VP Debate

The Debate:  My Take

I’m not sure what Biden was doing.  He actually did pretty well on some parts, but his condensing laughter and his constant interrupting made him a thoroughly unlikeable participant.  His performance was like watching a 40 yard pass play that gets called back for unsportsmanlike conduct.  

I’m almost wondering if he was trying to get Ryan to lose it on a national stage and then the campaign could say Ryan didn’t have the temperament to be president.  They could then drop Big Bird and show a video of Ryan being unpresidential.  To be perfectly honest that probably would have worked on me (I wouldn’t have been a cool as Paul Ryan was).   You have to give Ryan a lot of credit especially with the moderator failing to rein Biden in with his constant interrupting and even joining in and interrupting Ryan as well. 

I think Biden pumped up the Democratic base, but I think he hurt the ticket with independents and undecided.   Advantage Romney/Ryan. 

The Debate:  Peggy Noonan’s take

Last week Mr. Obama was weirdly passive. Last night Mr.Biden was weirdly aggressive, if that is the right word for someone who grimaces, laughs derisively, interrupts, hectors, rolls his eyes, browbeats and attempts to bully. He meant to dominate, to seem strong and no-nonsense. 

Sometimes he did—he had his moments. But he was also disrespectful and full of bluster. "Oh, now you're Jack Kennedy!" he snapped at one point. It was an echo of Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle, in 1988. But Mr. Quayle, who had compared himself to Kennedy, had invited the insult. Mr. Ryan had not. It came from nowhere. Did Mr. Biden look good? No, he looked mean and second-rate. He meant to undercut Mr. Ryan, but he undercut himself. His grimaces and laughter were reminiscent of Al Gore's sighs in 2000—theatrical, off-putting and in the end self-indicting... 

In terms of content—the seriousness and strength of one's positions and the ability to argue for them—the debate was probably a draw, with both candidates having strong moments. But in terms of style, Mr. Biden was so childishly manipulative that it will be surprising if independents and undecideds liked what they saw.

National Democrats keep confusing strength with aggression and command with sarcasm. Even the latter didn't work for Mr. Biden. The things he said had the rhythm and smirk of sarcasm without the cutting substance. 

After two debates here is my impression.  At the first debate it looked as if President Obama was medicated and almost comatose.  In the second debate it looked as if Joe Biden was off his meds and in a manic state.  The question for the Democrats in the third debate is will they get the dosage right this time? 

The Debate:  The Weekly Standard:  Biden Bombed

You don’t win a nationally televised debate by being rude and obnoxious.  You don’t win by interrupting your opponent time after time after time or by being a blowhard.  You don’t win with facial expressions, especially smirks or fake laughs, or by pretending to be utterly exasperated with what your opponent is saying.

And apparently Biden didn’t win.

Was Biden strategy a winning one?

I expected “table-pounding atmospherics” from Biden but I didn’t expect him to act like a total jackhole for fully 90 minutes. Give him credit for knowing his target audience, though: His task tonight was to get the left excited again after Obama fell into a semi-coma in Denver, and evincing utter disdain for Ryan — grimacing, shouting, laughing inappropriately, constantly interrupting, the total jackhole experience — is just what the doctor ordered. He might have irritated independents and undecideds, but probably not so much that it’ll change people’s votes. The Democrats needed someone to go out there and clown for liberals, and if there’s one thing this guy knows, it’s clowning.

So we have Obama in the first debate looking like someone who felt imposed upon to be there and we have Biden in the second debate looking like someone’s nasty old uncle.  I found Obama’s endorsement of Biden to be bad—“I couldn’t have been prouder of him?”  Perhaps with all the discussion about Sesame Street,  Oscar the Grouch was Biden’s inspiration.  

The Bully vs the Wonk

So now we know what Team Obama's comeback plan was following last week's defeat in the Presidential debate. Unleash Joe Biden to interrupt, filibuster,snarl, smirk and otherwise show contempt for Paul Ryan. The carnival act contributed to the least illuminating presidential or vice presidential debate of our lifetimes. 

From the opening bell, Mr. Biden seemed to take to heart the interpretation that President Obama offered this week of his debate performance—that he had been "too polite." That was not a problem for the Veep, whose marching orders were clearly to steamroll the overmatched moderator Martha Raddatz and dismiss everything Mr. Ryan said with a condescending sneer. 

Did Joe Biden Shore up the woman’s vote?

Tonight, Joe Biden is embodying everything that women hate about talking with men.

Apparently not.  What will people remember about this debate by the weekend?  Only a rude, obnoxious and condensing Biden and that’s exactly how they will remember him.

Do women like men being jerks?

