September 7, 2010
Coincidence? I Think Not!
I had no idea what Scott was talking about when he wrote that Barack Obama got his complaint that "they talk about me like a dog" from a Jimi Hendrix song. I didn't like Hendrix even at the time, and havent listened to him in decades. But Yahoo News has picked up Scott's theme, without attribution:
Has President Obama been listening to a lot of Jimi Hendrix lately? With just under two months to go before Election Day, Obama kicked off the fall campaign season Monday with an aggressive speech targeting Republicans. But it was an off-script moment in the speech that's attracted the most attention, as Obama accused his GOP critics of talking about him "like a dog." ...
Though Obama didn't acknowledge it, the line was a verbatim quote from "Stone Free," the first song Hendrix wrote after moving to England in 1966. "They talk about me like a dog," the song says. "Talkin about the clothes I wear. But they don't realize they're the ones who's square."
It's unclear if Obama consciously or unconsciously cited the lyric. A White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.
OK, it's possible that someone at Yahoo, like Scott, recalled the Hendrix lyric. But I doubt it; I don't think Yahoo has any employees old enough to remember him.
Tea Party Majority
The Democrats' fundamental problem is that most voters don't want what they're selling, i.e., more government. (As Michael Barone put it, recalling the joke about the dog food ad campaign, "the dogs don't like it.") This is reflected in Scott Rasmussen's finding that by almost a three-to-one margin, likely voters would rather have less government and lower taxes than more government and higher taxes:
One could draw many conclusions from this, but I would suggest two. First, far from being a fringe phenomenon, the Tea Party movement represents the solid core of mainstream American opinion. Second, when the Republicans take control of Congress, they should not be afraid to cut spending and programs.
Power Line Bookshelf
Are their activists smarter than our activists?
When the American left was out of power, it faced the same kind of electoral decisions that now confront conservatives -- how to a weigh Democratic candidates' ideological purity against their electability. Activists on the left resolved the decision wisely, along the lines suggested years ago by William Buckley. They supported leftists in states where they were electable, and backed or tolerated centrists and center-left candidates in reddish states.
Thus, the left attempted to oust Joe LIeberman -- a liberal on domestic issues but not key foreign policy and national security matters -- on the understanding that lefty Ned Lamont's nomination would not cause the seat to fall into Republican hands. On the other hand, the left was quite supportive of James Webb in Virginia notwithstanding his Republican background and substantial questions about his willingness automatically to support leftist positions.
And the left gave Ben Nelson a pass in Nebraska. Left-wing activists could have labeled him a "DINO" (or something equally clever) and tried to prevent his re-nomination. But the Daily Kos crowd recognized that Nelson was the only Dem who could win in Nebraska, so it held its fire.
The left was rewarded for the soundness of these judgments when Webb and Nelson became the 59th and 60th votes for Obamacare.
Its judgment on Lieberman was sound too. He blocked the public option, but supported the final bill. Lamont would have been better for the left and nominating him didn't cost the left his seat. Lieberman remained in place and gave the left more than half a loaf on health care.
Let's compare this pattern of behavior with that of conservative activists this season. Early on, conservative activists showed the same good judgment the left exhibited in 2006. Far from balking at Scott Brown's centrist tendencies, many conservative activists worked hard for him.
Later, In certain high profile races, conservative activists helped take down center-right candidates (candidates more conservative than Brown). But this generally occurred in red states like Kentucky, Utah, and Alaska.
Tea Party activists also helped defeat candidates deemed insufficiently conservative in Colorado and Nevada -- states that are neither red nor blue. But in Colorado, the candidate they pushed -- Ken Buck -- is fairly attractive and was doing as well as his Republican opponent in head-to-head polls against the Democratic incumbent.
Nevada was a different story. Sharron Angle has not proved to be an attractive candidate so far, and her nomination seems to have given Harry Reid at least a 50 percent chance of surviving in year when he should be toast. But Angle cannot be deemed unelectable. Thus, the Buckley maxim arguably has not been violated.
Finally, though, we get to Delaware. There, in one of America's bluest states, the Tea Party Express and other activists are backing arch-conservative Christine O'Donnell. But there's no good case to made that O'Donnell is electable. She was trounced by Joe Biden last time out and she trails the Democrat running this time by about 10 percentage points.
