The Council nominations are up.
Council Submissions
Soccer Dad - The Warming Concensus
The Razor - ClimateGate Shows the Importance of the Amateur Scientist
Joshuapundit- Obama – The War President And The Speech
Right Truth - It’s All About The Boobs
Bookworm Room - The incoherence emanating from the White House
The Colossus of Rhodey - Once again-why Schools of Education Are A Waste of Time
Rhymes With Right - Are Nicholas Kristof And The New York Times Going To Let John Die?
The Glittering Eye - The Lessons
The Provocateur - Between Left and Right lies the truth
Mere Rhetoric - Leaked Global Warming Docs: “Publicity Machine” Used To Manipulate Journalists And Intimidate Scientists
Honorable Mention
Fai Mao’s Sandbox - The death-rattle of a movement – except in Hong kong
Non-Council Submissions
Submitted By: The Watcher – Bruce Walker/American Thinker- The Ghost Of Lysenko
Submitted By: Soccer Dad – Uncle Jimbo - Michael Moore Writes To Obama
Submitted By: The Razor – The Khaki Elephant - Michael Moore’s Letter to Obama
Submitted By: Joshuapundit – Victor Davis Hanson - Dithering and Trashing America
Submitted By: Right Truth – Yid With Lid - Breaking ClimateGate News: Phil Jones of CRU Pending Investigation/Professor Mann In Trouble
Submitted By: Bookworm Room – Patrick O’Hannigan/ American Spectator blog - The Community Organizer In Chief
Submitted By: The Colossus of Rhodey – John Tierney - E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science
Submitted By: Rhymes With Right – Professor Bainbridge - Nicholas Kristof,Obama care and the Broken Window Fallacy
Submitted By: The Glittering Eye – Outside the Beltway - Charles Johnson ‘breaks’ from the Right
Submitted By: The Provocateur – Free and Equal - Illinois Board of Education violates its own rules
Submitted By: Mere Rhetoric – Ace of Spades - Australian Parliament Rejects Their Version of Cap & Trade
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Analyzing Obama's West Point Speech
The speech was actually a bit dull and the headlines will be the surge in troops. The president has announced a surge in troops of thirty thousand new troops. Those troops will be in country for eighteen months and then they will begin to be drawn down. Still, that will be conditions based. So, it's not entirely clear if conditions will be the driving force or if the time line will be the driving force.
The three pillars of the strategy are as follows. First, there will be a surge in troops that will try and bring security to the areas of Afghanistan that are unsecure. Second, it is working with the Afghan government to root out corruption and incompetence. Third, it is working with Pakistan so that Al Qaeda doesn't take root there.
The problem with the speech is that often he would set up a stark scenario and then say that we need to get out by 2011. The president made it clear that if Al Qaeda takes hold in Afghanistan that this will lead to another attack. Yet, he also says that we will try and get out by 2011 and one reason is that our economy is sputtering. If this is a matter of life and death, how is our economy a factor in when we leave. I, personally, didn't get the feeling that he wants to win and will refuse to accept any other outcome.
This speech was full of equivocation. It wasn't a speech of someone determined to win. It was the speech of someone that wants to try to win. In order to win a war, there must be 110% commitment from everyone involved. This president convinced no one that he is 110% committed to winning. He didn't give the full contingent of troops asked for. He set a timetable though he said it was conditions based. He talked about cost and the economy along with the necessity of war. He talked about all sorts of things in the speech and victory was one thing I heard very little.
The three pillars of the strategy are as follows. First, there will be a surge in troops that will try and bring security to the areas of Afghanistan that are unsecure. Second, it is working with the Afghan government to root out corruption and incompetence. Third, it is working with Pakistan so that Al Qaeda doesn't take root there.
The problem with the speech is that often he would set up a stark scenario and then say that we need to get out by 2011. The president made it clear that if Al Qaeda takes hold in Afghanistan that this will lead to another attack. Yet, he also says that we will try and get out by 2011 and one reason is that our economy is sputtering. If this is a matter of life and death, how is our economy a factor in when we leave. I, personally, didn't get the feeling that he wants to win and will refuse to accept any other outcome.
This speech was full of equivocation. It wasn't a speech of someone determined to win. It was the speech of someone that wants to try to win. In order to win a war, there must be 110% commitment from everyone involved. This president convinced no one that he is 110% committed to winning. He didn't give the full contingent of troops asked for. He set a timetable though he said it was conditions based. He talked about cost and the economy along with the necessity of war. He talked about all sorts of things in the speech and victory was one thing I heard very little.
