Jimmy Carter on how not to apologize

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s being widely described as an aplogy to Israel, and I suppose technically it’s true that Jimmy Carter has offered something of the sort, whether to enhance his grandson’s Atlanta election bid, or as a reflection of that old-fashioned Christmas spirit.

But as apologies go, it’s almost a primer in how not to ask for forgiveness. Look at the text itself. About three hundred words long, it is devoted to a Rodney-Kinglike wish that everyone could get along and be nice to each other, treating each side as equally bad or good in the usual morally relativistic fashion. Of course, considering Carter’s past history of excoriation of Israel, that’s a step up. But here’s the only apologetic part:

…[W]e must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel…I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so.

A classic way of seeming to apologize without really doing so in any meaningful way. In other words, a cop-out.

It’s that tiny little three-letter word “may” that somehow snuck in there. It indicates that Carter can’t truly acknowledge that many of his words did stigmatize Israel. And he knows just what words they “might” have been. He needs to list a few.

Time to abolish the CBO?

The New Neo Posted on by

I was thinking today that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) serves no useful purpose anymore.

It’s not allowed to tell the truth. Instead, it has become the tool of a Congress willing, eager, and all too skilled at tailoring legislation to achieve a certain desired CBO score based on assumptions everyone knows are invalid. The CBO is not allowed to call Congress on its games when it evaluates bills.

So why bother? The CBO has become a way to give the imprimatur of fiscal propriety to bills that are essentially scams, and the CBO is powerless to do anything but be a yes-man to whatever a clever and duplicitous Congress manages to come up with.

Megan McArdle appears to agree. She writes:

…[I]n order to get [the Senate health care reform] bill passed, the Democrats basically gutted the CBO. Not because they were working with the CBO to get estimates—that’s the CBO’s job, to provide Congress with a cost. But rather, because this bill was something novel in the history of legislation. Previous Congresses wrote bills, and then trimmed them to get a better CBO score: witness the Bush tax cut sunsets. But the Congressional Democrats started out with a CBO score they wanted, and worked backward to the bill. They’ve been pretty explicit about the fact that no one wants this actual bill; rather, the plan is to pass basically anything, and then go and totally rewrite it when the budget spotlight is off. I’m not aware of any other piece of legislation that was passed this way.

Essentially, the Democrats have finished the process of gaming the CBO scores. They’re now meaningless. You don’t pass a piece of legislation that bears any resemblance to what you intend to end up with; you pass a piece of legislation that gets a good CBO score, and then go and alter it piece by piece.

Change you can believe in.

A bill to restore Glass-Steagall

The New Neo Posted on by

I almost missed the fact that last week John McCain proposed a bill to reinstate Glass Steagall (see these articles for my previous thoughts on restoring the act). This is a reminder of why John McCain, with all his very considerable faults, would nevertheless have been a much better president than Obama.

Obama came to power in the midst of a great financial crisis. What has he done about to make things better? Thrown a huge amount of money at it, to almost no avail. Made it harder for small businesses. Rewarded his cronies. Put the fear of higher taxes into the mix. Expanded government. Ignored job creation, and lied about it (“created or saved”).

Instead, he should have focused like a laser on the entire issue and made it the first and foremost issue of his entire presidency, including some needed overhaul of the banking system in order to prevent a repeat. Instead, he has declared class war on the financial sector to suit his leftist purposes.

Is stress unhinging Obama?

The New Neo Posted on by

If an incident at Copenhagen described in a recent Die Welt article (translation here) is true, things are even worse than we previously thought with Obama.

And that was already bad enough.

Here’s what’s alleged to have occurred:

According to rumors from the Bella Center, President BO is said to have asked for a conversation with Wen jibao to bring up the matters. But O had to wait. Wen, according to the rumors, almost never left his hotel room and could not be found. Finally the US Delegation succeeded in finding the chinese premier in a conference room. An obviously angry Obama is said to have stormed into the room. “Are you ready yet to talk with me Mr Premier?” he is said to have shouted. “Are you ready now? Mr Prmier, are you ready to talk with me?” What a stage entrance for a US President.

However, Wen was not alone in the room, as Obama literally burst in, according to members of the congress. The Chinese (premier) was in the middle of talks with India’s head of state Mammohan Singh and the South African president Jacob Zuma. Suddenly the group found itself forced into a conversation with the US president.

At the insistence of the impatient Obama, this unplanned and coincidentally-assembled negotiating round and participants, agreed on a minimal compromise.

Obama should have discussed, coordinated with and agreed to this compromise with his closest partners: the European Union or the G77 Developing Nations. Instead, at about 10:25 PM, he called together a number of American journalists for an impromptu press conference. There he announced, the “Copenhagen Accord” as the conclusion and product of the two-week long conference. He was aware, that many countries would consider the result as insufficient and unsatisfactory. More, however, was not achievable.

