Define "Everybody"

President Obama was quoted as saying, "If you want to be president, you have to work for everyone." I was wondering, does "everyone" include:

The "bitter clingers" of the midwest?

The non-union plant workers of Delphi?

The voters who don't vote for the right guy?

The shops who don't support the right right candidate?

The donors who don't write the correct name on the pay line?

The states that know how to manage their finances?

The followers of any religion or just the ones that get violent?

Four Excuses For An Obama Loss (And Why They Won't Wash)

If the ballots are counted in November and Barack Obama becomes a one-term president, the media will fall all over themselves to explain why. None of those reasons will encompass the simple truth that his policies have been a failure, that he wasted his solid majorites in Congress by focusing laser-like on Obamacare, or that the American people didn't buy into his class war rhetoric.

Admitting to those things would be to admit that the blame lies with the President himself.

Instead, the media will trot out ready-made excuses that place the blame solely on the American people. After all, we're just not smart enough to understand how lucky we are to have him. He is, after all, a lightworker, a man (or is he?) both devine and magical. Some even now refer to him as if he were the messiah.

Obviously someone so perfect can't be held responsible for breaking campaign promises (closing Guantanamo, fixing the economy, restoring transparency, rolling back rights abuses so (rightfully) decried in the previous administration). So certainly there must be some sinister forces at work to explain such a defeat.

1. Racism: Hey, remember when Obama was going to lose because Americans are a bunch of racists? Then remember when Obama won and suddenly Americans had "turned a corner" and we entered a post-racial era? Now Obama is up for re-election and guess what? We'll all be racists again. The race card is getting as played out as zombies-as-plot-device, but the media can't resist throwing it out there with a knowing glance and tut-tutting shake of the head.

The problem here is that for this to be a real cause, it means a lot of people suddenly became racist after voting for a black man for president. Where were these vast multitudes of black-hating Americans in 2008, who plainly should have risen up to vote, ensuring another white guy got to sit in the White House? Does racism exist? Of course it does. Does it explain why Americans may not relect Obama? Only if you ignore the fact that he was elected in the first place.

2. Money: The root of all evil. That stuff the 1% has and you don't. It's a total travesty that Republicans can buy an election just because they have more money to spend. Unless Obama has a good month. Then it's not so bad. Of course, this handwringing over money wasn't necessary in 2008. I wonder why? (Oh, and if you want to play the "pfft, Wikipedia" card, here is the original source. Look it up for yourself.)

3. Republican Obstructionism: Just think what could have been accomplished if Republicans hadn't been there fighting tooth and nail every step of the way. If only Obama had had a friendly Congress. Even for a couple of years. Wait. Well, okay, but if only Republicans had tried to work out a deal with Obama over the budget crisis, we could have... Crap. Well, at least senate Democrats tried to pass budgets as required by law. Maaannnn. Okay, well when the president's budget proposal went to the senate... okay, the House... Let's move on.

4. Dirty Campaigns: That evil Romney is always living in the muck. Accusing his opponent of favoring outlawing all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest. Running ads that purport to show women who are switching parties because of their disgust with their guy. Making up policy positions out of whole cloth. Blaming him for a woman's death. Shameful. Oh wait. Those were all attack ads for Obama against Romney. My bad.

If Obama loses in November, it will be because the American people don't believe he is the right person to lead this country. The media won't see it that way, but you'll know better.


(Crossposted at Say Anything)

It Would Be Quicker To Make A List Of Things "Global Warming" Isn't Causing

A few years ago I stumbled across a hilarious link that itself was simply a page of hyperlinks, each of which in turn linked to a news report or other source claiming that global warming was having this or that effect.

It's hilarious because several of the links had mirrors; for example, one link led to a story that claimed global warming was causing forests to grow out of control, while another claimed it was causing forests to shrink worldwide.

I'm delighted to report that I came across the link again today and that the author has been maintaining it, including preserving links that have suffered from link-rot.

It's a great link that really displays marvellously the malleability of the global warming movement to include every malady affecting mankind and attach it to their religion.

And for the record, I still call it global warming because, even though great pains have been taken to re-brand the movement as being concerned with climate change, I will note the following:

There has never been a period in history in which the planet both (a) had a climate, and (b) said climate was static.

Whither The Blame For The Flu Vaccine Shortage?

Remember back in 2004, when flu vaccine shortages had everybody up in arms? No? You should. It was all over the news. Pundits wrung their hands in disbelief that this could happen. One guess who most blamed for this.

Well, here in 2009 we are in the midst of a shortage of N1H1 vaccine, but I don't see a lot of finger pointing. Where are all the stories about the Obama administration being to blame for ignoring a health crisis, not being prepared for flu season and generally not caring about Americans in general?

