Bush vs. Obama

Very interesting. From the Telegraph.

During the election campaign, Barack Obama's cool detachment was a winning quality, the "No Drama Obama" a welcome contrast with the "Mr Angry" John McCain, never mind the hot-headed "I'm the decider" President George W Bush.

A year into his presidency, however, Mr Obama seems a curiously bloodless president. If he experiences passion, he seldom shows it. It is often anyone's guess as to whether an event or issue truly moves him.

He has spent more than two months considering a troop increase but do we know how he really feels about the Afghan war?

In a sign that the Obama honeymoon truly is over, I began to hear this week the first stirrings of a wistfulness about Mr Bush. "I never thought I'd hear myself say it," one Democrat told me. "But Obama makes you feel that at least with Bush you knew where he was on something."

... More serious perhaps was Mr Obama's strange disconnectedness over the Fort Hood massacre of 13 soldiers by an Army major and devout Muslim who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, had praised suicide bombing and shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire.

When the television networks cut to the President, viewers listened to him spend more than two surreal minutes talking to a gathering of Native Americans about their "extraordinary" and "extremely productive" conference, pausing to give a cheery "shout out" to a man named Dr Joe Medicine Crow. Only then did he briefly and mechanically address what had happened in Texas.

On Friday, when most of the basic facts were available, Mr Obama tried again. It was scarcely any better. He began by offering "an update on the tragedy that took place" - as if it was an earthquake and not a terrorist attack from an enemy within - and ended with a promise for more "updates in the coming days and weeks".

Completely missing was the eloquence that Mr Obama employs when talking about himself. Absent too was any sense that the President empathised with the families and comrades of those murdered.

More and more, Obama's titanic narcissism is breaking through the protective shield offered by his advisors and handlers. People are taking note.

Taking Credit for the Fall

As world leaders (including our very own Hillary R. Clinton) gather in Berlin to commemorate the collapse of the Berlin Wall, it should be remembered just who, or perhaps better said, which political party, was opposing Ronald Reagan at virtually every opportunity in his dealings with the Soviet Union. Those interested in learning more about the real heros of the Cold War should read The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, by Paul Kengor.

Nomenclature

More thoughts on this soon, but the question of whether or not Fort Hood shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, is a "terrorist", should be a no-brainer. Senator Joe Lieberman suggests as much today in the Wall Street Journal. Haven't any of the wise cognoscenti delved into Hasan's recent history? It's out there for everyone to see. Only in mad, politically correct Obama-world would this ridiculous question even be open for serious debate. Unfortunately, that's the world in which we live.

Mr. Lieberman said that if news reports were true that Mr. Hasan had turned to Islamic extremism, "the murder of these 13 people was a terrorist act and, in fact, it was the most-destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11."

"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act," Mr. Lieberman added.

The lawmaker said he would begin a Senate investigation aimed at uncovering Mr. Hasan's motives and asking "whether the Army missed warning signs." He also called on the Pentagon to begin an independent investigation to determine whether "warning signs were missed."

-------

I just came across this story from the Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The alleged Fort Hood shooter apparently attended the same Virginia mosque as two Sept. 11 hijackers in 2001, at a time when a radical imam preached there.

Whether the Fort Hood shooter associated with the hijackers is something the FBI will probably look into, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

Need more evidence?

Et tu, Brute?

From Politico:

Once a year, Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao gives the Washington establishment a little jolt.

In November 2008, the nationally unknown Vietnamese community activist captured a seat for Republicans in majority-black New Orleans, becoming an instant — albeit short-lived — celebrity for the GOP.

On Saturday night, 368 days later, he handed Democrats their only Republican vote on the centerpiece of their domestic agenda, a massive overhaul of the nation’s health care system that promises to enhance coverage for tens of millions of Americans and thousands of Cao’s constituents. Now he’s a bit of a cult hero on the left — a profile in courage, Democrats say — and television bookers were scrambling to find cell phone numbers for his aides Sunday.

There should be some form of punishment meted out by the Republican leadership for Cao's scandalous betrayal, if only a slap on the wrist. Many House Republicans attested that the health care bill of yesterday was the worst bill ever to pass before them for a vote. NO ONE who understands and cherishes the Constitution should have voted for this bill. It is to be expected that Democrats would vote for it, seeing as they neither understand or cherish the document, but rather seek to undermine and reconstitute it as something foreign to the founders' intent. But that a Republican would be so blind and off the mark on such a fundamental issue...incredible. But then again, Cao once "joked" that he could be a "closet democrat."

