Right Wing Nut House

I have read some speculation in the last few days that it may be possible for the GOP to make big gains in the House and Senate in 2010 if they “tap in” to the rage being felt by ordinary taxpayers against the savior based economy being created by Obama and the Democrats.

As a tactic, it would probably be a winner. But is there another way to achieve the same result without exacerbating the already deep divisions in American society? We may be in a period of low employment, sluggish growth, and high inflation for a while if the Japan model is any indication with their “lost decade.” This is especially true since the Obama administration shows no signs of lessening the flow of cash from the federal spigot. Taxpayers have seen where most of this money is going already and feel betrayed by a government that is seeking to reward failure and bad decisions. The chances are pretty good at this point that all the “stimulus” in the world is not going to head off a deep recession and the federal government is apparently setting itself up to decide who wins and who loses in this shakeup.

The inevitable populist backlash is predictable. The problem is that mass movements based on populist rage have generally led to untoward and unanticipated consequences. History is littered with these populist outbreaks - especially those that happen as a result of great cultural and economic changes being enacted by a perceived elite. The last major populist movement in America was George Wallace’s candidacy in 1968 (to a much lesser extent in 1964 and 72) that saw the Alabama governor get an astonishing 13.5% of the vote and carry 5 states in the general election. Wallace tapped into the rage and fear being felt by white, working class men who felt threatened (thanks to Wallace’s sneering, bigoted rhetoric) by African American agitation for equality. Nixon and the GOP then mainstreamed the tactic albeit using much more subtle language and even Clinton got into the act with his famous “Sister Souljah Moment,” assuring whites he wouldn’t pander to black racists like Jesse Jackson (Clinton is the only Democrat since JFK to carry any states of the traditional “Deep South.).

Tapping in to the rage of taxpayers by exploiting their fears then, would almost certainly result in unanticipated problems for the GOP. But beyond that, is this the way the Republicans wish to return to power? The Rovian strategy of using wedge issues to cleave the electorate over gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues got Republicans elected but also sowed the seeds of their own destruction. By the time 2008 rolled around, those wedge issues had lost their potency and there was ample evidence of a backlash by center-right and center-left moderates against the GOP and their perceived intolerance. It was Obama who exploited this backlash by promising to govern based on not what divides us but by what unites us. His “post partisan” message - a campaign gimmick we know now - resonated powerfully with the center who had tired of the back biting and poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington and longed for “change.”

There is only one campaign theme more powerful in American politics than fear; optimism. This is especially true in dire economic times or when America is threatened from abroad. Not only would running a campaign based on tapping into the native optimism of the people score political points with the electorate, it would give the GOP if not a mandate, then certainly the political clout to slow down the Obama Dependency Express and restore some sanity to our fiscal situation. It would also give the Republicans some leverage to moderate the Democrat’s bail out policies and give the party more input into legislation

What a marvelous opportunity for the GOP to show that they have indeed changed their tune if the party were to adopt an enthusiastically optimistic message while presenting viable solutions to our economic problems. With President Obama criss crossing the country trying to scare people into supporting him, the contrast between the GOP’s confident, optimistic agenda and the Democrats “America Held Hostage” policies would be pronounced. And, they would result in the kind of gains we can only dream of at this point.

But if the GOP were to descend to the Democrat’s level - scaring people by screaming about “socialism” and the attendant imagery of economic doom and gloom, the party may indeed make some gains but with what kind of mandate? And would it be as effective as preparing the people for tough choices by playing to their native optimism and saying that as Americans, we are capable of anything if we pull together? Coupled with some new ideas about targeted tax cuts and real “stimulus” spending instead of the porked up monstrosity offered by the Democrats, that rage could turn to optimism and hope which would attract a helluva lot more people than scare tactics.

Obama has ceded this territory to the Republicans. He has embarked on a course where in order to get his agenda passed, he will be forced to appeal to the basest instincts of the people. We are already seeing the result as it has pitted ordinary Americans who are resentful of where the bail out money has been going against other Americans who will be the beneficiaries of government largess. He may have underestimated the extent of this backlash although it remains to be seen if this rage can be channeled by Republicans into doing something constructive. For that, they simply cannot exploit the emotions of the day but must help make people feel good about themselves. Already, the feel-good aspect of the Obama candidacy - electing the first African American president - is fading. And as Obama’s policies to fundamentally alter the country become obvious, I suspect that feeling will disappear for all but the most committed Obamabots. The Republicans can reclaim the “feel-good” mantle by appealing to one of America’s greatest strengths; the ability of our citizens to look to the future with hope. Obama played to that strength during the campaign and is now abandoning it in favor of fear mongering. It’s s delicious political opening that the GOP ignores to its detriment.

Newly minted GOP chairman Steele is just the sort of person to lead a newly energized GOP into this fight. His ideas on reforming the party at the top to bring transparency and ethics to the fore as evidence that the Republicans have learned their lessons is a gigantic first step toward reviving the party’s fortunes. But if the GOP were to then simply fall back on failed strategies involving dividing the electorate, any good work accomplished by the chairman will probably go for naught. The party needs new ideas, new solutions that can be presented to the people as evidence that they have gotten beyond the past and are ready to lead the country to a bright future.

I must say that I am not optimistic that the GOP has learned such lessons. The temptation to exploit fear and anger is almost irresistable since it is the easy way back, a shortcut to where the party wants to be. The hard thing to do would be to eschew such tactics and be positive, optimistic, and forward looking while offering solutions that recognize how serious the trouble we are in but remaining true to our first principles and beliefs.

Then again, I may be pleasantly surprised…

I did a piece last week on Obama’s first few days in office and was rightly chastised by some who thought it a bit premature to be judging the performance of a president who had been in office for so short a time.

