsense attitude.

Based on this, and the tremendous talent that is coming back, the Spartans should have a very good season.  As I noted before, less than eight wins would be a serious setback, and would cause me to question the leadership.  The schedule is very favorable and MSU could realistically win ten games this year.

Which brings me (as it must) to Michigan’s other Big Ten football program.  As a Spartan fan, I want us to pound the Skunk Bears into the turf, and it is only my deeply-rooted (and well-founded) fear that we will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory that keeps me humble in this respect.

Still, what can one say about this highly-hyped yet grossly-underdeveloped train wreck of a team?

When I heard that Gerry DiNardo, the resident expert on the Big Ten Network had said that U-M could win three of their first four games and four of the next six, I was incredulous.  But upon reflection, and having watched the U-M BTN preview show, I see where he is coming from.

In the first place, DiNardo works for BTN, and BTN works for the conference.  That means every team gets boosted, no matter how hapless.  If the good people of Northwestern and Indiana are not going to pony up the bucks to watch their programs get trashed, the raving Blue-Aid drinking lunatics that worship Ann Arbor certainly won’t take it.

This brings us to the second point, which is that DiNardo actually squared the circle of making a credible prediction while not infuriating the Skunk Bear faithful quite nicely.  He’s basically saying that with some luck, they could go 7-5.  And so they could.

But I don’t think they will.

Setting aside the NCAA investigation that hangs like a Sword of Damocles over the Big House for the next few weeks, there is simply no indication that the program has come together under RichRod.

One of the mantras that his supporters have clung to over the last two years is that Lloyd Carr “left the cupboard bare” and that U-M had to start over from nothing.  This manifestly wasn’t true three years ago, but that excuse has helped buy time for RichRod, since he could keep saying “Wait till my next recruiting class comes in – they’re awesome.”

The media has dutifully supported this storyline, breathlessly reporting on each and every visit, verbal commitment and early enrollment.  “Wait till next year!” has become a rallying cry for the Skunk Bear faithful.

RichRod has indeed brought in a variety of interesting recruits to U-M, but he can’t seem to keep them.  Many programs lose players in the year of transition, but for RichRod that year has stretched into three.

I noted last week that there was yet another departure from the program.  Well, here’s another.

What is going on?  There are two possibilities:  he’s bringing in recruits who are unqualified to attend Michigan, or they see what he is doing and want no part of it.

This brings me to the quarterback fiasco.  Last year, MSU had its own taste of this foolishness, splitting time between the capable Keith Nichol and Kirk Cousins.  Ultimately Cousins got the nod, but not before the constant back-and-forth disrupted our offense’s cohesion and rhythm.

There are many benefits to have a single starting quarterback.  The receiver corps builds experience with his throwing style, the running backs get a sense of his timing and the O-line understands how to keep the pocket around him – or let him make a speedy exit if necessary.

When you have more than one potential starter, all of these aspects are disrupted and diluted.  That Michigan is splitting its practices three ways, really ruins any chance of continuity.

Making matters worse is the sense of indecision that this fosters.  RichRod is like a distant king on his mountain-top throne, watching his players squabble among themselves for his favor.  He publicly humiliated last year’s starter, Tate Forcier and seems to encourage other players to do the same.

Meanwhile he claims the competition is “wide open” while hinting with winks and nods that Denard Robinson is his favorite.  If Robinson is the leader, that should be that.  Instead there is confusion, recrimination and wasted effort.  Each series with Forcier is taking time away from honing Robinson’s skills – and vice-versa.  True Freshman Devin Gardner should be red-shirted and told to wait his turn. 

This is the way every other college program does it.  The only time one moves up in seniority is if the veteran starters are too inept to trust on the field.

The fact that Gardner is still in competition therefore speaks volumes about both Forcier and Robinson.

U-M does not have a talent surplus, it has a leadership deficit.

THE TAKEAWAY:  MSU should get nine wins, but I will be surprised if U-M gets more than four.  All the signs look that bad.

The eternal adolescence of Libertarian foreign policy

Long-time readers of the Posse know that I am constantly amazed how a bunch of limp-wristed wimps manage to claim they are from the “realist” school of foreign policy.

When I think of realists, I think of cold-blooded, ruthless operators who understood that among nations, there is no morality, only national interest.

Past realists include Cardinal Richelieu (arguably the first true realist), Prince Metternich, Otto von Bismarck and – the realist equivalent of Darth Vader – Henry Kissinger.

All of these men understood that nations may have to do unsavory things to protect their interests.  At the very least, they also understood that this would require thinking about unsavory things as well.

Which brings me to the screaming teenagers of Reason – particularly Brian Doherty.

Doherty is taking issue with an article in The Atlantic, a magazine I don’t read much, largely because it seems to have filled its blogging staff with idiots like Andrew Sullivan.