After the calamity they experienced in last week’s presidential debate, liberals needed to be bucked up by the Obama campaign, and I think they got that tonight. It probably came at a real cost—I have a feeling that Biden’s hyper-aggressive and at times buffoonish performance (and perhaps especially his Joker grin, which seemed to me as much a product of nervousness as of intent) hurt the ticket some with independent voters and especially with women—but it was a price the Obama campaign is probably quite willing to pay given the situation they’re now in. This debate didn’t help them win persuadable voters, and it probably won’t move the polls in their direction, but it will calm liberals down and it was absolutely essential for them to do that. The MSNBC types needed someone to be a jerk toward Paul Ryan to his face, and they got it.

This may explain why the Catholic Church is suing the government

In last night debate, Biden made a strong statement which has been called into question by The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Joe Biden:  "With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. 

That is a fact. That is a fact." 

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain "religious employers." That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to "Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital," or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

Hmmm, I don’t think you want to lie to the American public about the church that defines you.  Because in doing so, it will define you as a liar. 

The Polls on the debate

Most polls and media talking heads gave the advantage in the vice presidential debate to GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, but said that Vice President Joe Biden also won by reviving Democratic morale following the disastrous Oct. 3 presidential debate.

A quick CNN poll of registered voters said 48 percent thought Ryan was the winner, while 44 percent thought Biden claimed the title. Sixty percent of CNN’s respondents said Ryan was presidential, and 53 percent said he was more likable.

A CNBC poll said that 56 percent thought Ryan was the winner, while 36 declared Biden to be the winner.

Florida Poll:  Romney up by 7

Barack Obama's lackluster debate performance last week has dramatically altered the presidential race in Florida, with Mitt Romney opening up a decisive 7 percentage point lead, according to a new Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9/Miami Herald poll.

Is Benghazi the nail in Obama’s coffin?

It couldn’t have happened at a worse time and the administration couldn’t have handled it worse. 

However, from the Obama administration’s point of view, the discussion of Libya these days is a bad thing. It seems clearer and clearer that the critics of the Libyan intervention had a better understanding of the risks and costs than the supporters.

And the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Libya also undermines the narrative the administration has tried to promote: that thanks to its intelligent and thoughtful policies terrorism is on its last legs.

And in last night debate, Biden’s argument seems to be it is un-American to question the administration on this.

Obama's TR Moment

What’s new today

Story #1 has Dr. Krauthammer hammering BHO.  #2 show BHO claiming an unemployment insurance extension and extending the tax cut on Social Security will create more jobs than the Keystone pipeline (estimated jobs 200,000).  Since both of those are extension, I’m not sure how they will create any new jobs!  #3 has Republicans questioning a two month gap in information about SC Justice Kagan.  #4 is my teaching moment today.  A very interesting discussion of the role of government.  #5 is something to keep your eye on.  Will Hillary challenge Obama?  #6 has Peggy Noonan looking at Newt Gingrich.  Another article worth your viewing and look at my comments as well. #7 is an article of fracking.  Here’s a environmentalist nightmare.  It appears to be completely safe and delivers fossil fuels that are relatively clean, but somehow they just can’t back it.  #8 is a repudiation by PolitiFact of a Jon Stewart claim about Christmas.  #9 is a fun look at 19 of life’s little victories. 

1.  Obama Explains it all to You

In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that IF IN THREE YEARS HE HADN’T ALLEVIATED THE NATION’S ECONOMIC PAIN, HE’D BE A “ONE-TERM PROPOSITION.”

When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track” and even Bill Clinton calls the economy “lousy,” how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case

It seems that HE AND HIS POLICIES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THINGS. Sure, presidents are ordinarily held accountable for economic growth, unemployment, national indebtedness (see Obama, above). But not this time. RESPONSIBILITY, YOU SEE, LIES WITH THE RICH.

Or, as the philosophers of Zuccotti Park call them, the 1 percent. For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. THE “BREATHTAKING GREED OF A FEW” IS CRUSHING THE MIDDLE CLASS. If only the rich paid their “fair share,” the middle class would have a chance. Otherwise, government won’t have enough funds to “invest” in education and innovation, the golden path to the sunny uplands of economic growth and opportunity.

Where to begin? A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It’s mis-investing….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-campaign-for-class-resentment/2011/12/08/gIQApYDagO_story.html

Krauthammer once again nails it.  Obama is a member of the political class with only good intentions in their heart so anything that goes wrong is not their fault. 

2.  Obamanomics:  Oh-Oh. 

… President Obama said that he will delay his vacation and keep Congress in session until the passage of his desired payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits extension -- two proposals that Obama said would create more jobs than the Keystone XL pipeline that his administration recently delayed.

"I would not ask anyone to do something I'm not willing to do myself," Obama said when asked if he would go on vacation while keeping Congress in Washington D.C. "We are going to stay here as long as it takes [to get unemployment extended and pass the payroll tax cut]."

