Craptalker-in-Chief

From Andrew Klavan, at Pajamas Media, "ABSOLUTE CRAP!!!"



This one's good for some extra giggles:

'Stop it B!'

Get yo shit together, B!!

That's what I'm talkin' about, mofo!

Obama's Path to Reelection Narrows

Well, thank goodness.



From Ronald Brownstein, at National Journal:

Newly released state-by-state approval numbers for President Obama suggest that in 2012 he could face fewer options for assembling an Electoral College majority and increased pressure to capture racially diverse states. As a result, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, among others, appear to be evolving into critical battlegrounds on the campaign map.



The polling results, released earlier this week by Gallup, underscore both the stability of each party’s Electoral College base and the shifting roster of swing states that could decide the 2012 contest.



In all, the compilation shows that Obama’s approval rating exceeds his disapproval rating in states with 301 Electoral College votes--well down from his 365 total in 2008 but still enough to win. That total, however, includes North Carolina, where Obama’s approval and disapproval ratings are virtually even, and Georgia, where Republicans remain skeptical that he can seriously compete, despite signals from his reelection campaign that it intends to. If those two are removed from the list, the states in which Obama’s approval number exceeds his disapproval rating provide exactly 270 Electoral College votes, the bare majority needed to win.

Nice.



Image Credit: The People's Cube.

America Gets Downgraded

At Wall Street Journal, "A spend and tax policy mix always leads to economic decline":

... is there anything that S&P said on Friday that everyone else doesn't already know? S&P essentially declared that on present trend the U.S. debt burden is unsustainable, and that the American political system seems unable to reverse that trend.

This is not news.

In that context, the Obama Administration's attempt to discredit S&P only makes the U.S. look worse—like the Europeans who also want to blame the raters for noticing the obvious. Treasury officials and chief White House economic adviser Gene Sperling denounced S&P for relying on a Congressional Budget Office scenario that overestimated the U.S. discretionary spending baseline by $300 billion through 2015 and $2 trillion through 2021.

But even adjusting for that $2 trillion would only reduce U.S. publicly held debt to 85% or so of GDP—still dangerously high. And that assumes that recently agreed upon spending caps are sustained over a decade, something which rarely happens.

We think the larger problem with S&P, Moody's and Fitch is that they make no distinction over how a nation balances its books—whether through tax increases or spending reductions. Like the International Monetary Fund, the raters care only about balance.

This takes too little account of the need for faster economic growth, which is the only real path out of a debt crisis. Britain's government has earned rater approval for its fiscal consolidation, but its increases in VAT and income tax rates are hurting its tepid recovery. Letting the credit raters dictate tax increases is the road to an austerity trap.

The real reason for White House fury at S&P is that it realizes how symbolically damaging this downgrade is to President Obama's economic record. Democrats can rail all they want about the tea party, but Republicans have controlled the House for a mere seven months. The entire GOP emphasis in those seven months—backed by the tea party—has been on reversing the historic spending damage of Mr. Obama's first two years.

Continue reading.

IMAGE CREDIT: The Astute Bloggers.

Obama's One Term Presidency

I wrote yesterday morning that things were "not looking good for Obama and the Democrats." The thought came to me in a flash as I looked over the economic news. If Barack Obama's anything, it's a good campaigner, and hence I've been reluctant to bet against his reelection. But with folks talking about a double dip recession, and with unemployment likely to remain high regardless of economic growth rates, I think the GOP's chances are looking better than ever. Barack Obama will be a one-term president, I'm confident. And apparently, so are others, or at least there's some pessimism in the MSM that I don't recall seeing. At Politico, for example, "Obama's big drags":

The politics of the debt fight were a drag for President Barack Obama, yanking his popularity to new lows. Here’s an even bigger drag: Obama emerges from the months-long fracas weaker — and facing much deeper and more durable political obstacles — than his own advisers ever imagined.

The consensus has been that for all his problems, Obama is so skilled a politician — and the eventual GOP nominee so flawed or hapless — that he’d most likely be reelected.

Don’t buy into it.

This breezy certitude fails to reckon with how weak his fundamentals are a year out from the general election. Gallup pegs his approval rating at a discouraging 42 percent, with his standing among independents falling 9 points in four weeks.

His economic stats are even worse. The nation has 2.5 million fewer jobs today than the day Obama took office, a fact you’re sure to hear the Republicans repeat. Consumer confidence is scraping levels not seen since March 2009.

Where’s the bright spot? Hard to see. Obama has few, if any, domestic achievements that enjoy broad public support. No one assumes employment, growth or housing prices to pick up much, if at all — something Obama is essentially powerless to change. And the political environment and electoral map are significantly tougher than in 2008, especially in true up-for-grabs states.