Anyhow, the article actually does a good job of discussing nuclear strategy and deterrence.

Now, if these things give you nightmares, you may want to stay away from it and curl up with your security blanket and your dog-eared copy of Breaking Dawn.

But the fact of the matter is that nuclear weapons are real and we must be clear-eyed and rational in looking at their implications, especially as rogue nations like Iran and North Korea attempt to procure their technology.

What makes this funny is that the organization he works for is called “REASON,” yet does this sound like a reasoned argument?

And that Kissinger is so fucking "forceful and articulate" in calling for mass murder, Kaplan notes approvingly. And while Kissinger's status as the shambling corpse of bloody and horrific "foreign policy realism" (kill them, with sober, articulate, often even courageous force: kill them, kill them, before it is too late to kill them!) is too settled for me to be surprised no one is calling him out, I'd sure love to see someone raise an eye at Kaplan or The Atlantic for running that article, which is part of a growing and alarming set of prominent public pronouncements preparing we the people for war against Iran

Gotta love that use of profanity.  It’s so, like totally grown up!  The Big Boys at Reason can use naughty words to advance their thoughtful, logical arguments.  Just like high school freshmen when they realize they can swear in the locker room and not get in trouble.

Go read the original article in The Atlantic and judge for yourself if it warrants such a sophomoric dismissal.  In my view, it raises important questions about war, weapon technology and deterrence.

The larger point is this: we want our strategists to think the unthinkable.  The enemy is not always going to be bound by our moral restrictions and by simply saying “we will never use nuclear weapons” we basically disarm ourselves.  Perhaps Doherty and his reasonable colleagues are in favor of unilateral disarmament (which would be a strange position for a political viewpoint that – last I heard – had zero problem with private gun possession).
Does the editorial staff of Reason believe that if all civilians throw away their weapons that criminals will do likewise?  

Basically, I am amazed that a group of people that can be so skeptical about state power vs. its citizens can take such a relaxed view of other, hostile states.

For the record, Iran has a history of provocation and there is no reason to think that nuclear weapons will suddenly make the government – which is far from unitary by the way – a good citizen on the world stage.

Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism and it is not at all difficult to conceive of a scenario where Iran supplies a nuclear device to terrorists and claims plausible deniability – yet rejoices at the result.
I seriously thought that intelligent adults could get past the whole “WARMONGER!!!11” thing every time a student of international strategy discussed military options, but I guess Reason is still stuck in high school.

EXIT QUESTION:   Do libertarians believe the proper response to new weapons and modes of warfare is to scream “No fair!” and capitulate, or is it okay that we now use such hitherto forbidden weapons as submarines and bombers?  Extra credit if you can reply without using potty mouth.

The Left's Favorite Word

Leftists are nothing if not predictable. 

Any time a conservative speaks out against leftist policy, statements or actions with which he or she agrees, the usual tripe about "hateful" and "mean-spirited" and "bigot" flies out of the libs' mouths almost instantaneously. Sometimes, when they really get revved up, you'll hear "Nazi," "fascist," "Hitler" and the like. Oh, and don't forget to expect a few "F-Bombs" for good measure.  That's the liberal way. So much for tolerance.

In recent days, the grossly overused, contrived and concocted term "Islamophobia" has gained currency among the lefties.

Case in point: The Ground Zero mosque charade.  This week, Time magazine, which has sunk to shockingly dismal levels, has a cover story posing the question: "Is America Islamophobic?"  All I can do is shake my head in wonderment.

Um, no, not really.  We have thousands of mosques in this country.  Muslims are allowed to worship and wear their head scarves or burkas in public without being harassed the vast majority of the time, and if someone does harass them, the long arm of the law will likely take care of the harasser.  Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are allowed prayer rugs, Korans, and their quiet time for five-times-per-day prayer.  Some public institutions, such as the University of Michigan's Dearborn campus, have installed foot-washing basins for Muslim students.

In the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, which has a large Arab-Muslim population, Fordson High School has scheduled its football two-a-day conditioning practices for late at night to accommodate Ramadan fasting rules.  About 95 percent of the team's players are Muslim, which means during Ramadan (falling this year in August) that they cannot eat or drink until after sundown.  Starting practice at 11 p.m. or midnight means they can eat a full meal and get hydrated after sundown and still have plenty of digestion time before enduring their rigorous workouts.

These are just a few examples of the way Americans bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims.  Ours is a pluralistic and largely tolerant society, despite the claptrap from brain-dead leftist commentators about the Tea Party's supposed bigots.

It is an irony apparently lost on loony leftists that they bend over backwards to defend a faith that is largely misogynistic, anti-gay, and intolerant of other faiths.  Islam is also a faith that generally advocates sharia law rather than separation of mosque and state.  Aren't liberals the ones who deplore nativity scenes on courthouse lawns, prayer in public schools, and use of the term "Christmas party" instead of the bland "holiday party"?