As Obama called for passage of those bills, he also responded to a recent Republican push to require him to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "HOWEVER MANY JOBS MIGHT BE GENERATED BY A KEYSTONE PIPELINE," HE SAID, "THEY'RE GOING TO BE A LOT FEWER THAN THE JOBS THAT ARE CREATED BY EXTENDING THE PAYROLL TAX CUT AND EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE."

For the record, it is estimated that Keystone would create about 200,000 jobs.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/obama_echoes_pelosi_-_unemployment_benefits_create_jobs.html#ixzz1g2PBvciE

Obama must go.  The man is delusional. 

3.   GOP Questions Two Month Gap on Kagan’s history

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee said Thursday the Obama administration is fueling speculation about Justice Kagan ’s impartiality because IT WON’T TURN OVER DOCUMENTS DETAILING HER ROLE IN CRAFTING THE LEGAL STRATEGY TO DEFEND THE HEALTH CARE LAW.

Rep.Lamar Smith, the committee chairman, told Attorney General Eric Holder   that emails show Justice Kagan took an interest in the case in January 2010, when she was solicitor general, and he demanded to know WHAT ROLE SHE PLAYED BETWEEN THEN AND MARCH 2010, when President Obama tapped her to sit on the high court.

“The issue is how involved was she in health care discussions between Jan. 8 and March 5. Just as President Nixon had an 18½-minute gap, does Ms Kagan have a two-month gap?” Mr. Smith said.

Conservative groups have called for Justice Kagan to recuse herself from ruling on the health care case, which the Supreme Court last month said it will consider next year.

Mr. Smith has requested a fuller explanation of Justice Kagan’s role. HE SAID THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DENIED HIS REQUEST, BUT NEVER CITED ANY LEGAL PRIVILEGE TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION.

Mr. Holder told the committee they tried to wall off Justice Kagan from conversations once they knew she was under consideration for the Supreme Court.  

“My memory is, whenever we had conversations about the health care bill, then-Solicitor General Kagan was not present,” he said.

But MR.SMITH SAID THAT WALLING OFF WOULDN’T HAVE OCCURRED UNTIL MARCH, LEAVING THE TWO-MONTH GAP HE QUESTIONED.

Mr.Holder also again declined to cite a specific legal privilege that would allow him to withhold documents or prevent committee investigators from interviewing department employees about Justice Kagan’s involvement. Instead, the attorney general said he has “separation of powers” concerns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/8/gop-questions-two-month-gap-kagans-health-care-inv/

4.  The Role of Government

….Public Choice Theorists, like Nobel Laureate James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, provided an alternative view of government that was consistent with that of the Founders. THEY SAW GOVERNMENT AS JUST ANOTHER INSTITUTION IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS POPULATED BY SELF-INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS. As such, it would be an active player in the economy and society to the extent possible.

So long as these individuals could benefit from outcomes, GOVERNMENT COULD NOT BE AN HONEST BROKER. IN THEIR VIEW, THOSE WHO "SERVE" ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE "GREEDY" BUSINESSMAN WHO POLITICIANS REGULARLY CONDEMN.

This view of human nature drove the Founders to develop The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the separation of powers in an attempt to contain misbehavior by government. Public Choice theory is merely a modern intellectual affirmation of what our educated Founders knew two and one-half centuries ago.

GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARILY RUN BY SELF-INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS UNTIL WE DISCOVER A WAY TO BREED AND ELECT ANGELS. FRIEDRICH HAYEK, AMONG OTHERS, ARGUED THAT A BIASED PROCESS ATTRACTS AND ENABLES THE "WORST" TO SUCCEED IN GOVERNMENT. (See "The Road to Serfdom" for his reasoning).

Passive and unbiased government is not impossible, merely highly improbable. Noble phrases like "public service" should be seen as modern day examples of what Nock saw as self-serving propaganda.

What Does This Mean?

Public Choice theorists deal with the difficulties of providing the proper incentives and disincentives to prevent self interest from exploiting positions in government. Charles R. Anderson recently used a taxonomy that is consistent with Public Choice and history. HE DESCRIBED TWO ORIENTATION OF GOVERNMENT -- PRINCIPLED VERSUS PRAGMATIC.

