An Offer They Should Refuse

Paul Mirengoff finds that in the current secret negotiations with Democrats (why Republicans continue to negotiate with Democrats in private is still a mystery), President Obama has offered Republicans exactly nothing in terms of concessions.  Here is Mirengoff's assessment of the latest "plan":

Tim Geithner presented John Boehner with the Obama plan for averting the “fiscal cliff.” According to the New York Times, Obama’s plan calls for $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing, and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits. President Obama would also agree to a goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, but with no guarantees. 

In other words, to quote Michael Corleone, “My offer is this, nothing. Not even the money for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.”

In his Friday column, Jonah Goldberg has another Godfather analogy:

Almost exactly a year ago, during the famed debt-ceiling negotiations, Speaker of the House John Boehner boasted that he’d forced tough concessions from the Democrats, achieving the first real cut in government spending in ages. He claimed his “real, enforceable cut” amounted to $7 billion for fiscal year 2012. The Congressional Budget Office objected, saying the real savings were closer to $1 billion.  

“Which of these numbers is accurate?” asked columnist Mark Steyn at the time.  Answering his own question, he wrote: “The correct answer is: Who cares?”

And he was right. At the time, the U.S. was spending $188 million of largely borrowed money every hour of every day. So, going by the CBO number, if you started watching the official Godfather trilogy box set right after the deal was cut, the government would have burned through its “savings” before Fredo went on his last fishing trip. If you went by Boehner’s math, you could actually watch the whole trilogy about four times before the “savings” ran out.

The logic contained in these lines bears repeating:

You could confiscate 100 percent of income over $1 million, and it would cover about a third of the deficit (and crush the economy in the process). You’d still have to deal with spending, particularly entitlement spending.

That, if anything, shows the unserious nature of the Democrats in dealing with the deficit.  And the last thing Republicans should do is count on the supposed future cuts in spending.  Shame they never seem to materialize.

The American Mind

If you are interested in serious, principled conservatism, the Claremont Institute (if you don't know about the quarterly Claremont Review of Books they publish, please click here) has a new video series that is geared towards the restoration of "the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life."  (This is the mission statement of the Claremont Institute.)

The name of the new venture is entitled, "The American Mind."  Great title.  I wonder where they came up with it....  They (and I) were inspired by a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Richard Henry Lee on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence.  The letter includes the following pertinent section:

When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. ...

Steven Hayward, one of the main bloggers for Power Line, was himself a student at CGS and helped in the formation of the Claremont Institute.  In a long post published earlier today, he gives a "Behind the Music-like" take on the history of the Center.  A sample:

...the Claremont community was so different from most graduate courses of study in politics, and the approach behind which the differences over our understanding of the place of Hobbes and Locke in understanding America dissolve. Claremont was heavy on biography because that’s the best way of illuminating the real problems of politics and the intersection of thought and action.

And:

There is something subversive about the Claremont Project to the broader conservative movement, though. The kind of political engagement Claremonsters embrace stands in contrast to the apolitical aloofness of libertarianism, the anti-political disdain of certain brands of traditional conservatism, and the compromising ambivalence of some aspects of neoconservatism. American conservatism—and its primary vessel, the Republican Party—have their grave defects and limitations, but the fate of the world depends on their health and success, so it is necessary to be part of the fight to make both more wise and effective. The Claremont Institute is about as remote from Washington as you can be and still be in the continental U.S., and while “Claremonsters” are not closely involved in the daily Beltway strategy sessions, when you survey the alumni of the Institute and its programs you find senior aides to Cabinet secretaries, Senators and Congressmen, and corporate CEOs.

The Claremont Institute is exactly what conservatism needs now more than ever.

The Truth Hurts

Take a look at this newly-released Gallup Poll:

Democrats have positive views of capitalism and socialism at almost equal levels.  Not surprisingly, they have an overwhelmingly positive view of the federal government (75%).

Republicans overall have positive views of capitalism (72%) and very negative views of the federal government (27%) .

The main question I have:  Who are these Republicans (or the leaners) who don't have a positive view of capitalism or who view socialism as a good thing?  They must be the same ones who want Chuck Hagel to get back into politics.

Theologian in Chief

A favorite line of President Obama's is that we are all supposed to be "our brother's keepers."  The effectual truth of this logic seems to imply that government in some capacity should be stepping in and taking on parental duties (remember, for some government is just another word for the things that we all do together).  Quin Hillyer, noting the phrase again in Obama's latest Thanksgiving Day proclamation, takes Obama to task on the constantly repeated but logically and historically fallacy that for Obama goes for high theology.  

For one, it's interesting to note who in the Bible actually says the words Obama seems to hold up as the zenith of all biblical principles:

The phrase comes from the story of Cain and Abel, after Cain has murdered his brother, when God asked him where Abel was. Cain dismissed the Lord, asking rhetorically, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

And:

In not a single place in the Bible is it ever written that we are indeed our brothers' keepers. (Look it up!) And for good reason: To be a "keeper" of another person is not necessarily to help the other but instead to control him. An Internet site called "Cup of Wrath" explains it well: "No one is their brother's or sister's keeper, unless that person is incapable of taking care of him or herself . . . Loving thy neighbor as thyself doesn't mean being your neighbor's keeper or overseer. Instead it means taking his or her best interests to heart."

The true teaching:

Again, the command from Christ is not to act for others, but to serve others - to love the brother as an equal, not in loco parentis. To assert parental responsibility for a brother is to assume a role - to wrongly assume it - that God has reserved for Himself. Even if undertaken with the best intentions, to be a brother's keeper is to commit a sin akin to vainglory by putting oneself above one's proper station.

Playing the Rice Card

William Jacobson has some thoughts on the whole "controversy" that is brewing over the Republicans' growing concerns about Susan Rice, who looks to be the successor to Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State:

Everytime I think the Democratic race card players could not get more vile, more deranged, more patronizingly demeaning to blacks, someone manages to defy even my vivid imagination. 

This time, it is the Editorial Board of The Washington Post, which issued a truly amazing screed(h/t Gabriel Malor) claiming that critics of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice are motivated by race and sex, as demonstrated by the facts that most are male and a significant percentage come from former confederate states (emphasis mine):

Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the [97 Republican House] signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts.What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy. You’d think that before launching their broadside, members of Congress would have taken care not to propagate any falsehoods of their own.

