On Politics, and Trying to Talk About the Weather Instead

One thing we can say for this crazy election year, as awful as it’s been, is that at least the weather has been unusually perfect here on the Kansas plains. A mild and almost snow-free winter made the desultory results of the early primaries somewhat more tolerable, then an early and warm and eerily storm-free spring provided a pleasant distraction from the ominous clouds that continued to gather on the political horizon. The summer had just enough of those stifling hot days to feel like summer but mostly provided ideal conditions for long walks through the lush local parks as the two worst presidential candidates in American history wrapped up their party’s nominations, and a glorious Indian summer of a fall has stretched clear into November and the final week of a crazy election year and its incongruously stormy political climate.
There’s a chance of storms for today in the weather forecast, with a weeklong drop in the temperature expected after that, which somehow seems appropriate, but the storms aren’t likely to be severe, the next week’s temperatures will probably only drop into the not-bad-to-this-time-of-year 60s, and after that we can hold out hope for another mild winter. The political forecasts are all over the place, though, with that awful Republican clearly gaining on that awful Democrat, and that awful Democrat still clinging to a slight advantage in the national average of the polls and a slightly better advantage in the average of the polls in the states that everyone thinks will decide the matter, and all the partisans clearly quite nervous about how it might turn out.
All of the more mathematical pundits are calculating the odds for all the various possible scenarios, including the popular and electoral votes once again disagreeing, or neither nominee getting an electoral majority and the matter being settled in the House of Representatives, where that guy from Utah that nobody’s ever heard of would have at least a one-in-a-million shot because at least nobody hates him the way both of the their majority party nominees are hated by a majority of the country, not to mentioned the even more far-fetched possibilities. We have a friend who plays harmonica and does pen-and-ink sketches well and is willing to bet money that there won’t be an election next Tuesday, another friend who is one of the better heavy metal drummers in town and agrees that a reptilian race of super-human alien invaders have already rigged the results, and we have a Republican nominee who has intimated that a former primary rival’s dad had President Kennedy offed and also says the election is rigged, and a Democratic nominee that makes it all very plausible, so at this point in such a crazy election year we can’t dismiss any possibility.
What doesn’t seem at all possible, from our perspective here on the Kansas plains, is any sort of happy outcome. The one thing all the polls agree on is that either nominee would be the most unpopular president ever on Inauguration Day, all the pundits on both sides of the partisan divide have made clear they keep this crazy election year’s fights going, but from our position in the middle of the country and on neither side of this awful race we’re just hoping for a mild winter and storm-free spring.

— Bud Norman

An Israeli Election and the American Consequences

Israeli politics seem to us a confounding mix of those convoluted European parliamentary systems and the even more arcane points of Talmudic mysticism, and as we write this there is still a chance that the results of Tuesday’s elections in that far-away country might yet come down to hanging chads and butterfly ballots in Palm Beach, but it does appear from the latest press reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has won another term. This strikes us as good news for Israel, at least from our faraway vantage point, as well as a happy development in our own domestic politics.
Like most American conservatives, we have been puzzled that Netanyahu was ever in danger of not winning re-election. He’s long been the world’s most forthright and effective opponent of Islamic terrorism, after all, and the notion of his countrymen failing to recognize such leadership seemed as inexplicable as the British rejecting Prime Minister Winston Churchill after the Second World War. All politics truly is local, though, and the Israelis have been susceptible to fanciful leftist economic schemes since the country’s kibbutz days, and Netanyahu has already been in power for more ten years and even the most admirable politicians everywhere eventually become wearisome to a public, so some drama should have been expected. The results don’t necessarily vindicate Netanyahu’s domestic economic economic policies, according to the general tenor of the world press, and they don’t necessarily constitute a referendum on national security policy, as even the most crazily liberal Israelis are by now realistically hawkish, but the party of the Arab minority that isn’t committed to the country’s survival might have involved in a coalition to unseat Netanyahu, and there is reason to believe that Israel’s desire for continued existence had something to do with it.
It’s so hard to say how much Netanyahu’s recent well-publicized spat with American President Barack Obama had to do with it, but we’d like to think it played at least a small part. Netanyahu accepted an invitation from the Republican party to address Congress recently, the president huffily declined a meeting for the stated reason that he didn’t want to interfere in another nation’s elections, a slew of unnamed White House sources made it clear that the president clearly intended to influence the the Israel elections against Netanyahu, Netanyahu went ahead and gave a speech decrying the president’s negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, and it seems to have worked out well for him. If Netanyahu had lost the president’s apologists would have gloated about it, so American conservatives are entitled some to gloating about the victory. Better yet, Netanyahu’s victory might even help persuade a crucial number of Democrats to join a unified Republican in overriding a presidential veto of an impending bill that will impose economic sanctions on Iran and wind up scuttling the president’s disastrous negotiations. At the very least, Netanyahu’s victory deprives the president of an argument that his appeasement policies are acceptable to even Israel.
The very latest press reports from Israel indicate that the election wasn’t even very close, and we say shalom to Israel and God bless America.