Mr. Anderson's description of the two follows:

1) A government which is HIGHLY LIMITED BY PRINCIPLE IN POWER AND SCOPE TO THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE EQUAL, SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, the ownership of one's own mind and body, and the pursuit of personal happiness. This is the legitimate government envisioned by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

2) A so-called PRAGMATIC GOVERNMENT NOT RESTRICTED BY PRINCIPLE TO A LIMITED SCOPE AND WITH FEW POWERS WHICH IS INCLINED TO BESTOW SPECIAL PRIVILEGES ON SPECIAL INTERESTS. Such a government may be a democracy, an oligarchy, a one-party state, or a dictatorship and IT MUST OF NECESSITY TRAMPLE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE OUR PERSONAL INTERESTS ARE TOO DIVERSE FOR GOVERNMENT TO FOSTER ALL OF OUR INTERESTS. It must pick which interests it will favor and which it will suppress. It violates the principle that government should do no harm….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/government_of_the_elites_by_the_elites_and_for_the_elites.html#ixzz1g2MjJpVf

Somehow when someone goes to work for the government they become chaste and good.  And if they leave government they become stupid and evil.  Just look at John Corzine as an example. 

5.  Will Hill Challenge O?

Jimmy Carter was not just defeated by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election. Carter, the president who could easily be confused with his own floppy sweater, WAS FIRST KNOCKED DOWN BY SMILIN' TED KENNEDY, who was entitled to be president because he was a Kennedy. (Don't ask, this is how Democrats think.) Kennedy ran against Carter because the other Democrats were less prone to suicide than they are today. They still lost big.

OBAMA STARTED THE FIGHT THREE YEARS AGO, IN THE MINDS OF FEMINISTS, BY TARRING HILLARY AND BILL AS "RACISTS." Today we are getting media leaks from the Clintons: “I don’t know what the future holds” said Bill the other day, going wink, wink, nudge, nudge, and looking sincere. LIBERAL SNITCH PAUL BEDARD SAID IT MORE CLEARLY IN THE US NEWS BLOG: HILLARY CAMPAIGN CONSPICOUSLY EMERGES.

This could become a grudge match. You can call smear good and honorable Americans with the racist brush all you want, but just don't call another Demagogue a racist. It's not polite. They have ways of making you pay. And feminists are the nastiest of them all. Harvard's left feminists ate President Larry Summers for breakfast one day. And

Hillary's supporters have been boiling with rage since she lost to the Chicago Machine….

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/a_hillary_grudge_match_with_bam.html#ixzz1g2PzhLBT

Democrats tend to hope there is a bloody fight between Newt and Mitt and perhaps a third party run by Ron Paul.  But right now, the more likely third party candidate would be Bloomberg and if Hillary gets into it with O, expect a blood bath. 

6.  Noonan on Gingrich

….That's the problem with Newt Gingrich: IT'S ALL TRUE. It's part of the reason so many of those who know him are anxious about the thought of his becoming president. It's also why people are looking at him, thinking about him, considering him as president.

ETHICALLY DUBIOUS? TRUE. INTELLIGENT AND ACCOMPLISHED? TRUE. Has he known breathtaking success and contributed to real reforms in government? Yes. Presided over disasters? Absolutely. CAN HE LEAD? YES. IS HE ERRATIC AND UNRELIABLE AS A LEADER? YES. Egomaniacal? True. Original and focused, harebrained and impulsive—all true. ..

 … Republicans on the ground who view Mr. Gingrich from afar, who neither know nor have worked with him, are more likely to see him this way: "WHO WAS THE LAST PERSON TO ACTUALLY CUT GOVERNMENT? WHO WAS THE LAST PERSON WHO ACTUALLY LED A MOVEMENT THAT BALANCED THE FEDERAL BUDGET? . . . THE LAST TIME THERE WAS TRUE WELFARE REFORM, THE LAST TIME GOVERNMENT WAS CUT, GINGRICH DID IT." That is Rush Limbaugh, who has also criticized Mr. Gingrich.

And that is exactly what I've been hearing from Newt supporters who do not listen to talk radio. They are older voters, they are not all Republicans, and when government last made progress he was part of it. THEY HAVE A VERY PRACTICAL SENSE OF POLITICS NOW. The heroic era of the presidency is dead. They are not looking to like their president or admire him, they just want someone to fix the crisis. The last time helpful things happened in Washington, he was a big part of it. SO THEY MAY HIRE HIM AGAIN. ARE THEY PUT OFF BY HIS SCANDALS? NO. THEY THINK ALL POLITICIANS ARE SCANDALOUS….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577086824255350642.html

Noonan raises a red warning flag but also explains Newt’s appeal.  In reading this it makes me think of Steven Jobs.  Fired from Apple he came back to save the company and created a new future that went way beyond Apple.  He appears to not have been the nicest person around or the easiest to work for, but he was genius.  Could Newt do the same thing especially since we need the country fixed?  Is he worth the gamble? The Republicans will have a big say in this because whoever the Republicans nominate will be the next president of the United States. 

