Somebody should make sure that the White House staff gets the place all spruced up and sets out the good china for dinner, because the Obamas are expecting company. And who is the very special guest? None other than the president’s predecessor. George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, are expected to return to the White House later this month to be honored by President Barack Obama with the unveiling of their official portraits that will hang at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The White House confirmed on Friday that the Bushes are slated to revisit their Washington home of eight years on May 31 for a rare joint appearance between the current and past president.
Bush spokesman Freddy Ford said, “The Bushes are looking forward to being back in Washington and seeing some of their friends. They appreciate the Obamas’ hospitality in hosting the portrait hanging.”
Well, it’s not as if Obama had much of a choice here, and you would expect both men to be gracious and professional about it. This is something of a rare event for W, who doesn’t do much in public these days with the exception of charity events. And that’s kind of refreshing, to be honest. It’s something of a return to what used to be traditional among former occupants of the West Wing, including Reagan and Bush’s father. Once out of office, they tended to stay out of the way and not get too critical of those who came after them or try to keep influencing policy. Clinton was definitely an exception to that rule, but Bush 43 seems content to live his life and leave Washington to run itself.
Of course, as The Hill notes, there may still be something of an awkward moment or two in store.
But despite his self-imposed exile, Bush has made headlines in recent days. The former president offered an endorsement of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney earlier this week after speaking at a human-rights forum in Washington on Monday.
“I’m for Mitt Romney,” the former president said as the doors of the elevator he was riding closed, according to ABC News.
That part shouldn’t come as much of a surprise either, really. It’s not as if W has been out on the campaign trail stumping for Romney or anyone else. A reporter caught him getting on the elevator and asked who he would be supporting. The guy’s still a Republican… what was he supposed to say?
I don’t expect Bush to try to politicize the portrait ceremony or give any red meat interviews while he’s in town. He’ll probably go through with the ceremony, thank everyone and then head back home. The only real question is, will Obama be able to restrain himself and respond in kind? After all, he’s still blaming his soon to be guest for the economy right up to the present day.
Alternate headline: “Fake Indian in real trouble.” I don’t know, guys. I’m grudgingly coming around to the idea that maybe it’d be better if she won in November. We can’t afford to lose her; she’s a daily one-woman content goldmine for the blogosphere, every bit the equal of Martha Coakley. A blogger has to eat, and she’s serving up an awful lot of pow wow traffic chow. But apparently it’s based on someone else’s recipe:
Two of the possibly plagiarized recipes, said in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook to have been passed down through generations of Oklahoma Native American members of the Cherokee tribe, are described in a New York Times News Service story as originating at Le Pavilion, a fabulously expensive French restaurant in Manhattan. The dishes were said to be particular favorites of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Cole Porter.
The two recipes, “Cold Omelets with Crab Meat” and “Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing,” appear in an article titled “Cold Omelets with Crab Meat,” written by Pierre Franey of the New York Times News Service that was published in the August 22, 1979 edition of the Virgin Islands Daily News, a copy of which can be seen here.
Ms. Warren’s 1984 recipe for Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing is a word-for-word copy of Mr. Franey’s 1979 recipe.
Mrs. Warren’s 1984 recipe for Cold Omelets with Crab Meat contains all four of the ingredients listed in Mr. Franey’s 1979 recipe in the exact same portion but lists five additional ingredients. More significantly, her instructions are virtually a word for word copy of Mr. Franey’s instructions from this 1979 article.
Among the ingredients for Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing: “Imported mustard,” Worcestershire sauce, cognac, and of course crab, all presumably readily available to a, er, 19th-century agrarian Cherokee settlement in Oklahoma. No wonder Scott Brown’s campaign is now fundraising off of this clusterfark. Two videos for you here, one a heartrending Ken Burns-ian look at the tribulations of a 0/32 Native American via Mary Katharine Ham, the other a Fox News interview with Cherokee generalogist and Warren skeptic Twila Barnes. Enjoy.
Update: Can’t get the Barnes video to embed for some reason. You can watch it here.
Dave Deptula, a retired three-star general, knows the risks associated with flying older aircraft. While serving as the joint task force commander in 1998 and 1999 for Operation Northern Watch, Deptula flew 82 combat missions over Iraq. On one mission, as he was headed to a tanker to refuel, the master caution light came on, revealing a problem with the plane. His fuel gauge went to zero. Meanwhile, he was 500 miles away from his base. Fortunately, he was able to land safely.
“The insulation was so old it simply had deteriorated to the extent where it came off and all of the wiring shorted out,” Deptula recalled. “Those are the kinds of things that happen when airplanes get to certain ages.”
Deptula’s aircraft was grounded for repairs, requiring another set of planes to travel from Kadena Air Force Base in Japan, on other side of the world. It’s not an isolated incident. In the years that followed, the Air Force was forced to ground its entire F-15 fleet in 2007 after one fighter disintegrated during a training mission in Missouri.
These frightening experiences demonstrate the consequences of an aging aviation force. Deptula worries that fiscal constraints imposed on the military — including more than $492 billion of mandatory defense cuts on the horizon — will result in future challenges.
“I hear people talk about, well you know, the U.S. military spends more money than the next 17 nations combined,” Deptula said. “Well, the next 17 nations combined are not committed to maintaining peace and stability around the world. We are.”
The Heritage Foundation featured Deptula’s story as a part of a three-part series highlighting the risks of budget cuts to the nation’s military. The first part told the story of Col. Kerry Kachejian, an Army Reserve engineer, who relied on sport-utility vehicles during his service in Iraq.
Deptula uses the term “geriatric aviation force” to describe the current state of affairs. He has firsthand experience. He earned his wings and flew an F-15 for the first time in 1977. Thirty years later, another Deptula boarded the aircraft. His son, Lt. David A. Deptula II, flew the same F-15 at Kadena Air Force Base in Japan.
The Wall Street Journal documented the amazing father-son story last fall to illustrate the challenges facing the aging force. The elder Deptula recounted how the fighter was originally designed for a 4,000-hour service life. That was later extended to 8,000 hours.
“We have really flown these aircraft well beyond what originally would be believed as their replacement lifetime,” Deptula said of the F-15s. “And now, because of some of the fiscal constraints that are being imposed on the Department of Defense, there is consideration being given to extending the lifetime even further.”
Before retiring from the Air Force in 2010 as a lieutenant general, Deptula traveled to Kadena for a high-aspect mission with his son. He flew the F-15 and saw some of its deficiencies compared to newer aircraft like the F-22 and F-35.
Heritage’s James Jay Carafano, an expert on defense and national security issues, worries that under the Obama administration, the military will continue to suffer from ill-advised budgeting.