Yeah, so bite me. Everyone else wrote about Obama’s first week too, I just got the jump on them that’s all.

Be that as it may, now it has been two weeks since The One alighted from heaven to bring peace and justice to the galaxy and we are getting a glimpse into the way the Obama White House works. I think any fair minded observer would have to be troubled by the way things are going - unless you are a conservative in which case you are probably turning handsprings. On major issues regarding competence, understanding of Congress, and opposition management, this White House is surprising a lot of people by fumbling the first snap from center and watching as the behemoths on the offensive and defensive line scramble for possession.

Forgive the football analogy but I am anticipating my yearly withdrawal from the game on Monday and want to get a head start on feeling miserable for the next 7 months until I can mainline my addiction again.

In truth, the “Stimulus Package” may be slipping under the bus - at least the package in its present incarnation. The monstrosity is loaded up with so much pork it resembles a livestock exhibition at the Iowa State Fair. Didn’t anyone at the White House actually sit down and, like, you know, read the entire 647 pages of this thing to discover what was inside? Did they really believe Republicans - and the rest of the country - would buy $100 million in Planned Parenthood pork as a way to stimulate the economy? Ditto The $7 billion for sprucing up federal facilities and the $600 million for people who don’t want to pay for cable TV but won’t be able to see The Messiah on the tube unless they are given a digital converter box so they can worship him every day.

Education monies, money for Medicare, for food stamps , and the income tax credit might be supportable - as a separate bill. None of these monies will do anything to create jobs. In fact, the Wall Street Journal informs us that around $30 billion of this lemon will go to “infrastructure improvements” with another few billion spent on cutting tax rates where they will do the most good - small and medium sized businesses that create about 80% of the new jobs in good times and bad.

Everyone knows this already so I’m not breaking any new ground. The question is why is the White House surprised that no Republicans leaped to stand by Obama’s side in the House vote and 11 Democrats jumped ship entirely? Did they really believe Obama’s PR stunt of going up to the Hill to meet with Republicans would convince anyone that this bill is anything but a gigantic payoff to Democratic constituencies for their votes last November? Only Obama sycophants and toadies on blogs and the media saw Obama’s sojourn to Capitol Hill as a “reaching out” to Republicans. The rest of us who possess more than half a brain saw it for what it was - an empty gesture aimed at his own supporters who would then trumpet “The New Politics” being pushed by their man-crush.

If as many Republicans went off the reservation to support the bill as Democrats who rejected it, we would hear no end of Obama’s “success” in splitting the Republican party. But you have to wonder how many more responsible Democrats would have bailed if this wasn’t Obama’s first big game. The point being, the Stimulus is Obama’s primal thrust, his Ur issue. And judging by what we’re seeing in the Senate, I think it is going to be dicey for the new president. I expect that bill to shrink substantially - perhaps by a couple or three hundred billion dollars. I expect more tax relief, less Mickey Mouse, and perhaps more targeted infrastructure spending.

Clearly, the White House has lost control of the process in Congress as support among the public plummets; only 42% now support the stimulus down from the mid-50’s last week. The White House PR strategy is obviously failing. Every time Obama opens his mouth about “doing something” to help the economy, someone else points to some cockamamie bit in the bill that only helps a Democratic constituency. The press, while still touting the bill as the saving of America, has also been wondering about some of these specifics.

The Administration strategy of loading up the bill with pork - trying to combine what should have been 3 or 4 bills and then counting on the fear of the people to pressure their Members of Congress to ram it through before anyone had time to digest what was in it now has to be abandoned. The rank dishonesty in plugging in so much that had nothing to do with economic recovery and then trying to say it was vital to keep us from sliding into a depression has been exposed.

What else has been exposed is a basic incompetence in the White House that they believed they could get away with it. Also, the new Administration is feeling its way in Congress - something all new Administrations must do as they work the kinks out of their whip operation and Congressional lobbying efforts. Then again, most administrations don’t have the kinds of majorities enjoyed by the Democrats.

So the stimulus will pass eventually. But Republicans should take note; this guy and his people are not the geniuses of the campaign you were so frightened of. Nor are they the infallible political operators they have been built up as in the press. They make mistakes. They miscalculate. And, they may be a touch too arrogant for their own good.

Contemplate that while you decide whether to break faith with your constituencies and vote for this piece of crap.

When the history of the Iraq War is written a decade or more from now, it will include a lot more perspective that the press and the war’s foes are giving it now. It will no doubt view events on the ground in that country as other wars have been chronicled; a mix of stunning bravery, horrible leadership, incomprehensible decisions, and the quiet, unremarkable brilliance of the ordinary US soldier in combat.

In a decade, we will also know whether the war was a net plus or minus for US interests. (To make that judgment now is folly. Example: Viet Nam, where many historians now see the war as a pivotal event in the collapse of the Soviet Union.) We will also know a lot more about the corruption, the confusion, the dishonesty, and the jaws dropping incompetence of the the Administration, the Pentagon, the State Department, and many other government agencies who had a hand in the reconstruction fiasco.

We have known for years that the Bush Administration was unprepared for the aftermath of the invasion. We’ve known about the wasted, stolen, and misappropriated reconstruction funds. We’ve known that the Pentagon was not always honest in its assessment of the progress of Iraqi security forces.

What we didn’t know until now is just how truly bad it was.

An unpublished 513-page federal history of the American-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure.

The history, the first official account of its kind, is circulating in draft form here and in Washington among a tight circle of technical reviewers, policy experts and senior officials. It also concludes that when the reconstruction began to lag — particularly in the critical area of rebuilding the Iraqi police and army — the Pentagon simply put out inflated measures of progress to cover up the failures.