Moreover, questions surround O'Donnell's finances. As I wrote here, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt until I see concrete evidence of wrongdoing. But that won't stop O'Donnell from being hammered and ridiculed if she is nominated.
In addition, O'Donnell lately has displayed poor judgment and a lack of regard for the truth. She claimed in a radio interview that she had carried two of three Delaware counties in her race against Biden. Actually, she carried none. And, when asked about the Rasmussen poll showing her well behind the Democrat, she suggested that Rasmussen was fudging his results to favor the Republican establishment.
It's one thing to be strongly conservative; it's another to be paranoid.
Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Castle, O'Donnell's opponent in the Republican primary, is a heavy favorite to win the seat if nominated (and assuming O'Donnell doesn't run as a third-party candidate). Castle has a double-digit lead over the Democrat. And Delaware voters have repeatedly elected him to state-wide office by hefty margins, even in not-so-good Republican years.
Castle is what I call a RIHHVO -- Republican in half his votes only. As a Senator, his votes will upset me about half of the time. But it isn't rocket science to understand that half a loaf is better than none; even the left figured that out in 2006.
And this truism is especially salient in the Delaware race this year because Castle, as the successor to an appointed Senator, will take office upon his election, rather than in January. The lame duck session will probably be the Senate's last big chance to cause great mischief for a while. Accordingly, conservatives should be focused on preventing a rubber-stamping liberal from serving in that session, not on nominating an ideological pure candidate with virtually no chance of carrying blue Delaware.
Unfortunately, many conservative activists don't see it this way. It's disconcerting to realize that our activists aren't as astute as the likes of Markos Moulitsas.
What's that beard worth to you?
National Review Online reports on its interview with Joe Miller, the Republican nominee for the Senate in Alaska. Among other things, Miller said he is keeping his beard.
Miller's comment reminded me of a story about former New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine. Supposedly, when the wealthy Corzine began contemplating a self-funded run, he asked a veteran Democratic insider how much it would cost him to win the seat. The insider set the price at "$45 million if you get rid of the beard." Corzine then asked, "what if I keep the beard?" "$50 million" was the answer.
Corzine kept the beard and won the seat. Running in Alaska in this year's environment, it's unlikely that Miller will have to pay any price for keeping his beard.
The hate that openly speaks its name, cont'd
Now comes Time's Karl Vick (formerly of the Washington Post) to explain "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace," which is the title Times gives to Vick's cover story. (Some might take issue with the premise.) As Victor Davis Hanson explains, Vick argues that the Jews are so obsessed with making money that they don't much care what happens in the future: "You see, Vick has discovered that the rather worldly Israelis, after stealing their land from Arabs, don't much care for the hard negotiations that the Obama administration is now engaged in ('big elemental thoughts'), not when it is a matter of -- yes, making money[.]"
Bret Stephens explores Vick's essay in "Rhymes with Fagin." Stephens writes:
Nearly every Israeli has a child, sibling, boyfriend or parent in the army. Nearly every Israeli has been to the funeral of a fallen soldier, or a friend killed in a terrorist attack. Most Israeli homes and businesses come equipped with safe rooms or bomb shelters; every Israeli owns a gas mask. The whole country exists under the encroaching shadows of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the prospect of a nuclear Iran. How many Americans, to say nothing of Europeans, can say the same about their own lives?
Yet when it comes to scoring cheap shots against the Jewish state, Time is not the sort of magazine to allow the obvious to disturb a prejudiced hypothesis. Can the magazine point to equally pointed cover stories about internal Palestinian affairs and what, perchance, they mean for the peace process? I checked: It last did so in April 2002 with a largely sympathetic portrait of Yasser Arafat "All Boxed In" by an invading Israeli army.
Omri Ceren has more here supporting Stephens' mocking thought that "[m]aybe there's something in the magazine's DNA."
UPDATE: Ed Driscoll draws on Time's recent cover to ask...
Ed puts Victor Davis Hanson's indictment on the putative Time cover: "The recent Time piece on Israel is probably the most anti-Semitic essay I have ever read in a mainstream publication."