“Today’s air forces are the oldest in the history of U.S. air forces,” Carafano explained. “Replacing old airframes and ensuring the U.S. maintains its superiority over potential adversaries is a national security priority. Yet Obama has done little to show he takes the challenge of modernizing the air fleets seriously.”
The result is troubling: The U.S. military is jeopardy of sacrificing dominance in the air environment that came with advancements in the 1960s and 1970s. Simply modernizing and updating aircraft won’t provide the same edge against adversaries.
With more budget cuts looming, however, will Congress do anything to reverse course?
Rob Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy, an investigative journalism operation at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter: @RobertBluey
Campaigns are not won on attack ads alone. A candidate for any office has to roll out a positive vision of their agenda, even when running against a failing incumbent. Alternately, a campaign can do a little of both in the same spot, and that’s what Team Romney tries to do in the new ad rolling out today, “Day One”:
You want positive? The tone of the spot is upbeat, optimistic, and colorful, and it spells out Romney’s priorities for his presidency — jobs, the economy, energy, and more jobs. Competitive? The spot hits Obama on every point: approving the Keystone pipeline, reversing Obama’s policies on taxes and spending, and most importantly, replacing Obmacare with something that works without blowing up an already-disastrous entitlement overhang. It’s a smart, well-produced ad that challengers can run more effectively than incumbents in any cycle. Don’t forget that Barack Obama ran on similar Day One promises in 2008, made effective by essentially running against George Bush more than John McCain, including closing Gitmo and imposing bars on lobbyists serving in his administration. How did those Day One promises turn out? Er ….
I’m sure we’ll see a similar ad in this cycle from Team Obama eventually, although it might be difficult to put an upbeat, positive spin on continuing the status quo while depicting it as a change. That’s the tough part of running for a second term.
We got a bunch of excited e-mails when this story broke an hour or so ago, my favorite of which was this (in its entirety): why are you blacking out BRIETBART SCOOP of OBAMA KENYA PAMPHLET ??????? The terrible truth: Ed already had a few posts queued up and my shift hadn’t started yet so not until now could the “blackout” be lifted. I suspect that e-mail is typical, though, of the enthusiasm with which Birthers will greet this news, even though Joel Pollak’s perfectly clear in his piece that he accepts that O was born in Honolulu. Key bit:
[Obama's then-agent Jay] Acton, who spoke to Breitbart News by telephone, confirmed precise details of the booklet and said that it cost the agency tens of thousands of dollars to produce.
He indicated that while “almost nobody” wrote his or her own biography, the non-athletes in the booklet, whom “the agents deal[t] with on a daily basis,” were “probably” approached to approve the text as presented…
The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. Moreover, several contemporaneous accounts of Obama’s background describe Obama as having been born in Hawaii.
The biography does, however, fit a pattern in which Obama–or the people representing and supporting him–manipulate his public persona.
The point, as Pollak explains, isn’t that the Kenya detail should be taken at face value but rather that it’s another case of Obama, who once famously described himself as a “blank slate” for voters, re-inventing his identity for professional gain. An author born in colonial Kenya sounds more worldly at first blush than one born in Honolulu, just as a law professor who’s 1/32 Cherokee sounds more in tune with the minority experience in America than a white woman from Oklahoma. Beyond that, though, this is a story about the media: I’d bet cash money that some reporter somewhere stumbled upon this booklet in years past and politely suppressed the info rather than do the journalist’s job of asking questions and finding out why the mistake in the booklet was made. The alternative, that the media was so uninterested in O’s background that they never checked his professional listings, is grimly possible, but I’m skeptical. I think this is a case where someone probably heard about the booklet and ignored it in order to play gatekeeper so that the Birthers couldn’t exploit the information. That’s what the press has come to when the subject is Obama’s background. (See also the point-and-sputter reaction online this morning at the unfathomable possibility of a Rev. Wright attack ad.) If you doubt that I’m right, sit back and watch the screeching to which Pollak and the Breitbart crew will now be subjected even though no one’s questioned their findings and they’ve dismissed repeatedly the beliefs of the Birthers who’ll make hay of this. The only “responsible” approach to this info, we’ll be told, is to suppress it.
As icing on the cake, here’s AB himself dismissing the Birthers on Joy Behar’s show last year. Click the image to watch and skip to 4:30. Exit question: Did Obama’s booklet bio really list him as “a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation”? I’d like to hear more about that career.
Update (Ed): Also, I have to stop writing at a certain point to prepare for my show. I did see this, but figured AP would have more time and write a more thorough post than I could at that point — and I was right. I did discuss the story on my show, with Kerry Picket of the Washington Times.
Update (Allahpundit): Miriam Goderich, who helped represent Obama at the same literary agency, issued this statement to Political Wire:
“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
It appears that our Congresspeople, et al, have a thief in their midst. (Or is it, thieves?) Highly irregular, this: Puzzling break-ins over the last month at the offices of at least three House members and several committees have U.S. Capitol Police gumshoes working to find a pattern and the culprits, with missing items ranging from cash and expensive computer equipment to autographed baseballs and alcohol. In at least four of the cases, thieves broke into the offices at night when doors were locked, leading some staffers to believe they were victims of an inside job.
“The evidence points to someone with access to my office, and other offices in the Capitol complex, as the perpetrator,” freshman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., surmised in a letter to the House’s Office of the Chief Administrative Officer.
Other offices hit—many of which handle information dealing with issues of national security, though nothing of a sensitive nature was reportedly taken—include those of Reps. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and Jon Runyan, R-N.J.; the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security; and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. …
In each case, items stolen were high in street value. Computer monitors, cameras, and cash were taken most frequently; other items included blazers, personal iPods, and in three cases, alcohol. Lewis’s office reportedly lost four signed baseballs, six bottles of wine, and a $200 set of presidential Easter eggs. In at least four cases, thieves broke into the offices during the evening while doors were locked.
So, what do you think? A routine D.C.-style grab-and-go pilferage by random passers-by, maintenance crew, or the like; or, are the street-value items perhaps just a red herring for something more… pernicious? Rep. Lewis is on the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Gowdy the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and Rep. Runyan the House Armed Services Committee, and a couple of those committee rooms were burgled, too — but there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that data of a sensitive nature could have been compromised. Our crime-filled nation’s capital is fraught with break-ins on a daily basis, including the Capitol Hill neighborhood, but, c’mon… Capitol offices? Those would have to be some of the more audacious thieves in the history of thievery.
The end is nigh! Or so our esteemed environmental prophets are telling us… yet again. Humans will need two Earths to support our lifestyles by 2030 because we are draining the world’s resources so quickly, a new report has warned. Produced by the World Wildlife Fund, the Zoological Society of London, the Global Footprint Network and the European Space Agency, the 2012 Living Planet Report measures humans’ ecological footprint on the planet.
At the moment, the picture is bleak, according to Jim Leape, Director General of WWF International, with resources being drained 50 per cent faster than they can be replenished.