7.   Fracking:  The left tries to make a Mountain out of an Ant Hill

Hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") is the process used by the energy industry to extract immense deposits of oil and natural gas from deep geologic formations that only a few years ago were unreachable. It involves injecting a solution of water and chemicals far underground, typically thousands of feet below groundwater supplies. FRACKING WAS FIRST USED IN OKLAHOMA IN THE 1940S AND IN THE YEARS SINCE HAS BEEN EMPLOYED IN MORE THAN A MILLION OIL AND GAS WELLS ACROSS THE NATION. There is NOT A SINGLE INDEPENDENTLY DOCUMENTED INSTANCE OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION BY FRACKING ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, a fact that was confirmed as recently as May by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson during congressional testimony.

So why did the EPA announce Thursday in a draft report that CHEMICALS "LIKELY" ASSOCIATED WITH FRACKING WERE FOUND AT A DRILLING SITE NEAR PAVILION, WYO.? Big Green activists who are determined to stop fracking will loudly proclaim from every media rooftop in coming days that there is now "proof" that fracking endangers drinking water across America. Here's what these ideologically blinded zealots won't tell you:

The next two sentences in the EPA announcement quoted in the opening paragraph state: "EPA also re-tested private and public drinking water wells in the community. The samples were consistent with CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED IN EARLIER EPA RESULTS RELEASED IN 2010 AND ARE GENERALLY BELOW ESTABLISHED HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS." By "below," the EPA means that chemicals in the groundwater do not exceed acceptable health and safety standards….

….The facts remain as they were stated by Jackson in May: The EPA has not yet documented a single case in which fracking caused groundwater contamination.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/12/here-comes-another-rush-judgment-fracking/1987696#ixzz1g2U1y97F

Fracking is safe.  We have more than 1,000,000 wells fracked and there is absolutely no evidence of environmental damage even when there have been accidents.

8.   Jon Stewart on Christmas—Funny but Wrong

The Rhode Island controversy over Gov. Lincoln Chafee's decision to call the decorated spruce tree in the State House rotunda a "holiday tree" instead of a "Christmas tree" spilled over to Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" program on Dec. 6.

During a segment on the “Tree Fighting Ceremony” that focused on Fox News' assertion that there is a culture war against Christmas, Stewart said, "Perhaps you'd prefer to celebrate Christmas the way our Founding Fathers did."

Then he cut to a video clip from a documentary from the History channel cable network that stated: "On Dec. 25, 1789, the United States Congress sat in session and continued to stay open on Christmas Day for most of the next 67 years."…

… The web page "Dates of Sessions of the Congress, 1789-present" says that the last session of 1789 for both the House and the Senate was Sept. 29. By the time Christmas came around, Congress had been out of session for nearly three months. Both bodies reconvened on the first Monday in January 1790.

The web page also shows that there were three years from 1789 to 1857 when Congress had a formal recess that extended over Christmas Day. But that doesn't mean they were on the job on Dec. 25 during all the remaining years.

To find out, we went through the journals that were the predecessors of The Congressional Record.

So how many times did the House and Senate meet on Christmas Day during the first 68 years of Congress?

Once each….

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/dec/09/jon-stewart/comic-jon-stewart-says-early-congress-met-most-chr/

9.   19 Everyday Victories that you can Enjoy

1.      Whenever I’m waiting for the bus and it stops so that the door is right in front of me.

2.      Getting that popcorn kernel unstuck from in between my gum and tooth.

3.      Go to public bathroom and it’s empty!

4.      When I’m approaching a red light and don’t have to brake before it turns green again…

http://cavemancircus.com/2011/12/07/19-minor-everyday-victories-that-are-way-enjoyable/

What’s your favorite?  Keep reading there are 15 more.

The Occupy Movement becomes a Parody of Itself

What’s new today

Our #1 story discusses how the OWS is becoming a parody of itself.  #2 talks of how the facts are conservative and how leftist solutions so often fail.  #3 compares the apparent double standard between the way local government is treating the OWS vs the way they treated the TEA Party.  Peggy Noonan graces us with article #4 looking at the glue that holds the country together.  It is failing us now? #5 brings us good news.  Is America heading into a new boom? It appears that just might be the case. #6 looks at the relationship of the enormous cost of college and student loans.   #7 gives you a dictionary of liberal terms and what they actually mean.  #8 gives us the latest figures on the popularity of Obamacare.  It isn’t very good if you are a liberal. 

1.   Occupy Wall Street starts to Parody itself

OCCUPY WALL STREET IS DESCENDING RAPIDLY INTO A CARICATURE OF THE ORWELLIAN FARCE ON WHICH IT WAS PREDICATED: ANIMAL FARM.