The Chicago thug in Obama appears to be spilling over from the domestic into the international arena. Whatever happened to the urbane, articulate, exquisitely sensitive Obama-as-diplomat? He probably never existed, except in Obama’s own imagination and speeches (and once again, can you imagine the wall-to-wall press coverage if George Bush had done something similar?)

And speaking of Bush—I think that Obama actually believed the liberal/Left hype George Bush was an idiot. So it stands to reason that if that idiot could manage to talk to world leaders without any major faux pas, how hard could it be? Surely the brilliant Obama could do better without even trying.

Come to think of it—maybe this sort of behavior by Obama isn’t due to stress, because it seems to be an old pattern. The blog Small Dead Animals (hat tip: commenter “Kate” at Belmont Club) reported back in March that this was exactly the sort of behavior Obama exhibited during his first big attention-getting gig, the one that set him up for all the rest: the Presidency of the Harvard Law Review. Here’s a report from Carol Platt Liebau, managing editor of the Harvard Law Review at the time of Obama’s presidency there [emphasis mine]:

[W]hen he was at the HLR you did get a very distinct sense that he was the kind of guy who much more interested in being the president of the Review, than he was in doing anything as president of the Review.

A lot of the time he quote/unquote “worked from home”, which was sort of a shorthand – and people would say it sort of wryly – shorthand for not really doing much. He just wasn’t around. Most of the day to day work was carried out by the managing editor of the Review, my predecessor, a great guy called Tom Pirelli whose actually going to be one of the assistant attorney generals now.

He’s the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he’d leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.

Sound familiar?

[NOTE: I originally had attributed the article to Spiegel, but I’ve corrected that to Die Welt.]

That super-majority to repeal health care: “our rules mean nothing”

The New Neo Posted on by

You may have heard the buzz that there’s a provision in the Senate health care bill that it can only be repealed with a 2/3 super-majority of the Senate. That seems impossible and unconstitutional. But it appears to have been inserted for at least one section of the bill, that referring to the so-called “death panels,” otherwise known as the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards.

Here’s a fairly lengthy discussion of the language of the bill and the requirement for sixty-seven votes for repeal of the provision:

In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.

It is hardly surprising that this extraordinary requirement for a two-thirds vote to repeal was not publicized widely by those who drew up the bill. They must be relying on the ignorance of the American public, and the protective silence of their own buddies in the MSM.

As best I can tell, the existence of the buried provision was unearthed around the time of the cloture vote (or perhaps even afterwards) by Senate Republicans. Senator Jim DeMint tried to challenge the provision by arguing that it was a rule change, which has traditionally required a 2/3 vote to be implemented rather than a simple majority. After speaking about the extraordinary nature of the provision with the Senate parliamentarian, and receiving the sophistic answer that this was just a procedural change and not a rule change at all, and therefore could be allowed to stand, DeMint remarked, “Then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re-define them.”

Many (including this writer) have predicted that the current administration, with the cooperation of the current Congress, is bent on following a Chavez-like course in its efforts to retain and expand its own power, abrogating and/or ignoring and/or going around whatever parts of the Constitution and traditional safeguards to abuses of power that it can get away with jettisoning. I see this particular move as an early semi-stealth measure along these exact lines.

Whether it will be enforceable in the future is anyone’s guess. It is possible that it could be overturned some day by an amendment that does away with this particular language (the one about the rule change, not the one setting up the panel) through a simple majority vote. But if not, watch out for more legislation featuring this sort of provision.

Come to think of it—watch out.

[NOTE: Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades writes that this is not an unprecedented action of Congress. He says there have been a couple of times in the past that similar language has been used. But my reading of his descriptions of those previous events is that they prohibited changes to the bills if certain requirements were not met, rather than saying they could only be overruled by a 2/3 vote. The language does not seem all that similar to me. This may be a nitpicky point, but law is a nitpicky thing.

And I don’t think those previous provisions listed by Malor should have been allowed, either. No Congress should be able to reach out and tie the hands of a future Congress, which should retain its right to repeal legislation (in whole or in part) in the normal manner.

William Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell, has more.

In a a discussion at Volokh, the consensus is that it is most likely not legally binding because there is no enforcement for a violation.

Yet.]

The state of health care reform today

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an excellent summary article of where we stand on health care today. It’s not a pleasant prospect, although well worth reading.

And here’s another, which includes this thought:

In true Jacksonian fashion, the country fired the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 because they bungled the war in Iraq and allowed the economy to sink into recession. They might soon have another Jacksonian moment, and fire these equally useless Democrats for hampering the recovery, exploding the deficit, and playing politics with health care.