The WaPo Editorial Board must have forgotten the opposition to Condoleezza Rice’s confirmation, which was led by former Klansman Robert Byrd and a guy who left a girl to die:

Leading the charge against Rice on Tuesday were Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Barbara Boxer of California.

Boxer, one of two Democrats to vote against Rice’s nomination in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Rice’s answers to her questions were “completely nonresponsive” and raised more issues about her credibility than they answered.
Rice, Condoleezza, received fewer favorable votes in her Secretary of State confirmation than any nominee in almost 25 years and more negative votes than any nominee in 180 years. Twelve of the thirteen votes against Rice were from White Males, including the aforementioned former Klansman. 

Boxer accused Rice of lying about Sadaam Hussein’s WMD program, and Rice pushed back that they relied on the available intelligence, among other things.

[...] 

The Democrats’ often personal attacks on Rice, Condoleezza, continued unabated (Kerry Pickethas more). Liberal cartoonists at major publications played on crude racial stereotypes in going after Rice, Condoleezza. 

You get the point. 

The criticisms of Rice, Condoleezza, on policy grounds were within the legitimate political realm, as are the criticisms of Rice, Susan. 

In the criticisms of Rice, Susan, we have not seen from Republicans anything approaching the vitriol and crude racial and sexist comments directed at Rice, Condoleezza. 

Does the Editorial Board of The Washington Post even belief what it writes? I doubt it. It’s all part of their race card game.

Looks like there still is a party with race problems.

Our Lord and Savior

Last night at the BET Soul Train Awards Jamie Foxx got on stage and told the audience the following:  "It's like church over here. It's like church in here. First of all, give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama...Barack Obama."

In case you don't believe me, here is the video:

After you watch the video, just let this sink in:  Foxx was not speaking in hyperbole (neither was Iowahawk in this now almost prescient post).  Calling on Dr. Seuss, he meant what he said and said what he meant.

Republicans are Racist and Other Stories

In his Impromtus column, Jay Nordlinger has an extended take on, among the things, the griping from some corners on the "tone" of the Republican Party.  Here is Jay:

Over the last couple of weeks, there has been great concern, whether sincere or fake, over the Republican “tone.” I find all this kind of dumb. 

Is there a great tuner in the sky, with a bass control, a treble control, and so on? Does some unseen, all-determining Republican hand twist these knobs? 

The Republican party is composed of millions of people and hundreds or thousands of politicians. These are all human beings. They could not possibly have the same tone. We are individuals, speaking in our individual ways, though we have common beliefs and aims. 

Take the governors: Susana Martinez, Chris Christie, Mike Pence, Rick Perry . . . Each is an individual, and each has his own “tone.” 

Or many tones! Do you have just one tone? Of course you don’t. A person has as many tones as a pipe organ. I’m liable to use different tones in the same paragraph — or in the same sentence. Anybody with a speck of artistry in him does, even a speck of humanness.
The Left likes to say that Rush Limbaugh screeches and bellows and huffs. Sometimes he does. He has other tones too: playful, thoughtful, sarcastic, sentimental, ebullient. He is a performer, and a man in full. 

The Republican party should not be conformist or monotonal. It should be its diverse and star-spangled self. 

Have you noticed that it’s the Republicans’ “tone” that is always spoken of? Never the Democrats’? Shall we have a discussion of their “tone”? 

I think one of the worst things about Obama and Biden is their “tone.” Think of Obama’s angry, accusatory “you didn’t build that” speech. Think of Biden’s “They’re gonna put y’all back in chains!” Think of Harry Reid, charging that Mitt Romney had refused to pay his income taxes. 

Think of Stephanie Cutter, suggesting that Romney is a felon. Think of Obama’s claim that Romney delighted in stripping Americans of their jobs, and shipping those jobs overseas. Think of Biden’s comportment in the entire 2012 vice-presidential debate. Think of Obama’s cry of “Romnesia!” Think of his ad proclaiming, “Mitt Romney. Not one of us.” 

Oh, what lovely tones those Democrats produce! 

How about those angry, bellowing, semi-mad men on MSNBC? I see clips of them, once in a while. Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about the Democratic or Left tone? 

If I were the Republican party — there’s a funny concept! — I wouldn’t take this tone bait. Don’t fall into the tone trap. What I think Republicans should do, and people should do, is say what they think, in the best way they can. And let the chips fall where they may.
What else can you do? It is certainly unreasonable to ask millions of human beings to speak in the same tone. Undesirable, too.

And I thought Democrats were champions of diversity.

Jay on the faux patriotism expressed by those who say that they are "proud of their country" after the re-election of Barack Obama:

I’m so proud of my country.” How many times have you heard that since Election Day? When people say, “I’m so proud of my country,” they mean they’re proud of it for reelecting Obama. 

This is Michelle Obama territory. You remember what she said, more than once, when her husband was picking up steam in the 2008 Democratic primaries: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country . . ." 

And if a relative handful of votes, in this great big country, had gone the other way on November 6? These people saying how “proud” they are would be singing a different tune: They’d be condemning America as racist. 

The conditionality of their pride is a little unsettling to me. Obama wins, we’re innocent — and they’re proud. Obama loses, we’re guilty — and they pin the scarlet R on us, for “Racist.” 

Well, nuts to that.

Jay really is a national treasure.  Seriously.

Lessons in Littles

At the Liberty Law Blog, Ken Masugi reviews Steven Spielberg's Lincoln and finds it to succeed in "intrsuct[ing] us in prudence—the virtue of choosing what is truly good insofar as it can be realized. In giving this invaluable lesson, the film displays the high and the low of statesmanship of liberty and equality—in particular, we see how the low can be in service of the high, without corrupting what is high."

In summation:

[Screenwriter Tony] Kushner and Spielberg produce a complex but loveable Lincoln who can still unite the country. To be sure, those aware of the director’s and the screenwriter’s politics might see the movie as yet in another series of attempts to appropriate Lincoln to the political agenda of the left. Theodore Roosevelt made an early attempt to hijack Lincoln for the Progressive cause. But if it has any immediate political effect, Lincoln will end any the oafish comparisons between Lincoln and Barack Obama.