The Wind Cries Barry
Students of the work of Jimi Hendrix will recognize Barack Obama's complaint that "They talk about me like a dog." It obviously derives from Hendrix's "Stone Free," the first song that Hendrix wrote after arriving in England in 1966. "Stone Free" was released as the B-side to "Hey Joe," the first Jimi Hendrix Experience single. "They talk about me like a dog," Hendrix observes, "Talk about the clothes I wear/But they don't realize they're the ones who's square."
When "Stone Free" was subsequently released as a single in the United States, it backed "If 6 Was 9," a song that also contributes to understanding Obama's frame of mind. In that song Hendrix poignantly laments: "White-collar conservatives flashing down the street/Pointing their plastic finger at me," and so on.
September 6, 2010
The Delaware conundrum, Part Five
As I discussed here, the Tea Party Express released a poll last week showing that conservative Christine O'Donnell trails moderate Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Senate primary by only 6 points among likely voters. The poll also shows that O'Donnell is only 2 points behind Rep. Castle among those most likely to vote.
Is O'Donnell really that close? On the one hand, the Tea Party Express polling that showed Joe Miller closing in on Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Republican Senate primary proved to be spot on. On the other hand, this Delaware poll had a sample size of only 300, with a resulting margin of error of nearly 6 points. In addition, the poll was taken before O'Donnell gave a well-publicized and rather problematic interview on a popular Delaware radio talk show. And recently, Castle (not wanting to suffer Murkowski's fate) has been attacking O'Donnell, after having previously ignored her.
Finally, Castle's pollster, Jan van Lohuizen (for whom my daughter works) told the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza that "the primary is in good shape, and this won't be another Utah or Alaska." Van Lohuizen was President Bush's pollster and I don't think he would be putting his reputation on the line if he didn't have solid polling data that shows Castle in command of the race.
My guess is that Castle has the votes to win the primary. But he had better make sure his voters show up for the election on September 14, because O'Donnell may now be in a position to win a low turnout primary.
Spaniel? Terrier? St. Bernard?
President Obama tried to go on the offensive today, delivering a hard-hitting campaign speech in Milwaukee. He was accompanied by a couple of Cabinet officers and welcomed several local organized labor officials to the Labor Day event. Senator Herb Kohl, who is not up for re-election this year, was there. But it seems noteworthy that Obama did not note the presence of a single Democratic House or Senate candidate who is on the ballot in November. He mentioned Russ Feingold, who is fighting for his political life, but Feingold regrettably was unable to appear onstage with Obama, as he had to be "in his hometown of Janesville to participate in their Labor Day parade." We will see many more Democrats dodge platforms with Obama over the next 60 days.
That is not the point of this post, however. Obama's speech was a tough attack on Republicans, including this unscripted bit:
OBAMA: That's been at the heart of what we have been doing over these last 20 months, building our economy on a new foundation, so that our middle class doesn't just survive this crisis. I want it to thrive.
I want it to be stronger than it was before. And -- and, over the last two years, that's meant taking on some powerful interests, some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time. And they're not always happy with me.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: They talk about me like a dog.
(LAUGHTER)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: That's not in my prepared remarks. It's just -- but it's true.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
"They talk about me like a dog"? What does that mean? I ask the question seriously. Given that Obama came out with the observation spontaneously--one of the few moments when he is off-teleprompter--it may hold a clue to his psyche. Obama's political opponents attack him, just like he attacks them (only generally more truthfully). So where does the "dog" come in? It suggests that Obama sees disagreement with him as somehow illegitimate and dehumanizing. Beyond that, it is opaque to me. Maybe our readers can explain the reference.
It Pays To Be Crazed
A church in Florida is planning to burn copies of the Koran on September 11. That proposal has been widely condemned, and now General Petraeus has entered the fray, warning that such a protest by the church could endanger American servicemen:
The top US commander in Afghanistan said Monday the planned burning of Korans on Sept. 11 by a Florida church could put the lives of American troops in danger and damage the war effort.
Gen. David Petraeus said the Taliban would exploit the demonstration for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S. and making it harder for allied troops to carry out their mission of protecting Afghan civilians.