In one passage, for example, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is quoted as saying that in the months after the 2003 invasion, the Defense Department “kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces — the number would jump 20,000 a week! ‘We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.’ ”

Mr. Powell’s assertion that the Pentagon inflated the number of competent Iraqi security forces is backed up by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former commander of ground troops in Iraq, and L. Paul Bremer III, the top civilian administrator until an Iraqi government took over in June 2004.

Over the years, the Pentagon has simply lied to us about the readiness of Iraqi forces to “stand up” so we could “stand down.” Certainly they justified some of this lying as “good for the war effort.” But it is just horrific that Rumsfeld could face the press everyday and lie about the progress of training the Iraqi army. We already knew he was a “glass half full” sort of fellow when it came to war news. But this wasn’t spin. These were deliberate lies told to maintain support for the war at home. Those of us who bought these figures and argued with war opponents that progress was being made and asked for patience it now turns out that we were just actors in Rumsfeld’s little dramas.

But it is in the reconstruction area that the Bush Administration reveals itself to be not only incompetent but probably criminally negligent with American taxpayer dollars.

You haven’t heard about it because of a government gag orders but there are at least 70 cases of Iraqi contract fraud across the country waiting for January 20, 2009 to start up against American companies who did business in Iraq with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Some trials have taken place already including one involving the company Custer Battles that was given a contract to convert the Iraqi Dinar to a new currency and ended up robbing the taxpayers of at least $10 million. Another case involving Philip Bloom who admitted bribing DoD officials with sex, booze, and cash in order to get millions in reconstruction contracts. His co-defendant was a CPA official.

The list of transgressions is staggering. Uncompetitive bidding (including the granting of Haliburton a multi-billion dollar contract without any other bidders) outright theft, contract manipulation, nauseatingly incompetent accounting by the CPA, bending and breaking of regulations, political favoritism, and $8 billion in cash that has simply gone “missing.”

That last may involve some wretched accounting by the CPA. But don’t worry, there’s plenty of evidence that a lot of that cash just up and disappeared - stacks and stacks of crisp, brand new $100 bills. How could that happen?

Because the Iraqi banking system was in tatters, the funds were placed in an account with the Federal Reserve in New York. From there, most of the money was flown in cash to Baghdad. Over the first 14 months of the occupation, 363 tonnes of new $100 bills were shipped in - $12bn, in cash. And that is where it all began to go wrong.

“Iraq was awash in cash - in dollar bills. Piles and piles of money,” says Frank Willis, a former senior official with the governing Coalition Provisional Authority. “We played football with some of the bricks of $100 bills before delivery. It was a wild-west crazy atmosphere, the likes of which none of us had ever experienced.”

The environment created by the coalition positively encouraged corruption. “American law was suspended, Iraqi law was suspended, and Iraq basically became a free fraud zone,” says Alan Grayson, a Florida-based attorney who represents whistleblowers now trying to expose the corruption. “In a free fire zone you can shoot at anybody you want. In a free fraud zone you can steal anything you like. And that was what they did.”

Does “criminally negligent” apply? That 513 page report mentioned up top supplies some answers:

Among the overarching conclusions of the history is that five years after embarking on its largest foreign reconstruction project since the Marshall Plan in Europe after World War II, the United States government has in place neither the policies and technical capacity nor the organizational structure that would be needed to undertake such a program on anything approaching this scale.

The bitterest message of all for the reconstruction program may be the way the history ends. The hard figures on basic services and industrial production compiled for the report reveal that for all the money spent and promises made, the rebuilding effort never did much more than restore what was destroyed during the invasion and the convulsive looting that followed.

By mid-2008, the history says, $117 billion had been spent on the reconstruction of Iraq, including some $50 billion in United States taxpayer money.

The history contains a catalog of revelations that show the chaotic and often poisonous atmosphere prevailing in the reconstruction effort.

That’s right. To this day, the administration remains clueless about not only the finances of Iraqi reconstruction but even how to go about the task of organizing the effort.

Criminally negligent? Can’t say for sure but there is certainly plenty of evidence that the Bushies didn’t care enough to resolve the parochial disagreements and turf wars that hampered efforts to consolidate the reconstruction effort and get a handle on how much was going out to pay for what and to whom.

There will be an effort in Congress next year to get to the bottom of all this. With the ascension of Henry Waxman to the chairmanship energy committee, the oversight committee chairman could very well be Ed Towns, a New York Congressman who is dogged, thorough, and much less a partisan than Waxman. But I still think it best that an independent commission be formed to look into the entire question of Iraqi reconstruction. We need to investigate the entire episode and not just cherry pick individual occurences of corruption. Congress is much to busy to do a good job in delving into the whole narrative, hence, a bi-partisan panel should be empowered.

The charge of “war profiteering” against some contractors is no doubt overblown. There are hundreds of honest businessmen who contracted with the US or Iraqi governments to supply goods and services who, by all accounts, performed magnificently - sometimes at great personal risk to themselves and their employees. But there is also a growing body of evidence that dozens of contractors saw an easy way to defraud the taxpayer and through bribery, theft, and fraud, enriched themselves.

UPDATE

He’s the only other conservative writing about this story but I still think James Joyner is on the wrong track with this:

That sounds about right. Of course, the Marshall Plan involved giving the money to leaders of advanced countries to rebuild war-ravaged infrastructure after the conflict had ended, whereas this effort had outsiders with virtually no knowledge of the area trying to create a modern state out of an underdeveloped one while terrorists were trying to undermine the effort at every turn.