— Bud Norman

As Long as You’re Looking Good

By happenstance we found ourselves chatting with a most affable Venezuelan fellow the other night at a local bistro. We don’t mean to pretend we’re so cosmopolitan as this atypical evening at a West Douglas hipster dive in Wichita would suggest, but there was also a delightfully bawdy Englishwoman and a couple of polite but circumspect Poles in attendance. At any rate, we commiserated with our newly-fledged Venezuelan friend about the political and economic woes in his homeland, which are even more socialistic and screwed-up than the situation here, and he shrugged his shoulders and waved his hands and said it had been a bad 14 years for his country. We joked that we were surprised President Cristina Kirchner had proved so awful, given that she was kind of hot when the country elected her, but he seemed to take our jest in earnest as he sighed the same disappointment.
From our conversation we had gathered that the fellow has made something of a success of himself in our ruthless local capitalism, and he seemed quite sensible, so it was surprising to surmise that he had apparently expected the stark raving left-wing Kirchner to lead his country anywhere but bankruptcy just because of her past comeliness. Although we’ve long been enamored the sultry appeal of the Latin bombshells, from Lupe Velez and Dolores Del Rio to the invariably naked Sonia Braga of ’80s and the latest offerings from multi-cutural Hollywood, but we’d like to think we’re not such suckers for a pretty face that we’d entrust any of them with a head-of-state position, especially if they were stark raving left-wingers, as most of the probably are. By that point in the evening we were starting to overlook the tattoos on that delightfully bawdy Englishwomen, though, and we had to admit that personal appearance plays a disproportionate role even in our own politics.
In vain we tried to remember the last American major party presidential nominee who was outright ugly. Nixon, maybe, although we expect that in ’68 a still-significant silent majority of the country foun his receding hairline and ski-slope nose somehow reassuringly seasoned, and that in the hirsute year of ’72 it didn’t matter what he looked like against such a grizzled old hippie freak as George McGovern. We got a lot of laughs back in ’04 by asking “Why the long face, John Kerry,” but even he was rescued from outright ugliness by a certain Boston Brahmin quality to his visage. Kerry still lost to the good-old-boyish looks of George W. Bush, Nixon got edged out by the more photogenic John F. Kennedy, and the most physically appealing candidates have usually prevailed in almost every election as far back as we can remember. The buff young fighter pilot that was once Sen. John McCain might have stood a fighting chance against the smooth-skinned Barack Obama and his ivy-covered Afro-cool, but the war-wounded old man who ran instead never had a prayer. Mitt Romney’s wholesome handsomeness was too redolent of those corny old ’50s sit-coms, and were thus trumped by the grayness and wrinkles that four years of fruitless administration had gadded to his opponent’s already ivy-covered Afro-cool. Lincoln is generally regarded as the great of all presidents, even by the egomaniacal current occupation of the office, and he was widely derided for his ugliness at the time of his administration, but that was a pre-electronic age of media that will unfortunately never be recovered.
This disturbing human tendency toward superficiality might yet provide our collective rescue, however. The conventional wisdom’s horrifying conclusion is that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States, and it is reassuring to think we might spared that eventuality by her increasingly haggard and harridan looks. There are ample other reasons to oppose this awful woman’s ascendance to the presidency, but in her case we’ll take whatever we can get. It would be nice if the country could up with a majority for some bland-looking but high-performing chief executive such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry or even better yet but less-handsme Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, but we’ll be hoping for an outright ugly Democrat to oppose them.