I have thought something somewhat similar. There’s a possible symmetry between 2008 and the prospects for 2010. The mentality that got us here as a result of the election of 2008 might begin to get us out in 2010.

The backlash to the Bush administration (or at least, to the way the MSM portrayed it, which is somewhat the same thing but not exactly) was to throw the bums out. But as a result we got a whole pack of new and worse bums.

And unfortunately, we can’t throw them out fast enough to do much good. In the House maybe, because that entire august body goes up for re-election in 2010. But not in the Senate, which is on a system of staggered six-year terms; only a third of Senate seats will be contested in 2010, and then another third in 2012, and the last third in 2014. Not the presidency either until 2012, which seems a long way off.

Pity. As they say, elections have consequences.

Will we now experience a fast cycling of angry reactions, in which voters vote for a predominance of members of one party and then get angry at what they’ve done (or failed to do) and swing the pendulum very far in the other direction, in an alternating series of extreme oscillations?

Why were they fooled about Obama?

The New Neo Posted on by

NY Post columnist Michael Goodwin offers his Obama mea culpas:

I am afraid — actually, certain — we are losing the heart and soul that made America unique in human history. Yes, we have enemies, but the greatest danger comes from within…President Obama, for whom I voted because I believed he was the best choice available, is a profound disappointment. I now regard his campaign as a sly bait-and-switch operation, promising one thing and delivering another. Shame on me.

I applaud Goodwin for at least being able to publicly admit his previous lack of judgment. Better late than never.

But not better enough. We are all stuck with the consequences of the actions of people such as Goodwin, multiplied by millions.

So, how did someone like Goodwin—and so many of the others—get taken in? Let me count the ways:

(1) Do not underestimate the desire to atone for America’s racial sins by electing the first black man to have been nominated for president by a major party.

(2) Wordsmiths were especially taken in by Obama, a phenomenon I explored in depth during the campaign, here.

(3) We have been lucky in America until now. Yes, we are used to politicians who lie. But we have had little or no experience of being lied to by a politician in such a smooth but fundamental way, about the very nature of his basic political orientation. That was Obama’s specialty, and many people lacked the imagination to believe it possible.

(4) Goodwin and many others simply didn’t do their homework. This is especially unforgivable in a journalist, although all too common.

(5) As Obama himself acknowledged, he cleverly exploited the blank screen phenomenon, purposefully encouraging people to project their own wishes and desires onto him, making him into whatever they needed/wanted him to be.

(6) Many people are eager to hop on the bandwagon and be in with the in crowd. And the in crowd decidedly favored Obama—including an MSM that was pathetically and tragically eager to cover up for him.

There seems to be a growing failure of what used to be known as common (or horse) sense, including the ability to size people up. The truth is that almost all of Obama’s flaws were obvious by the time election 2008 rolled around, and ignoring them was an exercise in willful denial.

Nelson caves on health care bill

The New Neo Posted on by

Nelson caves.

No surprise. I hadn’t even written about the issue previously, because I never thought he wouldn’t be bought in just this manner.

My guess is that, once the Senate passes this abomination (Merry Christmas, citizens of the US!), the House will follow with something similar, rather than endure a big battle to try to make the bill more to the Left’s liking. After all, this gets not just the camel’s nose in the door, but the camel’s whole head.

Now the only real question on this issue is what will happen in 2010 and beyond. Will the body follow? Or will the camel be pushed back out again?

Just for fun

The New Neo Posted on by

I figured it’s about time for some comic relief. And not political satire either; something altogether removed from that topic.

In this thread, there was some more discussion in the comments section about that wonderful old chestnut “The Court Jester.” And so here, for Steve G and Anna and all other admirers of the flick, as well as anyone else in need of a laugh (and I’d imagine that’s just about everyone), is one of my favorite scenes from the movie. Please be patient—much of the beginning is a setup; the really funny stuff starts later, when the finger-snapping put the jester in and out of his hypnotic trance:

[NOTE: The whole movie is available in segments on You Tube, by the way.]

The goals of Obama and the Left: tyranny, coup, or business as usual?

The New Neo Posted on by

Freud spent a lot of time wondering, “what do women want?” And on this blog we’ve also spent a great deal of time—and no small number of posts and comments—on the modern-day version: what does Obama want?

There are other questions that go along with that one: what part of his agenda will he actually be able to accomplish, whatever he may want? And by what method? And how can we best go about thwarting those of his intentions we deem to be bad for this country and its future?

I’m not about to tackle all of that right now, although you’re free to try in the comments section. But I noticed these issues coming up once again during the last two days, in the comments section of this thread. So I’ve decided a little clarification of my point of view is in order.