And Carl Scott at Postmodern Conservative gives a very favorable review to the film as well.

I am very surprised at just how good the movie was, considering who made it and where it originated.  In a post a while back, I wondered if Abraham Lincoln:  Vampire Hunter would be more accurate.  Boy, was I wrong.  I think I may even have to see Lincoln again before it leaves theaters.

Unhinged, Cont.

Mickey Kaus, a liberal, takes Paul Krugman to task over his latest column (my post on it is here) and his assertion that in order to turn the economy around, we just need to go back to the 1950s when the highest marginal income tax rate was 91%.  Here is Kaus:

Did this super-rich hundredth-of-the-1% in the ’50s really a) pay anything near those super-high 91% marginal rates, or did they b) employ accountants and loopholes to avoid them (as the conventional tax-reformer wisdom would have it)? If you read Krugman’s paragraph you’d probably conclude (a)–high income tax rates really sock it to the rich! But the truth is closer to (b). 

According to this CRS study, that 91% marginal rate produced an effective income tax rate on the top o.o1 percent of only about 45%. Krugman himself appears to be relying on Piketty and Saez–but they come in with an even lower figure, 31%. They only get to 70% by including corporate taxes, which Krugman mentions, and estate taxes–which he doesn’t mention at all. (emphasis in original.)

And Kaus on Krugman's main argument:

We had powerful unions and more progressive taxes in the 1950s and the country prospered. Therefore we can have powerful unions and more progressive taxes now and prosper again! I can’t be the only one to point out that this does not follow. What if something important about the economy has changed in the meantime? Say, trade has opened up a global market in which American workers must compete with cheaper foreign labor (so any union that extracts above-market wage hikes is quickly undercut). And advances in technology have reduced the value of unskilled work, quite apart from trade-while requiring businesses that can make lots of changes very quickly (without worrying about work rules) and workers who can shift jobs frequently.

If unions having more control equals a more prosperous country, then how would Krugman explain what happened concerning Hostess?

Non-Judgmental Judgmentalism

Rich Lowry on presidential Thanksgiving Day Proclamations from years past:

If Abraham Lincoln released his October 1863 Thanksgiving proclamation today, it would be panned by all sides. In the statement that is considered the beginning of the unbroken annual tradition of presidential Thanksgiving proclamations, Lincoln said that God had dealt “with us in anger for our sins.” He recommended “humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience.” 

The words “sin” and “perverse” would set off the left as overly judgmental and embarrassingly archaic. The right would bristle at national self-criticism from the country’s commander-in-chief (at a time of war, no less). 

Lincoln had good reason to speak of perversity, of course. He was knee-deep in blood in a Civil War precipitated by half the country leaving the Union so it could protect slavery. But his proclamation was firmly within the American tradition. 

The Thanksgiving proclamation at Charlestown, Mass., in 1676 referred to God’s “sore displeasure against us for our sins.” The founding generation of presidents struck similar notes. 

In 1789, George Washington urged that we “unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions.” John Adams in 1798 recommended that religious congregations “acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation.” 

This line carried through into the 20th century. Dwight Eisenhower spoke of the need to “bow before God in contrition for our sins.” Both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush quoted George Washington on “our shortcomings and transgressions.” But any suggestion of national failings, let alone sin or perversity, has gone missing from the Thanksgiving proclamations of recent decades (and so has much of the majesty).

And how this tradition squares with proclamations of the present day:

Not surprisingly, President Obama’s Thanksgiving proclamations have been particularly pedestrian and perfunctory. 

God is lucky to get a mention or two. In his 2009 proclamation, the only reference to God came in a quote from George Washington. If his proclamation of “America Recycles Day” (“we rededicate ourselves to building a more sustainable future”) invoked the divine providence somewhere it wouldn’t be so different in tone or content from his Thanksgiving proclamations. 

What God has lost in prominence in Obama’s statements has been gained by the American Indians, in a bow to multicultural pieties. His 2010 proclamation described how a spirit of Thanksgiving “brought together the newly arrived Pilgrims and Wampanoag tribe — who had been living and thriving around Plymouth, Mass., for thousands of years — in an autumn harvest feast centuries ago.” 

His proclamation last year urged the country “to remember the ways that the First Americans have enriched our Nation’s heritage, from their generosity centuries ago to the everyday contributions they make to all facets of American life.” Near the end, that proclamation included the ringing, “Let us pause to recount the simple gifts that sustain us, and resolve to pay them forward in the years to come.” 

From Lincoln’s “fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation” to Obama’s “pay it forward” is a long way down.

But, in the spirit of modernity, we don't want to "put our values on other people."  That would be judgmental, or so we are told.

Giving Thanks and Praise

A Thanksgiving Proclamation from President George Washington:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." 

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the greatest degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. 

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executived and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. 

Given under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine. 

(signed) G. Washington

And another from President Lincoln:

By the President of the United States of America.

A PROCLAMATION.

The year that is drawing toward its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watching providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and provoke their aggressions, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised not hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and Union. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth. 

By the President: 

Abraham Lincoln 

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

Unhinged

Paul Krugman's answer for jumpstarting the US economy?  Raise the highest marginal tax rate to 91%! Yeah, that'll make everything better...

And he says the following about Republicans, conservatives, and generally anyone with whom he disagrees:

There are, let’s face it, some people in our political life who pine for the days when minorities and women knew their place, gays stayed firmly in the closet and congressmen asked, “Are you now or have you ever been?” The rest of us, however, are very glad those days are gone. We are, morally, a much better nation than we were. Oh, and the food has improved a lot, too.

Wait, what happened to civility?

Lincoln's Prudence

On Saturday I saw Steven Spielberg's much anticipated movie Lincoln, which is largely based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals.

Overall I thought it was very good but not great.  What was great, however was the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln.  It will no doubt be talked about for years to come, and it should all but guarantee him the Oscar for Best Actor.  Day-Lewis became Lincoln in such a way that I thought was impossible -- partly because of the daunting task for any actor to play such an intellectual and political giant like Lincoln but also because of the difficulty, especially in today's world, in trying to understand a character as they saw themselves.  In a world where disagreement on the important things is often taken to mean that there is no fixed standard of judgement or principles that are always true for everyone; that law is simply the majority voting in their preferences or value judgements, Lincoln's politics stood in stark contrast.  And Day-Lewis's Lincoln seemed to understand this (surprisingly, the writers did for the most part too).