— Bud Norman

About That Poll

Everything seems to be spinning out of control, from foreign affairs to the domestic economy to those ever more scandalous scandals, but everyone on the right has been taking some time out to enjoy that Wall Street Journal-National Broadcasting Company poll that shows that President Barack Obama is at last taking some of the blame for it all. The poll shows widespread disapproval of the president’s handling of the economy and especially of his foreign policies, with an especially precipitous drop in his popularity among Hispanics, and it’s bad enough that such a reliable apologist as NBC’s Chuck Todd has declared that “Essentially the public is declaring that (Obama’s) presidency is over.”
Obama’s presidency won’t actually be over for another two and half years, alas, but there is some consolation in reading that so many Americans have belatedly concluded that it should be done. The poll bodes well for the Republicans’ chances in the mid-term elections, which traditionally reflect the popularity of the sitting president, and that offers a chance a to at least limit some of the damage over the last two years of the era of hope and change. Deeper in the poll there are also contains some numbers on presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton that provide hope for the presidential election in ’16. and the possibility that some of the damage can be undone. We can’t begrudge anyone the faint glimmer of optimism that the poll provides, but it remains to be seen if the Republicans will once again squander its possibilities.
Much of the public’s dissatisfaction is with the administration’s foreign policy, which will likely also be a problem for the former Secretary of State who is the presumptive Democratic nominee, but the Republicans will find it difficult to offer a popular alternative. The last Republican administration’s forceful response to Islamism’s war against America remains unpopular, even if the public is just as discontented with the results of both Obama’s apologetic and appeasing repudiation of that approach and his bomb-first-and-ask-questions-later adventures in Libya and Pakistan and elsewhere, and the next Republican nominee will have to find an appealing middle ground that eschews long commitments of troops without letting the international order slide into chaos. The presumptive Democratic nominee and her as-yet-unknown challengers will be trying to strike the same balance, and while they won’t be able to promise deterrence through a stronger and better-funded military they will have a helpful press explaining that all of the world’s problems are still the fault of the last the Republican administration. Events are proceeding at such a pace that is impossible to predict the challenges that will be debated in the next but election, but it is safe to say they’re headed in a direction that will make the debate lively and difficult for both sides.
Things are going so badly from Ukraine to the Middle East to the South China Sea that foreign policy will play a larger-than-usual role in the next elections, but the pocketbook issues will as always be important. This should also play to the Republicans’ benefit, especially when Obamacare has been fully implemented and the consequences of all those foreign policy mistakes become apparent at the gas pump, but the Republicans’ penchant for political ineptitude could also negate that advantage. The Democrats have already indicated that they’ll run on the argument that the problem isn’t the impoverishment of the middle class that their policies have caused but rather the wealth of a few people that Republican policies have allowed, and human nature being prone to envy it will be a popular line. The presumptive Democratic nominee has lately encountered some unaccustomed bad press because she’s one of those wealthy people her party wants the public to resent, but the Democrats can always come up with another nominee who’s been getting by on a few hundred thousand dollars a years from government or academia, or come up with some more satisfactory explanation for why they’re running a woman who got filthy rich on writing books and giving speeches for the corporate world.
That precipitous drop in the president’s popularity with Hispanics is also encouraging, especially if it reflects a realization that his kind-hearted Hispanic-kids-get-in-free policy has created a humanitarian crisis for tens of thousands of Hispanic children, but the Republicans will still have to make a convincing case that their more hard-headed approach will have less heartbreaking consequences. The growing Hispanic population will remain a political challenge for the Republicans, and the demographic trends that are providing more unmarried women and children of unmarried couples bring challenges that will be hard to overcome with just a strong case for better policies.
Still, those poll numbers provide a grumpy right-winger will some small measure of satisfaction. These days, we’ll take whatever  we can get.