"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort," Gen. Petraeus said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community."
This strikes me as troubling. Not because Petraeus is wrong; on the contrary, I think he is probably right. Already, mobs in Pakistan have demonstrated against the planned Koran burning by, among other things, burning American flags. History, e.g. the homicidal response to the Danish cartoons and the false report, circulated by the American press, that U.S. soldiers had flushed a Koran down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay, suggest that Petraeus' fears are well founded.
Moreover, I personally am not in favor of burning Korans. My advice to the Florida church would be, don't do it.
Still, is it not highly problematic when a senior military officer warns American citizens against exercising their undoubted First Amendment rights? This situation is different from the Koran-down-the-toilet story. We criticized news outlets at the time for endangering American troops, but that was mostly because the story was false. Presumably we can all agree that newspapers and magazines should not circulate false reports that endanger our troops. But what about accurate stories of Americans exercising their constitutional right to criticize Islam by burning Korans?
What gives rise to this dilemma, of course, is the fanaticism of radical Muslims, who have, indeed, responded violently to real or perceived slights to their religion. There is no parallel phenomenon with other religions. The Taliban blew up ancient statues of Buddha without worrying for a moment that Buddhists would react violently. Saudi Arabia destroys Bibles as a matter of policy, but it never occurs to the Saudis to fear mobs of rampaging Christians--or even Congressional disfavor in this mostly-Christian nation.
Perversely, the crazier radical Muslims behave, the more it benefits them. Today it is burning Korans, but the broader objective is to outlaw, de facto, any criticism of Islam. Radical Muslims want to establish a zone of protection around Islam that insulates it against the critiques to which everything else--not just other religions--is subject. If that isn't the laying of an important foundation stone of sharia, what is it? And if there is one religion that is uniquely exempted from scrutiny or criticism, is it absurd to say that that religion is "established" in the constitutional sense?
Of course, the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a religion by government. Which is where we came in--there is a fundamental difference between my telling Terry Jones, senior minister at the Dove World Outreach Center, that a mass Koran-burning is a bad idea, and General Petraeus saying the same thing. Especially when Petraeus, probably the most respected person in the federal government, warns that the likely effect is to endanger our troops. In many contexts, taking actions that endanger the troops would be regarded as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, a concept that Petraeus came uncomfortably close to endorsing.
Petraeus didn't mean to step over the line, I'm sure, and other military officers have tried to disclaim any intent to chill Americans' free speech rights:
Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, who oversees the effort to train Afghan security forces said he was informed of the planned Florida protests several days ago by a senior minister in the Afghan government.
Gen. Caldwell said many Afghans do not understand either the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment or the fact that President Barack Obama can't simply issue a decree to stop Mr. Jones from his demonstration. Military officials said they were not trying to deny Mr. Jones his right to free speech, but feared he was not thinking about the consequences of his actions.
"There is no question about First Amendment rights; that is not the issue," Gen. Caldwell said. "The question is: What is the implication over here? It is going to jeopardize the men and women serving in Afghanistan."
The question is a delicate one, and it is easy to sympathize with military leaders' giving priority to the safety of men and women under their command. But what are we to make of the fact that many Afghans do not understand the First Amendment? Should that be a cause of government officials' calling on American citizens to refrain from exercising their rights? I don't think so.
In the end, our way of life is simply incompatible with the precepts of radical Islam. There is no way to reconcile the two. Rather than start down the road of self-censorship, our government officials, including the military, should stand up for American freedoms.
Finally, an interesting question: how is this controversy similar to, and different from, that over the Ground Zero Mosque? Both involve actions that private citizens have a right to take, but arguably shouldn't. It is a worthwhile comparison, but that is a post for another day.
Churchill In Color
What is unusual about this video footage from early in World War II, just made public after 70 years, is that it is in color. Both Churchill and King George VI make brief appearances.
The video is posted in the extension because it starts automatically.
Continue reading this post...
Who's Islamophobic?