Points of Light

Some good news and a dose of reality from the Associated Press, of all places:

WASHINGTON – The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate.

Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the late Saturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and "take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people."

The problem is that the Senate won't run with it. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.

If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.

"The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively.

Sorry Barack and Nancy...

The Morning After

After last night's disaster in the House (the only thing really bipartisan about the bill was the opposition to it), here are some encouraging reflections from Jeffrey H. Anderson, writing for National Review Online:

It was always clear that the real health-care battle would be in the Senate. But what would have been shocking eight months ago is to hear that it would take until November for the Democrats to pass a bill even in the House. It would have been even more shocking to have heard that, even after a full-court-press by the White House, the bill would pass by only five votes — meaning that if just three of the 435 members had changed their minds, it would have changed the bill's fate. And it would have been shocking to have heard that 39 Democrats would jump ship.

The House bill has passed — barely and belatedly — and it is now dead. Nothing like it will ever pass the Senate. The question now is whether anything will, now that the voters have spoken in New Jersey and Virginia — and now that the exceedingly narrow margin in the House will likely invite even greater scrutiny of that which is being proposed.

I'm convinced that last night's vote, coupled with the cap and trade bill of last summer, will prove the undoing of the Democrats, come 2010 and beyond. The arrogance Pelosi et al. displayed in railroading this piece of legislation through, especially after last Tuesday's election results in New Jersey and Virginia, will only serve to crystallize the disgust and anger the American people feel toward what is going on in Washington.

Berlin Wall...? Big Deal, says Obama

Conservatives and Germans are incredulous that President Obama, citing scheduling conflicts, plans to skip ceremonies in Germany commemorating the historic fall of the Berlin Wall. Remember, this is the same man who makes ample time to show up on Letterman, watch documentaries about himself over and over on HBO, hopscotch across the nation attending gala fundraisers for the Democratic Party, hit the links more than his predecessor, and host his own batch of ritzy shindigs at the White House. Can anyone imagine Reagan, or Thatcher skipping such an event as this? We can only wonder: What thoughts were going through Obama's mind, as he watched the Berlin Wall come tumbling down back in '89. Was the ever-diligent student of Jeremiah Wright and Saul Alinsky happy, disappointed, or perhaps apathetic to the event? Obama's snooty and, in light of the United States' role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, historically scandalous decision to turn down the German invitation is yet another blush-worthy moment for citizens of the United States.

Another Kennedy Argues for Abortion

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, another illustrious liberal Catholic cut from the same cloth as Teddy, took to the pages of Newsweek to make the case for passage of the "health care" bill currently under consideration in the House; a bill that would ultimately enable more abortions in the United States. (This story dovetails nicely with my post on public repentance.) Says Kennedy,

The Roman Catholic Church and American Catholics have long believed that health care is a basic human right. The church has been a leader in the struggle to achieve quality, affordable coverage for all.

Of course, the right to health care presupposes that the right to life has been secured in the first place, right? Kennedy describes herself as "pro-conscience". That's some clever mental calisthenics with relativism, Kathy, a convenient way to shield yourself from the unpleasant and persnickety influence of, say, God or reason, maybe. It's something to watch liberal Catholics toss out "conscience" as carte blanche to carry out any action they choose, ignoring the Church's central point about the need for the proper formation of conscience first.

Incidentally, where is the forceful condemnation of such scandalous screeds from the Church leadership in this country? M.I.A. I'll say this much for them, the liberals in the Church know they can push hard and expect little, if any, response from the powers that be.

"Frightening Insensitivity"

Offering a "shout out" before offering condolences?

Not everyone is happy with the President's reaction yesterday to the shootings at Fort Hood that claimed 13 lives. From New York writer Robert A. George:

...instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.

Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.