— Bud Norman

Monday Blues

The latest headlines have induced in us a severe case of nostalgia for those heady days of ’08, when hope and change and all that jazz were ascendant. Things were so much simpler then, as it was widely understood that getting rid of all that cowboy capitalism and foreign policy of the previous administration and following the simpler and kinder path of community organizing by a new and darker one would surely set things right, while the latest batch of news has brought nothing but despair and importance and complexity.
One would be hard-pressed to describe a simpler and kinder path than the one America has followed since that hopeful year, yet the resulting change doesn’t seem to have set things at all set right. The economy has not yet roared back to its pre-bubble-popping expansiveness despite the inflation of new bubbles, the world seems as dangerous a place as ever, and at best the elections of ’14 only offer less of the same.
There’s not much point in reciting the glum economic statistics, which will be made all the clearer at your next fill-up, bit it might be worth noting that the Russians are laughing at America’s efforts to counter its recent annexation of the Crimean region of Ukraine’s old borders. Pulling missile defense out of Poland and the Czech Republic and offering nuclear reductions and otherwise “re-setting” relations with Russian has somehow failed to prevent this unfortunate turn of events, any better than tossing around printed-up money to Democratic constituencies did in reviving the economy, and if except for the occasional green shoots in the economy there’s little reason for optimism out there.
We’re told that the Republicans will do well amidst the gloom and intractability of ’14, which provides some hope of a sor-of change, but there’s always a likelihood that they’ll blow that so we’re left thinking of those good days of ‘-08. It was all so simple then.

— Bud Norman

A Not-Yet Final Report on Benghazi

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s final report on the Benghazi tragedy comes far too late to change the results of the last the presidential election, and perhaps too early to affect the next one, but it is welcome nonetheless.
Although history’s final report on the matter will surely be even harsher, the report provides a damning indictment of the administration’s competency and honesty as well as a definitive rebuttal to its apologists. The report concludes that an American ambassador and four other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in the consulate at Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, because the State Department ignored numerous credible warnings to deny them adequate security, and that contrary to the repeated claims of the president and various subordinates during his re-election campaign the deaths were not the result of a spontaneous reaction to an obscure anti-Islamic video but rather a carefully planned military assault by an al-Qaeda-affiliated terror group. Both of these points have long been made in the conservative press, but after the desperate attempts of the administration and its allies in the mainstream media to deny them as right-wing conspiracy-mongering it is nice to have confirmation from a congressional committee dominated by partisan Democrats.
The report further acknowledges that none of the terrorists responsible have suffered any consequences, despite the promises of the administration, and quotes witnesses who frankly admit the political nature of the State Department’s actions before and after the attacks. It doesn’t call into question the disastrous Libyan policy that preceded the attacks, or note the outrageous damage done to the First Amendment when the filmmaker falsely of that anti-Islamic video blamed for the attacks was imprisoned on the pretext of a parole violation, but it’s still strong stuff coming from a committee headed by California’s reliably left-wing Sen. Dianne Feinstein. While some conservative critics have complained that the report does not explicitly blame President Barack Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, neither does it attempt to exonerate the two people ultimately responsible for the conduct of the State Department.
Obama’s brazen lies about Benghazi were sufficient to win him re-election, with considerable help from his adoring allies in the media, and he will therefore be able to maintain his incompetent and dishonest control of the State Department for the next three years. By the time Hillary Clinton begins her widely-presumed campaign for the presidency many Americans will likely agree with her famously callous opinion that “What difference, at this point, does it make,” but one can hope that at least one person responsible for the Benghazi tragedy will at least be held responsible.