Lately there has been a spate of news stories attacking Americans as "Islamophobic," largely on the basis of opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque. Time, to cite just one example, did a cover story on this topic. Putting aside the merits of the term "Islamophobia," it seems to me that while many Americans are indeed skeptical of Islam--understandably so, in my view--there is very little evidence that large numbers of Americans fear, hate or look down on Muslims as such. On the contrary, I think it is striking how little support exists for such a claim.
Since pretty much all of the evidence on this topic is anecdotal, here is an anecdote, if not from Red America then from a red outpost in Blue America, the Minnesota State Fair. In the Minneapolis Star Tribune, columnist Gail Rosenblum writes about her experience taking three teenaged foreign exchange students, including one from Turkey and one from Kuwait, to the Fair. The girl from Kuwait, Nada, wore a hijab:
Despite the fact that tensions are running high in this political season, they independently confirmed that Minnesota graciousness remains top-notch. At the Crutchee's food stand, the smiling owner offered all three a free cheese-on-a-stick and lemonade (this before learning that a reporter was present). "I want you to like America," she said.
"People here are so nice," said Nada who, observing Ramadan, waited patiently to eat until sundown. "No one treats me different because I look different," she said.
I'm pretty sure that sort of consideration is the rule in America, not just Minnesota, rather than the exception.
A postscript: remember when President Obama (who speaks no language other than English) ridiculed his fellow Americans for their alleged inability to speak foreign languages? The third exchange student, who is from Germany, recounted his experience in the presumed sea of Know-Nothingism that is the Minnesota State Fair:
Max agreed. "I like how the Americans talk to me, very open-minded," and more than willing to make him really feel at home.
"I don't know why," he said, delighted, "but everyone's talking to me in German."
September 5, 2010
Keeping up with the Carrolls
Nolan Carroll was a star defensive back for the University of Maryland until last September, when his college football came to an end due to a horrific leg injury. Following the insertion of a metal rod into his leg, Carroll began a lenghy rehabilitation process, which caused him to miss last winter's NFL combine where college players try to impress pro scouts. But Carroll impressed the Miami Dolphins during an interview session at the team's facility. That, plus his performance prior to the injury and a 4.41 40-yard dash time during a workout, caused the Dolphins to draft him in the fifth round.
Yesterday, Carroll survived Miami's final player cuts to win a job in the NFL. He is expected to handle kick-off returns and to play in "nickel" packages (in which the defense uses five defensive backs).
This fall, Carroll's mother, Jennifer Carroll, will also be trying to win a high profile job in Florida. She is the Republican party's nominee for Lt. Governor of the state. Carroll served in the U.S. Navy as a jet mechanic until 1999. Four years later, she became the first African-American female Republican elected to the Florida state legislature.
Jennifer Carroll and her husband, a former master sergeant in the Air Force, clearly raised their son the right way. For example, they did not permit him to play football his freshman year in high school because his grades didn't meet their expectations. No wonder he was able to come all the way back from his injury. And no wonder he made such a positive impression on Miami coach Tony Sparano and his staff during his interview.
I'll try to keep an eye on both Nolan Carroll's football career and his mother's career in politics.
Even the Gipper can't save the Democrats this year
Jim Kessler, who worked for then-Rep. Charles Schumer in 1994, argues that the Democrats can survive the 2010 midterms "the Reagan" way - i.e., the way the Republicans survived in 1982. Most of his argument consists, though, of trying to convince us that the Dems have a much better hand this year than they did in 1994.
We won't know for two months whether 2010 will be a better or worse year for the Democrats than 1994 was. But Kessler's arguments are not persuasive.
Kessler takes solace from the fact that "Nancy Pelosi is not Tom Foley." That's true - Foley (the Speaker in 1994) wasn't a factor in any race but his own; Pelosi is widely and strongly disliked, and thus will weigh down Democrats across the country.
Kessler also points out that "John Boehner is not Newt Gingrich." True again. But the enthusiasm generated by the Contract With America in 1994 need not be generated out of Washington this year -- the grassroots will fill the void. Indeed, because the Republican brand is not as popular as it was in 1994 (when memories of the Reagan administration were still vivid), a less-known, less-controversial Republican House leader may suit Republicans best this time out.