Ballot Access in Illinois and the Putback Amendment
When most people think of ballot access, the average citizen thinks about complaints from third and fourth parties about how the two major parties are keeping them off the ballot. Ballot access, as the term implies, is the ability for every candidate that's qualified to get on the ballot. In the state of Illinois, ballot access, or lack thereof, is another tenet of the corruption in the political structure.
With ballot access, the issue is most often the political machine challenging the validity of signatures. For every electoral race and every amendment, a certain number of people must sign an initial petition just to get said candidate or amendment on the ballot. The political machine, for both parties, will often have an army of lawyers ready to challenge the validity of enough signatures to force any candidate or amendment below the threshold and force them off the ballot.
Often these challenges are on marginal issues. For instance, my full name is Michael. I don't know exactly what it is on my voter registration card but it's probably Michael. If I were to print my name on a petition as Mike and it's really Michael that signature can be challenged. If I recently moved and accidentally used my previous address, that could be challenged. Even if I simply wrote my information in too sloppy a manner, that could be challenged.
There are all sorts of other technical challenges. For instance, the petition, the binder that a candidate or amendment is required to submit in order to be considered for being on the ballot, must be numbered by pages, and that numbering must be handwritten. So, if a petition isn't numbered, that can be challenged. A petition is supposed to be stapled and so if it is clipped together, that can be challenged. The list goes on and on.
A famous recent case of the issue of ballot access involves Republican State Senate candidate Steve Rauschenberger. In this case, the Democrats are challenging Rauschenberger validity as a Republican. In fact, Rauschenberger is a lifelong Republican. He's held a seat in the State Senate as a Republican from 1993-2007. For the last two years, he was head of the United Republican Fund, a PAC that supports Republican causes.
Democrats are challenging his validity as a Republican because in the last primary he voted in the Democratic side. He did this because his sister, herself a Democrat, was running in a race and it was the only way he could vote for her. Still, the Democrats are using this vote to challenge his validity as a Republican.
The most infamous case was in 1996 when then State Senatorial candidate Barack Obama was able to throw each of his four opponents in the Democratic primary by challenging each of their ballots. He invested in a top notch electoral lawyer and then ran an electoral war of attrition until each of his candidates ran out of money and he wound up running in the primaries unopposed. Before you rush to demonize Obama for this, just remember that he played fairly by the rules created. (though it's not exactly a "new kind of politics")
Dick Mell's daughter Deborah is also running for local office. She recently moved and hasn't updated her voter registration card. So, her ballot is being challenged based on the fact that her address is incorrect. Of course, she actually has until the 2nd of January to update her address.
Finally, the folks at Free and Equal Elections have recently identified another case of ballot access shenanigans, this time in the Illinois Democratic Gubernatorial primary.
The examples go on and on. What happens is that often primaries are open and there's no competition for incumbents. Furthermore, it limits the access of third parties to get on the ballot. Third parties are already at a disadvantage. They have less funds, less organizing, and less volunteers. It's hard enough for them to get on the ballot. It's that much harder when political machines then challenge them after they've gotten over the hump. Furthermore, the whole process is totally cynical. Republicans will most often challenge a potential Libertarian candidate and Democrats will often challenge the Green party candidate because both pose a threat to their party.
The Putback amendment, an amendment I featured last week, attempts to address the flaws in the statewide system. It does this by limiting ballot challenges to one of three principles: fraud, deception, and illegibility. By fraud, this means that a challenge has to prove that signatures were granted fraudulently. For instance, if me and my friends took out the phone book and filled in the names and signatures to get over the hump, that would be an example of fraud. Second, it's deception. In other words, if I went around telling people that I was trying to put an amendment on the ballot honoring Abe Lincoln and in reality this is an amendment to make gay marriage legal, that would be an example of deception. Illegibility means that it's not clear what I am running for. If I don't identify the office or the primary I want to run in, I would be ineligible. (if I can't do this, it's probably best I not run) The standard will be the preponderance of the evidence, the same standard applied to civil court cases.