— Bud Norman

The Results are In

Some high-profile elections were held Tuesday, and the results provide political junkies with something to talk but nothing for either party to celebrate.
Democrat Terry McAuliffe eked out a win in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, but the margin of victory does not bode well for his party. The former Democratic National Committee chairman and longtime Clinton family bagman had a lavishly-funded and professionally-run campaign machine, his Republican opponent was an unabashed Tea Party type who was thus easily caricatured as a right-wing nutcase by the state’s helpful press, there was also a Libertarian candidate generously funded by an Obama operative to lure some votes from the right, and with the northern half of the state rapidly swelling with grateful employees of the ever-growing federal government the race was supposed to be a rout. All the polls showed that it was going to be lopsided until Republican candidate Ken Cuccinelli started reminding people that he had been the first state Attorney General to oppose Obamacare, at which point the polls tightened to a point McAuliffe wound up winning by far less than the share of the vote snookered by the faux-Libertarian. Had the Libertarian’s source of money been known earlier the race would likely have gone to Cuccinelli, and the dirty trick will be difficult to pull off against all the other Republicans lined up to bash Obamacare in next year’s mid-term elections.
Republican Gov. Chris Christie rolled to landslide reelection victory in New Jersey, which is not intended as a fat joke, but even such an impressive margin of victory in such a Democratic state does not justify all the resultant wild talk about his presidential prospects. After an upset victory over the incredibly sleazy incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine and the Democratic machine that had the state on the verge of bankruptcy Christie quickly gained national prominence by taking on the public sector unions to slash an unsustainable budget, and with a colorfully pugnacious style that played well beyond the tough-guy precincts of New Jersey, but conservative enthusiasm waned as it gradually became apparent that on issues ranging from guns to illegal immigration to Islamism he was more a northeasterner than a real Republican, and the straw that broke the conservative camel’s back was Christie’s literal embrace of Obama during the much-hyped phony-baloney Hurricane Sandy recovery effort that reversed the president’s slide in the polls.
Although Christie can claim to have won over blue state voters, much as Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, and is now every Republican-hating reporter’s favorite Republican, much as John McCain was, these qualifications are unlikely to convince Republican primary voters that he’s a sure-fire winner. He can still boast of having confronted the public sector union beast and set his state’s finances more or less in order, but so can Wisconsin’s Gov. Scott Walker, who survived a bruising recall effort and greater liberal vitriol to do so, and Walker isn’t burdened by Christie’s polite northeastern opinions on other important matters. There’s talk of Christie switching parties to get around these difficult political realities, but it’s hard to imagine anyone whose great claim to fame is an in-your-face hostility toward public sector unions ever winning a Democratic primary anywhere. Christie might take a hard turn to the right now that he’s term-limited from another state race, much as Kathleen Sebelius went crazy left after winning her second term as Kansas’ governor in order to win her currently uncomfortable position in the Obama administration, but it will take some doing to make for him to make sufficient amends with the conservatives here in the gun-loving heartland.
Another Democrat won by a landslide in the New York City mayoral election, and a more-or-less outright commie Democrat at that, but that will ultimately be to the party’s detriment. The victory is a bigger deal than the an inland American’s stereotype of New York would suggest, as it has been a hard-to-believe 20 years since a Democrat won in that overwhelmingly Democratic metropolis, but a mayor bent on waging war against the rich folk who pay for the city’s lavish government will soon remind the city why it went so long without Democrats. In the ‘70s and ‘80s New York City descended into a graffiti-covered and trash-strewn state of lawlessness and insolvency, to the point that such an out-and-out Republican as Rudy Giuliani was given two terms to turn things around with aggressive law enforcement and free-market economics. He was succeeded by Michael Bloomberg, a media magnate and Republican who quickly reverted to an independent status lest he be embarrassed at the town’s tonier cocktail parties, and although he became a national laughingstock with his eat-your-broccoli paternalism he retained enough of the pro-business and anti-crime policies of his predecessor to keep the city successful. The new guy won on promises to stop the police department’s controversial “stop and frisk” rules and to somehow make everyone in the city equally impoverished, and apparently there are enough New Yorkers who can’t recall the ‘70s and ‘80s to make this a winning argument. The results should provide Republicans with plenty of object lessons in coming campaigns.
Things have gotten so bad in Detroit that the city elected a white mayor, its first in 40 years. He’s a Democrat, of course, but it’s still a sign that when things get bad enough people will try anything.