For the record, I don't believe the current administration is to blame for the vaccine shortage any more than I thought Bush was responsible in 2004. But if you're reading this and wondering why all our news outlets aren't raising the same questions now as then, congratulations! You're starting to realize just how in the tank most Obama-Approved news organizations are.

Effect And Cause

Ann Althouse via Instapundit:

The Guantanamo Bay military prison meets the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, according to a Pentagon review ordered by President Obama. So… great. I’m proud of our military. But am I proud of our President who first promised to close the place and then got the study showing the facts relevant to the question whether it should be closed?

I'm of the school of thought that the Guantanamo prison needs to be closed, not because the tales told of that place are necessarily 100% true; no doubt some bad things happened and no doubt criminals and terrorists are willing to make up the rest. But the prison there has become a symbol so loaded with negative connotations that it's not worth it. Move the prisoners somewhere else, increase scrutiny over the operations for awhile and let's move on.

That said, it doesn't paint the President in a positive light to order this review after calling for the closure; instead it make him look like he values style over substance. If anything, this review decreases the need to close the prison at all.

He could have not ordered a review, closed the facility, and no one except a few persistent loudmouths on the right would have cared enough to comment on it. But if he was going to order a review, why not wait for the result before making a decision? What was the point?

No Hope Or Change, Only Politics As Usual

Read this bit from the President's web site:

End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors: As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people's trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public.

Contrast that with the harried passing of the stimulus package. Does anyone sense a disconnect here?

Slate does a nice job with this topic and asks the question, where's the hope and change. My answer is, there isn't going to be any and there never was. Running on "I'll do everything the opposite of the way Bush did it" was a no-brainer as far as platforms go. The problem is, President Obama is a politician. Politicians have two goals: get power and keep it.

Standing on the outside, it's easy to say "no rendition". Once you're president, it's awfully tempting to say "yes we can"(*). When you're the opposition, "no holding prisoners indefinitely without trials" is a great way to attack a sitting president. Once you are the president, "yes we can" is a lot simpler. Going from "no hiding behind the state secrets defense" to justify dismissing cases of abuse from Guantanamo to "yes we can" also comes easier.

Understand, I don't really blame the Obama adminstration for not wanting to give up all those arguments and powers now that they stand to benefit from them. That's what politicians do. The only people who should be surprised or upset are those who really believed Obama was anything other than what he is.

___________________________________________________________
(*) There's been a lot of hair splitting over what type of rendition Obama is going to allow. Specifically, the difference between "rendition" and "extraordinary rendition". Setting aside that this distinction apparently didn't become important until the Obama administration said they would allow rendition of any type, listen to CIA director Leon Panetta's quote:

"I think renditions where we return individuals to another country where they prosecute them under their laws, I think that is an appropriate use of rendition" , Panetta said.

What he just described isn't rendition at all, but extradition, which is an entirely different animal. From this, I don't know what the administration is actually okaying here.

President Obama Orders Closure of Guantanamo

Today President Obama signed an executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay within one year. There was a lot of speculation around this over the past few days. Initially his aides said he would close it on his first day of office. A day later another report stated (correctly, as it turns out) that he would order it closed within a year. Still later it was reported that it would be closed within a few months.

I question the time frame given the stated reason for closing the prison:

A draft copy of the order, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, notes that "in view of significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo and closure of the facility would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice."

In other words, we need to close the prison because having it open hampers national security and foreign policy interests and causes the international community to question our country's committment to justice.

If this is true, why not order it to begin closing immediately? I realize that there are logistical reasons behind not slapping a padlock on the front doors tomorrow morning, but why hamper our national security and shun justice for a whole year?

Personally, I think that the reasons for closing Guantanamo have more to do with appearances. It has become a symbol. Closing the prison removes the symbol. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; in fact I agree with it. I just wish the President would say that rather than use the same national security cover President Bush used for so long.

Closing Guantanamo sends a message that the acts perpetrated within its walls (some imagined, some very real) won't be tolerated. That message will be ignored by this nation's critics, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. Just acknowledge it rather than substituting national security concerns and nebulous talk about justice in the context of the international community.

Meet the New Boss?

Obama's advisors talk of adding a loophole that would allow the CIA to use interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon.

Brother, Can You Spare A Trillion?

How did we get from this to this in such a short time? It's almost like if the government starts handing out taxpayer money like beads at Mardi Gras, everybody puts their hands out. I'm still a hopin' for some changin' though. Should come any day.

Update: Second link was broken. Fixed now.