No more will a ballot be challenged because Michael went by Mike, unless a lawyer can show, by a preponderence of the evidence, that this was done in willful attempt to defraud. No more can the petition be challenged, unless a lawyer can prove, by a preponderence of the evidence, that the discrepancy was done as part of a wilfull attempt to deceive. No more will technical challenges to petitions be made about numbering and lettering unless those mistakes make it illegible what exactly a candidate is trying to do. So, staple, paperclip, it will no longer matter.
Here's the full text of the Putback amendment. In the third part of this feature, I will look at the issue of gerrymandering. Here's part one of the analysis.
With ballot access, the issue is most often the political machine challenging the validity of signatures. For every electoral race and every amendment, a certain number of people must sign an initial petition just to get said candidate or amendment on the ballot. The political machine, for both parties, will often have an army of lawyers ready to challenge the validity of enough signatures to force any candidate or amendment below the threshold and force them off the ballot.
Often these challenges are on marginal issues. For instance, my full name is Michael. I don't know exactly what it is on my voter registration card but it's probably Michael. If I were to print my name on a petition as Mike and it's really Michael that signature can be challenged. If I recently moved and accidentally used my previous address, that could be challenged. Even if I simply wrote my information in too sloppy a manner, that could be challenged.
There are all sorts of other technical challenges. For instance, the petition, the binder that a candidate or amendment is required to submit in order to be considered for being on the ballot, must be numbered by pages, and that numbering must be handwritten. So, if a petition isn't numbered, that can be challenged. A petition is supposed to be stapled and so if it is clipped together, that can be challenged. The list goes on and on.
A famous recent case of the issue of ballot access involves Republican State Senate candidate Steve Rauschenberger. In this case, the Democrats are challenging Rauschenberger validity as a Republican. In fact, Rauschenberger is a lifelong Republican. He's held a seat in the State Senate as a Republican from 1993-2007. For the last two years, he was head of the United Republican Fund, a PAC that supports Republican causes.
Democrats are challenging his validity as a Republican because in the last primary he voted in the Democratic side. He did this because his sister, herself a Democrat, was running in a race and it was the only way he could vote for her. Still, the Democrats are using this vote to challenge his validity as a Republican.
The most infamous case was in 1996 when then State Senatorial candidate Barack Obama was able to throw each of his four opponents in the Democratic primary by challenging each of their ballots. He invested in a top notch electoral lawyer and then ran an electoral war of attrition until each of his candidates ran out of money and he wound up running in the primaries unopposed. Before you rush to demonize Obama for this, just remember that he played fairly by the rules created. (though it's not exactly a "new kind of politics")
Dick Mell's daughter Deborah is also running for local office. She recently moved and hasn't updated her voter registration card. So, her ballot is being challenged based on the fact that her address is incorrect. Of course, she actually has until the 2nd of January to update her address.
Finally, the folks at Free and Equal Elections have recently identified another case of ballot access shenanigans, this time in the Illinois Democratic Gubernatorial primary.
This is happening in the case of William “Dock” Walls, III, a Democratic candidate for Governor. Walls submitted almost 10,000 signatures from Illinois voters to gain ballot access. The requirement is 5,000 valid signatures.
The political operatives connected to incumbent Governor Pat Quinn then went to work and claimed over half of the signatures Walls submitted were invalid.
Andrew Spiegel, an attorney with Free and Equal, Inc., challenged this claim. In response, the Board unilaterally decided to recount all the official numbers, including the total number of signatures submitted by the Walls campaign.
In a letter to the Board, Spiegel noted, “Rules and Procedures adopted by the Board require that Official numbers not properly and specifically challenged by either party are considered to be valid.”
The examples go on and on. What happens is that often primaries are open and there's no competition for incumbents. Furthermore, it limits the access of third parties to get on the ballot. Third parties are already at a disadvantage. They have less funds, less organizing, and less volunteers. It's hard enough for them to get on the ballot. It's that much harder when political machines then challenge them after they've gotten over the hump. Furthermore, the whole process is totally cynical. Republicans will most often challenge a potential Libertarian candidate and Democrats will often challenge the Green party candidate because both pose a threat to their party.
The Putback amendment, an amendment I featured last week, attempts to address the flaws in the statewide system. It does this by limiting ballot challenges to one of three principles: fraud, deception, and illegibility. By fraud, this means that a challenge has to prove that signatures were granted fraudulently. For instance, if me and my friends took out the phone book and filled in the names and signatures to get over the hump, that would be an example of fraud. Second, it's deception. In other words, if I went around telling people that I was trying to put an amendment on the ballot honoring Abe Lincoln and in reality this is an amendment to make gay marriage legal, that would be an example of deception. Illegibility means that it's not clear what I am running for. If I don't identify the office or the primary I want to run in, I would be ineligible. (if I can't do this, it's probably best I not run) The standard will be the preponderance of the evidence, the same standard applied to civil court cases.