— Bud Norman

The Democrats’ Problem

The Republicans have their problems, but at least they are not burdened by anything so troublesome as Obamacare.
A brief accounting of the Republicans’ difficulties would include the ongoing hostility of much of the news and entertainment media and an educational establishment that has indoctrinated a significant portion with the basic assumptions of liberalism, as well the unfavorable demographic and cultural trends that deliver ever more newcomers from socialistic cultures and unmarried women with the same redistributive tendencies, and of course the debilitating internecine struggles between the principled and pragmatic portions of the party, but all that seems a mere annoyance compared to the ongoing train wreck that is Obamacare. Never in the history of American politics has such a disastrous policy been so completely a creation of one party as Obamacare is the Democrats, and it might prove enough eradicate all of the Republicans’ woes.
Obamacare is going so badly that even the most locally Democratic media have been forced to acknowledge it, with such reliable news outlets as CBS and NBC and The New York Times being frank about the millions of Americans who have suddenly found themselves uncovered by the new law and such essential satirists as Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live tossing in the sort of ridicule they usually reserve for the likes of Sarah Palin and Sen. Ted Cruz. Academia is finding itself hit especially hard by the new law, and its healthy young students who are expected to subsidize the whole boondoggle are suddenly more resistant to being indoctrinated with the basic assumptions of liberalism. The Spanish-language Obamacare website looks likely to be down for a while, and the rate of married or un-married female participation in the workforce is the lowest in decades due in part to Obamacare’s expensive and onerous regulations on employers, and even the segments of the electorate must susceptible to the Democrats’ pitch that they can be trusted to run things will skeptical. The kamikaze tactics of the Tea Party Republicans who temporarily shutdown part o the government in an attempt to de-fund Obamacare will be able to remind the public of their opposition, and even the squishy RINOs who opposed the effort can not be held responsible for the law’s consequences because their predictions of failure all proved correct.
The opinion-makers and the politics don’t really matter, though, because the ill effects of Obamacare are going to be apparent on a painfully personal level to too many Americans. The millions of Americans who will lose their satisfactory insurance plans to Obamacare will know which party to blame, and even the most partisan media will not risk their credibility by trying to tell them otherwise. The many more millions of Americans who will be paying higher premiums for the coverage they’re lucky enough to keep will also know which party is responsible, and at least a few should be open to the other party’s arguments. An even larger number of Americans relegated to part-time employment because of Obamacare might not realize the connection, and too many of them will be grateful for the health care subsidies they’re offered, but more than a few will also be listening to Republican arguments with a newly opened mind.
There’s always the chance that the Democrats can successfully spin their way out of an untenable situation and the Republicans will squander a golden opportunity, but the Democrats will have to concoct something better than a laughable denial and the Republicans will have to do some rather bitter infighting.