My history is a little fuzzy but I remember reading Theodore H. White (who wrote extensively about the Marshall Plan when he was working with Colliers Magazine) that the entire taxpayer expenditure for the Marshall Plan was around $15 billion from 1947-51 and that the primary success of the plan lay in its building currencies and creating markets for goods. Using the dollar to stabilize currencies and aiding France so that it could buy German wheat or Great Britain so it could buy French steel are examples of specific Marshall Plan goals. More than one historian has pointed to the plan as a boost to the idea of a European Common Market.

The point being, there was a government wide effort involving State, Defense, Treasury, and Commerce to realize reconstruction based on cooperation and a specific plan. According to the conclusions in that history of Iraq war reconstruction, the Bushies never even took the first step of organizing their own administration and to this day have failed to do so. It wouldn’t have mattered if Iraq was a western industrialized nation or a third world backwater; the problem lay in a lack of focus on putting an overall plan in place with specific goals and targets.

But kudos to James for highlighting what I’m sure is going to be a big story next year.

Today, the President and the president-elect will meet at the White House to discuss the transition - among other things. One can see Bush - a man who by several accounts, does not take criticism gracefully - all steely eyed, a grim smile playing around the corners of his mouth as he will no doubt find some way to remind Obama of some of the things our new president said during the campaign about the 43rd chief executive.

But it will hardly be the most uncomfortable meeting of incoming and outgoing presidents in history. Jackie Kennedy described the ride to her husband’s inaugural with the Eisenhowers as “glacial.” Ditto Nancy Reagan who thought the Carters were being deliberately distant. When the White House changes party hands, it necessarily follows that the winner didn’t think much of the policies of his predecessor. Given the titanic egos involved, it is not surprising that there would be some hard feelings.

In this case, it follows that Obama will probably not be the most welcome visitor in the 8 years of the Bush White House. The Democrat, after all, has accused the President of ruining the country, of destroying the American Dream, of not caring about war casualties, of lying about weapons of mass destruction, of initiating policies to benefit the rich, of not caring about the financial meltdown, of destroying the planet, of sticking it to the poor and middle class, of not caring about the people of New Orleans after Katrina, and of general incompetence - among other things.

Gee. Why would Bush be upset with Obama?

They met once before at a White House breakfast for new senators. Obama described the meeting in his book The Audacity of Hope :

Obama!” Bush exclaimed, according to Obama’s account of the meeting in his second memoir, “The Audacity of Hope.” “Come here and meet Laura. Laura, you remember Obama. We saw him on TV during election night. Beautiful family. And that wife of yours — that’s one impressive lady.”

The two men shook hands and then, according to Obama, Bush turned to an aide, “who squirted a big dollop of hand sanitizer in the president’s hand.”

Bush then offered some to Obama, who recalled: “Not wanting to seem unhygienic, I took a squirt.”

The president then led Obama off to one side of the room, where Bush said: “I hope you don’t mind me giving you a piece of advice.”

“Not at all, Mr. President,” Obama told the commander-in-chief.

“You’ve got a bright future,” Bush said presciently. “Very bright. But I’ve been in this town awhile and, let me tell you, it can be tough. When you get a lot of attention like you’ve been getting, people start gunnin’ for ya. And it won’t necessarily just be coming from my side, you understand. From yours, too. Everybody’ll be waiting for you to slip, know what I mean? So watch yourself.”

Bush then noted that he and Obama had something in common.

“We both had to debate Alan Keyes,” the president said. “That guy’s a piece of work, isn’t he?”

Both men laughed and seemed to hit it off. But then, Bush began to speak of his agenda for his new term and weirdly, Obama describes Bush’s demeanor when talking about his goals exactly the same way that Obama talks when he speaks of his plans for the country:

“Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch,” Obama wrote. “The president’s eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders’ wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check.”

Obama should examine tapes of some of his major speeches. There he will see “messianic certainty” in spades. And by the way Mr. president elect, did you happen to see the slavish devotion, the swooning, fainting, weeping, chest heaving, short stroking response of your robotic followers whenever you uttered any of your vapidness? “Republican Senate colleagues hang[ing] on his every word,” absolutely pales by comparison.

To be fair, that passage was written before Obamamania hit the world. But one wonders if Obama will still appreciate “the Founders’ wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check,” now that he has been elected to the same office.

In truth, the only check on Obama’s power will be Obama. As we’ve seen with President Bush, the Constitution is quite an elastic document when it comes to powers granted the chief executive. In time of war, the powers of Commander in Chief are expanded - sometimes considerably (see FDR and Lincoln) - and notions of civil liberties get a rough ride from the tug of war between privacy and security.

I did not support some of what President Bush initiated as security measures these last 8 years but neither am I a civil liberties absolutist who some suspect would be enormously satisfied if the government bent over backward to obey Constitutional protections to the letter and the spirit of the law while the US suffered a horrific attack. It would prove how morally superior they are to the rest of us mere mortals. (”What’s a couple of 9/11’s a year if the price we pay is a lessening of Constitutional liberties?”) That’s easily worth a couple of thousand lives to the Glenn Greenwalds of the world.

But Obama will no doubt discover very soon - perhaps today - what has kept our elected leaders from sleeping very well at night; that the extent and nature of the threat against our people is the biggest security challenge he will have as president. It is true that many of Obama’s followers do not believe this and, in fact, believe that the threat is overblown, used by Bush as both an electoral club to beat Democrats and as a way to aggrandize power unto himself. If Obama believes that, he is in for a very rude awakening.