It's long piece. Continue at the link.

RELATED: FWIW, see Andrew Hacker at New York Review, "The Next Election: The Surprising Reality." According to Hacker, "Although it is never openly stated, there are Americans who don’t want to be governed by a black man." (Racism, wouldn't you know?) Beyond that (as part of a book review), Hacker's main argument is about turnout: Obama's toast if he can't generate the kind of voter (and youth) enthusiasm that propelled him to victory in 2008. And if that's the case, I'm even more confident Obama's a one-termer. ("Hope & Change hasn't been all that great for young folks.)

Obama Rules Out Short-Term Debt Solution

The "eat our peas" line is memorable, at the end of the clip, and discussed at Memeorandum.

And at LAT, "At news conference, Obama portrays himself as compromiser in chief":

President Obama says he will not sign a three- to six-month bill to raise the nation's debt ceiling, and instead is calling on Republicans to set aside politics and agree on a long-term compromise before the country hits the debt limit Aug. 2.

The administration is not making contingency plans in the event that Congress won't vote to raise the debt ceiling in time, Obama told reporters Monday morning, predicting during a news conference that "we are going to get this done" before the deadline.

As leaders prepared for an afternoon meeting on the issue at the White House, Obama pledged to bring Republicans and Democrats together "every single day" until they work out an agreement to avert a credit default with a plan on debt and deficit reduction.

Republicans have been saying for months that it's a "moral imperative" for the president and Congress to tackle debts and deficits, Obama said, arguing that he has moved toward their position in hopes of working out a compromise.

"What I've said to them is, 'Let's go,'" Obama said. Such a deal would let Americans know "this town can actually do something once in a while."

Progressives love to talk about Republican "hostage taking" on the budget, but in fact the administration's dishonesty on negotiations is practically criminal. See Yuval Levin, at National Review, "A Raw Deal" (via Memeorandum).

Attack on Oil Pipeline Highlights Egypt's Threat to Israel

At Al Arabia, "EGYPTIAN GAS PIPELINE TO ISRAEL AND JORDAN BOMBED AGAIN."

And Los Angeles Times, "Pipeline explosion underlines opposition to gas deal with Israel."

The third attack by saboteurs in six months against the pipeline supplying natural gas to Israel and Jordan underscores security lapses and the opposition of many Egyptians to their nation's contract to ship low-cost energy to Israel.

Early-morning blasts Monday were carried out by masked men who tied up security guards and planted bombs at the Bir el Abd pipeline station near the town of Al Arish in the Sinai Peninsula. The official state news aganecy, MENA, reported that the assailants remotely activated the bombs by firing gunshots. No casualties were reported.

The pipeline was attacked two other times this year: a few days after the Feb. 11 overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak and a second assault on April 27 (pictured) that interrupted supplies to Israel for weeks.

Also, from Barry Rubin, "Egypt Gas Pipeline to Israel Sabotaged Again: A Consequence of Egypt’s Revolution":

For the third time since February, terrorists have blown up the gas pipeline from Egypt that provides 45 percent of Israel’s natural gas. As I predicted, this pipeline will never function normally again. This serious economic disruption is the first material cost to Israel of Egypt’s revolution. The Obama Administration’s help in bringing down a stable (yes, a dictatorial regime but prepare for much worse) has already damaged Israel’s economy and security. And this is not the end of the story by a long shot.

Obama: Eliminating 'Tax Breaks' is a 'Spending Cut'

President Obama can't even come out and say he's for raising taxes, which is what eliminating "tax breaks" is. Democrats used to call tax hikes revenue enhancements. Now they've got Orwell: Freedom is tyranny, poverty is theft, repealing tax breaks is spending cuts. At about 1:40 minutes:

And see Human Events, "Top 10 Obama Attacks on Capitalism." (Via Cold Fury.)

Planned Parenthood Takes on the States

From Charmaine Yoest and Denise Burke, at Wall Street Journal, "A majority of Americans tell pollsters they do not want taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortions."

Without a doubt, measures to defund the abortion industry will remain a top priority for states in 2011 and will re-emerge in 2012. Legislators are responding to the majority of Americans—72% in a 2009 Quinnipiac University poll—who say that they do not want taxpayer dollars to be used to directly provide or indirectly subsidize abortions. Planned Parenthood and the administration appear committed to obstructing these efforts. Clearly, they prefer the status quo of taxpayer-funded largess for abortion providers—a bounty that amounts to $363 million annually in federal and state funds for Planned Parenthood alone.