— Bud Norman

Dancing in the End Zone

A certain amount of taunting and chest-thumping is now an almost obligatory rite of victory in America. This unfortunate trend can be seen in those silly minstrel shows that professional football players perform after every touchdown, in the anonymous trash-talking that is misspelled on the message boards of internet game sites, and lately even in remarks by the President of the United States.
In the aftermath of a perceived victory over the congressional Republicans in the government shutdown standoff, President Barack Obama was as sneering and snotty as an overly-tattooed power forward after a slam dunk when delivering a short speech on Thursday. “There are no winners here,” Obama said, but he had preceded that with a “Let’s be clear” that signaled he didn’t mean a word of it. His attitude throughout the speech was unmistakably triumphalist, albeit unaccountably angry for a putative winner, and he was not at all magnanimous toward his presumably vanquished opponents.
The president showed even less respect for the truth, peppering the speech with dizzying number of exaggerations, half-truths, and outright hogwash. He repeated the dubious claim that a government default would have inevitably followed the passing of the debt ceiling deadline, portrayed the largely unnoticed government shutdown as a major catastrophe, argued that the mere $600 billion budget deficit of the moment is proof of his fiscal rectitude rather than the restraint forced on him by his Republican antagonists in the House, then once more made the argument that unrestrained government is essential to the country’s economic heath. He spoke loftily of the need for growth, as if his policies haven’t been the main impediment to the achieving that goal, and declared that “the American people are fed up with Washington” as if he hasn’t held the most powerful position in that capital city for the past five years.
All the blame, as always, was laid at the feet of those pesky Republicans who dared to defy his imperial edicts. Although he condescended to praise the “reasonable” Republicans who eventually capitulated to his demands, he scolded the “extremes” of the party who “don’t like the word ‘compromise’” and aren’t “willing partners.” Obama is reckoned to have won the shutdown showdown because he was able to compromise less than even his most unwilling adversaries were prepared to do, and by “reasonable” and “willing” partners he clearly means Republicans willing to go along with every detail of his insane agenda, but he does seem to believe that he deserves credit for his generous willingness to work with those anarchistic hostage-taking old-folk-hating terrorists in that other party.
The president’s great victory merely postponed the same old fussing and fighting for a few months, when yet another debt ceiling will be reached and the same old argument that it would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility not to go a few hundred more billion dollars in debt is once again trotted out, but he believes it entitles him to proceed without any bothersome dissent from his vanquished foes. Not only are those Republicans in the House of Representatives are expected to stay silent, but also “the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio, and the professional activists who profit from conflict.” Including the “professional activists who profit from conflict” is an especially audacious choice, coming from a man who touted his years as a community organizer to win election, and it’s not as if Obama has demonstrated any sort of aversion to the right sort of lobbyists during his time office, but the disdain for the folks exercising their First Amendment rights to criticize his actions is also quite worrisome coming from a president.
Obama went on to taunt his opponents to “Go out there and win an election. Push to change it, but don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.” Coming from the man who promised to “fundamentally transform” the country, and was eager to vote against raising the debt ceiling when a Republican was in the White House, and apparently believes that his convoluted socialized medicine scheme is what our predecessors spent over two centuries building, this is rich. Those Republicans who bravely voted against handing yet another few hundred billion dollars of debt to the president did win elections, and they won them on a promise to get rid of Obamacare and at least slow the growth of an ever-expanding government. Such resistance might offend Ocala’s sense of entitlement, but it is very much a part of the system he claims to uphold. Elsewhere in the speech Obama indicated that he will use the next few months of increased debt to pursue immigration reform that will sign up a few more million Democratic voters and a farm bill that continues to churn out corporate and social welfare, and he seemed offended in advance by the predictable resistance.
After some blather about the selfless government employees who endured a lengthy paid vacation during the shutdown, Obama ended with some old-fashioned hope-and-change rhetoric about everyone working together to do whatever his heart might desire. He graciously allowed that there will be some differences of opinion, but with chin aloft he intoned that “It can’t degenerate into hatred.” Not like those anarchistic, hostage-taking, old-folk-hating Republicans, you know.