I have no doubt that if the two men meet privately today, that President Bush will try to impress this fact on President elect Obama. Will he believe Bush? Will he believe our intelligence agencies? Rightly, Obama appears to be keeping his options open on the Terrorist Surveillance Program and other anti-terror measures initiated by Bush. He can talk all he wants to about “restoring Constitutional protections” but I suspect that, in the end, he will make a few adjustments to satisfy critics but keep the basic programs intact. The simple reason he might very well do this is that they have worked.

This is one meeting where I would love to be a fly on the wall. The expression is overused and has become hackneyed and cliched but that shouldn’t stop us from using the imagery of being an unobtrusive observer of great events to become immersed in history rather than just reading it.

Think of it as one of Einstein’s thought experiments. Go back to the cabinet meeting in June of 1862 where Lincoln discussed issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Put yourself in that time and in that the room as Stanton tries to dissuade Lincoln from issuing the edict until the Union achieves a military victory, telling him that otherwise, it would be seen as a “cry for help.” As they go around the table, each advisor in turn giving their opinion, would you be persuaded? Remember, you know nothing except what has happened previously, the future being as clouded as it is for Lincoln.

Such exercises teach you a lot about yourself as much as they instruct us of history.

In this case, being a fly on the wall when Obama meets Bush might open our eyes about how both men see the realities of power - its uses, its pitfalls, and its limitations. The presidency, it is said, is both the strongest and weakest elected office in the western world. It is the one office in America where power is measured by how the people perceive their chief executive. Bush was virtually powerless his last year in office due not only to his lame duck status but his historically low approval numbers. Conversely, Obama’s power will be at its zenith when he takes office next January.

After all, the Constitution gives the president very little to do. It is up to the man and his understanding of how to exercise the powers granted him that makes the president or breaks him. And being a fly on the wall as Obama discovers that for himself would be fascinating indeed.

So call me a liar.

Fact is, the “Contact Me” form was apparently disabled in the move to Hosting Matters and this seems to have angered many of you who wish to give me a piece of your minds.

So in the interest of internet harmony (and because I am a glutton for punishment), I have reactivated the comment function for the blog. I will post everything except physcial threats against me or another. So, if your vocabulary is so limited that every other word must be an obscenity, your comment will be posted for all the world to see what a moron you are.

Go ahead then. I have bared my chest and back for the lash. Deliver unto me your worst - and best if you’ve a mind to.

UPDATE

Sorry. I lied again.

In addition to scrapping comments that make threats against me or another, I will also deep six any comments that mention anyone in my family.

If you wish to say something about them, please contact them directly. Don’t be a snivelling coward and try and sneak your criticism of them onto my site. Any such comment will be deleted.

You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show,, one of the most popular conservative talk shows on Blog Talk Radio.

Tonight, I’ll welcome American Thinker’s News Editor Ed Lasky to the second chair as we interview National Review’s political correspondent David Freddoso whose best selling book The Case Against Barack Obama has gotten praise far and wide for its clarity and excellent documentation.

The show will air from 7:00 - 8:00 PM Central time. You can access the live stream here. A podcast will be available for streaming or download shortly after the end of the broadcast.

Click on the stream below and join in on what one wag called a “Wayne’s World for adults.”

The Chat Room will open around 15 minutes before the show opens,

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.

Bill Frist wasn’t around to resuscitate but at least the comatose patient has a pulse.

Performing a somewhat juvenile but nevertheless immensely satisfying politlcal theater, House Republicans staged what one wag on the Hill called a “Guerilla Congress” as the Democrats adjourned for the summer recess.

No sooner had Pelosi railroaded the sine die adjournment through on a voice vote, GOP leaders began to complain about the fact that the Congress was adjourning without voting on removing restrctions on offshore drilling. What followed could end up rallying the depressed and dispirited party, making them a little more competitive in the fall.

Even though it is a totally useless gesture, it cheered my heart when I read this piece in Politico about how House Republicans are still on the floor 2 hours and counting after the Democrats adjourned for vacation:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi’s refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on, and the microphones have been turned on as well.

But C-SPAN, which has no control over the cameras in the chamber, has stopped broadcasting the House floor, meaning no one is witnessing this except the assembled Republicans, their aides, and one Democrat, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has now left.

Since the House is officially in adjournment, Capitol Police were sent to the press gallery and told to kick reporters out. Quickly, Roy Blount of MO went up to the gallery and agreed to be interviewed - just so that the press could stick around and watch the show.

And what a show it is turning out to be:

Update 3 - Democrats just turned out the lights again. Republicans cheered.
Update 4 - Republican leaders just sent out a notice looking for a bullhorn and leadership aides are trying to corral all the members who are still in town to come speak on the floor and sustain this one-sided debate.
Also, Republicans can thank Shadegg for turning on the microphones the first time. Apparently, the fiesty Arizona conservative started typing random codes into the chamber’s public address system and accidentally typed the correct code, allowing Republicans brief access to the microphone before it was turned off again.
“I love this,” Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. “Congress can be so boring…This is a kick.”

Meanwhile, Dem staffers are beside themselves with rage.

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker’s Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.
“You’re not covering this, are you?” complaing one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans “morons” for staying on the floor.

Visitors - mostly staffers from Republican offices - are filling up the seats normally taken by House members and cheering lustily as each Congressman digs in and pummels the Democrats:

Uodate 5 - Republicans are literally hugging each other on the House floor. Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.), not normally known as an distinguished orator, just gave a rousing speech, accusing Democrats of stifling dissent. He referenced President John Quincy Adams, who returned as a House member after being defeated in his bid for re-election as president. Waving his arms and yelling, Manzullo brought the crowd (including a lot of staff shipped in by GOP leaders to fill up the place), and he left the floor to hugs from his colleagues. You don’t see that up here every day.
Update 6 - Rep Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) just pretended to be a Democrat. He stood on the other side of the chaber and listed all of the GOP bills that the Dems killed.