Lincoln's politics was based around the natural law principles of the Declaration of Independence.  He saw the Declaration as an "apple of gold" ensconced in the "picture of silver" of the Constitution.  For Lincoln, the Declaration announced the principles of the regime -- principles that were true for every human being regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity -- and the Constitution was the republican structure built on the foundation provided by the Declaration.  Lincoln, in agreement with James Madison, saw the end of government as justice, but he saw that in order for justice to be attained, the means had to be commensurate with the ends.  This is where political prudence, or practical wisdom, comes into the fold.

The theme of prudence in politics is seen throughout the movie, which is focused on the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.  From early January 1865 to Lincoln's assassination in April, the movie explores how Lincoln, Secretary of State William Seward, and some less-than-respectable fellows helped shepherd the Thirteenth Amendment through the House of Representatives.  I won't spoil how it ends (I think you already know anyway) but it's fairly compelling nonetheless.

Tommy Lee Jones's portrayal of Thaddeus Stevens also deserves much praise.  Near the end of the movie, Lincoln, with some help, teaches Stevens, a Radical Republican, the lesson of prudence and how moral absolutism in the means often more than not destroys the ends.  Stevens was finally able to parry the attacks of the Democrats on the House floor by saying that although blacks were not equal to whites in all things, they were nonetheless equal to them under the law.  This statement mirrors one of the main arguments Lincoln voiced during in the Lincoln-Douglas debates in late 1858.  From the first debate:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects--certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man . [Great applause.]

As Harry Jaffa has pointed out, Lincoln so qualified the first sentence that it leaves open the possibility that in the future, he would not publicly be opposed to political and social equality between the races (though it is doubtful that he privately wasn't already in full support of such measures).  After all, in Lincoln's estimation, since government rests on public opinion and knowing the opinion that much of the public held regarding blacks, it would not have been wise to come out in full-throated support of full equality at that point.  As Jaffa succintly put it, "Lincoln knew at the time that only the seeds he planted could lead to results consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence."  Again, it's not enough to simply have the ends in mind.  Statesmanship is the knowledge of both the means and ends and to have the forecast and prudence to achieve the ends given the circumstances.

Spielberg's Lincoln captured this complicated but important teaching quite well.

Category Errors

Gordon Lloyd, Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University, has some lessons for conservatives and Republicans in the wake of the re-election of Barack Obama.  His main lesson for us is to avoid the trap that many conservatives have been falling into lately:  namely being the sociological trap of viewing people in categories such as race, gender, and ethnicity and acting as though those categories determine the thought or action of the people within those certain groups.  (This is beyond simplistic for the simple facts that the groups themselves are not static and people can count themselves into more than one of the groups.)

The main problem is instead the loss of political leadership in the Republican Party:

The age of the old white man is SYSTEMICALLY over! That is the message of INEVITABILITY we are hearing from the left. We suggest that is an erroneous explanation and prediction. It overestimates the lasting power of social forces. Certainly the persuasiveness of the old white man will decline if they don’t behave in a way that reflects what James Madison called the “genius of the people,” and the spirit of the electorate. The task of a leader is to lead by word and deed rather than to insult and abandon. Or to assume ahead of time that 47% of the people are unpersuadeable. I can see members of the four social categories voting for a conservative for President if the right candidate and the right public policy came along.

The task of the Republican Party moving forward should be the explication and application of the principles of the American Founding to the particulars of the situation of today.  But this is not enough. Political prudence, or practical wisdom, is also required so that the ends can actually be achieved given the circumstances of the world in which we live.  This is a lot to ask for, but it's why we choose, or are supposed to choose, the people we do for public office.

The Deep End Gets Deeper

In closed door testimony on Friday, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified that references to al Qaeda and its affiliated groups within the region were removed from the unclassified talking points -- the same ones given to Susan Rice who would later go on 5 Sunday shows to claim that "the video did it."  The White House had earlier claimed they were just basing everything they were saying publicly about the terrorist attack "bump in the road" on what the intelligence community gave them.  Changes were made to the talking points somewhere down the line; we just don't know who made them.

We now also know that President Obama himself was told within 72 hours of the terrorist attack in Benghazi that it in fact was linked to al Qaeda, if he already did not know even sooner than that.

This exercise should help clarify the obfuscation by the White House even further:  The same The Washington Guardian story I just linked to states that the paper reported within 48 hours of the attack that al Qaeda was suspected; President Obama's speech to the UN, given on September 25th, included the following lines:

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

And:

We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

And more:

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

And even more:

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.

And lastly:

We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans.

And this was the same guy who said during the second presidential debate that he knew it was a terrorist attack all along.

Also from the same guy was this line from his first press conference after being re-elected, his first press conference in eight months:

“And we’re after an election now. I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants.” (emphasis mine.)

Of course it is important, of course it is.

The Essence of Anarchy

Ben Boychuk has a corrective to the growing cries for secession by those who were appalled by the re-election of President Obama:

Every four years or so, a sizeable minority of Americans -- sometimes upward of 49 percent or even more -- wake up the morning after Election Day to a country they claim not to recognize. 

The thought of four more years of an Obama "recovery," the implementation of the president's ghastly health insurance law, and the prospect of a judiciary remade along left-liberal lines -- it's too much for many Republicans to bear. 

Rather than suffer the indignity of living under this man's administration as more and more of our God-given liberties fall away under an ever more regulatory state, wouldn't it be better simply to part company? No, it would not. 

Petulance is a two-way street, of course. Eight years ago, millions of Democrats woke up to the horror of George W. Bush's second term. Red America was suddenly "Jesusland." San Franciscans became more smug and insufferable. And soon, people like Kirkpatrick Sale and Lawrence O'Donnell were in the pages of the left-wing Nation magazine and on cable television making an earnest case -- or whining, depending on your point of view -- for a "blue-state secession." 

It was foolish talk then, and it's even more foolish now. 

We lost an election. Our liberties are always in jeopardy, regardless of which party has the majority. The country will be a different place in four years. Very possibly, Republicans won't have the presidency again for a generation. That's politics. 