— Bud Norman

Illegal Immigrants, Illegal Moves

The more dedicated chess buffs among you will recognize the term “zugzwang,” which denotes a position that would give a player an advantage if only he weren’t compelled by turn to make one of the disastrously disadvantageous moves available to him. Republicans have lately been finding themselves in zugzwang with an infuriating regularity, and the issue of illegal immigration has done to them it again.
Four years of economic sluggishness have slowed the flow of illegal immigrants to a trickle, so of course the president and his media allies would prefer to talk about illegal immigration rather than the economy. The president took an expensive trip to Las Vegas Tuesday for a speech on the topic, with the usual pack of sycophantic reporters in tow to make sure it dominates the news cycle to an extent that forces a Republican response, and on Monday a group of eight Senators tried to beat him to the punch by announcing their own plan. Among the eight were some prominent Republicans, and they apparently figured they were making the least worst move on the board.
Although the Senators’ plan was short on details, which will likely prove devilish, it does include what is politely known as a “path to citizenship” and impolitely known as “amnesty.” There are also provisions for a program that will verify a potential employee’s immigration status, requirements that back taxes be paid, and promises of stricter border enforcement, but amnesty by any name is the problematic part of the proposal. The right-wingers who comprise the Republicans’ base loathe the idea of offering citizenship as a reward to people who have successfully broken the law for a long enough period of time, as do many middle-of-the-roaders and a sizeable chunk of Democratic-leaners, but even such a conservative standard-bearer as Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio has apparently concluded that the cost of offending the growing the Hispanic population would be even greater for the party.
An inexplicable lack of enthusiasm among the white working class to defeat Obama was a problem for the Republican presidential candidate in the last election, and that will surely be exacerbated by a capitulation to the president’s demand for amnesty, but the Hispanic votership’s inexplicable enthusiasm for Obama was an even bigger problem in the past two campaigns. Several explanations have been offered for the latter phenomenon, but the widely accepted theory is that the Republican party’s opposition to illegal immigration has allowed them to be successfully caricatured as a bunch of Meskin-hatin’ rednecks, and that will surely be exacerbated if the Republicans refuse to budge from an anti-amnesty position. With the Hispanic population expected to keep growing until the next election, Republicans find themselves in an untenable position.
Many Republicans, including failed presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, believe that their party should be able win a over Hispanics by stressing their support for entrepreneurship and small business while remaining steadfast in opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and the left’s naked antipathy to the Catholic church. The pitch worked well enough for Spanish-speaking Texan George W. Bush to win a sufficiently large minority of the Hispanic vote, but it is overly optimistic to hope that it will soon woo an actual majority. Obama won a huge share of the Hispanic vote despite being as avidly pro-abortion and same-sex marriage as a candidate can be, while he was being sued in court by the Catholic church for attempting to impose his own notions of morality on the ancient religion, and if Mexicans are habitual capitalists there is no explaining why Mexico has had nearly 90 years of uninterrupted rule by something called the Permanent Revolutionary Party. The Republicans might well increase their share of the Hispanic vote by embracing amnesty, but if the Hispanic vote grows as expected they’ll still wind up ceding more actual votes to the Democrats.
Nor are the Republicans likely to gain any compensating advantage from a hard-line opposition to amnesty. The benefits of illegal immigration are mostly enjoyed by agricultural and construction businesses that might otherwise be inclined to support Republican candidates, while the costs are paid mostly by low-wage workers and displaced African-Americans who will be voting Democrat no matter what. A concerted effort by the mainstream press will portray the debate as xenophobic white guys versus hard-working would-be Americans and their enlightened protectors, and any efforts by the Republicans to drive a wedge into the Democrat coalition will be thwarted.
The best riposte by the Republicans would be to talk about the sluggish economy that renders the illegal immigration meaningless. This is not a legal move, however, and thus the Republicans find themselves in zugzwang yet again.

— Bud Norman