Next, Kessler reminds us that "Charlie Rangel is not Don Rostenkowski." In other words, there was more blatant corruption by Democratic Congressmen back then. But the Democrats of that era hadn't just ridden to power promising to clean things up. And, even apart from the hypocrisy issue, the public's standards probably weren't as high back then. For example, earmarks had not yet become a dirty word.
Kessler notes that "Tom Periello is not Jack Brooks." He means that in 1994, many Democratic incumbents had held their seats for decades and "had forgotten how to run and raise money." By contrast, most of the vulnerable incumbents this time are "young, hungry, and battle-tested." But, unlike their elderly counterparts in 1994, they tend to come from districts that are red, or at least not blue.
That certainly is true of Periello, who is trailing in the polls by something like 20 points. He may be young and hungry, but he and many like him were elected only as a result of the Democrat-friendly environment of 2006 and/or 2008. Thus, they aren't as "tested" as Kessler supposes.
Kessler's last point of comparison is that "Obamacare is not Hillarycare." Correct. Hillarycare didn't pass, and thus only left Americans upset. Obamacare was pushed into law against the strong wishes of a clear majority of Americans. It has left a great many of them incensed.
Finally, Kessler urges Obama to use Reagan's 1982 playbook "by offering a more positive powerful, muscular view of what this country can achieve." But Obama doesn't do "powerful and muscular" well, at least not in the same sentence as "America." And for a good reason - he is ambivalent about such an America. Reagan's belief in that American was not only genuine, but consuming. Thus, he could run that "play" in good times and bad. Obama might be able to run it semi-convincingly in good times, but not now.
Must we be boy scouts?
The Washington Post reports that U.S. military commanders in southern Afghanistan are adopting a strategy that increasingly places the priority on fighting the Taliban even if it means tolerating some corruption. According to the Post, military officials in the region have concluded that the Taliban's insurgency is the most pressing threat to stability in some areas and that a sweeping effort to drive out corruption could create chaos and a governance vacuum that the Taliban could exploit.
These conclusions seem so obvious that a report that the U.S. has just reached them reads like parody. How could it not be the case, in a war, that fighting the enemy takes priority over fighting corruption? And how could our military not have understood that "driving out corruption" in a place like Afghan might leave a vacuum?
I don't think neo-conservatism is the culprit. Promoting democracy is one thing; insisting that, in the midst or a war, that a third world government be laregly free of corruption is quite another. The preoccupation with fighting corruption is more neo-Boy Scout than neo-conservative.
I suspect that the source of the preoccupation lies somewhere in modern counter-insurgency theory, perhaps at its intersection with liberalism. For it is the Obama administration that reportedly has made rooting out corruption in Afghanistan such a priority, to the point of sending FBI and DEA teams to assemble corruption cases.
In fact, the turn towards fighting the enemy, instead of our corrupt allies described above comes from the military, not the politicians and bureaucrats. According to the Post, "it was not immediately clear whether the White House, State Department, and law enforcment agencies share the military's view."
The premise of the neo-Boy Scout obsession with corruption is that if leaders of the central government or major provincial outposts are corrupt, we will be unable to win the hearts and minds of the locals. For example, our attempts to do so through aid projects will be thwarted because much of the money finds its way into the pockets of leaders.
If rooting out corruption in places like Afghanistan is a prerequisite to successful counter-insurgency, we should rethink our willingness to undertake long-term military projects in places like Afghanistan. But I doubt that that it is a prerequisite. The Iraq surge succeeded in its primary objectives of turning the tide against al Qaeda and heading off a civil war without, as far as I can tell, substantially eliminating corruption in Iraq. As I understand it, we succeeded in part because we took the village and tribal elders as we found them, and proved that we were serious about fighting the enemy. We did not attempt to remake them in our image.
The same approach seems to hold the greatest promise in Afghanistan. As one senior defense official explained the situation, "there are areas where you need strong leadership, and some of these leaders aren't necessarily pure." On the other hand, "they can help us be more effective in going after the primary threat, which is the Taliban."
If we want to make the kind of progress President Obama is demanding over the next year, we had better focus on going after the Taliban and more or less forget about purifying Afghan leaders. To the extent the Obama administration stands in the way of this approach even as it imposes de facto timetables, it is all but guaranteeing that we will not succeed.
