Who do you trust on job creation?

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s talk about something other than the embassy riots for a change.

The other day a Rasmussen poll asked the question “Who do you trust more on job creation?” The results were 47 Obama to 45 Romney

Sounds crazy, but it’s really not, IMHO.

Lots of people think that in tough economic times it’s the government that can—and should—create jobs, a la the alphabet soup of the FDR years. And not all these people are dumb, by any means; some actually pay attention to history, because that’s the history we all learned, isn’t it? FDR’s programs ended the Depression?

Whether it’s true or not, that is. Recent revisionist histories such as Amity Shlaes’ are just that, recent and revisionist. Before then, the idea that the New Deal may have hurt as much as it helped was a minority position, and certainly not taught in most schools.

As for the survey, I would rather they’d have asked “Which candidate would be better at creating a business climate that favors job creation by private business?” I have a feeling the answer might have been quite different.

I don’t have access to the full results of the poll, but the wording of the questions was also interesting. As pollsters go, Rasmussen is one of the more fair, but I can still see problems with this, “Whom do you trust more on the issue of job creation””President Obama or Mitt Romney?” It would have been a lot better to equalized the names somewhat: “Barack Obama or Mitt Romney” (leaving out the president’s title, which gives him extra gravitas and authority), and varied the order, too.

We are living in an Orwellian world…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and I’m not an Orwellian girl.

Apologies to Madonna, but it seems that in terms of disinformation and propaganda, we are living in an Orwellian world (or at least a Pravda-esque world). And if the American people aren’t sharp enough to see it, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

If that fact weren’t already clear to me, the relentless MSM and administration focus yesterday and today on Mitt Romney’s quite reasonable reaction to the tweet from the Cairo embassy would have brought it home quite dramatically.

I wonder: if you were to interview 100 random people on the street on the subject, what would their reaction be? Perhaps a lot of them are not even paying attention. But my guess is that the majority would take their cue from the headlines and say that Romney made a big boo-boo. What he did, and why it was so wrong, they might not be able to quite say; maybe it was wrong just because the pundits said so.

So, what was Romney’s crime? Speaking out against a really bad communication by the Cairo embassy, one the Obama administration itself has now repudiated? Or was it speaking out on foreign policy at all? Or was it criticizing Obama? Or was it—as some critics say—exploiting American deaths for political gain?

Certainly couldn’t be the latter, because then the MSM would have to have been consistent and have criticized the Democrats (and Obama himself, prior to his presidency) for their relentless put-down of the Iraqi war effort, of Bush’s actions on 9/11, of the surge, of just about everything a Republican has ever done in that arena.

It should be transparently clear to any thinking person what’s happening here. But how many people think critically when they read a story? It’s so much easier to jump on the meme bandwagon.

John Podhoretz has a good piece in the New York Post today on this topic, and the WSJ has an editorial that features this observation:

[Romney’s] political faux pas was to offend a pundit class that wants to cede the foreign policy debate to Mr. Obama without thinking seriously about the trouble for America that is building in the world.

I would go one step futher: the “offense” the pundit class expresses is faux. They don’t really think this topic should be off-limits. Romney’s offensive faux pas is the mere fact that he is the Republican nominee for president running against Obama. The rest of the details don’t matter. If Romney doesn’t oblige them by doing anything wrong, they will make whatever he does do into a wrong. They’re just that creative.

[ADDENDUM: Ann Althouse comments on the phenomenon:

Can we get some consistency from the big-media pundits? Shouldn’t the NYT, for example, have noticed by now that new media is dogging them, and we have YouTube?…The more MSM lets their lust show, the less likely we highly selective swing voters will spend any time with you. You have to insinuate yourself into our minds, and you’ve triggered our resistance. We’re turned off. Yes, the base loves what you’re saying, but they didn’t need to be seduced.

Ah, but it’s a different calculus the MSM is using. How many “highly selective swing voters” are there? Not very many, I’m afraid; there are probably far more of the liberal readers who want to participate in the daily two minutes’ hate, plus a vast number of swing voters who just read headlines.

I don’t think the NYT thinks it’s losing readers because of its partisanship and transparent, logically inconsistent, and deceptive shilling for Obama and the left. I think the Times thinks it’s keeping some of the readers it already has in a market in which most newspapers are having circulation trouble for a host of reasons, and at the same time it is furthering the Cause.]

Security? What security?