He said: “We’re all familiar with the stories of what we’re doing to Planet Earth, the ways in which we’re changing the climate, depleting the world’s fisheries, destroying the world’s forests. …
“The report tells us that we’re already using the earth’s resources 50 per cent faster than it can be replenished, and that, if we don’t change our ways, by 2030 we will need two planets to support us.”
Over the decades, doomsayers have predicted that the growing pace of human activity simply isn’t sustainable. Catastrophes ranging from war, famine, and even human extinction are just a few years ’round the corner, they insist, mainly stemming from a crisis in global energy supplies. They imagine that the finite supply of oil on earth and our increasing production means that we’re sucking the planet dry with alarming rapidity.
The greens are especially freaked out these days, as economic growth in the population-dense countries of China and India means more of their citizens are becoming wealthy enough to afford cars and electricity and other modern conveniences (quelle horreur!), adding to worldwide oil demand. Yet, we’ve sailed right past these supposed apocalyptic moments every time, with little fanfare.
The date of the predicted peak has moved over the years. It was once supposed to arrive by Thanksgiving 2005. Then the “unbridgeable supply demand gap” was expected “after 2007.” Then it was to arrive in 2011. Now “there is a significant risk of a peak before 2020.” …
The first was in the 1880s, when production was concentrated in Pennsylvania and it was said that no oil would be found west of the Mississippi. Then oil was found in Texas and Oklahoma. Similar fears emerged after the two world wars. And in the 1970s, it was said that the world was going to fall off the “oil mountain.” But since 1978, world oil output has increased by 30%.
Just in the years 2007 to 2009, for every barrel of oil produced in the world, 1.6 barrels of new reserves were added. And other developments—from more efficient cars and advances in batteries, to shale gas and wind power—have provided reasons for greater confidence in our energy resiliency. Yet the fear of peak oil maintains its powerful grip.
President Obama is partial to this sort of scaremongering rhetoric, too. A couple months back, when he was trotting out the energy-theme from his campaign-distractions wheelhouse, he was fond of iterating sentences along the line of: “After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.” …What the what? Anyone who knows anything about energy knows that this statement assumes proven reserves — but new discoveries and further technological/economic innovations are making more oil available for extraction all the time. Oil resources might be finite, but our proven reserves sure aren’t. For instance, just last week, the GAO announced that the Green River Formation in a few of our Western states is sitting atop oil supplies greater than the rest of the world’s current proven reserves, combined. So much for that “2 percent” nonsense.
And, by the way, what might be this new study suggest as the solution to this ostensible emergency?
Mr Leape stresses that the starting point for reducing our impact on the planet is to end our love affair with fossil fuels – “the energy technology of the 20th century” – and switch to renewable energy.
Mm hmm. Of course, I’m sure that his proposal is a completely dispassionate, not-at- all political exhortation, riiight?
Here’s the real deal: The earth has never been a better place in which to live. Yes, I said it. Worldwide, people live longer, consume more calories, earn more money, bury fewer children, and enjoy more modern conveniences than ever before — even though the world population has more than doubled in less than half a century. And thanks to ever-improving efficiency, innovation, and new technologies, life can continue to get better, and our demand for oil may even flatten out eventually. What’s with all the gloom and doom? If catastrophe really is on it’s way, it’ll be because nobody seems to be able to lock it up and get their fiscal house in order, not because we need a second planet earth.
Via William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, who’s owned this story along with the Breitbart team. Her name is Twila Barnes, she’s 7/32 Cherokee, and she just dropped a truth bomb on the Democrats’ favorite non-minority “minority”:You see, Ms. Warren, some of us have independently done our own research and we know you have no documentation supporting your claim of Cherokee ancestry.* We wonder why you believe you have the right to claim Cherokee ancestry and to call yourself a Native American when you have no evidence to support your claim. While you cling to a family story and the inaccurate report that ONE document was found that supports your claim, we real Cherokees understand that those things mean nothing. You see, we Cherokees have lots and lots and lots of documentation supporting our claims of our ancestry. Our Cherokee ancestors are found on every roll of the Cherokee Nation (30+ rolls!) dating back to before the removal and in all sorts of other documentation, including but not limited to claims against the US government for lost property; the Moravian missionary records; ration lists before and after the forced removal, etc…yet your ancestors are found in NONE of those records…
Of course, you say you only “checked the box” in an attempt to meet others like you, but that doesn’t make sense. If one is claiming to be Cherokee and wants to meet other Cherokees, they don’t “check a box” on a job application or in a directory for their profession! They go to where Cherokees are…
*Note – Several people who are experienced researchers in Cherokee genealogy have been working together exploring Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry. They have uncovered many documents that, combined, paint a very clear picture that Warren descends from white people who had no connection whatsoever to the Cherokee Nation. These documents will be posted soon.
At this point she really would be better off calling a presser and putting this thing to bed by acknowledging that she has no proof of her ancestry. She could profess innocence: “My parents told me I was part Cherokee, they had no reason to lie, but I realize I should have confirmed the oral history with documentary evidence before listing it in a professional guide.” She’s held off on doing that because she needs to stand firm to impress the left when those darned wingnuts are in attack mode, but now that she has bona fide Cherokee taking her to task for claiming their heritage without proof, she’s facing a far more politically sympathetic antagonist. Says Larry Sabato, “It’s glued to her now. This is going to be with her throughout the campaign… I don’t know how it goes away when you have so many unanswered questions.” I think it’ll go away, more or less, if she does what I’ve suggested. We’ll still goof on her for it but the daily drip-drip-drip will at least be over for undecided voters in Massachusetts.
Here’s Barnes on with Howie Carr earlier today. Click the image to listen.
Monday’s NYT poll: Romney by two among women. Today’s Fox News poll: Obama by 22 among women. Second look at ignoring polls until September? Among independents, 34 percent back Romney, 29 percent support Obama and more than a third are undecided or say they won’t vote (36 percent). Last month, independents broke for Romney by 46 percent to 33 percent. The gender gap is alive and well, as women continue to be more likely to back Obama (55 percent to 33 percent), while men are more inclined to support Romney (46 to 37 percent)…
By a 13-percentage-point margin, voters would pick Romney over Obama to manage their personal money (47 percent to 34 percent). The former governor also comes out on top as the better business partner (48 to 39 percent). Voters think Romney would do a better job creating jobs by a slim 2-point margin (43 to 41 percent).
If hiring a life coach, Obama is the preferred choice by a wide margin, 47 percent to 33 percent. In addition, voters prefer Obama to pick the next Supreme Court justice (46 to 38 percent).