RELATED: At Life News, "Judge Blocks Indiana Law Stopping Planned Parenthood Funding."

Job-Killing ATM Machines

This is good.

From Dan Joseph, at the Media Research Center, "Petition to Ban Job Killing ATM Machines":

Also at Weasel Zippers.

It's Hard Out There for a Slang Expert

I guess JBW's bailed out on AmPow, or, well, at least since I dissed him as the "SpongeBob of 'Sophisticated' Political Analysis."

Hey, nah. My bad. JBW's cool — or at least not a 24/7 ASFL (and you gotta love this Photoshop!). Not only that, he keeps me honest on the slang, so I'm sending this out to my homie James B. "Sweet Tits" Webb. At Wall Street Journal, "As Slang Changes More Rapidly, Expert Has to Watch His Language":

BERKELEY, Calif. — Tom Dalzell was thrilled last month when he came across a weird new verb: "rickroll."

Then he went online and saw that "rickrolling"—the Internet prank that involves sending someone a link to the music video for Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up"—has been around for four years. That's an eon in the world of slang, enough time to render a term stale.

For most people, being late to a language trend isn't a problem. But Mr. Dalzell, a 59-year-old union leader by day and slang expert after hours, is now in the process of updating the New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. And as informal language evolves faster than ever, Mr. Dalzell is finding it trickier to keep up.

"Yesterday's cutting-edge is today's ho-hum," he says.

The problem: Slang is born when groups outside the mainstream invent their own language—verbal code that can quickly lose its punch once others catch on. That process used to take a while. But now that social media sites like Facebook and Twitter let people post messages for anyone to see, slang gets exposed much more quickly.

"It's really shortened the shelf life," says Mr. Dalzell, who is considered to be a real "big noise," or a very important person, among word whizzes like Jesse Sheidlower, editor-at-large at the Oxford English Dictionary.

More at the link.

COME BACK JAMESSSSS!!!!!!!

NewsBusted — Osama's Dead

A classic:

RELATED: At LAT, "In genuine flip-flop, Obama White House ends faked news photo practice," and "Why did Obama's Osama bin Laden poll boost get buried at sea so quickly too?"

Let me guess ... losers in the White House? Yeah. Sounds about right.

Birther-Mania!

Wow!

Maybe Obama should have stayed away from the issue after all. For a while I thought it was a clever move, cutting-Trump-off-at-the-pass kinda thing. But rather than letting go, folks are doubling down with a vengeance. Here's Pamela letting loose on Eric Bolling's yesterday:

Meanwhile, Soros-funded Media Matters is freaking out, "Right-Wing Media Hype Conspiracies About Obama's Long-Form Birth Certificate." Okay, but if you're gonna slam the right wing at least get some World Net Daily in there? Those dudes are in total overdrive, for example, Bob Unruh, "Obama document still doesn't answer all questions," and Jerome Corsi, "What is it about twin girls born day after Obama?" And come to find out Corsi's got a new book coming out, Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President.

And stranger still is that for all of Media Matters' huffing and puffing about the "evil" right wing noise machine, it's progressives who've been even more obsessed with birtherism. See NewsBusters, "Study: MSNBC and CNN Covered 'Birther' Issue Far More Than Fox News" (via Instapundit). And don't even get me going about Salon! That Justin Elliott's really got his hands full now, LOL!!

RELATED: At TMZ, "Donald Trump Bristles at Claim He's a Racist" (via Memeorandum).

Ha! You ain't seen nothin' yet!

Yo, Tavis Smiley! What you got, brotha?!!

Change! Economic Growth Slows as More Than Half of Americans Say U.S. in Recession or Depression

The U.S. economy slowed to a rate of 1.8 percent growth for the first quarter, as reported at the New York Times (and Memeorandum).

Meanwhile, 55 percent of Americans believe the country's in a recession or depresssion, according to Gallup:

More than half of Americans (55%) describe the U.S. economy as being in a recession or depression, even as the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) reports that "the economic recovery is proceeding at a moderate pace." Another 16% of Americans say the economy is "slowing down," and 27% believe it is growing ...

Although economists announced that the recession ended in mid-2009, more than half of Americans still don't agree. These ratings are consistent with Gallup's mid-April findings that 47% of Americans rate the economy "poor" and 19.2% report being underemployed.

It also seems likely that most Americans would not agree with the FOMC's assessment of the current economic recovery. Nor does it seem likely that -- given surging gas and food prices -- most would agree with the Committee that "longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable and measures of underlying inflation are subdued."

Also at Gallup: 67 percent think the economy is getting worse.

Change we can believe in!