He then said “I am a Democrat and here is my energy plan” and he held up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it. He paraded around he house floor with the sign while the crowd cheered.

Nobody in the country can see this little show. The press is covering it probably only to make the GOP look bad later. And let’s face it - it won’t do a damn bit of good as far as shaming the Democrats into coming back and voting on lifting offshore drilling restrictions.

But as political theater, it is a First Class show. And I guess it also proves that the Republicans have a little fight in them after all.

This post originally appears in The American Thinker

I know I’m bucking a trend here but there has to be a reason Petreaus and Odinero are dead set against initiating a timeline for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, something they told the messiah to his face yesterday.

Are they Bushbots who simply don’t recognize the overpowering genius of our future savior?

Maybe they’re war lovers and get off at the sight of dead Americans?

Perhaps they’re “Manchurian Candidate” jihadists who want America to stay in Iraq so their friends can kill more of our troops?

Or maybe - just maybe - they know a helluva lot more about what’s going on in Iraq than anyone else in the American government (including a wet behind the ears junior senator from Illinois) and have a view of how best to end this thing shaped by experience and not by what might play well on the hustings.

I am very happy that Nouri al-Maliki has embraced Barack Obama’s 16 month timeline as a template for getting us out of Iraq. It also gladdens my heart that Obama says that 16 months “isn’t set in stone” and that if conditions warrant it, he will adjust.

But what else would you expect these gentlemen to say? As I pointed out yesterday, of course Maliki loves the idea of Obama’s timeline. Once initiated, he gets to control the withdrawal of American forces. The little Iranian loving Shia Sh*t must love that. If things start getting rough again, all he has to do is cry for help and Obama and the American Army come running. It won’t be Obama slowing or stopping the withdrawal that’s for sure. He will have most of the Democratic party on his neck to prevent that. And unless Maliki agrees to a slowdown or halt to the drawdown, it won’t happen. Hence, Obama is in a trap of his own making.

In an interview with ABC’s Nightline last night, Obama hedged when describing his meeting with Petreaus:

TM: “And then we sat down with [BO] to talk about what has become an open disagreement between military commanders here and Obama, over his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a 16-month timetable. Did General Petraeus talk about military concerns about your timetable?”

BO: “You know, I would characterize the concerns differently. I don’t think that they’re deep concerns about the notion of a pullout per se. There are deep concerns about, from their perspective, a timetable that doesn’t take into account what they anticipate might be some sort of changing conditions. And this is what I mean when I say we play different roles. My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole, and to have to weigh and balance risks, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. Their job is just to get the job done here. And I completely understand that.”

Moran: “But the difference is real. Commanders here want withdrawals to be based on conditions on the ground. Obama emphasizes his timetable, but he insists he would remain flexible. I’m going to try to pin you down on this ”

Obama: “Here let me say this, though, Terry, because, you know, what I will refuse to do, and I think that, you know ”

Moran: “How do you know what I’m going to ask?”

Obama: “Well, then if I don’t get it right, then you can ask it again.”

Moran: “All right.”

Obama: “Is to get boxed in into what I consider two false choices, which is either I have a rigid timeline of such and such a date, come hell or high water, we’ve gotten our combat troops out, and I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening six months or 16 months. Or, alternatively, I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground says, which is what George Bush says he’s doing, in which case I’m not doing my job as commander-in-chief.”

Terry should have been a little more persistent and not allowed Obama to set up the “either or” strawmen. No one is saying the choice is that severe. What Terry asked was why not withdraw the troops based on security conditions rather than what by definition is a much more arbitrary proposition? Also, unlike withdrawing based on the reality of what is happening in Iraq, the timeline would, almost by definition, take on a life of its own. It would be added to the metrics for judging success or failure. It would be caught up in the debate over Iraq at home. Who’s to say that with a drastically increased Democratic majority that Obama’s Democratic friends wouldn’t just pull the plug and ignore conditions on the ground? They were willing to do it before he was elected, why not now?

Yes let’s start coming home. If Maliki thinks the Iraqi army can stand up for themselves, bully for him. I happen to think from here on out, it is what happens in the Council of Representatives and the provincial councils that will matter more than what happens with our troops. The Iraqis have to create their own rules to live by and while we can advise them and encourage them, there is precious little left for our troops to do except act as trainers and facilitators for the Iraqi army. And we don’t need 135,000 troops for that.

McCain is making a huge mistake in still trying to prove Obama was wrong about the surge. He should be fighting for the adoption of Petreaus’s views on the matter and not hand control of the withdrawal over to the Iraqis as Obama wishes to do. But it’s clear the Republican’s campaign was caught hard off balance on this and they have yet to recover. It’s an open question if they ever will.

The media will continue to portray Obama as the second coming of George Marshall while ignoring his continued flip flops on his position. Last summer, as an example, Obama said he didn’t think the threat of genocide was a good enough reason to stay in Iraq. Yesterday, he changed his mind 180 degrees by stating that renewed sectarian violence would be reason enough to halt the withdrawal of American forces and skew his precious timeline.

And then there’s the extraordinary fact I highlighted a couple of days ago. After calling the war a “failure” and demanding the removal of our troops at the height of sectarian violence and al-Qaeda attacks which would almost certainly have led to a disaster for American arms and interests, Obama now cooly claims he is for “victory” in Iraq - now that the war is won:

When asked if he is committed to winning the war in Iraq, Obama said, “I don’t think we have any choice. We have to win the broader war against terror that threatens America and its interests. I think that Iraq is one front on that war, but I think the central front is in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan.”