None of those things justifies secession, which is, as the very first Republican president put it, "the essence of anarchy." 

"A majority," Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861, "held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism." 

Republicans are not well suited to anarchy. For conservatives, now is not the time to lose faith in the Constitution and the principles of America's founding. Nothing lasts forever -- certainly not republics. But silly secession fantasies are nothing more than preemptive surrender.

Though for the most part well-intentioned, those calling for secession are calling for a cure that is worse than the disease.

Strange Days Cont.

The whole scandal involving former CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer with whom he had affair is getting weirder by the day.  The WSJ reports on how the FBI's investigation began and how the agent who launched the investigation had his own problems with women.

Please read the whole thing here.

I don't where this will end, but I think there will be a lot more coming out in the days ahead.

Knee-Jerk or Just Jerk?

I almost always enjoy the WSJ's Bret Stephens but this column is mostly just repulsive.  A sample:

Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it's lawful and consensual and doesn't impinge in some obvious way on you. This obsession is socially uncouth, politically counterproductive and, too often, unwittingly revealing. 

First of all, what the hell is he taking about here?  Democrats were the ones saying that that the election of Mitt Romney would result in a return to pre-Gwiswold America where contraception would be outlawed -- only this time it would nationwide.

Some more if you can stomach it:

Also, please tone down the abortion extremism. Supporting so-called partial-birth abortions, as too many liberals do, is abortion extremism. But so is opposing abortion in cases of rape and incest, to say nothing of the life of the mother. Democrats did better with a president who wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare"; Republicans would have done better by adopting former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels's call for a "truce" on social issues. 

But Stephens here doesn't delineate between opposing abortion in all circumstances in principle but allowing that because government rests ultimately on public opinion, these exceptions are politically necessary.  And even if you do buy into this logic,  Stephens faults one side for being too oriented around life and the other for being too oriented around the death of a child but says that both sides are equally as "extreme."  Hmmm.

And this is just rediculous:

By the way, what's so awful about Spanish? It's a fine European language with an outstanding literary tradition—Cervantes, Borges, Paz, Vargas Llosa—and it would do you no harm to learn it. Bilingualism is an intellectual virtue, not a deviant sexual practice.

I think Mr. Stephens should stick to foreign affairs.  Leave this kind of stuff to people with higher IQ's.

Foot, Meet Gun

Soon after President Obama's reelection, I wrote in this post about the mistakes numerous conservatives and Republicans seem to be making -- from coming out for full amnesty, "moving to the center," or casting aside our principles completely.  

This falls into the latter category:

President Obama's reelection last week has prompted a slew of requests to secede from the United States. 

Using the Obama administration's own We the People website, nearly two dozen petitions have sprung up asking the Obama administration for permission to withdraw from the Union. 

The two most popular petitions, Texas and Louisiana, have both drawn more than 10,000 signatures each as of Monday morning. The Texas petition needs only 7,000 more signatures to trigger an official White House response. 

None of the petitions explicitly cite Obama's reelection as a reason for independence, but all were created after last week's elections.

"The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the [National Defense Authorization Act], the [Transportation Security Administration], etc," the Texas petition charges. "Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government." 

Others are more vague for in their reasons for wanting to leave the country. 

"just like in 1860 the south secede from the union. 2012 the state of georgia would like to withdraw from the USA," one of the Georgia petitions states. 

Most of the petitions simply quote the Declaration of Independence in their request to depart the country.

This is too bad.  Here is how Abraham Lincoln responded to these types of arguments in his First Inaugural Address:

I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a Provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever--it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? 

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect union."

Where We Go From Here

Charles C. W. Cooke has some thoughts on the what a second Obama term means for America in the long term in a column on NRO.  Among the highlights (there are some really good gems here):

People and countries change, as they must. But, as with [George] Washington’s axe, to change too much is to invite the possibility not merely of alteration, but of replacement. Predicated, as it is, on an established set of principles — rather than merely on geographical or racial fact — America could presumably reach a point at which it could no longer usefully be called America. How close to that point are we?

And as a reminder, the man writing this was formerly a citizen of Great Britain.

More:

...A president of the United States just ran a reelection campaign based on the promise of government largess, exploitation of class division, the demonization of success, the glorification of identity politics, and the presumption that women are a helpless interest group; and he did so while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the looming — potentially fatal — crisis that the country faces. And it worked.

That fact is in complete contrast to the teachings of the MSM and the Democrats (is there any true distinction between the two anymore?) who proclaim that in order to win elections, the party has to "move to the center."  Too bad the Democrats didn't follow their own advice in this election.  And they still won anyway.  (I still think, however, that there is something to be said about how the people understood their vote for Obama:  Was it due to an agreement with his progressive liberal principles or that they "liked" him more than the other guy?)

Here's more:

The president has an ample library of ideas from which to choose, and yet he raids the Old World. Compare Barack Obama’s entire oeuvre to a single line from Thomas Jefferson or Emma Lazarus or Frederick Douglass — or even Ronald Reagan. Does it stand up? Only in a society that has lost touch with the ancient and is reflexively in love with the new could such a man be considered to be an inspiration.

This is a great argument and is one Calvin Coolidge made all the way back in 1926:  That there is no progress beyond the principles on which this country was founded upon.  Progress in a "new science of politics" and other ephemeral progressive theories in effect actually represent the turning back of the clock to an earlier age when the light of reason and revelation didn't shine as brightly.  One of the ironies of the Forward! campaign slogan (I think the addition of the exclamation point in mid-campaign was the clincher) the president used in 2012 was the fact that in principle, his policies represented things in an earlier age that, though maybe manifested themselves in different forms, the Founders had previously rejected.

And finally:

Once upon a time, when civic society flourished in Britain, it was uncontroversial to observe that to demur at government involvement in the achievement of an end was not necessarily to consider that end undesirable. Under Leviathan, such distinctions draw blank stares. In 2010, on the BBC’s Question Time — a British current-affairs show on which the guests trip over one other to display the appropriate degree of fealty to whichever orthodoxy is in the news that week whilst the audience tries to be as clever as one can be without doing any reading — the question of impending government spending cuts was raised. One audience member stood up and, waving her hands around, asked who would mow her elderly mother’s lawn if the government no longer did it. The audience clapped. The host looked serious. Not a single person on the panel said, “You!” Neither of the putatively Conservative guests even raised an eyebrow. A particularly oleaginous MP proceeded to tell her that it was a “good question.”