Added: More economic news at Instapundit, "RIGHT TRACK OR WRONG TRACK: 21% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, A New Low." (And plus some at that link.)

Obama Won't Release College Transcripts

Lynn Sweet has the report, "Valerie Jarrett shutting down Trump: No college transcript release" (via Memeorandum and Weasel Zippers).

And at Sweetness & Light, from 2008, "Where Are Your Transcripts, Mr. Obama?" (quoting Ross Goldberg at the New York Sun):

Senator Obama’s life story, from his humble roots, to his rise to Harvard Law School, to his passion as a community organizer in Chicago, has been at the center of his presidential campaign. But one chapter of the tale remains a blank — his education at Columbia College, a place he rarely speaks about and where few people seem to remember him.

Contributing to the mystery is the fact that nobody knows just how well Mr. Obama, unlike Senator McCain and most other major candidates for the past two elections, performed as a student.

The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public.

For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates’ grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush’s transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image. When Senator Kerry’s transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did…

The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article and did not offer an explanation for why his transcript has not been released.

Hmm ...

Maybe Obama's community organizing with communists while at Columbia is cited as college service on his transcripts. That on top of mediocre grades would really puncture the facade of supreme intelligence, moderation and pragmatism. More on Obama's mediocrity from Allen Caruba, "The Smartest Man in the Room?":

At the time of the nation’s birth, America was blessed with some of the finest minds available for the task. They included, in addition to Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, and a certifiable genius, Benjamin Franklin. When the original Articles of Confederation didn’t work, they and others got together in Philadelphia, shut the doors, and hammered out the Constitution.

When one looks at the array of men and women in high public office today, it is hard not to conclude that most are imbeciles.

The mere thought that the nation’s security has been entrusted to Janet Napolitano or its health to Kathleen Sebelius is enough to keep one up at night, but what is most obvious is that Barack Obama is just not smart. Not street smart. Not academically smart. Not people smart. But smart enough to have gotten elected, the politician’s idea of smart.

We are left to hope the nation can survive him long enough to repair the damage he will leave in his wake.

Ouch.

New Era in American Politics?

Because the president is black, the media and left-wing commentators have gone out of their way to argue how unprecedented is the current politics of the birth certificate. Tavis Smiley, appearing on socialist Lawrence O'Donnell's show, argues that Trump's the biggest racist in the tea party? Say what? Do these people have a clue? Trump's a businessman and a political opportunist with few ties to the tea party, but facts don't matter. So get ready: The allegations of racism will be raining down more viciously in this election cycle. No matter that the worst racism in 2008 was on the Democratic side (Bill Clinton called Obama the "Jesse Jackson" candidate in the race, etc.). Nope, simple opposition to big government and rank incompetence is racist. It's pretty lame:

Meanwhile, Politico attempts to make the case that current political battles are unprecedented, "A New Era of Accusation and Innuendo" (via Memeorandum):

President Barack Obama’s appearance Wednesday in the White House briefing room to present a documented rebuttal of suspicions that he was not really born on U.S. soil was more than just a surprise. It was a decisive new turn in the centuries-long American history of political accusation and innuendo.

By directly and coolly engaging a debate with his most fevered critics, Obama offered the most unmistakable validation yet to the idea that we are living in an era of public life with no referee — and no common understandings between fair and unfair, between relevant and trivial, or even between fact and fantasy.

Lurid conspiracy theories have followed presidents for as long as the office has existed. But even Obama’s most recent predecessors benefited from a widespread consensus that some types of personal allegations had no place in public debate unless or until they received some imprimatur of legitimacy—from an official investigation, for instance, or from a detailed report by a major news organization.

“There are no more arbiters of truth,” said former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. “So whatever you can prove factually, somebody else can find something else and point to it with enough ferocity to get people to believe it. We’ve crossed some Rubicon into the unknown.”

It’s hard to imagine Bill Clinton coming out to the White House briefing room to present evidence that people who thought he helped plot the murder of aide Vincent Foster — never mind official rulings of suicide — were wrong. George W. Bush, likewise, was never tempted to take to the Rose Garden to deny allegations from voices on the liberal fringe who believed that he knew about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks ahead of time and chose to let them happen.

More at the link, but it's a preposterous theory. The administration of President George W. Bush deflected the most wild conspiracies against the administration for years, claims that "Bush lied" about weapons of mass destruction to get the United States into a war of imperial conquest in Iraq. The press has a short memory and a new spin. The methods are old (see, for example, Benjamin Ginsburg and Martin Shefter, Politics by Other Means: Politicians, Prosecutors, and the Press from Watergate to Whitewater).