If we can frame this election as “job-creating businessman versus life-coach-in-chief,” I’m A-OK with that. The sample here, in case you’re wondering, is 42D/34R/20I. Last months it was 43D/37R/17I, an only slightly narrower gap — and yet in that poll O and Mitt tied at 46. The key to Romney’s downturn, it seems, is his sharp decline among independents, but I have no theory for why that might have happened. What’s doubly strange is that indies still favor Romney on some key metrics. When asked who they trust more to create jobs, they support Romney 45/23 over O; when asked whether they approve of Obama’s job performance generally and on the economy specifically, they split 35/57 and 30/67, respectively. So how is Obama gaining ground overall? It’s the economy, stupid:
Last month his overall job approval was at 45/51 but now it’s at 49/47, presumably on the strength of this spurt of optimism. I’m at a loss to explain that after last month’s crapola jobs report unless low-information voters are watching the unemployment rate drop and ignoring the fine print about why it’s dropping. It’s not because the economy’s engine is starting to rev; it’s because participation in the labor force keeps shrinking. Savor the irony that O might — might — get re-elected because just enough undecideds are impressed by unemployment numbers that are being driven downward by … chronic long-term unemployment.
This data point is good news for Obama too:
Romney’s counting on the “are you better off than you were four years ago?” logic to put him over the top, but as we get closer to the election you’ll see a heavy-handed effort by Team Hopenchange to remind voters that four years ago we were staggering through the financial crisis. According to these numbers, a significant number of voters are already using that as their yardstick for economic improvement. If O can build on that, economic stagnation will be less of a liability for him than thought.
Two bits of good news for Romney, though. First, the Bain attacks from the primaries obviously haven’t hurt him much:
Romney’s counting on the “are you better off than you were four years ago?” logic to put him over the top, but as we get closer to the election you’ll see a heavy-handed effort by Team Hopenchange to remind voters that four years ago we were staggering through the financial crisis. According to these numbers, a significant number of voters are already using that as their yardstick for economic improvement. If O can build on that, economic stagnation will be less of a liability for him than thought.
Two bits of good news for Romney, though. First, the Bain attacks from the primaries obviously haven’t hurt him much:
Not only is Romney closing the “likability gap,” Obama’s life-coach stature notwithstanding, but his favorables are actually higher now among indies than Obama’s are. For O, independents split 39/49; for Mitt, they split 42/42. That too will change as the campaign turns nasty but it’s a relief to start at even instead of deep underwater, as Romney’s favorables were during the primaries. Finally, one last potentially significant data point: When respondents were asked whether Romney would have ordered the Bin Laden raid, 62 percent said yes versus just 24 percent who said no. Among indies, it was 70/16. O’s big counterterrorism talking point isn’t so big after all.
The last Marquette poll, which had Walker leading Barrett by one thin point, made me want to drink whiskey in the daytime. This one makes me want to drink champagne. Yesterday’s dKos/PPP poll had nearly identical numbers so it’s safe to say this really is the state of the race in Wisconsin at this moment. I can’t believe I’m asking this, but are we headed for a Scott Walker landslide?
Republicans are more likely to say they are “absolutely certain” to vote on June 5, at 91 percent, than are Democrats and independents, both at 83 percent. In other areas of participation, Republicans also have an advantage. Sixty-two percent of Republicans say that they have tried to persuade someone to vote for or against a candidate, compared to 54 percent among Democrats and 48 percent among independents…
Another indication of Republican mobilization is a shift in the balance of Republican and Democratic partisanship over the past several months among all registered voters. In January there were two percentage points more Democrats than Republicans in the poll. That rose to eight points in February but has since declined to six points in March, three points in April and now just one point in May. When independents are asked if they feel closer to a party, the balance tips to a one-point Republican advantage in the May data. Such changes might be due to random variation from sample to sample, as the month-to-month changes are not large. However, polling by the Democratic polling firm, Public Policy Polling, finds a similar trend…
Collective bargaining continues to divide the electorate by single digits. Voters prefer to keep the current collective bargaining law rather than return to what it was prior to last year, by a 50-43 percentage point margin. Restoring collective bargaining is supported by 78 percent of Democrats and opposed by 81 percent of Republicans. Among independents, 53 percent want to keep the current law while 38 percent want to return to the previous law.
Last month Walker’s approval rating was 47/51. This month it’s 50/46. Some of that’s due to the good news on jobs in his first year in office and some of it’s surely due to Walker tapping his enormous war chest for the recall effort. But judging from that amazing split among indies on the collective bargaining law, Walker’s message that it’s been a net plus for the state has apparently penetrated. Back when the Madison protests were raging, I think big labor’s dream was to turn the Walker recall election into a referendum on public-employee unions. Then they got some unwelcome facts about the new law and clammed up about it, but it looks like they’re getting their referendum anyway. Hope they enjoy the results.
I don’t know what to make of that trend towards the GOP among the Wisconsin electorate generally, though. Two possibilities. One: Could be that the uptick in Republican identification is being driven partly by the presidential primaries that began in January and rolled on until April. Some of the anti-Obama rhetoric from Romney, Santorum, Gingrich et al. may have nudged fencesitters into the Republican column while O’s sat mostly silent on the sidelines. Two: Note that Democratic identification surged in February, shortly after Democrats announced they had the signatures needed to force a recall election. Maybe that woke up tepid Republicans and fencesitters to the possibility that Walker really might be removed and that labor would treat that as an epochal victory proving the righteousness of PEUs, resulting in a sustained pro-GOP backlash. Or, maybe this is all just the product of standard political forces at work. Walker’s spent a bunch of money to make his case and the national economy under The One continues to reek, so undecideds are reacting predictably. No wonder the DNC has apparently thrown in the towel.
All Romney needs to do now is figure out how to keep that GOP enthusiasm going and he can force O to spend a bunch of money on a state the Democrats never expected they’d need to protect. Speaking of which, Mitt’s favorable rating is now up to 40/44 from 33/46 in April, which was to be expected as hard feelings among Santorum and Gingrich fans after the bitter GOP primary start to soften. Obama will spend the next six months trying to knock it back down again. Quick, media — more stories about bullying that happened 50 years ago, stat.
Earlier today, I had an opportunity to speak with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney about the campaign and the economy, as well as Romney’s official endorsement of Connie Mack in the Republican primary for the US Senate race in Florida. Governor Romney is traveling in Florida today, and while he and Mack have often appeared together, Romney’s official endorsement came today. I got the first opportunity to ask him about it, and Romney cited Mack’s fiscal conservatism and leadership in the Republican Party as the reasons why he makes the best candidate to go toe to toe with incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson for the Senate seat in November.
We also talked quite a bit about the economy and spending, the two big themes for Romney this week on the campaign trail, but the talk turned more to debt. We spoke about the unfolding crisis in Europe, especially Greece, which Romney said was a warning signal to America and its political leadership. Romney is “very concerned” about Europe, and it underscores the need for a balanced budget, which he pledged to pursue as President.