SCOTT adds: An Army colonel responds to this post:
Continue reading this post...
Large Lake + Small Boat = Vacation
I hadn't taken a vacation for several years, so we were long overdue for a week in the North Woods. Our favorite northern spot is Lake Vermilion. Vermilion is the fifth-largest lake in Minnesota--a little larger than, for example, the Sea of Galilee. But unlike, say, Mille Lacs, it is full of bays and islands that make it endlessly interesting. As usual at the end of the summer up north, the weather was highly variable--up to 90 degrees the first two days we were there; then a cold front moved in, and the temperature bottomed out in the low 30s. Following the maxim that if you have to shave it isn't a vacation, I didn't.
Any time I spend a week driving a fishing boat around a big lake, I feel like I've had a summer:
All four kids were with us, which isn't easy to achieve these days. My daughters always enjoy a long pontoon boat ride:
The fishing was great this year, mostly because my son, unlike me, actually knows how to fish. We caught lots of northerns and bass:
Through the miracle of North Woods wi-fi, I was even able to do a post now and then. Altogether, it was a great vacation. And it came at an opportune time: I am in the midst of the busiest year of my career thus far. This is why I haven't been posting as much as usual, and that will probably continue; my contributions to this site will most likely be sporadic until around Thanksgiving. Tomorrow, it's back to work.
Barack, Can We Talk?
Through the genius of Iowahawk, insight on a relationship gone bad:
Barack, can we, uh, talk for a few minutes?
Oh, nothing. It's just that it just seems we haven't had a chance to talk for a while. I mean, I know we've both been busy for the past year or so. You with your fundraisers and golfing and stuff, and me with all those appointments at the unemployment office. But you know I think it's important in a relationship like ours to keep the lines of communication open. ...
Yeah I know my some of my friends warned me you were trouble, and that it was the alcohol talking. But I knew that if we gave it a chance we could make it work. You and me, together. And after you moved in, I really think we did for a while. I mean, you've really helped me get over my inhibitions and hangups, and I like to think I've really helped you grow and discover yourself. Like last year when I lent you $800 billion to pay for your demo tape and new rims for the Cadillac.
No, no. I'm not asking for the money back now, Paul Krugman told me you're good for it. And please don't think I don't appreciate all the constructive criticism. It's important for me to know when I'm not meeting your needs and when I'm holding you back. Look, I know I'm not the prettiest democracy in the hemisphere, and I really can't blame you when your eyes wander to Spain or Venezuela. It's just been kind of hard to pay attention to my appearance since losing my job.
Read it all!
Obama Finds A New Bottom
Today President Obama hit a new low in Scott Rasmussen's Approval Index, at -23, with 24 percent of voters strongly approving of his performance, and 47 percent strongly disapproving:
The 47 percent who strongly disapprove represents a new high, too. Overall, 42 percent of voters approve of Obama's performance, while 57 percent disapprove. Poll numbers bounce around, of course, but the trend for Obama is grim. For a long time, a plurality of voters have strongly disapproved of his administration; that group is now perilously close to being a majority.
Beinart bashed
From the right, Andrew Ferguson administers justice to Peter Beinart in "Pundit (declined)." Is Beinart deserving of Ferguson's attention? I'm not sure, but the result, as noted in "Beinart, bloodied" (which also links to critiques of Beinart's essay on young American Jews turning away from Israel) is highly enjoyable.
Beinart is the author of two books on American foreign policy. Ferguson briefly discusses The Good Fight, the first of Beinart's two books. This year Beinart published a new book on the role of hubris in American foreign policy. From the left, David Rieff takes a critical look at Beinart's two books in the review/essay "Punditry at the drive-thru."
Rieff finds Beinart's books wanting in their own right. He adds that Beinart himself has treated his first book somewhat unkindly. In his current book, Rieff writes, Beinart's first book has "gone the way of Bukharin in a Stalin-era Soviet encyclopedia. It has been replaced by a new explanatory key, radically different from but no less simplistic than the one Beinart put forward in The Good Fight, which, reading his latest offering, one would barely know he had ever written."