On Public Repentance, a Cardinal and an Archbishop

Here's a characteristically slanted article from TIME magazine's Amy Sullivan, comparing the pastoral styles of Archbishop Raymond Burke and Cardinal Sean O'Malley. As a concrete example, she attempts to gauge their diverging stances on the appropriateness of the highly publicized (a key distinction) funeral Mass for Ted Kennedy. It should come as no surprise that the incurables at TIME magazine elected to take issue with Archbishop Burke; that alone should be interpreted as a feather in his cap. Further, Sullivan surely delights in exposing an alleged rift between two "conservative" prelates. But instead of focusing on the simplistic and uninformed broadsides proffered by Sullivan, I'd prefer to revisit the Cardinal O'Malley-Ted Kennedy Funeral Mass saga of a couple months ago, as it speaks to a larger problem facing the Catholic Church in the United States.

To be blunt, I'm getting pretty tired of hearing the O'Malley line of defense, which suggested that those who disagreed with him were marinating in malicious thoughts about Kennedy burning in hell, or that his grieving family ought not be comforted by the soothing consolations of the Church. Honestly, I don't know anyone who said or implied anything even approaching this. It's terribly unfair and intellectually dishonest to portray one's opposition in such a negative light. This kind of fallacy has a name: ignoratio elenchi, defined as "a logical fallacy that consists in apparently refuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted." O'Malley "refutes" his opposition by arguing against a position that was never made by those objecting to him in the first place! This is usually a favorite tactic employed by the left, but to hear it emanating from a man of O'Malley's intelligence is doubly disappointing. To be sure, there probably were some cantankerous individuals who conveyed inappropriate words to the Cardinal, but the vast majority of those who disagreed with him were not consumed with such uncharitable (and sinful) thoughts as hoping that someone was in hell.

No, people rightly took issue over the public nature of the funeral Mass (televised, etc.), given that there was/is no knowledge of Kennedy having publicly repented of his many years of publicly supporting the grave sin of abortion. O'Malley sat by as the nation's most pro-abortion President heralded the nation's most conspicuous pro-abortion Catholic politician from the ambo, and in the sanctuary of a basilica, no less. O'Malley sees nothing off kilter with such a conflicting mise en scène? He cannot see how large swaths of Catholics might understandably be totally confused, when, on the one hand, they are told by the Church leadership that there can be no compromise on abortion, and, on the other, they witness on television a Cardinal presiding at the funeral Mass for a radically pro-abortion politician like Ted Kennedy? How is this narrative to be interpreted? If the sorry spectacle didn't meet the requisites for scandal, I would then seriously like to know how Cardinal O'Malley would define the term. Ted Kennedy was a public figure, who publicly advocated what the Church and natural law tell us is a grave moral evil. The issue is emphatically not about Catholics pronouncing judgment on the man, as O'Malley strains to make it. Everyone hopes and prays (or should) that Kennedy privately confessed his support for abortion and died in God's grace. The point of controversy is the public nature of Kennedy's commitment to abortion and the conviction, on the part of many Catholics, that a public statement of remorse for the deed should have been obtained before a public funeral Mass was given the green light. Note to Cardinal O'Malley: We can pray, in fraternal charity, for Ted Kennedy's soul, and stand pat for life issues, all at the same time.

The Catholic leadership in this nation must be crystal clear when it comes to the priority given to the defense of the unborn. And further, they must avoid the smallest modicum of ambiguity on the matter. Otherwise, they have no business serving as shepherds of souls. Unfortunately, O'Malley's appearance at the televised funeral Mass for Ted Kennedy (during which not one reference to the unborn was offered) projected ambiguity. Why wasn't a private funeral service offered just for the family, instead of the media frenzy and spectacle we witnessed in Boston? Did we really need to see all that? Your Eminence, is it any wonder why so many Catholics in this nation think it's perfectly alright to go to Mass one day, then pull the lever in the voting booth for a committed pro-abortion politician the next? Did the bishops, starting with O'Malley, learn nothing from the '08 election, which saw a plurality of self-described Catholics opt for the pro-abortion candidate? Assessing the damage, didn't they for a second think they might need to reassess the effectiveness of their pastoral strategy, especially on life issues? Apparently not. The abject failure of O'Malley and others to detect this obvious dilemma evinces precisely the kind of episcopal detachment and aloofness that causes traditional Catholics in the trenches to scratch their heads in utter bewilderment. What on earth could be more clear than the dire need to refocus, with unrelenting energy, on informing the faithful, and all Americans, regarding the dignity of the unborn? I say, thank God for Archbishop Burke! Would that there were more like him in the ranks of bishops. The Catholic leadership in the US (not all but many) had better shed the blinders and realize, for the sake of souls, just how badly their guidance and witness is needed, most especially on the life issues.