There is a lot of wisdom in here.  Liberals seems to think that when conservative critique the growth of the federal government, they are also simultaneously critiquing the thing being done by the government itself.  This might be true sometimes, but in many cases, conservatives are actually making their critiques from an argument based on federalism; that the federal legislature only has eighteen enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and that those powers not directly expressed were left to the states and, ultimately, to the people.

But I don't want to leave it simply at that. Too many conservative arguments seem to imply that there is either the citizen or the state.  But there is a wide range of civic and social institutions like churches, volunteer organizations, boy scout troops, etc. that used to do many of the things that government now does.

And it is important to remember that federalism is not itself a principle of moral worth.  It is, to use a phrase of James Madison's, an "auxiliary precaution" put in place to help keep the constitutional balance in equilibrium.  Simply relying on the argument I laid out above (it is the typical argument I hear from conservatives these days) does not actually get to the root of the matter.

Conservatives have some thinking to do from here on out.

Strange Days

As you may have already heard, David Petraeus, Director of the CIA, stepped down yesterday after he disclosed that he had an extra-marrital affair.  The general reaction to this has been somewhere along the lines that Petraeus had brilliant careers in both the field and here at home and that this unfortunate incident is, to use a favorite phrase of President Obama's, just a bump in the road.

Last night, Fox News reported that the affair, which has now ended, was with his biographer and began when she was embedded in Afghanistan.  Therefore, it seems that the affair began before the vetting process that would end with his being elevated to the position of Director of the CIA.

Also, the connection with Benghazi couldn't be more obvious.  Petraeus was just getting ready next week to testify in front a congressional hearing about what occurred during the terrorist attack.   His testimony, for some reason, is now cancelled.  This makes no sense, since the affair has already ended and should no way impair his judgement in giving testimony on what happened in Benghazi.  Hopefully the committee will still issue him a subpoena so this shouldn't be an issue.

Lastly, the Clinton standard -- you know, where things that happen in private supposedly do not affect the professional -- seems to have been cast aside for an new older standard of conduct.  The rejection of this standard will obviously go unnoticed by the MSM.

This whole thing is very fishy.

To Pander or Not to Pander?

At work yesterday, in response to President Obama winning over minorities in large numbers, I heard a number of arguments voiced that in 2016, we should automatically nominated Sen. Marco Rubio.  The thinking was centered around not so much Rubio's political principles but that he was of Cuban descent and would likely get more of the vote from Hispanic population centers then did Mitt Romney.

But as Yuval Levin argues at NRO, conservatives should not do the mirror image of what Democrats do:

But it seems to me that a lot of people, including perhaps some on the Right, risk drawing the wrong lessons from this election and this electorate. Above all, the notion that Republicans must now adjust their positions to make an essentially race-based appeal to Hispanics and craven interest-group appeals elsewhere strikes me as very wrong-headed—both as a reading of the election and as advice to the losing party.

[...]

As Sean Trende points out today, the lower turnout in this election was driven almost entirely by lower turnout among such voters. “The increased share of the minority vote as a percent of the total vote is not the result of a large increase in minorities in the numerator,” he notes, “it is a function of many fewer whites in the denominator.” And as he further shows, these seem to be lower middle class white voters—precisely the targets of the Obama campaign’s effort to keep Romney’s marginal voters at home. The change in the makeup of the electorate thus seems to be far less a function of demographic shifts than of a failure to turn out potential Romney voters. It would seem that the commonly voiced concerns that Romney would have trouble connecting with working-class voters and that the attacks on him as a vulture capitalist might work were basically right.

And what conservatives should do from here on:

The job of conservatism, and to the extent that it is a conservative party then also the job of the Republican Party, is to lay out its vision before voters in an attractive and serious way, to show them how it builds on America’s strengths to address America’s weaknesses, how it enables human thriving, how it could be applied to the particular problems we face today in ways that would help solve those problems, and why it is good for each and all of us Americans. That means we need to speak to a coherent and appealing understanding of American life today, and that we need to translate our ideas into very concrete policy particulars that would advance them.

Put simply:  Republicans and conservatives should not treat the American People like children.  Though civic education is unfortunately very low across the electorate as a whole, keeping the people dumb by either not talking about the important things or practicing sleight-of-hand will not change things for the better.

As Levin knows, this kind of principled conservative public policy is already out there.  These separate strands just need to be connected.

On the Brink

Well...Mitt Romney didn't win.  And President Obama did.

I was shocked last night less at the outcome (it seemed early on in the night things weren't well and they  just got worse as the night went on) then at the speed at which it all happened.  I had assumed that -- largely because of absentee ballots still coming in Ohio among other states -- it would take some days for everyone to know for sure who had won.  Though I never bought into the Mitt Romney-wins-in-a-landslide theory, I was cautiously optimistic about his chances.

I grew to like Romney more and more as a candidate, but I fear that his flaws helped in part to do him in.  His record on health care while governor of Massachusetts seemed to blunt his attacks against Obamacare when they were needed the most.  I agree with Jonah Goldberg on the mistakes made by those Romney trusted, beginning with his cheif strategist, Stuart Stevens:

I think Romney strategist Stu Stevens’s contempt for ideas — never mind conservative ideas — was absurd. I think the failure of the Romney campaign to offer a compelling explanation of any kind (at least until the second debate) for how it wasn’t a third Bush term was fatal (as I discussed here and elsewhere). Politics is aboutpersuasion. And persuasion requires making serious arguments. Stevens, by all accounts, has contempt for serious arguments.

But it wasn't just Romney.  For decades, the GOP has basically ceded entire groups (blacks immediately come to mind) to the Democrats, believing that those groups were just monolithic voting blocs, not amenable to persuasion of any kind.  This really really needs to change.

But I think at the same time we can't get too caught in up in seeing people as defined by their race, gender, ethnicity, etc.  The editors at NRO understand this all very well:

Most of the post-election discussion, we can predict, will dwell on the predictable demographic divides of sex, race, and age. Most of this conversation will be unproductive. Until conservatives devise a domestic agenda, and a way to sell it, that links small-government principles to attractive results, they are going to have a hard time improving their standing with women, Latinos, white men, or young people. And conservatives would be deeply unwise to count on the mere availability of charismatic young conservative officials to make up for that problem.