"Never mind the milk, comrades!" cried Napoleon, placing himself in front of the buckets. "That will be attended to. The harvest is more important. Comrade Snowball will lead the way. I shall follow in a few minutes. Forward, comrades! The hay is waiting."

So the animals trooped down to the hayfield to begin the harvest, and when they came back in the evening it was noticed that the milk had disappeared. - Animal Farm, Chapter II

Volunteers who are preparing redistributed food for the OWSers are going on a mini-strike because the one percent in New York City who is unlucky enough not to have a roof over their head has been muscling in on the redistributive bounty of OWS.

“THE OCCUPY WALL STREET VOLUNTEER KITCHEN STAFF LAUNCHED A ‘COUNTER’ REVOLUTION YESTERDAY,” reports the New York Post, “because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for ‘professional homeless’ people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.”

What a bunch of Kulaks, those homeless! You know? AS OPPOSED TO THE “TRUE” HOMELESS OF THE OCCUPY WALL STREET CROWD WHO HAVE TO LIVE IN THEIR PARENTS’ BASEMENTS UNTIL THEY GET A JOB.

I guess it takes one professional con man to know another. But I thought Occupy Wall Street was about helping the dispossessed, the homeless or people about to become homeless? Once you go “pro” as homeless, apparently, you don’t qualify for all the perks and benefits that the amateur homeless get. Or maybe the professional homeless don’t belong to the right union….

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2011/10/28/ows_goes_all_ows_on_itself

Ah, the joys of leftist causes.  The Animal Farm analogy is perfect for what is going on.

2.   The Facts of Life Even for OWS are Conservative

Peeking through Occupy Wall Street's cloudy drum sessions, group speeches, and celebrity visits are a few rays of reality's sunlight. THESE GLIMMERS OF THE REAL WORLD SHOW THAT EVEN THE CAMPERS OF ZUCCOTTI PARK AREN'T IMMUNE TO MARGARET THATCHER'S FAMOUS DECLARATION THAT "THE FACTS OF LIFE ARE CONSERVATIVE."

Conservatism is the natural political outgrowth from the real life experience. HUMANS ARE NATURALLY FLAWED, GREEDY, AND UNTRUSTWORTHY. Conservatives recognize that fact and promote the market system and divided government in order to pit one greedy person against another.

Conversely, the left continually denies and fights against human nature (inevitably losing to it). FOR LEFTISTS, IT'S ALWAYS A MATTER OF FINDING THE RIGHT HUMAN TO RULE -- the disinterested regulator, the consumer-protecting bureaucrat, the messianic president, etc. THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE OWS PROTESTS: TO REPLACE ONE GROUP OF SELF-INTERESTED PEOPLE ON WALL STREET WITH ANOTHER GROUP OF MAGICALLY NOT SELF-INTERESTED PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT. BUT BECAUSE GOVERNMENT ISN'T MAGIC, UTOPIAS NEVER QUITE WORK OUT IN REAL LIFE -- not even in Zuccotti Park. In one news story after another, Thatcher's "facts of life" are on display. Let's look at four examples….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/the_facts_of_life_are_conservative_even_in_zuccotti_park.html

Life is tough for liberals if they get power.  It never works out as they planned.

3.   Double Standards?  OWS vs TEA Party

TEA PARTY GROUPS ACROSS THE NATION ARE ACCUSING LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS OF A DOUBLE STANDARD – CHARGING THEM FEES TO HOLD RALLIES IN PUBLIC PARKS, WHILE ALLOWING OCCUPY PROTESTERS TO SET UP CAMP FOR FREE.

“I find it extremely frustrating and upsetting,” said Colleen Owens, a spokesperson for the Richmond Tea Party. “It is definitely a slap in the face.”

Owens is demanding a refund of about $10,000 from the city of Richmond, claiming her group was charged for rallies at Kanawha Plaza but the Occupy protesters have not been charged….

…. “If they are not going to apply the law equally, then they should refund our money,” she said. “They’ve been camped out there for almost two weeks and they have not paid one dime. They are not being held accountable to follow the law, yet we were expected to follow the law.”

SIMILAR ACCUSATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY OTHER TEA PARTY ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE NATION – INCLUDING ATLANTA, WINSTON-SALEM, NC, AND NASHVILLE.

Judson Phillips, of the Tea Party Nation, told Fox News that he’s been getting e-mail from conservatives across the country wondering why they were charged by the government to hold rallies….

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/daily-dispatch/cities-treating-ows-better-than-tea-party.html

It’s more than a double standard.  The TEA Party had rallies that were hours long, clean up after themselves and didn’t require police with riot gear to keep them in control.  The OWS has been camping out for weeks, created not only a mess, but attracted vermin and have been a den of crime. 