Not only is he a johnny-come-lately to the idea of “victory” in Iraq - a word not uttered by a Democrat for years except in a mocking tone - he also acknowledges (finally) that Iraq is part of the war on terror when his party actually ran on a platform in 2006 saying exactly the opposite!

It seems pretty clear that Obama is signaling to his sycophants that it’s OK to be bullish about Iraq now. All that stuff we’ve been saying for 6 years about Iraq should be forgotten, swept under the rug, and we should adopt a new paradigm; of course we wanted to win all along. All that talk about withdrawal was just a smokescreen, we really didn’t mean it.

Wanna bet he’s going to get away with it - clean?

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
(An actual adult named Mark Morford who presumably wrote this on a weekend pass from an insane asylum)

I put it to my fellow bloggers; who would you really prefer having as president for the next four years?

An old, plodding, boring, war horse and hero John McCain whose followers are so vanilla that their idea of a wild time is deliberately jamming the ball return at the bowling alley with empty bottles of Nehi on Saturday night.

Or would you rather be able to write about Barack Obama and his fellow Lightworkers as they save the planet, protect the universe, and make America safe for snake oil salesmen once again.

Judging by Mr. Morford’s eye popping idiocy, the next 4 years are either going to be the most monumental in the history of the human race - or at least since another Lightworker trod the earth for 3 years a couple of milenia ago - or we’re all going to be so imbued with the Obama spirit that whatever the neophyte does will be seen as proof of his godlike gifts.

Seriously, now. Don’t you look forward to commenting on stuff like this?

To them I say, all right, you want to know what it is? The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world, that keeps opening up and firing into new channels of the culture normally completely unaffected by politics?

No, it’s not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn’t have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.

“High vibration integrity?” I always wondered why women swooned at his speeches. Turns out its not the heat or, the ambient temperature we’re talking about. Rather it’s Obama the sex toy that is getting all these women hot and bothered.

Might I suggest, ladies, sticking to your pocket rockets and resist going for “the big one” with Obama? After all, with Obama all you get is one speed not to mention a complete lack of penetrating ideas. And the guy couldn’t find the “G” - or any other kind of Spot - to save his life.

(I will be available for free consultations on “Achieving bliss without Obama” immediately following the publishing of this article.)

See how much more fun we’re having and the guy isn’t even elected yet? I challenge you to find anything sexual about John McCain at all. Listening to McCain speak does not remind anyone of “powerful luminosity” or “vibrations” of any kind - sexual or otherwise. Rather, McCain’s speeches are like a combination of Metamucil and Sominex - regular and predictable with softening agents to help everything come out okay along with a singular ability to induce drowsiness. Face it; if McCain somehow manages to win, the next four years are going to be the equivalent of playing checkers and listening to Perry Como records at your grandmother’s house.

Not so if our wunderkind wins the election.

Warning: If you are a rigid pragmatist/literalist, itchingly evangelical, a scowler, a doubter, a burned-out former ’60s radical with no hope left, or are otherwise unable or unwilling to parse alternative New Age speak, click away right now, because you ain’t gonna like this one little bit.

Ready? It goes likes this:

Barack Obama isn’t really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

This is what I find myself offering up more and more in response to the whiners and the frowners and to those with broken or sadly dysfunctional karmic antennae - or no antennae at all - to all those who just don’t understand and maybe even actively recoil against all this chatter about Obama’s aura and feel and MLK/JFK-like vibe.

No parody, no satirical screed can do justice to this kind of slam bang, out of your mind stupidity. It would be hugely frightening if it weren’t so extraordinarily funny. Is this what the left has been reduced to in America? Taking a candidate with literally no experience doing anything (except getting people riled up at the “system”) - a man with no record of achievement save a run at the state senate where he used electoral tomfoolery to get his opponents kicked off the ballot and a run at the US senate where his GOP challenger self destructed over a messy divorce made public by his allies in the media?

It is because of his lack of a record, lack of accomplishments, lack of anything anyone would consider attributes even the worst president should have that the left feels the only way to get people to vote for Obama is to turn him into a secular super-prophet or demigod. It is the equivalent of a sleight-of-hand card trick. Pay no attention to the magicians hands as he deals from the bottom of the deck only to come up with ace after ace.

We are asked to suspend judgement, suspend, logic, suspend belief itself and pretend that Obama is the next step in human evolution. I don’t have a feel for how many of his supporters are swallowing this tripe but judging by the kinds of comments I get here and see on other sites, the number has to be in the millions. It is a full blown Cult of Personality that will make Bushbots seem intelligent by comparison. This is the kind of personal movement that would get serious about pushing for a constitutional amendment to remove presidential term limits.

Then again, with guys like this shilling for Obama, it may be easier to paint him as the leader of some kind of nutcase brigade:

Are you rolling your eyes and scoffing? Fine by me. But you gotta wonder, why has, say, the JFK legacy lasted so long, is so vital to our national identity? Yes, the assassination canonized his legend. The Kennedy family is our version of royalty. But there’s something more. Those attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things, these people say JFK wasn’t assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It’s because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.

Now, Obama. The next step. Another try. And perhaps, as Bush laid waste to the land and embarrassed the country and pummeled our national spirit into disenchanted pulp and yet ironically, in so doing has helped set the stage for an even larger and more fascinating evolutionary burp, we are finally truly ready for another Lightworker to step up.

The “JFK legacy” has not lasted at all. It is gone - if it was ever there in the first place. This “peacemaker” sent 16,000 troops to Viet Nam, tried to kill Castro, threatened to annihilate the planet over Cuba, and was otherwise one of the most bellicose presidents in US history. Only the marvelous PR talents of the Kennedy family entourage - including Arthur Schlessinger and Ted Sorenson - turned a mediocre, weak president into some kind of liberal lion standing up for peace (by bombing Vietnamese) and civil rights (while allowing the Freedom Riders to get beaten bloody down south and only introduced legislation after better men than him forced it upon him).