We have to better articulate the principles of the American Founding and attempt to persuade those not immediately familiar with conservative principles.  Romney, speaking conservatism as a second language, was not the best person to entrust this project to, though I think he probably did the best out of anyone who ran in the Republican primaries

We have to, in the words of Lincoln, once again grasp "the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together."  This can be done by appealing to principles of right and wrong, just and unjust; principles that are accessible not simply through biblical revelation but through unassisted human reason.  I am reminded of a few lines from a sermon given by the Rev. Samuel Cooper in 1780:

We want not, indeed, a special revelation from heaven to teach us that men are born equal and free; that no man has a natural claim of dominion over his neighbours, nor one nation any such claim upon another.

Those especially in the pro-life movement would do well to think over these kinds of arguments (I am talking to you Todd Akin).

But I digress.

After seeing President Obama talk about bipartisanship and working across the aisle in his speech after he won last night, it sounded a little more reassuring back in 2008.  We'll see if anything changes in the years ahead from what occurred during his first turn.  Call me skeptical if it just ends up being more of the same.  If it is more of the same, some dark days for our country may lay ahead.

Why Romney Will Win

Here's why Fred Barnes thinks Romney will win tomorrow:

Enthusiasm. It matters enormously, and it’s disproportionately on the Republican side, in good measure because of an intense desire to defeat President Obama. True, enthusiasm doesn’t guarantee an edge in turnout, but it’s certainly a key indicator. “In these final days, turnout is driven by intensity,” says Republican pollster Ed Goeas. The nearly half the electorate that strongly disapproves of Obama’s performance in office “will need little else other than the opportunity to vote against President Obama to motivate them to go to their polling place.” Goeas conducts the bipartisan Battleground Poll along with Democrat Celinda Lake. 

In 2008, self-identified Democrats led Republicans in turnout by seven percentage points. Gallup’s projection is that Republicans will have a 49-46 percent edge this year. “The political environment and the composition of the likely electorate strongly favor Governor Romney,” Goeas says. The Battleground Poll’s “vote election model” projects Romney with 51 percent. 

Ground game. The Obama get-out-the-vote drive (GOTV) is not quite the powerful juggernaut it was in 2008 and the Republican effort is far better than four years ago. The Republican National Committee isn’t alone this time. Americans for Prosperity and a coalition of a dozen conservative groups—from the National Rifle Association to the Republican Jewish Coalition—have put together a massive GOTV effort focused on swing voters in key states. They’ve averaged 1.8 million phone calls per day in recent days. 

Early voting numbers are further evidence of ground game parity. Democrats have a slight edge, but their numbers are down significantly from 2008. Far more Republicans have voted early this year than in 2008. 

Undecideds. Undecided voters are thought to vote disproportionately for the challenger over a sitting president. In truth, there’s no empirical evidence for this widely acknowledged tendency. But to the extent it exists, it helps Romney. Goeas, for one, figures most still undecided voters simply won’t vote. 

Indicators. Many point to a Romney win. He does well among “high-propensity-voting” blocs such as, in the Battleground Poll, seniors (54 percent), married voters (56 percent), weekly church attendees (59 percent), white evangelicals (79 percent), and gun owner householders (60 percent). He also leads among key demographic groups such as suburban voters (54 percent), Catholics (53 percent), and middle class voters (52 percent).

Obama has large leads among groups such as Hispanics with a lower propensity to vote. “If the president’s campaign is not able to replicate his 2008 electorate (which is looking increasingly unlikely), the president loses,” Goeas says. 

Issues. The most important ones favor Romney: the economy, the deficit, and the debt. Independents, the demographic group most sensitive to these issues, went for Obama by eight percentage points in 2008. Now they’re tilting to Romney by roughly the same percentage. 

Conclusion: Romney will be elected the 45th president of the United States.

Also, to add to what Fred said above, independents in Ohio currently favor Romney by 16 percent over Obama.  The independents -- the holy grail of politics -- went for Obama by 8 in 2008.  I hope to celebrate a Romney victory, and I remain optimistic but cautiously so.

Dumbest Washington Post op-ed Ever

I was browsing through Power Line earlier today and came across a post by Paul Mirengoff with the intriguing title of "Dumbest Washington Post op-ed Ever?"  The only thing I disagree with Mirengoff after after reading said op-ed was that the title of his post should have been a declarative statement.  The op-ed in question was written by Colbert King and is titled, "Mitt Romney could be the next Andrew Johnson."  That's right, the Andrew Johnson who was a virulent racist, was openly hostile to the protection of freedman's rights in the South, was against the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and was impeached in office.  

King presents a litany of charges on how the U.S. would be taken back to the pre-Civil War era were Mitt Romney to win on Tuesday:

A Romney win would be worrisome, however, because of his strong embrace of states rights and his deep mistrust of the federal government — sentiments Andrew Johnson shared. 

And we know what that Johnson did once in office. 

His sympathy for Confederacy holdouts, and his distaste for Washington, led him to retreat from Reconstruction and avert his gaze as Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws, many of which lasted until the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

There is nothing in Romney’s record to suggest that he would be any stronger than Andrew Johnson in resisting the blandishments of his most extreme supporters, especially regarding federal enforcement.

As Paul noted in his post, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison among all the other Founders in varying degrees were weary of a federal government that had too much power.  Why, even Bill Clinton declared that the "era of big government is over"  in 1996.  Was he spouting racist theories?

The only concrete piece of evidence King brings to the table to prove that Romney is the heir apparent to Johnson is the following:

Johnson stood by as Southern states enacted “black codes,” which restricted rights of freed blacks and prevented blacks from voting. 

Romney stood by last year as Republican-controlled state legislatures passed voter-identification laws, making it harder for people of color, senior citizens and people with disabilities to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

But those enacting voter ID laws are trying to prevent voter fraud and make sure that people voting are who they say they are.  Does King then have a problem with state issued drivers licenses?