The New Neo Posted on by

Ace writes about the deplorable lack of security at the Benghazi consulate. I can’t find a link in Ace’s post, but the information seems to come from this Politico article:

The Benghazi consulate had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy, an intelligence source told POLITICO. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies. The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt ”“ “a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend.” The Cairo embassy also was attacked Tuesday.

I called it “deplorable.” Perhaps “criminal” would be a better word.

[ADDENDUM: As for supposed Israeli “Sam Bacile,” producer of the film that supposedly sparked the whole thing, he may not be Israeli, Jewish, or named Sam Bacile.

But I’m sure it’s all the Jews’ fault anyway. Them, and Bush.]

[ADDENDUM II: Could Hillary Clinton actually be naive enough (or dumb enough) to have sincerely asked herself this question on learning of the attacks?:

The secretary of state said she asked herself “how could this happen in a country we helped liberate and in a city we helped to save from destruction.” But she added that the people who attacked the consulate were a “small and savage group.”

It seems like either criminal lack of awareness to the point of delusion, or something else. Perhaps my imagination’s not Byzantine or Machiavellian enough, but I can’t imagine that an incident like this one could possibly serve either Obama or Hillary. So it may be that they’re just that naive and just that stupid.]

Who was the US ambassador killed in 1979?

The New Neo Posted on by

I keep reading references to the last time a US ambassador was killed: 1979. But nothing about who it was.

So let me fill that gap. The man was Adolph Dubs, then-ambassador to Afghanistan (no surprise there, right?). Here’s what happened:

In 1978 Dubs was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan following a coup d’etat which brought the Soviet-aligned Khalq faction to power. On February 14, 1979, he was kidnapped by four armed militants belonging to the Setami Milli party posing as police. The kidnappers demanded the release of Badruddin Bahes, the imprisoned leader of their party. The government of Hafizullah Amin denied holding Bahes, and refused categorically to negotiate with the militants, in spite of the US embassy’s demands. Dubs was held in Room 117 of the Kabul Hotel (now called Kabul Serena Hotel). Afghan security forces and Soviet advisers swarmed the hallway and surrounding rooftops, but negotiations stalled. Shortly after 12:30 p.m., an exchange of gunfire started between the terrorists and the Afghan security forces, and the ambassador was killed. Afterwards the U.S. government formally expressed to Moscow its disapproval of the assault by the security forces.

Ambassador Dubs was not replaced by the US government and the embassy was finally closed in 1989 as security in Kabul deteriorated. The position of US ambassador in Afghanistan was not filled until 2002.

The death of ambassador Dubs is currently considered a “Significant Terrorist Incident” by the US State Department.

Documents released from the Soviet KGB archives by Vasily Mitrokhin in the 1990s showed that the Afghan government clearly authorized the assault despite forceful demands for peaceful negotiations by the U.S., and that the KGB adviser on scene, Sergei Batrukhin, may have recommended the assault, as well as the execution of a kidnapper before U.S. experts could interrogate him. Other questions remain unanswered.

Unanswered, indeed.

Obama’s statement on the death of Ambassador Stevens

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the text of Obama’s statement on the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Some excerpts:

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

Statements like this are tricky to write, because they need to walk a fine line between angry condemnation and diplomacy. But a couple of things stand out in Obama’s. The first is that when he said “we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people,” Obama appears to be leaving the justice to the Libyans.

Next, the statement “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” is a sop to the PC crowd, a less-than-ringing defense of free speech (to say the least), and an implicit endorsement of the probably-bogus theory that these killings were actually sparked by the Coptic videos.

When Obama says “The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts,” I give him a bit of a pass because it’s just the usual obligatory diplomacy-speak. It’s not going to happen, and Obama knows that (at least, I think he does).

As for the role of Libyan security in the whole mess, that remains to be seen. According to Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi:

…Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building – deemed safer – after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack…

Al-Sharef said there had been threats that Islamic militants might try to take revenge for the death of al Qaeda’s No. 2 commander Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan in June, and he said the U.S. consulate should have been better protected…

Al-Sharef said the Libyan guards employed to guard the consulate building were far outgunned by the protesters, and thus retreated when the building was stormed.

Is al-Sharef telling the truth? Beats me.