The scribblers at TIME magazine ought not be the primary concern here. Writers like Sullivan and The New York Times' Maureen Dowd are thinly veiled ideologues parroting the predictable clichés and talking-points of the far left. The more pressing and relevant problem for serious Catholics is the gaping leadership void in the United States and the confusion that that void is unleashing on thousands of Catholics.

Hayek on the Virtues of the Anglo-Saxon

Meeting of the Minds: Reagan and Hayek

"The Englishmen who not only 'the language speak that Shakespeare spake' but also 'the faith and morals hold that Milton held'."

"...independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity, noninterference with one's neighbor and tolerance of the different...respect for custom and tradition, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority. Almost all the traditions and institutions in which democratic moral genius has found its most characteristic expression, and which in turn have molded the national character and the whole moral climate of England and America, are those which the progress of collectivism and its inherently centralistic tendencies are progressively destroying."

In this regard, John Bolton was on to something when he described President Obama as "America's first post-American President." Although, one could probably look back much further to President Wilson as the primogenitor of the post-American presidency.

Woodrow Wilson and the World

Hints of Narcissism

Did Barack Obama watch the election returns last night? Nope. What did he do? Well, he watched a fawning HBO documentary about...himself and his election. I can understand Obama not wanting to take in the bad news of the election returns, but to spend a couple hours taking in a slobbering film about himself...it's a bit odd, no?

Reality Check

Virginia's Republican Governor-elect, Robert McDonnell

Maine, New Jersey, Virginia...Last night was a pretty good night for conservatism and the GOP. Too bad about New York though. What does it all mean? From the New York Post (I emphasized a couple of the more noteworthy points):

The Obama invincibility that was so much in evidence then seems to have lost its power. People can argue the reasons why these elections, all in places Obama carried handily, were so close. But if he were the political marvel he was thought to be, these races wouldn’t have been contests, but walkovers. So one consequence of this Election Day is the end of his special political magic.

That’s no surprise — as that magic was a largely substanceless froth whipped up by campaign consultants and compliant big-media cheerleaders.

The truth is, Obama wasn’t ready to be president when he ran in 2008. When he started, he probably thought he had no real chance — he himself admitted upon entering the Senate that he wasn’t qualified to be president — and that his first run would simply be a PR effort that would lift him to the top ranks of Senate Democrats.

When, to everyone’s surprise, resentment of the Clinton machine crystallized around him, he wound up beating Hillary for the nomination, and found himself riding an out-of-control express train. He rode it to victory, with some help from erratic McCain actions.

But he was right the first time about not being ready for the Oval Office. As president, he seems confused and a bit distant on the issues, leaving the details to congressional Democrats and an ever-growing number of "czars" while he golfs and launches attacks at Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

Very true. So much (if not all) of Obama and his movement of last year was smoke and mirrors, resulting from America's craving for celebrity and glitz. Obama '08 was a one-time deal that will not/cannot repeat itself. That kind of frenzy feeding over a personality cannot be sustained ad infinitum, especially in light of deepening economic travails. Even before yesterday's election, Obama's so-called magic was already waning. People are starting to yawn with boredom and impatience, and with the economy tanking, who isn't getting a little tired of the perpetual campaign and boorish immaturity that are now permanent fixtures in this Administration?

Ron Paul Destroys Michael Moore

It's about time. Congressman Paul, at least in economics, is right. But when he gets into other things...

Pelosi's Plan

From National Review Online

To sum it up, the House bill is nothing but a massive, uncontrolled federal entitlement expansion — at a time when the central, looming threat to the nation’s long-term prosperity is the unaffordable health-care entitlements already on the federal books. To create the impression of fiscal responsibility, the bill is jury-rigged with budget gimmicks, implausible eligibility rules, and arbitrary, government-dictated price controls — that have been tried repeatedly without success — to make it look like it costs “only” $900 billion over a decade.

Read the rest here.

A Convenient Exaggeration

From the Associated Press:

An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.

The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.