The flaming liberals can whine and rage all they want about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  But until they exhibit an ounce of intelligence in their arguments, positions, and pronouncements, it will be extremely difficult to have intelligent and civil dialogue with them.

The unified theory of the Obama Administration

My posting has been light this summer as I take time to enjoy the fleeting pleasure of warm weather in Michigan.  Archery has once again caught my interest and I’ve been spending my evenings instructing my daughters in this noble and ancient art.
 
All of which is to say, last week I began composing a post about the Obama Administration’s responses to various crises.
 
My thought process was started at Pajamas Media, after Richard Fernandez posted this observation:

And yet it’s a safe bet that even now, with the IMF saying that the US has committed suicide by debt, even now when the Arab masses are almost literally laughing at the great uniter, even now when the polls show an impending bloodbath for the Democrats in November, that they’re still spending their money on Axelrod, pollsters, spin-doctors, PR men, media mouthpieces, talking points memos and the whole clanking apparatus of political witchcraft.

At the time, I was prepared to make the case that since spin was the only thing that the administration knew how to do, it was only natural that they turn to it in all cases.  If all one has is a hammer, every problem must therefore be treated as a nail.
 
Candidate Obama said with a straight face that he was qualified to be president because he was running successfully for it.  He made no claim to wisdom, accomplishment or governing ability; his strength was his ability to get the public to vote for him.   Spin was his profession.
 
But then the president proved me wrong with his marvelous mishandling of the Ground Zero mosque issue.
 
Jonah Goldberg cuts right to the pith:

Good politicians instinctively see down the road and around the corner. Great politicians do this not just with political headaches but with weighty affairs as well. We call such foresight statesmanship.

With the Ground Zero mosque, we have gotten the exact opposite. The supposedly pragmatic political wise men have been blinded by ideology or incompetence and have failed to see what was so obviously around the corner.

 
On one level, given all the hype about Obama's brilliance and the supposed genius of his campaign staff, this blunder is a huge surprise.   His supporters and many political observers are now asking: “Where has the magic gone?”
 
For those of us who were not taken in, however, the latest misstep is no surprise.
 
We have reached the point where the list of Obama’s failures is so vast that it defies easy recitation.  One may as well list instances of water being wet.
 
Indeed, the hard thing is coming up with a policy or action that actually worked.  Incompetence is the new normal.
 
He is not only inept to govern, he is also too tone-deaf to manage the spin.
 
The sycophantic press has proved a mixed blessing for him.  It largely agrees with what he wants to accomplish, and his happy to paint his opponents as bigoted racist idiots.  When one is dealing with only an isolated faction here or there, this can work.
 
However, the president has taken the unpopular stands on multiple issues – health care, immigration, Israel, Iran and now the mosque.
 
All principled politicians must at times take an unpopular stand. Truly great ones carry the population with them. They engage, educate and in the end, persuade enough that either a new majority is built, or at least they win respect for the strength of their convictions.
 
The problem is that Team Obama’s usual behavior – attack, discredit, distort and ignore – does not work when used against the public as a whole.
 
It is one thing to go after Wall Street, Big Pharma and of course Right Wing Extremists, but now huge swathes of voters are finding themselves vilified for daring to disagree with the man they elected to serve them.  Back to Goldberg:
 

He wanted to seem heroically principled. But when he was hit with an entirely foreseeable backlash (according to one poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the mosque), he once again led with his glass jaw and, in effect, told everybody they were too dimwitted to grasp the brilliant nuance of his remarks.

 When his slide in the polls first started, many observers wondered whether he would “pivot” and redeem himself ala Bill Clinton.  This ignored glaring differences between the two men.
 
Bill Clinton was used to the limelight – indeed he gloried in it.  Like him or hate him, he had a degree of competence that the Obama Administration can only dream of.  Clinton’s spin doctors showed on the campaign trail that they knew who to adjust, how to provide rapid response and to cope with adversity.
 
Obama won by default.  Propelled by a media pining to elect a black man and aided by his opponent’s self-destructive actions, he coasted across the finish line.  At no point did he demonstrate leadership or managerial ability.  Worse still, it is clear that he does not possess either qualities – and has no idea what they even look like.
 
Consider the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
 
Much of the commentary on the left focused on whether the president was “angry enough.”  He needed to show some emotion, act as though he cared.

This only showed how out of touch these people are with how things really work – how leaders get things done.   Getting angry is no substitute for action.  Real leaders solve the problem.  Real leaders don’t blame others for their failure.  Tantrums are for children.

The reason for this is that too many on the left – I’m thinking here of the reporters, politicians and academic types – don’t actually know any leaders.  What they know are movies about leaders.

Their ideal is George C. Scott in the movie Patton.  Bark orders, yell at people and kick some butt.  Did not the president famously say he needed to find out whose ass to kick?