The Kennedy legacy of tax cutting and big defense increases never seems to get mentioned by liberals when talking about him. But that’s alright - we’re headed for an “evolutionary burp” with Obama. And beyond everything else, we are promised that things like magic, the occult, and remote viewing are possible as long as you are one of “[t]hose attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things.” Far be it for me to stick with simply the “literal meaning of things” when so much more - like Obama’s magical evolutionary burps - can be made transparent as long as you’re in the right frame of mind - or take the required hallucinogen.

The candidate himself will be entertaining enough for any 10 bloggers to never run out of things to write.

But it is Obama’s slavish devotees and their breathless belief in his otherworldliness and out and out Deity that is going to make the next 4 years the most productive in the history of blogging.

Trying to come up with something original to blog about can be a real pain. That’s why many bloggers follow the lead of one of the bigger sites and write about the news of the day with their own special take on what’s happening.

But if you want to blog about something that hardly anyone in the MSM or the internet is writing about, might I suggest you write something about John McCain?

The poor fellow is, for all intents and purposes, being ignored. Now admittedly, the Democratic race (such as it is) holds out a lot more promise of being interesting on any given day. You just never know, for instance, what radical in Obama’s background is going to jump up and say something totally outrageous. After all, the guy has more leftist nuts associated with him than are found at a convention of Communist squirrels. And if you stick a microphone within 10 feet of Bill Clinton, you’re bound to hear something interesting, quotable, and off the wall - three attributes that are guaranteed to generate “controversy.”

Rarely have I seen the media in such lockstep. Each ginned up episode of outrage (as in the press releases from each camp always beginning “Senator Clinton’s outrageous statement…” or “Senator Clinton is outraged at Senator Obama’s statement…”) is dutifully and faithfully reported as if most people actually care about these things. Then to make matters worse, the gaffe or statement is parsed to death, milking every last drop of make believe as if there was something gravely important in it.

And then we are treated to the inevitable “apology” - a less than heartfelt but nevertheless entertaining interlude where we can watch the candidate squirm like a child only recently trained to use the commode . There have been more apologies made by both candidates in this race than a liberal speaking at a convention of oppressed minorities. In fact, perhaps we can just get the historical controversy out of the way and call this campaign the “I’m sorry as hell” election.

Obama’s sorry he hangs around with blatant bigots and anti-American fruitcakes. Hillary is sorry she has to be so mean to Obama but she wants to win so there you are.

And McCain? The GOP candidate is in a rather awkward position. If he tried to apologize for all of Bush’s mistakes, errors in judgement, blunders, misstatements, and outright incompetence, we’d have to pass a Constitutional amendment giving McCain a third term just so that he has time to get it all in.

Failing that, McCain could apologize for nothing and pretend he’s not a Republican - not much of a stretch for the Maverick but a hard sell to the voter nonetheless. There’s the matter of the GOP Convention he is going to have to show up for if he wants to be on the ticket in the fall. At the very least, he has to give an acceptance speech. Knowing McCain’s limitations on the stump, the GOP better hope that the networks are re-running American Gladiator and episodes of 2 and a Half Men. Otherwise, they will be lucky to top Keith Olbermann in the ratings.

But this is McCain’s major problem. Frankly, he’s boring. No one wants to write about an old man with white hair who wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. Or, at least that’s the spin we’re getting from the media.

But truth be told, McCain is, if not a bore, not Mr. Pizazz on the stump. His rhetoric doesn’t soar like Reagan’s. He doesn’t dramatically bite his lower lip when speaking like Clinton. He doesn’t screech like Hillary. And he doesn’t whine like Obama. He is vanilla in an age of pistachio.

And this election cycle, vanilla just might be enough to get the job done. We have been cursed to live in interesting times. So much action packed history has taken place over the last 7 years that we’ve got enough material for a Hollywood epic and at least 3 sequels. Barack Obama offers “change” and the conventional wisdom says that this is going to be enough to carry him to the White House. I say, not so fast. There are different kinds of “change” after all. And suppose the kind of boring, non-premium vanilla ice cream kind of change offered by John McCain is what the people truly want?

Obama doesn’t promise peace and tranquility. How can he when his kind of “change” will necessitate huge battles in Washington against entrenched interests and constant war with Republicans. Obama has never worked with the GOP leadership on anything so the idea that he can bring about meaningful reform is silly. His term in office will be one, long unbroken series of skirmishes, ambushes, and conflicts with everyone - including Democrats on occasion.

On the other hand, McCain has worked with the Democrats on a variety of issues. His kind of leadership promises if not peace, at least a certain respite from some of the partisan wars of the last 7 years. It just may be that this scenario is much more palatable to the American people than the Obama script. At the very least, it will make him competitive in November.

That’s because I predict that by election day, the American people will have grown weary of the exciting Mr. Obama. We really don’t want a rock star for president. Rock stars. as we all know, come with a lot of baggage. The long line of political and religious radicals trailing out behind Mr. Obama as he reaches the finish line in November may, in the end, simply make him too much of a risk for the voter when it comes to choosing a president.

McCain, in the classic tortoise-hare confrontation, will remain steady, uninspiring, and boring - a perfect combination for the majority of white, middle class, middle aged Americans who will be doing most of the voting in November. They don’t want milquetoast. Nor do they want some Gargantua on steroids. They want peace. They want quiet. They want time for the last 8 years to settle in their stomachs before moving on.

Will this kind of change be more palatable than Obama’s?