4.   The American Glue

….People are increasingly fearing the divisions within, even the potential coming apart of, our country. Rich/poor, black/white, young/old, red/blue: The things that divide us are not new, yet THERE'S A SENSE NOW THAT THE GLUE THAT HELD US TOGETHER FOR MORE THAN TWO CENTURIES HAS THINNED AND CRACKED WITH AGE. That it was allowed to thin and crack, that the modern era wore it out.

WHAT WAS THE GLUE? A LOVE OF COUNTRY BASED ON A SHARED KNOWLEDGE OF HOW AND WHY IT BEGAN; A BROAD FEELING AMONG OUR CITIZENS THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING PROVIDENTIAL IN OUR BEGINNINGS; a gratitude that left us with a sense that we should comport ourselves in a way unlike the other nations of the world, that more was expected of us, and not unjustly—"To whom much is given much is expected"; a general understanding that we were something new in history, a nation founded on ideals and aspirations—liberty, equality—and not mere grunting tribal wants. We were from Europe but would not be European: No formal class structure here, no limits, from the time you touched ground all roads would lead forward. You would be treated not as your father was but as you deserved. That's from "The Killer Angels," a historical novel about the civil war fought to right a wrong the Founders didn't right. We did in time, and at great cost. What a country

BUT THERE IS A BROAD FEAR OUT THERE THAT WE ARE COMING APART, OR RATHER LIVING THROUGH THE MOMENT WE'LL LOOK BACK ON AS THE BEGINNING OF THE GREAT COMING APART. Economic crisis, cultural stresses: "Half the country isn't speaking to the other half," a moderate Democrat said the other day. She was referring to liberals of her acquaintance who know little of the South and who don't wish to know of it, who write it off as apart from them, maybe beneath…

…There's a lot to rebel against, to want to throw off. If they want to make a serious economic and political critique, they should make the one Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner make in "Reckless Endangerment": THAT REAL ELITES IN WASHINGTON RIGGED THE SYSTEM FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS, BECAME RICH AND POWERFUL, CAUSED THE GREAT CATERING, AND THEN "SLIPPED QUIETLY FROM THE SCENE."

It is a blow-by-blow recounting OF HOW POLITICIANS—DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS—PASSED THE LAWS THAT ENCOURAGED THE BANKS TO MAKE THE LOANS THAT WOULD NEVER BE REPAID, and that would result in your lost job. Specifically IT IS THE STORY OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC, the mortgage insurers, and how their politically connected CEOs, especially Fannie's Franklin Raines and James Johnson, TOOK ACTIONS THAT TANKED THE AMERICAN ECONOMY AND WALKED AWAY RICH. It began in the early 1990s, in the Clinton administration, and continued under the Bush administration, with the help of an entrenched Congress that wanted only two things: to receive campaign contributions and to be re-elected.

The story is a scandal, AND THE BOOK SHOULD BE THE BIBLE OF OCCUPY WALL STREET. But they seem as incapable of seeing government as part of the problem as Republicans seem of seeing business as part of the problem….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104577002262150454258.html

Peggy Noonan’s take on this is more middle of the road than I am, but this is the kind of op-ed is one that everyone should read and think about.  I see government as not the solution, but the problem.  I think that business’s contribution to the current crisis wouldn’t have happened without the government part, and I’m right.  But business did contribute to it.  Capitalism isn’t the problem, but crony capitalism is.

5.   The Coming American Boom

….Something told me a disturbing irony was about to occur. Consider this: THE USA IS AN ENERGY POWERHOUSE. WE’VE ALL BEEN READING ABOUT THIS LATELY, ALL THAT SHALE IN THE DAKOTAS, THE UNLIMITED NATURAL GAS, THE NEW CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES, ETC. Turn on the spigot, not only would we not be importing energy, we might even be EXPORTING it in a few years. Good-bye, mullahs. Good-bye, Wahhabi maniacs. We wouldn’t even have to listen to lectures from self-righteous Norwegians!...

…..I have no intention of rehashing all that here, though I’m sure some of our “more constructive” visitors will have something to add. My intent is to point out that IT IS LIKELY A GOOD PERCENTAGE OF THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP SEES THINGS MORE OR LESS OUR WAY — AT LEAST PRIVATELY. Do you think, say, Robert Rubin really doesn’t want to see more drilling? The man used to run Citibank. What about Rahm Emanuel, who made a fortune on Wall Street in no time flat? William Daley?

I could go on, but you get my point. Even Barack Obama (confused and ideologically deluded as he is) may be playing a cynical game here as well. Liberalism, progressivism — call it what you will — is a protection racket straight out of the Mafia. You say one thing for cover and you do another. And not just in the obvious sense of Al Gore becoming a billionaire over AGW or Arianna Huffington swindling AOL. It filters all the way down.