Romney also scolded the Obama campaign for its attacks on his term at Bain Capital, especially when Obama showed up that very night to a fundraising event hosted by Tony James of Blackstone, another private-equity firm. Romney tells me that Bain and Blackstone occasionally invested in tandem, and that he has respect for their work, because it’s the same work he did at Bain. I asked about the JP Morgan loss, and the impact of Dodd-Frank, which Romney agrees did nothing to end the Too Big To Fail problem. Be sure to watch it all.
Not exactly a stunner, you say? Well, you’d be right, but it’s probably worse than what Jones admits here, too. Not only did they pull their punches towards the President in 2010, they tried to shift the blame for the Deepwater Horizon spill to the Bush administration, even though Barack Obama and his Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had been on the job for more than a year — and the lack of quick response made the situation worse. Now, though, Van Jones expresses remorse for the lack of response from the environmental community:
I’m critical of myself, first, and the environmentalists. When the oil spill had happened in the spring of 2010, there was another moment to say, ‘Hold on a second, let’s relook at energy policy in America. Should we be subsidizing companies who are risking our health immediately and in the long-term?’” We didn’t do it. You’ve never seen the environmental movement more quiet during an oil spill. I guarantee you, if John McCain had been President, with that oil spill, or George Bush had been President with that oil spill, I’d have been out there with a sign protesting. I didn’t, because of who the President was. Well, that’s a bad, uh, uh…that’s not good for the earth, it’s not good for the cause, it’s probably not good for the President. It’s certainly not the way we should conduct ourselves.
And so, I’m very tough on progressive movements and leaders, including myself, who did not stand on principle, based upon who we looked across and saw as President.
Uh-huh. The timing of this isn’t very good for Obama, but it’s not as if Jones will abandon Obama, or the rest of his enviro allies, either. This sounds more like a mild warning shot from Jones to get Obama focused once again on hammering oil companies and traditional energy producers on behalf of so-called “green tech” subsidies. Since the first name that gets associated with those efforts is “Solyndra,” Jones had better be prepared for even more disappointment in the future.
The news earlier this month that Georgetown University had invited HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to deliver a commencement speech resulted in an eruption of criticism for the school’s president, John J. DeGioia. The church has bitterly criticized the HHS mandate that would force Catholic institutions to fund contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients that violate the tenets of Catholic doctrine, and the invitation of the author of that mandate offended many of those who oppose the imposition of the mandate. DeGioia tried to defend his decision on Monday by claiming that the invitation was offered before the HHS mandate was announced, and that Georgetown wants to be open to dissenting opinions on issues such as contraception:
In early January, an invitation was extended to Secretary Sebelius and she accepted. In the weeks that followed, elements of the legislation, specifically terms covering contraception, dominated our public discourse and impacted our Georgetown community very directly.
In different contexts over the past three months, including a March 14 “Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed strong opposition to the position put forward by the Obama Administration. Some have interpreted the invitation of Secretary Sebelius as a challenge to the USCCB. It was not. The invitation to Secretary Sebelius occurred prior to the January 20th announcement by the Obama Administration of the modified healthcare regulations.
The Secretary’s presence on our campus should not be viewed as an endorsement of her views. As a Catholic and Jesuit University, Georgetown disassociates itself from any positions that are in conflict with traditional church teachings.
We are a university, committed to the free exchange of ideas. We are a community that draws inspiration from a religious tradition that provides us with an intellectual, moral, and spiritual foundation. By engaging these values we become the University we are meant to be.
That explanation provoked a stronger response — and this time from the very top of the Catholic hierarchy in the region. Donald Cardinal Wuerl, archbishop to the Washington DC archdiocese, slammed DeGioia for missing the point:
The already-boiling debate about Georgetown University’s decision to invite Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to speak during graduation hit the highest levels of Catholic Washington on Tuesday, with the region’s archbishop slamming the school’s president for the “shocking” invitation and saying the real issue was being distorted. …
On Tuesday, the archdiocese of Washington, led by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, criticized Georgetown President John J. DeGioia for remarks he issued a day earlier — apparently to address the controversy — saying DeGioia had mischaracterized the issue as being about birth control. As the region’s top Catholic official, Wuerl is responsible for making sure Catholic institutions, including Georgetown, follow church teachings.
DeGioia “does not address the real issue for concern — the selection of a featured speaker whose actions as a public official present the most direct challenge to religious liberty in recent history,” reads the statement from the archdiocese, which covers the District and suburban Maryland. …
“Contrary to what is indicated in the Georgetown University President’s statement, the fundamental issue with the HHS mandate is not about contraception,” the archdiocese’s statement read.
Indeed. No one in the church is proposing that the US criminalize the use of contraceptives. To my knowledge, the church hasn’t even pushed for an end to Title X funding for contraception through Medicaid. The USCCB certainly hasn’t opposed ObamaCare, at least not until now; they have been pushing for universal health-care coverage for almost a century, and supported Obama’s health-insurance overhaul.
The objection in this case is the use of that authority to determine what constitutes religious expression. The HHS mandate, at least so far, arrogates to itself the authority to define religious expression as limited to what happens in a church, temple, or synagogue. The efforts of faith communities in schools, charities, and ironically health-care facilities have been defined as unrelated to religious expression and therefore open to regulation and mandates by the federal government. That’s the issue that the bishops are fighting, and Kathleen Sebelius is one of the principal authors of that arrogant policy.
In fact, according to Sebelius, this part of DeGioia’s statement wouldn’t be true at all: “As a Catholic and Jesuit University…” Sebelius and the Obama administration consider it a secular institution that is just run by Catholics, and therefore subject to government mandates.
If DeGioia hasn’t figured out that much, one has to wonder whether he has the insight necessary to lead a Catholic institution. It sounds as though Cardinal Wuerl might be thinking the same thing — and he has the authority to fix that problem, if necessary. By going public, the odds of an intervention from the archdiocese on this invitation have gone up considerably.
I’m sure no one has forgotten that it’s time to pick the Obamateurism of the Week! Pay close attention to the historical record from this week, especially if you’re not sure which you support now. You might even want to bump your first choice in favor something else that grabs you.