No more will a ballot be challenged because Michael went by Mike, unless a lawyer can show, by a preponderence of the evidence, that this was done in willful attempt to defraud. No more can the petition be challenged, unless a lawyer can prove, by a preponderence of the evidence, that the discrepancy was done as part of a wilfull attempt to deceive. No more will technical challenges to petitions be made about numbering and lettering unless those mistakes make it illegible what exactly a candidate is trying to do. So, staple, paperclip, it will no longer matter.
Here's the full text of the Putback amendment. In the third part of this feature, I will look at the issue of gerrymandering. Here's part one of the analysis.
The Mortgage Pow Wow
Politico has a piece about how some of the leaders of the nation's top mortgage lenders, in the industry called servicers (those that hold on or service the loan), are coming to D.C. to meet with administration officials.
This is all part of the administration's attempt to jump start the floundering loan modification program. Yesterday, I laid out just how amped up White House pressure could come to no good. Today, we are getting a preview of how some of that pressure will be applied.
The administration is about to send an unmistakeable message to banks: approve these en masse or else. I can't think of another time where an administration has so openly made demands of private business on their product mix.
There is absolutely nothing that says that banks have to approve loan modifications let alone a lot of loan modifications. Yet, the White House is demanding this of banks. They are going to send in monitors and they are going to tell the banks that they have no option but to approve them en masse. The White House is threatening to publish non compliant banks and post them on the web in an effort to shame them into approving more modifications.
We are headed toward loan modification disaster. It's a road filled with fraud, moral hazards and ultimately it will bring significant damage to our economy.
This is all part of the administration's attempt to jump start the floundering loan modification program. Yesterday, I laid out just how amped up White House pressure could come to no good. Today, we are getting a preview of how some of that pressure will be applied.
Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr told reporters that the department will be sending “SWAT teams” into the companies and requiring regular check-ins on their progress.
The administration is about to send an unmistakeable message to banks: approve these en masse or else. I can't think of another time where an administration has so openly made demands of private business on their product mix.
There is absolutely nothing that says that banks have to approve loan modifications let alone a lot of loan modifications. Yet, the White House is demanding this of banks. They are going to send in monitors and they are going to tell the banks that they have no option but to approve them en masse. The White House is threatening to publish non compliant banks and post them on the web in an effort to shame them into approving more modifications.
We are headed toward loan modification disaster. It's a road filled with fraud, moral hazards and ultimately it will bring significant damage to our economy.
Dr. Chacko Sighting
UPDATE: Please also check out my new book, The Definitive Dossier on PTSD in Whistleblowers, for only $3.99, in which I dedicate chapter four entirely to the exploits of Dr. Anna Chacko.
The Radiology Society of North America is, as the name implies, an organization that represents the interests of radiologists and the industry as a whole. Each year they put on a major conference attended by 60-70 thousand radiologists and nearly 1000 vendors. That conference is currently on going in Chicago. It's being held at the McCormick Place. Here's how a previous attendee described the affair.
According to multiple radiologists, Dr. Anna Chacko is a frequent attendee of this affair. Given its size and scope, that shouldn't surprise anyone. This is among the biggest deals in radiology all year. I've spoken to a source at the conference and they've confirmed that Dr. Anna Chacko is attending. Given their description of her demeanor, it doesn't appear as though she's outwardly acknowledging the controversies over the last couple months. Here's how they describe her at the conference.
For first time readers, Dr. Anna Chacko is an individual I began featuring in September. At the time, she was working at the Pittsburgh VA. I documented a pattern of behavior that was tyrannical, she often lied, was abusive to coworkers, and in general made herself a menace and terror to any workplace she was at. I continued to write about Dr. Chacko documenting her previous work history until in early October she was put on administrative leave from the Pittsburgh VA. Since then, I have had scant information about her besides a yet unconfirmed interview with the Fresno VA Hospital. I have been calling for a series of investigations into her behavior.
As luck would have it, however, Chicago is my hometown. So, that may just set up an interesting confrontation. I should take sometime this week to swing by the RSNA.