So while on the one hand Obama may be hiring czars by the dozens, putting bureaucratic martinets in charge of the EPA, and regulating our society into oblivion, THE SPIGOT (SECRETLY, QUIETLY… MAYBE NOT SO QUIETLY EVEN) IS SLOWLY OPENING.

THE QUESTION IS — HOW FAST? AN AMERICAN ECONOMIC BOOM IS COMING, BUT WHEN?...

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/10/28/will-capitalism-save-obama/?singlepage=true

The article was asking whether this would kick in soon enough to save Obama.  Glenn Reynolds doesn’t think so and if what the left always tells us when someone wants to drill somewhere we won’t see anything for another 8 years.  However, people are hired to drill, etc., but I tend to agree with Reynolds.  It’s happening so the next president will get a lot of credit. 

6.   The Education Scam

Singing in the populist hymnal he has taken up to secure a second term, Barack Obama raises his voice to the heavens, decrying supposedly bad actors whose selfish conduct he deems the cause of so much middle-class suffering -- the Republicans, the House of Representatives, the millionaires and billionaires with their private jets, the banks.

And yet on Wednesday, HE MOVED YET AGAIN TO ENRICH ONE OF THE SECTORS WITHIN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROFOUND FINANCIAL PRESSURE ON THE MIDDLE CLASS -- HIGHER EDUCATION.

The staggering inflation in the cost of higher education since the federal government got involved in lending money to Americans for college in 1965 beggars description. One federal study found that BETWEEN 1982 AND 2007, TUITION COSTS ROSE 432 PERCENT WHILE FAMILY INCOME ROSE ONLY 147

It is impossible to imagine that costs would have been even higher had the federal loan system not been in place at all. In other words, WHILE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES HAVE CONTINUED TO GROW, THEY HAVE SIMPLY BEEN GOBBLED UP BY UNIVERSITIES.

According to the invaluable Web site finaid.org, the average graduate of a four-year college in the United States now leaves school saddled with $27,000 in debt. The reforms the president announced to the national student-loan system in front of an audience of screaming college kids in Denver on Wednesday won’t actually do very much to help them -- and will do nothing to help people out of college now and coping with their indebtedness.

THE REFORMS ARE COMPLICATED AND BANAL, BUT THE BEST ANY ELIGIBLE STUDENT CAN GET OUT OF THEM (AND NOT ALL OF THEM CAN) IS AN INTEREST-RATE REDUCTION OF 50 BASIS POINTS, OR HALF A PERCENT.

So say you’re an average student carrying a $27,000 debt. Your monthly payment is about $208. With the reforms Obama is instituting, and ASSUMING AN INTEREST RATE OF 6 PERCENT, YOUR MONTHLY PAYMENT WILL DROP $9 A MONTH TO $199. STAGGERING….

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/college_loan_scam_nC7ICPN37lYStja83PBSaN#ixzz1c5soxBex

Obama actions are like the Shakespearian line:  “It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”

7.   How to speak Liberal

Earlier this week, Jonathan Bines did a post called “How to Speak Republican“.

It was very inspirational because I have to tell you, it’s also pretty tough for most people to figure out what liberals mean sometimes. You think they’re on your side, but they’re not. You believe they’re saying “yes,” but they mean “no.” You think they’re offering you a ride home, and next thing you know, you’re at the bottom of a tidal pool and they’re swimming away.

SOMEONE HAS TO TRANSLATE WHAT THEY MEAN. Well, have no fear, because after studying liberals for years, I’ve got the lingo down.

COMPASSION: Feeling good about yourself for wanting to give away money you didn’t earn to people you hope will vote for your side.

“CONSCIENCE OF THE SENATE”: KKK member.

FLAG: Something to be burned and walked on at protests or alternately, waved close to election time.

GREED: Wanting to keep money you’ve earned instead of having it spent on Bridges to Nowhere and government loans to people who’ve contributed to Obama’s campaign….

http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/how-to-speak-liberal/

My favorite was an Unfair Attack which means “You quoted me.”   

8.   Healthcare law's popularity hits new low

Support for Democrats' healthcare reform has hit its lowest point since the law passed in March 2010, says a new monthly poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

After months of split support for the law, 51 PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS TO THE LATEST POLL HAD AN UNFAVORABLE VIEW while only 34 percent had a favorable impression.

The key reason for the change, the poll found, was DEMOCRATS' WANING SUPPORT: Even though they remain more favorable to the law than Republicans and Independents, the proportion of Democrats with favorable views has decreased from about two-thirds to just 52 percent in October….

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/190399-healthcare-laws-popularity-hits-a-new-low-poll-says

I don’t think the country will forever remember Barack Obama for what he wanted them to.  They will remember him as a disaster.