* “When I think about, ah, those soldiers or airmen or Marines, sailors, who are out there fighting on my behalf …” * Includes Nazi collaborator/Hitler admirer in proclamation for Jewish American Heritage Month * Obamas griped that the American public just did not appreciate their exceptional leader * Gets annoyed when asked about number of vacations, doesn’t answer question * “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” * “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” * Blames Fox News for his unpopularity because “they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in” * Attacks Limbaugh while remaining silent on Maher contribution to his super-PAC * Says “when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back,” WH claims it’s not a military doctrine * Apology to Karzai “calmed things down“ * Uses Boeing plant in SC to cheer manufacturing after his NLRB tried to shut it down * Emphasizes graduation rates in SOTU, cuts DC voucher program that nearly doubled grad rates * “Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.” * Finds claim of unemployment “interesting” because he is getting “the word” that woman’s husband should have no trouble finding work * Hails Roe as essential to allow “our daughters … to fulfill their dreams“ * Shuts down DisneyWorld in order to promote tourism * “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it[.] * Famous opponent of signing statements issues one covering 17 provisions of bill he signed
Previous Obamateurisms of the Year:
* Giving 2 minutes of “shout-outs” before getting to the Fort Hood shooting (2009) * Obama leaves Clinton at press conference podium on tax deal to attend Christmas party (2010) * “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president— with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln.” (2011) Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.
What hath the “hoagie summit” wrought? A Sunday morning full of debt chatter, apparently. Paul Ryan will hit both NBC and Fox News to sound the alarm yet again, but the one to watch is Boehner vs. Pelosi on ABC. Lots of media panic circulating already about his warning to O that he won’t raise the debt ceiling again without further spending cuts. Apparently we can’t afford to do that while the global economy is still fragile, although we can afford to let some or maybe even all of the Bush tax cuts lapse in the interest of “fairness” despite the fact that that also poses a risk. Ah well.
For your companion reading, dive into this Yuval Levin piece at the Weekly Standard on the fiscal fruits of the entitlement state. The line-up via WaPo:
NBC’s Meet the Press: Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL); Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI); Mayor of Newark, NJ, Cory Booker; Republican strategist Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Jim Cramer, CNBC; Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal
CBS’ Face the Nation: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA); Tom Friedman, New York Times; Clarissa Ward, CBS
ABC’s This Week: Rep. John Boehner (R-OH); Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA); George Will, ABC; Donna Brazile, political strategist; Matthew Dowd, ABC; Laura Ingraham, radio show host; and California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom
Fox News Sunday: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI); Austan Goolsbee, former Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers; Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard; Joe Trippi; Karl Rove; Evan Bayh
CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley: David Axelrod, Obama campaign senior adviser; Reince Priebus, Republican National Committee Chairman; Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX); Jeff Zeleny, New York Times; Dana Bash, CNN; NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
In Europe, where more than 200,000 people thronged a Berlin rally in 2008 to hear Barack Obama speak, there’s disappointment that he hasn’t kept his promise to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, and perceptions that he’s shunting blame for the financial crisis across the Atlantic. In Mogadishu, a former teacher wishes he had sent more economic assistance and fewer armed drones to fix Somalia’s problems. And many in the Middle East wonder what became of Obama’s vow, in a landmark 2009 speech at the University of Cairo, to forge a closer relationship with the Muslim world.
In a world weary of war and economic crises, and concerned about global climate change, the consensus is that Obama has not lived up to the lofty expectations that surrounded his 2008 election and Nobel Peace Prize a year later. Many in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America were also taken aback by his support for gay marriage, a taboo subject among religious conservatives…
“We all had high hopes for him,” said Filomena Cunha, an office worker in Lisbon, Portugal, who said she’s struggling to make ends meet. “But then things got bad and there’s not much he can do for us over here.”
***
In a swing through the Tampa area today, Mitt Romney blasted the Obama presidency as “a disappointment” and left town with about $2.3 million — part of an expected $10 million fundraising haul for a two-day Florida swing…
“This presidency has been a disappointment. And the people who have been hurt by this disappointment are the American people, and that’s why we’re going to get him out of office.”…
“By his own measure he’s failed,” Romney told the crowd, citing what he said were Obama’s promises on unemployment and the deficit during the 2008 campaign.
***
[I]f the election were tomorrow and I was forced to put money on one of the candidates, I’d say Romney. I also feel that unless something new and dramatic happens–as it usually does, admittedly — Romney’s advantage is more likely to grow than diminish…
Obama’s big problem, I think, is that he is no longer the president he said he would be. Above all, he’s stopped trying to be that president.
The astonishing enthusiasm for Obama in 2008 rested heavily on his promise to change Washington and unify the country. You can argue about whose fault it is that Washington is even more paralyzed by tribal fighting than before–in my view, it’s mostly (though not entirely) the GOP’s fault. For whatever reason, Obama failed to bring the change he promised. That would be forgivable, so long as he was determined to keep trying. But he isn’t determined to keep trying. His campaign message so far boils down to this: You just can’t work with these people. I tried, they’re not interested, so it’s war. If they want bitter partisan politics, they can have it…
To me it seems so obviously the wrong strategy, in fact, that I struggle to understand what Obama’s people can be thinking.
***
The Obama running for re-election is for everything and nothing at once, a creature of calculation. His oratorical skills are seen not as gifts that elevate him above the elite political class, but tools that enshrine him as its leader. Obama has become what he came to Washington to change: He is politics.
There is a good chance the Obama campaign is about to disintegrate, if only briefly. Obama is about to walk through “the valley of death,” where candidates lose their way and are tested on an arid march. In this familiar story, the campaign that could do no wrong can do no right: Pundits who have predicted an Obama victory reverse course and insist Romney is a sure bet…
Obama is asking America to be a polarized, angry country, where we are at war with each other, tearing at our own throats. Romney is asking us to be a country at peace with itself.
Unless Obama changes course, he will not make it through the valley. This is a race Romney wins.
***
The women I know who are struggling in this economy couldn’t be further from the fictional character of Julia, presented in Mr. Obama’s Web ad, “The Life of Julia,” a silly and embarrassing caricature based on the assumption that women look to government at every meaningful phase of their lives for help…
The struggling women in my life all laughed when I asked them if contraception or abortion rights would be a major factor in their decision about this election. For them, and for most other women, the economy overwhelms everything else…
I have always admired President Obama and I agree with him on some issues, like abortion rights. But the promise of his campaign four years ago has given way to something else — a failure to connect with tens of millions of Americans, many of them women, who feel economic opportunity is gone and are losing hope. In an effort to win them back, Mr. Obama is trying too hard. He’s employing a tone that can come across as grating and even condescending. He really ought to drop it. Most women don’t want to be patted on the head or treated as wards of the state. They simply want to be given a chance to succeed based on their talent and skills. To borrow a phrase from our president’s favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, they want “an open field and a fair chance.”
***
The increasing premium on skills and smarts promises to bring us an uglier society in the form of a meritocracy where those who are rich can think not only that they’re richer but that they’re better. That doesn’t simply threaten the incomes of the unskilled. It corrodes the traditional American idea of social equality — the idea that we’re “equal in the eyes of each other.” Cheering on young professionals — while urging the non-professionals to hurry up and do some learnin’ — doesn’t make the problem better. It makes the problem worse. Even if it increases GDP.