Violence against Americans in Cairo and Benghazi

The New Neo Posted on by

Let me see if I’ve got this straight:

A privately produced and amateurish anti-Islam film made by expat Coptic Christians in the US and distributed on YouTube is said to spark violent protests in Cairo. The US Embassy there apologies for offending Muslim sensibilities. Violence escalates in Cairo and in Benghazi (cities in countries that have recently undergone American-approved oustings of long-time dictators). It is reported that an”embassy worker” may have been killed in Benghazi. Mitt Romney condemns the Cairo embassy apology in a statement that also condemns the attacks. The Obama administration disavows the apology issued by its own embassy. Later it is announced that the “embassy worker” was actually the US ambassador to Libya, and that three other diplomats were killed as well.

And one of the main responses of the MSM and the left is to condemn Mitt Romney for his statement. I kid you not.

Here’s a good summary of the timeline of events.

The press has been eagerly awaiting a major and important gaffe by Romney, and they’re hoping this is it. I can’t quite see that, though. I can’t imagine that most Americans (at least, the ones following the story, which may not be most Americans) were not as outraged as Romney by the statement of the Cairo embassy at the time.

The fact that this sort of violence occurred in two countries where Obama supported the revolts and the installation of the present governments does not make the president look good. It also seems that Obama either initially approved of the Cairo embassy statement and then backtracked, or had so little communication with and control of the embassy there that it was issuing a rogue statement with which he disagreed during the crisis. Neither possibility makes the president look good.

And now the terrible murder of the US ambassador to Libya, and the three other embassy workers—complete with horrific-appearing visuals conjuring up memories of Blawkhawk Down, but which have recently been reported to be of people taking him to the hospital (hard to believe, but I suppose possible)—spark further outrage, and also do not make the president look good.

In addition: why was the security at the embassy so poor? Could this not have been predicted? Especially on 9/11? Which also does not make the president look good.

And if by saying that I’m “politicizing” the attacks, of course I am. But they are already political; what else would they be, in addition to tragic and anger-provoking? Such an event will naturally engender commentary and criticism, and part of that commentary and criticism will be of the administration on whose watch it occurred.

It is only two short months before the election. One of the major issues—although we don’t hear as much about it as we hear about the economy, or dogs on the roof—is foreign policy. Obama’s has been execrable, and it has featured (among other things) bowing to dictators and appeasement abroad. Whether he approved of the Cairo embassy statement or not, he has created a perception of weakness and lack of fortitude on the part of the US. Some people consider that’s the right way to go—it’s sensitive and all that, and should appease those offended by our actions. Others (and I include myself in this group) think that honor/shame cultures are only inflamed by the perception of our weakness.

[ADDENDUM: (Hat tip: “Artfldgr”) It seems likely that the attacks were coordinated and not by spontaneous mobs at all. That makes a great deal of sense, especially considering the locations—embassies in two different countries— and the date, 9/11, as well as the fact that a rocket seems to have been involved. It has all the hallmarks of coordination by an al Qaeda-esque group.

I have not written about the exact circumstances of Ambassador Stevens’ murder because the reports I’ve read so far are conflicting.]

[ADDENDUM II: Here is the text of a statement Romney issued today. It begins with a lengthy expression of mourning and a tribute to Stevens and the others. Then he adds:

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn’t ”˜cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.

The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests. Over the last several years, we have stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region, but also poses the potential for peril, if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events.

We must strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter. ]

[ADDENDUM III: Astounding. Just astounding.

And yet I suppose it shouldn’t be. Much of the left would dearly like to stifle speech it finds inconvenient.]

[CORRECTION: It was a consulate in Benghazi, not an embassy. Embassies are only in capital cities, and Tripoli is the capital of Libya.]

9/11 anniversary

The New Neo Posted on by

Eleven years. That’s a formidable passage of time.

New buildings are rising on the site of 9/11. The memorial fountains are in place, a somber and yet paradoxically beautiful tribute. The museum was stalled by a dispute, but maybe soon it will be ready for visitors.

We’ve incorporated what was once unbelievable and even unimaginable (except perhaps by Tom Clancy) into our reality and our history. Kids learn about it in school, just another tale.

We’ve watched the illusory unity of the weeks right afterward disintegrate into today’s bitter disagreements. The quarrels are real, and important.

Some of the bereaved have moved on to new relationships, but will always grieve. Offspring have grown up. The photos of the dead are now becoming outdated, old hairstyles and old suits.

But that doesn’t mean we have forgotten. What we may have forgotten instead is what it was like before, when we were more innocent, more naive.