If you're an attendee of the conference and you've run into her, I suggest you read this piece.
\
The Radiology Society of North America is, as the name implies, an organization that represents the interests of radiologists and the industry as a whole. Each year they put on a major conference attended by 60-70 thousand radiologists and nearly 1000 vendors. That conference is currently on going in Chicago. It's being held at the McCormick Place. Here's how a previous attendee described the affair.
Radiological Society of North America is one of the major radiology organizations. In fact. I think its conference is this week in Chicago...huge affair, largest radiology conference and equipment show in the world.
According to multiple radiologists, Dr. Anna Chacko is a frequent attendee of this affair. Given its size and scope, that shouldn't surprise anyone. This is among the biggest deals in radiology all year. I've spoken to a source at the conference and they've confirmed that Dr. Anna Chacko is attending. Given their description of her demeanor, it doesn't appear as though she's outwardly acknowledging the controversies over the last couple months. Here's how they describe her at the conference.
She paraded around before like a queen. Entourage. Flouncing sari. Etc. Was wined and dined. Schmoozed and made connections. She is here. Is registered has been seen.
For first time readers, Dr. Anna Chacko is an individual I began featuring in September. At the time, she was working at the Pittsburgh VA. I documented a pattern of behavior that was tyrannical, she often lied, was abusive to coworkers, and in general made herself a menace and terror to any workplace she was at. I continued to write about Dr. Chacko documenting her previous work history until in early October she was put on administrative leave from the Pittsburgh VA. Since then, I have had scant information about her besides a yet unconfirmed interview with the Fresno VA Hospital. I have been calling for a series of investigations into her behavior.
As luck would have it, however, Chicago is my hometown. So, that may just set up an interesting confrontation. I should take sometime this week to swing by the RSNA.
If you're an attendee of the conference and you've run into her, I suggest you read this piece.
\
Clemmons Killed
The shooter of four police in Washington state has been killed.
The media has already begun to speculate on the chain of events that lead to the tragedy. That will only continue. Hopefully, we can all take a moment today to ponder the magnitude of the tragedy.
Seattle police shot and killed the fugitive who gunned down four officers in a suburban coffee shop, a sheriff's spokesman said Tuesday.
Maurice Clemmons was shot to death after a "very alert patrol officer" investigating reports of a stolen car recognized him, Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer told Fox News.
Clemmons, 37, murdered the four Lakewood police officers at a cafe Sunday morning in Parkland, a Tacoma suburb about 35 miles south of Seattle.
The media has already begun to speculate on the chain of events that lead to the tragedy. That will only continue. Hopefully, we can all take a moment today to ponder the magnitude of the tragedy.
The President is F&*ked II
Going into the speech tonight, the President has put himself into a position that is so untennable it's at this point nearly impossible to see how he can get out of it. At this point, there's no doubt that the president will ask for more troops tonight.
That will tick off the left which is now growing ever more impatient with him. It's still yet unclear if he can even sell more troops to get funding but even if he does, it will come at a major price politically. The conservatives will back him but they aren't going to be happy unless he gives McChrystal all the troops he asked for. As such, he will likely please no one with his decision.
At the same time he is selling this, he will also have to maneuver on health care. That's even less popular than an escalation of troops in Afghanistan. On top of this, liberals will already have to swallow more Afghan troops. So, what if there's no public option in health care? Are they really going to swallow that as well? Yet, it seems clear that the bill won't pass in the Senate with the public option. So, what's he to do?
Meanwhile, ACORN is continuing to embarrass him. It's stunning that Holder would come out and say that ACORN would get paid for back contracts. The optics on that look awful. Unemployment is past ten percent. Our deficit is north of $1.5 trillion. His approval rating is in the high 40's and dropping.
Carl Cameron said yesterday that in candor Democratic lawmakers are now targetting Valentine's Day for passing health care reform. The country simply can't take another two months of this. I said yesterday I was sick and tired of the debate and I don't think I'm alone. The approval for the bill is low and dropping and forcing the country to listen to it for another three months will only make it worse. As such, either the president passes nothing or passes something deeply unpopular.
At the same time, he's going to escalate a deeply unpopular war policy. Even if it ultimately works out, it will be a year or more before the public sees progress. In the middle of it all, it doesn't seem as though he can actually get Congressional approval for either let alone both. Already, some of the Democratic leadership have assumed their own role as Commander in Chief. They are making demands for how the war effort will go in order to back funding it. His base is turning on him just at the time he'll have to sell health care reform sans the public option.