King must have a big beef with the American people who overwhelmingly approve of voter ID laws with a 71% favorable rating.   He must also despise Rhode Island Democrats, who earlier this year enacted a voter ID law in their state.  They must have wanted to disenfranchise minority voters too.

King of course touches on the similarites between Presidents Obama and Lincoln:

In some quarters, the hatred of Lincoln bordered on fanaticism; similar sentiments are in evidence against Obama.

I would argue that the "hatred" of Obama is much less than what was face by former President George W. Bush.  President Reagan too faced much of the same animus that Bush faced.  Would King ever compare Presidents Bush and Reagan with Lincoln in this regard?  Doubtful.

This is a truly embarrassing piece and, with the exception of Charles Krauthammer and George Will, it says a lot about the kinds of people who work and write for the Post.

The Fog of the Obama Administration

Please take some time and read this piece in the WSJ about what we currently know about the terrorist attack in Benghazi.  This section is damning:

In his September 12 Rose Garden statement, Mr. Obama said "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." He said this at the end of his remarks, well after his specific comments about Benghazi. 

Unnamed Administration officials that same day told Reuters that an al Qaeda regional offshoot and members of Ansar al-Shariah were probably involved. "It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack," one U.S. official said. Intelligence officials briefed Members of Congress later that week that terrorism was the likeliest culprit. 

Yet by the end of that week, the White House offered a different account: That the Benghazi attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islam video on YouTube. On September 14, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said, "We don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film." 

Two days later, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on a tour of the Sunday talk shows to repeat the video-caused-the-protest story. On CBS's "Face the Nation," she contradicted Libya's President Mohamed Magarief, who on the same show blamed a "preplanned" attack by "foreign" terrorists. The White House and Ms. Rice have since claimed they were merely following talking points provided by the "intelligence community." 

Yet Reuters revealed last week that government officials saw a possible al Qaeda connection even as the attacks were taking place. Emails from State's regional security officer to the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and others noted that Ansar al-Shariah had taken responsibility. The Daily Beast's Eli Lake reported that FBI officers who interviewed security officers who worked at the consulate knew as early as September 14 that the attack was no protest. 

It took eight days for the Administration to formally declare that the four Americans "were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," in the words of Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center. But six days later Mr. Obama was asked by Joy Behar on "The View" if "it was an act of terrorism"? He said the government didn't know. In his September 25 U.N. address, Mr. Obama made several general references to the YouTube video but made no mention of terrorism in the context of Benghazi. 

His campaign stump speech to this day includes the lines that "al Qaeda has been decimated" and the U.S. is "finally turning the page on a decade of war to do some nation-building right here at home" (Thursday in Las Vegas).

Mr. Obama has made the defeat of al Qaeda a core part of his case for re-election. Yet in Benghazi an al Qaeda affiliate killed four U.S. officials in U.S. buildings, contradicting that political narrative.

And another additional fact:  far from al Qaeda being decimated in Iraq, daily attacks have only increased since the U.S. withdraw.  This is unfortunately what happens when winning the war is pushed aside for easier goals.

Inept

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, high off of his endorsement of Barack Obama in the midst of the devestation of Hurricane Sandy, has cancelled the New York City marathon out of concern for the citizens of the NYC area:

"While holding the race would not require diverting resources from the recovery effort, it is clear that it has become the source of controversy and division," he said in a statement Friday evening shortly after NBC 4 New York and a few other media outlets reported the cancellation. 

"We would not want a cloud to hang over the race or its participants, and so we have decided to cancel it," Bloomberg added. "We cannot allow a controversy over an athletic event -- even one as meaningful as this -- to distract attention away from all the critically important work that is being done to recover from the storm and get our city back on track." (Emphasis mine.)

So no, it wasn't out of the concern in his heart:  it was because the whole thing had caused "controversy" and "division," the chief sources of all that is wrong in the world today.  As we know, nothing good causes these twin evils.  This justification for canceling the event, which I agree should have been cancelled, says absolutely nothing directly about the event itself and instead focuses on the emotions and feelings the event has caused.   I salute Mayor Bloomberg for his bumbling ineptness.

The Salesman

I think George Will basically nailed it in his column today.  A few samples:

Energetic in body but indolent in mind, Barack Obama in his frenetic campaigning for a second term is promising to replicate his first term, although simply apologizing would be appropriate. His long campaign’s bilious tone — scurrilities about Mitt Romney as a monster of, at best, callous indifference; adolescent japes about “Romnesia” — is discordant coming from someone who has favorably compared his achievements to those of “any president” since Lincoln, with the “possible” exceptionsof Lincoln, LBJ and FDR. Obama’s oceanic self-esteem — no deficit there — may explain why he seems to smolder with resentment that he must actually ask for a second term.

And regarding what Mayor Bloomberg cited as his main reason for supporting President Obama:

Four years ago, Obama said that he would slow the oceans’ rise but this year has not sought a mandate to cope with — he has barely mentioned — the supposedly onrushing calamity of climate change. He says that this emergency (like everything else) justifies giving government huge new dollops of power, yet our Demosthenes evidently despairs of persuading the benighted public. (See above: condescension.)

And finally:

All politicians are to some extent salesmen. But Obama, having devalued the coin of presidential rhetoric by the promiscuous production of it, increasingly resembles a particular salesman, Arthur Miller’s Willy Loman: 

“For a salesman, there is no rock bottom to the life. He don’t put a bolt to a nut, he don’t tell you the law or give you medicine. He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back — that’s an earthquake.”

Nothing to See Here

In the news of the completely expected, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg came out today in support for President Obama.  He cited Obama's work in combatting climate change (wait, didn't it used to be called global warming?) and said that because of the devastation of Hurricane Sandy caused, this issue put Obama over the top. 

In a story about the endorsement by the AP (they are providing a wealth of material for me these days), I caught this interesting section buried near the end:

To the dismay of environmental activists, climate change never came up during any of the three presidential debates and has been all but absent throughout the rest of the campaign. When Romney invoked the environment in his August speech accepting the Republican nomination, it was to mock his rival for making the issue a priority. 

"President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet," Romney said. "My promise is to help you and your family."

I don't think Romney was so much mocking Obama for making the issue a priority as he was mocking him for claiming that he actually could alter the sea levels and heal the planet all in four years.  It seems the AP actually took Obama's rhetoric seriously.