RELATED: At Fire Andrea Mitchell, "Socialist MSNBC hack Lawrence O’Donnell melts down on camera over birther attorney Orly Taitz."

Obama's 4/20 Facebook Fat Ones

Last time he hosted something like this the stoners came out in full force, putting the pressure on for marijuana legalization.

And apparently attempts the block the Bogarts didn't work out so well: "Obama's Facebook Forum Fails to Silence Marijuana Legalization Advocates." Which is like, duh. The Obamunist scheduled the event on April 20th, the date coinciding with 420 Magazine, apparently the main online journal for the drug decriminalization crowd.

Man, the White House planning office sho' be gettin' jiggy wit' it!

RELATED: At King Shamus, "4/20, Stoners, Legalization."

And actually, WaPo wants to ignore the pot promotions, "At Facebook, Obama seeks friends for deficit plan."

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube.

Added: At The Hill, "Obama gets warm reception from Facebook crowd" (via Memeorandum).

Imagination Land

From Andrew Klavan, on the culture:

Libya's Rebels?

John Lee Anderson reports from Benghazi, "Who Are the Rebels?":

Three of the world’s great armies have suddenly conspired to support a group of people in the coastal cities and towns of Libya, known, vaguely, as “the rebels.” Last month, Muammar Qaddafi, who combines a phantasmagorical sense of reality with an unbounded capacity for terror, appeared on television to say that the rebels were nothing more than Al Qaeda extremists, addled by hallucinogens slipped into their milk and Nescafé. President Obama, who is torn between the imperatives of rescuing Libyan innocents from slaughter and not falling into yet another prolonged war, described the same rebels rather differently: “people who are seeking a better way of life.”

During weeks of reporting in Benghazi and along the chaotic, shifting front line, I’ve spent a great deal of time with these volunteers. The hard core of the fighters has been the shabab—the young people whose protests in mid-February sparked the uprising. They range from street toughs to university students (many in computer science, engineering, or medicine), and have been joined by unemployed hipsters and middle-aged mechanics, merchants, and storekeepers. There is a contingent of workers for foreign companies: oil and maritime engineers, construction supervisors, translators. There are former soldiers, their gunstocks painted red, green, and black—the suddenly ubiquitous colors of the pre-Qaddafi Libyan flag.

And there are a few bearded religious men, more disciplined than the others, who appear intent on fighting at the dangerous tip of the advancing lines. It seems unlikely, however, that they represent Al Qaeda. I saw prayers being held on the front line at Ras Lanuf, but most of the fighters did not attend. One zealous-looking fighter at Brega acknowledged that he was a jihadi—a veteran of the Iraq war—but said that he welcomed U.S. involvement in Libya, because Qaddafi was a kafir, an unbeliever...

Be sure to read the whole thing, although it's worth appending the conclusion here:

In Benghazi, an influential businessman named Sami Bubtaina expressed a common sentiment: “We want democracy. We want good schools, we want a free media, an end to corruption, a private sector that can help build this nation, and a parliament to get rid of whoever, whenever, we want.” These are honorable aims. But to expect that they will be achieved easily is to deny the cost of decades of insanity, terror, and the deliberate eradication of civil society.

Hmm.

Reading this, it's clearly an extremely fluid situation in Libya, and intense caution is warranted. Thus, I woudn't quibble much with David Horowitz's latest commentary, "Ominous Signals on Libya: A Response to Andrew Sullivan." No doubt the administration's been caught off guard. Not only have goals been left vague, but should ground troops be deployed, President Obama will have purposely deceived the nation. Most of all, folks like Horowitz worry that extremists will come to power, and an Islamist front could eventually span the region from Tripoli to the West Bank. Andrew Sullivan doesn't care. He's got an epic Obama man-crush going and wants Obama to out-cowboy G.W. Bush on military intervention. But there are differences. Rick Moran builds on Horowitz's analysis, putting things into progressive perspective: "Libya and the Soros Doctrine." And the morally bankrupt Juan Cole does yeoman's work in sitiuating Libya as the center of ideological battle against "evil" conservatives in the Horowitzian mold, whether neoconservative or not: "An Open Letter to the Left on Libya." Add on top of these the freak paleocons at American Conservative and Conservative Times and folks can get an idea of how complicated the politics of foreign policy are at present. As always, my standard remains the expansion of freedom around the world. I may differ from Horowitz and Rick Moran on the immediate tactical agenda, but my friends on the right join me in battle against the progressives, who support the rebels now, and would continue to support Libya should it become, after a change of regimes, a North African front against the U.S. and Israel.

Obama is Awesome!

"I don't care!"

Hey, cool and awesome, like JBW!!