Just think about it. Soon, there will be no group all that happy with the president. Conservatives are already in ODS mode. Moderates have been leaving for months. Now, it's the liberals that are beginning to turn and on the two main issues of the day, they're about to be disappointed.
It is all a result of the president totally misreading the mood of the country, the ideological make up of the Congress, and the so called mandate he received in 2008. He's trying to govern as a liberal, at least certainly on domestic issues, in a center right country. The make up of the Congress is center right even though it's more Democrat than Republican. The country didn't want a massive expansion of government and debt.
For him to succeed, he'll have to reinvent himself as a moderate. Health care reform could pass but it would have to be totally transformed into a moderate reform package. To do that, he'll have to show plenty of political acumen and courage. Neither of which he's ever shown in his career. Soon, he'll have no choice. He's created a political dynamic that is almost impossible to stop at this point. That dynamic will lead to huge shifts in 2010. He doesn't have the votes to govern as a liberal now. He certainly won't have them then.
The president is well on his way to becoming the fastest president to reach 30% approval ratings. Nothing is working. Worse yet, he's set himself up to make things even worse. He's about to alienate the left on Afghanistan without really appeasing the right or middle either. Health care is in chaos. The economy is in tatters. Our deficit is enormous, and blaming Bush no longer works. Like I said, the President is F*(ked.
That will tick off the left which is now growing ever more impatient with him. It's still yet unclear if he can even sell more troops to get funding but even if he does, it will come at a major price politically. The conservatives will back him but they aren't going to be happy unless he gives McChrystal all the troops he asked for. As such, he will likely please no one with his decision.
At the same time he is selling this, he will also have to maneuver on health care. That's even less popular than an escalation of troops in Afghanistan. On top of this, liberals will already have to swallow more Afghan troops. So, what if there's no public option in health care? Are they really going to swallow that as well? Yet, it seems clear that the bill won't pass in the Senate with the public option. So, what's he to do?
Meanwhile, ACORN is continuing to embarrass him. It's stunning that Holder would come out and say that ACORN would get paid for back contracts. The optics on that look awful. Unemployment is past ten percent. Our deficit is north of $1.5 trillion. His approval rating is in the high 40's and dropping.
Carl Cameron said yesterday that in candor Democratic lawmakers are now targetting Valentine's Day for passing health care reform. The country simply can't take another two months of this. I said yesterday I was sick and tired of the debate and I don't think I'm alone. The approval for the bill is low and dropping and forcing the country to listen to it for another three months will only make it worse. As such, either the president passes nothing or passes something deeply unpopular.
At the same time, he's going to escalate a deeply unpopular war policy. Even if it ultimately works out, it will be a year or more before the public sees progress. In the middle of it all, it doesn't seem as though he can actually get Congressional approval for either let alone both. Already, some of the Democratic leadership have assumed their own role as Commander in Chief. They are making demands for how the war effort will go in order to back funding it. His base is turning on him just at the time he'll have to sell health care reform sans the public option.
Just think about it. Soon, there will be no group all that happy with the president. Conservatives are already in ODS mode. Moderates have been leaving for months. Now, it's the liberals that are beginning to turn and on the two main issues of the day, they're about to be disappointed.
It is all a result of the president totally misreading the mood of the country, the ideological make up of the Congress, and the so called mandate he received in 2008. He's trying to govern as a liberal, at least certainly on domestic issues, in a center right country. The make up of the Congress is center right even though it's more Democrat than Republican. The country didn't want a massive expansion of government and debt.
For him to succeed, he'll have to reinvent himself as a moderate. Health care reform could pass but it would have to be totally transformed into a moderate reform package. To do that, he'll have to show plenty of political acumen and courage. Neither of which he's ever shown in his career. Soon, he'll have no choice. He's created a political dynamic that is almost impossible to stop at this point. That dynamic will lead to huge shifts in 2010. He doesn't have the votes to govern as a liberal now. He certainly won't have them then.
The president is well on his way to becoming the fastest president to reach 30% approval ratings. Nothing is working. Worse yet, he's set himself up to make things even worse. He's about to alienate the left on Afghanistan without really appeasing the right or middle either. Health care is in chaos. The economy is in tatters. Our deficit is enormous, and blaming Bush no longer works. Like I said, the President is F*(ked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