Weren’t Democrats supposed to be the party of Everyman? If you went to work and obeyed the rules, Dems would “make work pay” — plus give you unemployment compensation and Social Security and medical care in old age. White male workers are sort of the indivisible denominator in American politics — they have no special economic leverage, and no race- or gender-based claim to special privileges. They’re naked as far as favoritism goes, and thus (not unlike Marx’s proleteriat) are the representatives of universal privileges (such as Social Security). The new Obama coalition threatens to abandon this universality, becoming instead the party of non-universal skills, ethnic and gender identities — of special pleaders, victims and causists. Not of citizens.
***
Obama’s single achievement is something he scarcely intended and likely will lament for the rest of his days: the reinvigoration and reorientation of the right to first principles in the aftermath of the Bush presidency. Prior to Obama’s ascendance, the right was riven between big-government conservatives, libertarians, social conservatives, interventionists, activists, and intellectuals. The right was more interested in its divisions than its commonalities. Years of power had made us sloppy and complacent and sometimes corrupt.
Obama illustrated, boldly and shockingly, the power and drive of a resurgent progressivism. His grandiose designs forced conservatives into rethinking their attitude toward public policy in light of American exceptionalism and the American Founding. Suddenly finding themselves unwilling passengers on Obama’s progress train, conservatives remembered those they had left behind: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, and Lincoln. Only in reversing course, in returning to the supposedly outmoded and old-fashioned ideas of natural rights and constitutionalism, would conservatives begin to prepare the ground for a renewed America. That is why Obama’s grade is a D Plus rather than outright failure. Who says conservatives don’t believe in grade inflation?
Barack Obama, future historians will remember, gave new life to something thought dead. Maybe he is a miracle worker after all.
***
A young man recounts how inspired he was by Barack Obama’s “promise to change Washington’s corrupt culture.” A woman recalls how she voted for Mr. Obama “because he spoke so beautifully.”
Fans of the president? Hardly.
Both people star in television spots attacking Mr. Obama, and both help answer a question that has vexed conservatives for months: how to go after a president whose personal popularity remains unusually resilient, even amid lukewarm ratings of his job performance.
The answer: Acknowledge the potency of Mr. Obama’s 2008 appeal. Then steep the ads in disappointment and lost promise.
“I just think he should, instead of making people victims of people who are successful, we should be telling people, ‘Look, you are having a hard time, I feel bad for you. Let’s look at what you’re doing, let’s teach you how to succeed. Let’s give you the tools to succeed.’ As opposed to turning everybody into victims, a victim mentality is what he’s selling and nobody with a victim mentality will get anywhere. Ever. They will never succeed,” Lovitz said.
Let’s face it… liberals are simply more caring, compassionate and kind than conservatives, even when it comes to how they treat their opponents. It’s just one of those well known facts we just need to live with. Further evidence of this phenomenon comes to us from the pages of the Huffington Post, where Laura Wides-Munoz and Brendan Farrington are terribly, terribly worried about the political future of Florida Senator Marco Rubio. The care and compassion ring through so loudly you can nearly taste the saccharin in the back of your throat while reading it.
For freshman Sen. Marco Rubio, a rising GOP figure seen as a possible Mitt Romney running mate, there are questions about whether potential vulnerabilities in his personal and political background might hold him back…
“Marco Rubio is a huge star in the Republican Party in much the same way that Barack Obama was in the Democratic Party between his convention speech in 2004 and his candidacy for the president,” said Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to GOP Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “There are a lot of pluses when you look at Marco Rubio as a potential vice presidential candidate, but there are also unknowns.”
It’s kind of touching, isn’t it? You can tell that they don’t hold anything against Rubio… they’re just worried about the poor boy’s future! Heaven forbid that somebody dig up some dirt on him and go spreading it all over the web, possibly extinguishing his brilliant political future.
And with that, they then proceed to spend 22 paragraphs digging up dirt on him and spreading it all over the web. But hey… who doesn’t love a good scandal, right? At least we’ll get to read up on all the hot new gossip surrounding Rubio.
Sadly… not so much.
The 40-year-old Florida lawmaker has close ties to a colleague accused of questionable financial dealings. He once was enmeshed in a controversy over the use of the state party’s credit card for his personal expenses. Since emerging on the national political scene, he has faced increased personal scrutiny. There are conflicting details about his parents’ immigration from Cuba and his recently disclosed ties to the Mormon faith.
This is the same tired old load of flapping gums we were treated to two years ago, none of which bore any substantive fruit. Yes, he is friends with David Rivera who has serious questions to answer about some past financial deals, but Rubio has already said as much himself. His own involvement was minimal at best and written off to some youthful poor judgement. We’ve already sent this movie to re-runs.
The credit card scandal was definitely real for some Florida officials, but again, Rubio released all of that information. He did, at times, put a personal purchase on it here and there, but he also reimbursed for those charges when the bill came, well before anyone tried to make hay over it. As with the previous story, it probably wasn’t the smartest thing in the world – as Rubio acknowledged himself – but there was hardly malice involved.
And are we really going to dredge up yet again what precise date his family left their home country? And which church they enrolled him in as a child?
I’m always up for a good, entertaining hit piece on a politician, but this is one of the more lame efforts to cross the Hot Air desk in some time. If you’re really worried about Rubio being the VP nominee and torpedoing Obama’s chances and want to hit him on something, try an approach you can back up. Say that he’s only in his second year in the Senate and could use more seasoning before a national run.
Of course, he’s already flatly stated that he’s not interested in the job anyway, so I’m not sure why Huffpo is mounting this sort of ineffective attack right now anyway. Then again, the political machine moves in strange and mysterious ways, I suppose.
Something’s cooking in Motor City and it’s not an engine with a blown radiator. The Governor of Michigan is looking to put some additional coin in his state’s coffers while promoting local business activity. And how does he plan to accomplish this feat? He wrote a letter to the Senate.Gov. Rick Snyder is urging the U.S. Senate to pass legislation that would allow Michigan to extend its 6 percent sales taxes to purchases from out-of-state Internet retailers.
Snyder sent a letter to senators this week endorsing the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would enable states to collect sales taxes from online retailers like Amazon and Overstock.com.
“By enabling remote sellers to ignore the collection of sales and use taxes, it provides them an unfair competitive advantage and threatens the viability of retailers throughout our communities, many of which are locally owned small businesses that reflect the unique character and culture of the Great Lakes State,” Snyder wrote in a letter sent Monday — and obtained Friday by The Detroit News — to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
We’ve talked about the Marketplace Fairness Act here before, with the vast majority of you disapproving. This is the first time I’ve seen it crop up in Michigan, though. So how much money are we talking about here? The Michigan treasury department estimates, “the state will lose $872 million in uncollected sales taxes in the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years” because of online commerce sales going untaxed.