More on those pesky polls

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama’s recent uptick doesn’t seem to be among likely voters.

I’m always puzzled by this “likely voter” thing. Why would people take the trouble to answer a telephone survey about the election, and yet say they are unlikely to vote?

Then again, I’m confused by the entire phenomenon of the non-voter. Even if I were to detest both candidates, I’d vote, even if only to write someone in.

[NOTE: I realized only after I wrote it that the title of this post was an unconscious play on the Boston Red Sox’s Pesky Pole.]

Jews leaving Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

The good news is that Jewish voters are abandoning Obama in higher percentages than any other demographic group:

…[O]ne of the surveys showing [Obama] with a lead in a tight race over Mitt Romney also provides a breakdown of the data that confirms predictions that he is losing up to a quarter of the Jewish votes he got in 2008. The Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP Poll gives a breakdown of religion along with other demographic groups and shows Obama leading among Jews by a margin of 59 to 35 percent with six percent undecided. While that is still a majority it is a dramatic decline from the 78 percent of the Jewish vote he got four years ago.

Obama has a 46-44 percent lead over Romney in the TIPP poll. That means Obama is suffering from a decline in support throughout the electorate from his 2008 victory when he won 53 percent of the vote. But the president’s loss of approximately 25 percent of Jewish voters this year is not matched by a similar decline in any other demographic group.

The bad news is that a majority of Jewish voters still support him.

Jewish voters are a very tiny portion of the electorate. But they tend to be a vocal one, and also a disproportionate number of Obama donors come from their ranks. And of course they matter quite a bit in important toss-up state Florida.

ADDENDUM: Here’s an example of why they might be leaving [hat tip: commenter “Curtis”):

Whatsamatter, don’t you like roller coaster rides?

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m surprised that so many people are falling for the meme du jour, which is that Romney/Ryan have already lost the election.

I often get nervous about this election, because I think the stakes are so high. But unless my calender is profoundly awry, when last I checked we had about two months to go till November, and we can except the polls to go up and down and up and down before then.

People on the right appear to be just as susceptible to propaganda as those on the left. That really shouldn’t surprise me; propagandists are very good at what they do, and humans are humans. But discouragement is uncalled for at this point, although nervousness has always been appropriate.

What will almost certainly matter most this year—and what is exceedingly unpredictable, even to pollsters who might be trying with all their might to get it right—is turnout.

But how good are polls as prognosticators, especially in elections that will probably be somewhat close? Not very.

[ADDENDUM:

The designer dorm room

The New Neo Posted on by

In the “Republicans fooling themselves” thread, commenter “expat” reminisces:

I just saw a piece on Today about girls entering college who are spending thousands for classes about adjusting to college life, including how to get in to sororities. I got a hug and kiss from my parents before they drove off and left me to unpack my clothes and desk lamp (What? No fridge or microwave?).

I well remember my first day of college. My parents had driven me there and said goodbye in a room bare of everything except my clothes, my bed with some plain sheets and a blanket on it, a cork bulletin board (something I’d never used before), and a wooden desk and chair. There was two of every piece of furniture and the bulletin board, thoughtfully provided by the college. A lonely stranger in a very strange land, I sat and waited to meet my assigned roommate.

The idea was that the two of us would go together to pick out bedspreads and curtains. I don’t remember ever getting curtains; I think we just used the sheers provided by the college. But well do I remember our bedspreads, which I thought were great. It was the 60s, and the fabric was yellow/orange/brown Indian striped cotton, of a type that became ubiquitous later—so ubiquitous that I figured I could find a photo of something like it online even today.

And here you go:

Over my bed I later put a poster sans frame, of the Rousseau painting “The Sleeping Gypsy.” It was an odd choice, I suppose—rather disquieting and not really a depiction of restful sleep. But I loved it, and the stripes in the gypsy’s robe echoed the stripes in the bedspread (which was rarely on the bed, as it turned out; I was a lousy housekeeper):

And that, my friends, was it.

I was not alone in my minimalist decorations. Rich or poor, most of the girls kept it to some bedspreads and curtains, and maybe a poster or two. Dorms were a great leveler; the most extravagant act I remember on the part of any of my dorm-mates was the girl who sent her laundry home each week in a little container made expressly for that purpose. It came back in a few days, washed and neatly ironed.

We thought her and her family mad.

But now it’s come to this, apparently, at least for some students:

“It is extravagant,” Knight says. But “I wouldn’t see any other way to do it.”