As I wrote here:

I’m not predicting a coup””I’m not predicting anything, exactly. I’m describing something I see, and I believe the idea is to grab as much power as possible, by whatever means possible, as long as possible, and drag the country further and further to the Left, whether the people want it or not. I have no idea how successful this effort will be, but I think it is real, and I think it needs to be resisted.

Several commenters in the thread focused on the difference between some of the terms used: “coup,” “tyranny,” “power grab.” And, although I have not suggested that Obama is advocating the first, I have indeed used the latter terms in reference to what I believe are his plans.

There is a difference between a coup and tyranny, and although sometimes the two go together. A coup is sudden, and it overthrows a government rather than merely morphing it incrementally from one thing to another.

Obama is already in power; no coup is necessary for him to remain there, at least for the next few years. If he tried to stay in power past his term through some sort of extra-constitutional means, I suppose at that point it might be considered a coup. But future election fraud that benefit the Democrats currently in power, while a distinct possibility, does not come under the definition of “coup.” And it is the latter that I believe he (and many other Democrats on the Left) has in mind. I also observe that there is a certain amount of evidence for that belief (the attempt to take over the census, the reliance on ACORN, the push for motor-voter without proof of citizenship, and perhaps later the granting of amnesty to illegals).

Every now and then on this blog, for the sake of an interesting discussion, I have highlighted or quoted other the words of other people who have predicted some sort of coup by Obama. But such an event has not been the focus of my own predictions or thoughts. But while I do believe that Obama is bent on maximizing the number of liberal Democrat voters by hook or by crook, and maximizing his own power and that of the Left in general, that’s not a coup, nor do I believe (or have ever said I believed) in the idea that he’ll suspend elections.

The best summary of what I think is here, in a post entitled “Tyranny and Obama: success or failure.” I have used the word “tyranny” quite often in reference to what I think this administration (and Reid and Pelosi) have in mind. But not all tyrannies are alike, nor do they all come to power through coups.

On reflection, I’m wondering whether there might be a better word for what I’m trying to describe than “tyranny,” a term which has multiple definitions. But I haven’t been able to come up with such a word so far. The definitions of “tyranny” that I’m thinking of in terms of Obama are the following:

—a government ruled by a tyrant who uses his power oppressively or unjustly

—a government wherein the rights and Liberties of the people are violated at will by those in power

—-as used in the phrase “tyranny of the majority”

Some of the definitions of the word “tyranny” involve cruelty and absolute power. I am not asserting that Obama is planning those things at the moment; I don’t think he is drawing up plans for a Gulag or killing fields. But I am asserting that he is bent on violating our liberties in order to consolidate his power and that of his supporters, and that he has no reservations about being creative about going around the constitution (czars, executive orders, cooking the election rolls) if he can get away with it.

As for cruelty and absolute power (or Gulags or killing fields), they’re not necessary for tyranny, although they are always a possibility for the future. It is a question of degree, and it is sometimes the case that these things have a tendency to grow over time once a person or a group gets more and more power. That is why we must be on guard at the first signs of an administration that wants so badly to circumvent the safeguards in our constitution, such as freedom of speech.

Remember that what the Nazis appeared to be when they came to power is not what they were ten years later. The tyranny they so clearly implemented grew and built over time. Nor did they come to power through a coup. Everything Hitler when he first to come to power was strictly legal (see the latter part of this post). Again, don’t get me wrong—I do not see Obama as Hitler. I see him much more as a Chavez wannabee, a smoother and seemingly more erudite (although I believe Obama’s erudition is merely a veneer) version.

That does not mean any of this will happen. It does not even mean that Obama’s goal is to go every bit as far as Chavez has, or will. But they are birds of a feather—and such birds are birds of prey, and the line from one to the other is a continuum.

Most predators pick on the weak or the injured. I believe that, although in earlier times this country was strongly inoculated against the tyranny of someone such as Chavez or Obama, we are now in an enervated state and more susceptible to their enticements. This weakness has been coming on for decades, due to an abandonment of teaching about our own country—its culture, values, and history, as well as its foundations and goals—as well as a lack of critical thinking.

That does not mean that we will not succeed in restoring these things, and combating whatever tyranny (soft, hard, or in-between) the current administration might attempt to implement. There are some encouraging signs that the public is catching on, perhaps in time.

But we need to remain on guard. It is important to remember that, just as a layperson cannot always tell from looking at a photo of a creature in its embryonic stages exactly what sort of animal it will become, it is difficult to predict the form tyranny will take, or how successful it will be in tightening its grip. That is why we need to be aware of the early signs, and to take them seriously.