Also of note is the fact that Rick Snyder is no tax and spend liberal. He’s a Republican who campaigned on eliminating deficits and has been working to remove or consolidate taxes on businesses. He’s even been mentioned as a possible VP pick this year, though I’d say he’s pretty far down on the list at this point.
I’m sure there’s some politics at work here as well, but the general spin seems to be that Snyder wants to support local small businesses (as well as they jobs they provide) by making online sellers compete under the same tax burden. Will it work? Republicans suggesting that anyone pay more taxes don’t tend to fare very well. Snyder may be no exception
What are you willing to do to shed a few pounds or cut down on your alcohol intake? If your answer to either question is “anything,” then I’m here to tell you there’s a pill for that. It contains Gila monster saliva, but that’s a small sacrifice for those who are serious about fighting the battle of the bulge or climbing up on the wagon.
Sounding like something straight out of Fear Factor, the active ingredient in the drug, exendin-4, is not just lizard drool but venomous lizard drool. Yet, as the Daily Mail reports, researchers at the University of Gothenburg have discovered that the drug controls the brain regions that cause us to crave food and, to a lesser extent, booze.
The discovery of the benefits of extendin-4, which is already marketed as a treatment for type 2 diabetes, was a “happy accident.” During tests of the drug on lab rats, researchers noticed that the rodents didn’t have much of an appetite at the end of a day’s work.
Karolina Skibicka, lead author of the study (which is scheduled to appear in the Journal of Neuroscience), is quoted as saying, “This is both an unknown and quite unexpected effect.” She adds:
Our decision to eat is linked to the same mechanisms in the brain which control addictive behaviours.
We have shown that exendin-4 affects the reward and motivation regions of the brain.
Co-researcher Suzanne Dickson told the Mail, “The implications of the findings are significant. Most dieting fails because we are obsessed with the desire to eat, especially tempting foods like sweets. As exendin-4 suppresses the cravings for food, it can help obese people to take control of their weight.”
The team noted that further research on the impact of the compound on alcohol cravings would be needed before they could offer similarly optimistic pronouncements. In the meantime, those looking to kick the habit can attempt to score a supply of WA|HH Quantum Sensations spray, which simulates the effects of drinking (albeit with none of the pleasure).
Related Articles
* New spray causes instantaneous drunkenness followed by instantaneous sobriety * Dangerous new teen trend: Getting drunk on hand sanitizer * Detroit Tiger Delmon Young arrested after anti-Semitic tirade, brawl in midtown * Woman busted for DUI says big boobs made her fail sobriety test * Celebrate spring with urine-soaked eggs, a delicacy in China * Prosecutors come down hard on clerk who laced yogurt samples with semen * Elementary school teacher arrested for tying up and feeding students his semen * Obama’s uncle busted for DUI, in country illegally * For the palate that’s had everything: Breast milk ice cream * Bugs: The OTHER other white meat * From brassiere to brasserie: “Human” cheese at Klee
Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com. To see the comments on the original post, look here.
The latest column from David Brooks attempts to diagnose the fiscal crisis in Europe and the growing fiscal threats in America: [M]any voters have come to regard their desires as entitlements. They become incensed when their leaders are not responsive to their needs. Like any normal set of human beings, they command their politicians to give them benefits without asking them to pay.
The consequences of this shift are now obvious. In Europe and America, governments have made promises they can’t afford to fulfill. At the same time, the decision-making machinery is breaking down. American and European capitals still have the structures inherited from the past, but without the self-restraining ethos that made them function.
The American decentralized system of checks and balances has transmogrified into a fragmented system that scatters responsibility. Congress is capable of passing laws that give people benefits with borrowed money, but it gridlocks when it tries to impose self-restraint.
Of course, there are many Americans who still have an ethos of self-restraint. Those Americans have elected people to the House and Senate in an attempt to restrain and reform the entitlement state. And David Brooks has metaphorically compared them to Nazis, uninterested in governance.
How does Brooks square that circle? By assuming that the problem is gridlock, which he blames on the tougher position the right is now taking as the fiscal cliff draws ever closer. (I know; it’s just craaaaazy of the right to do this, amirite?)
Mind you, the big-taxing, so-called “balanced approach” to addressing sovereign debt problems is failing where it is being tried in Europe. The wingnutty wingnuts at the OECD and the IMF already knew it would fail, and that solutions which rely overwhelmingly on controlling spending work. Yet Brooks bitterly clings to the center-left establishment mindset that has led America to the situation he now despairs.
Jonah Goldberg addresses this ideology in The Tyranny of Clichés:
If I say we need one hundred feet of bridge to cross a one-hundred-foot chasm that makes me an extremist. Somebody else says we don’t need to build a bridge at all because we don’t need to cross the chasm in the first place. That makes him an extremist. The third guy is the centrist because he insists that we compromise by building a fifty-foot bridge that ends in the middle of thin air? As an extremist I’ll tell you that the other extremist has a much better grasp on reality than the centrist does. The extremists have a serious disagreement about what to do. The independent who splits the difference has no idea what to do and doesn’t want to bother with figuring it out.
Goldberg does not identify centrism ans an extreme ideology, but the quoted example (and others given in the book) graphically demonstrate it can be at least as impervious to logic or data as any other ideology. Anyone who finds those examples a straw man should consider the very real examples compiled by the NYT’s Ross Douthat:
It wasn’t the Tea Party that decided to create two new health care entitlements (Medicare Part D and Obamacare) just as America was about to go over a fiscal waterfall. It wasn’t kooks and reactionaries who got the European Union into its current mess. It wasn’t the radicals of the left and right who risked the global economy on a series of disastrous real estate bets, or locked our government into a permanently symbiotic relationship with the banking and financial sectors, or created a vast labyrinth of unaccountable bureaucracies in the hopeless quest for perfect security from terror attacks. And to bring things up the present day, it wasn’t the more “extreme” members of the Senate — be they Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn on the right, or Bernie Sanders on the left — who just voted for more short-term spending and tax cuts without any plan to pay for it.
***[W]hat Jesse Walker has dubbed the “the paranoid style in center-left politics” *** seems like a rather odd response to a political moment in which nearly all of our overlapping crises are the result of disastrous misgovernment at the center ***. The Tea Party’s politics are not my politics, but the movement has virtues as well as vices, and at the very least it represented a possible alternative force at a time when our politics desperately needs alternatives, whether right-wing or left-wing or something else entirely, to the policies that have led us to our present pass. Nothing good may come of it, but an awful lot more ill has come from politics-as-usual of late than from grassroots populism.
Brooks and his ilk are a particularly odious sort; they have urged and pursued a ruinous course of misgovernment, all the while deluding themselves that they are not extreme and demonizing the people who are not responsible for the West’s current malaise.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com. To see the comments on the original post, look here.