Sure, dorm rooms in general are looking increasingly chic thanks to college-friendly offerings from outfits such as PB Teen (Pottery Barn Teen) and CB2 (an offshoot of Crate & Barrel). But a small group of students are taking it to a luxe level, doing as Mom and Dad do and enlisting the eye of experts—those who have decorated the family homestead or those based near school…

“It’s traumatic having a child going off to school,” says Knight, 54, a stay-at-home mom whose husband, Sonny, is an attorney. “Doing a finished, cozy, personalized dorm just makes it better for everyone.”

Has sharing a dorm room gone the way of the dodo as well?

I do envy the young those salad bars in the cafeteria, however. Our food was nearly inedible—which did not keep us from gaining the classic Freshman Fifteen.

[ADDENDUM: I put this in the comments section, but I thought you’d enjoy seeing it more prominently displayed:

Obama and the Ryan-insult excuse: all you ever needed to know about Obama…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and his devious weasel ways can be found here.

I’ve previously discussed Obama’s excuse for insulting Paul Ryan to his face:
‘

Obama seems to like to dress people down publicly; humiliating someone and watching him/her squirm (or try to suppress the squirm) is another way to assert power over another person and to feel superior oneself…I don’t actually believe Obama didn’t know about Ryan’s attendance [at the speech where Obama insulted him].

But at the time I wrote that, I was unaware that Ryan was sitting in the front row for the speech in question. That means that Obama has had to do some pretty tricky dancing in order to avoid admitting the fact that of course he knew Ryan was there when he made the speech. Let’s take a look at how he did it:

I’ll go ahead and say it—I think that I was not aware when I gave that speech that Jack [sic] Ryan was going to be sitting right there. And so I did feel, in retrospect, had I known—we literally didn’t know he was going to be there until—or I didn’t know, until I arrived. I might have modified some of it so that we would leave more negotiations open, because I do think that they felt like we were trying to embarrass him. We made a mistake.

As Ann Althouse points out, the first red flag is the word “think” in the phrase “I think that I was not aware.” It’s a very odd construction under the circumstances; people don’t speak like that unless they’re trying to fool the listener, or unless they’re remarkably inattentive to their own thought processes. He thinks he was not aware? Obama was either aware or not aware, and he’s the only one who would know it, outside his inner circle. If it was an aide who invited Ryan to attend the speech (as previously alleged), and Obama was not informed beforehand, then that’s something he should remember and not just “think” he remembers. It should have been a huge shock when he saw Ryan sitting there.

But it goes way beyond that. The reference to Jack Ryan instead of Paul Ryan is telling in the Freudian sense. I’m no Freudian, but that’s quite a slip; Jack Ryan is the guy Obama was running against in Illinois whose seamy divorce records were conveniently unsealed (either independently, or as a result of some string-pulling by Obama allies).

Obama says he was unaware of Ryan’s presence “when I gave that speech.” But even if Obama was unaware of Ryan’s presence before he took the podium, if Ryan was sitting in the front row, Obama became aware “when he gave that speech.” And if he was unaware under such circumstances, then he is extraordinarily and pathologically out of it.

Obama then contradicts himself and says first that “we” didn’t know beforehand (that would probably include his staff, unless he’s using the royal we). Then he catches himself, perhaps because he recalls that in the Woodward book the author says that Ryan was specifically invited to the speech by Obama staffers. So Obama corrects himself and says “I” didn’t know—“until I arrived.”

So, which is it, Barack? Did you not know when you gave the speech, or did you become aware when you arrived?

Obama then goes on to add what I think is his most curious statement of all: he acts as though he had no power whatsoever to change his speech once he saw Ryan sitting there. Perhaps he’s correct. After all, his reliance on prepared remarks and the teleprompter is legendary. Even had he wanted to temper his remarks (which I do not for a moment believe), are we really to understand that he had no ability to ad lib and override his own speechmakers, and was forced to insult a man sitting in front of him because Obama is a preprogrammed robot who cannot adjust to circumstances?

Now, that’s quite an admission.

You may have noted that I have a higher-than-usual degree of anger about this particular incident, even though it’s really a very small one in the scheme of things. Don’t a lot of politicians do this sort of thing? Yes. But Obama does it more blatantly, more arrogantly, and more consistently, with an incredibly inappropriate air of his own self-righteousness—and in large part he gets away with it.