The real-life Gen. George S. Patton certainly could use sharp language (as did a lot of soldiers) but that alone was not the key to his success.  The real key was that he knew what he was doing.

That’s something the Democrat leadership can’t figure out.  In the end, after the slogans, rallies and speeches, you have to have a plan.  You have to formulate it, execute it, evaluate it and if necessary adjust it.  None of that is happening. 

As James Taranto pointed out, these people are like the “underpants gnomes” from South Park.  Their economic agenda reads something like this:

1.  Pass massive spending bills and crushing regulation.
2.  ????
3.  Recovery!

When you look at the big picture, the epic laugh riot that is “Recover Summer” makes sense.  Their thought process runs something like this:  “The economy is in the tank, and likely getting worse, but if we just tell people it’s doing great, they’ll act like it’s doing great, and then we’ll get to keep our cushy jobs.”

Goldberg comes to the same conclusion:

This was the opposite of statesmanship. By elevating an already stupid idea and a poisonous debate, he forced everyone to take a side on a polarizing issue (including vulnerable Democrats like Nevada senator Harry Reid, who, late Monday, came out against the mosque), while undermining his own credibility, not to mention America’s reputation around the world.

And it all could have been avoided with some foresight and a few phone calls.

Yes, but if you have no foresight and no judgment, every problem comes as a surprise that you handle badly.

"D" is for "DEFICIT"

A couple of times in the last few weeks, the Teleprompter-in-Chief has spouted a lame line in one of his stump speeches equating the "D" for "drive" on a vehicle transmission with Democrat, and R (reverse) with Republican. "You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in 'R.'"

Here's some food for thought: "D" stands for deficit.  Under Barack Obama, monthly deficits are as large as annual deficits were just a few years ago.  Who would have DREAMED, just two short years ago, that annual deficits would top $1.4 TRILLION in fiscal years 2010 and 2011?

Liberals credit Bill Clinton with a balanced budget and surplus.  He does deserve some credit for tacking toward the center after the Republicans crushed the Democrats in the 1994 election, but he never would have accomplished his budget balancing without a Republican Congress in the 1995-2000 era.

Too, the left constantly bashes Ronald Reagan for doubling the national debt while he was in office, and G.W. Bush for adding $5 trillion or so to the national debt.  It just so happens that Congress controls the purse strings, and Democrats controlled Congress for most of Reagan's tenure, and for a good part of Bush's two terms.  Nancy Pelosi and her gang took over the House in January 2007, while Harry Reid and his band of merrymen took charge of the Senate at the same time. 

Besides, the economy as a whole grew under Reagan and Bush, and deficits ought to be measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), not in dollar amounts. Take a look at this chart.  The deficits between 1980 and 2008 were in the 3-5 percent of GDP range.  Then, suddenly, there's a huge spike of blue, like a tidal wave.  Thanks to the community organizer in the White House (and indirectly, to the legions of sycophantic, gullible, useful idiots who got lured into the Obama cult hook, line and sinker).

To be fair, the Republicans did not keep a lid on spending like they should have while they ran the Congress through 2006.  But their spending pales in comparison to the horror show unfolding inside the Beltway today.

While I'm on the subject of fiscal matters, I have to say that a lot of liberals are either horrible in math, totally disingenuous, or just not very bright. (Or maybe all three.) They continuously spout the same old tired cliches about "tax cuts for the rich" and "Bush put two wars on a credit card."  They whine about the Republicans wanting to privatize Social Security. (Allowing younger workers the option of putting a small portion of their FICA deductions into private accounts is tantamount to wanting to wipe out the program? There's a vivid imagination for you.)

Anyway, the tax cuts for the rich and "credit card" talking points, coming from this crowd, are preposterous and take hypocrisy to breathtaking levels.  Like Barack Obama has NOT put trillions of dollars on a "credit card" — often for the benefit of his cronies and supporters?

The fact is, entitlement spending is crushing this country, and the eloquent orator from Hyde Park is the one who just made a bad situation worse by taking on tens of millions of new people for our already overburdened health care system to handle.  Free health care for everyone, as long as you don't mind waiting your turn, and very possibly dealing with inferior facilities, supplies, and quality of care provided by overworked, under-paid health professionals.

Anyway, just for some bedtime reading, check out this column.  Its author, Vasko Kohlmayer raises some excellent points. He writes, "Our government will never be able to catch up with its obligations. It cannot even come close. It is mathematically impossible."

I don't enjoy being the bearer of bad news.  But for the life of me, I am very pessimistic about our nation's future if drastic changes are not made soon inside the Beltway, and in the expectations of the American people.

These next two elections (2010 and 2012) are absolutely crucial, and may represent our last chance to step back from the precipice.  When you see the ballot in front of you, think of "D" as DEFICIT and "R" as restraint.