Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
Afghanistan: Obama’s Setup and Payoff
Posted by Robert J. Avrech in Obama, Politics on October 7th, 2009
Skillfully written screenplays are frequently structured around a series of setups and payoffs.
The most rudimentary example is, of course, the pistol in the desk drawer: revealed in Act I, and then in Act II, the gun is used to kill someone.
For an intensive workshop in cinematic setups and payoffs you should screen the Back to the Future series, where setup and payoff are elevated to an entirely new level.
It’s kind of fascinating, watching Obama construct the setup for his Afghanistan policy. He follows a familiar dramatic structure:
1. Anguished self-reflection, all quite public in order to display nobility of character.
2. Striking out at supporting players—Generals Petraeus and McChrystal—for their disloyal behavior.
3. Floating ideas through the court jester, Joe Biden, regarding an alternate—i.e. losing—policy in Afghanistan. The fool is allowed to speak the truth in order to maintain plausible deniability, but actually designed to prepare the great unwashed for a series of radical policy shifts.
It’s all very Will Shakespeare.
But of course this is all a set-up for Obama to do nothing for as long as possible, which is, by the way, doing quite a bit. Inaction on the part of America and her allies benefits the Muslim terrorists by giving them time to recruit, raise funds, regroup, train, and conquer more real estate.
Obama’s next move will be to deploy a few extra troops to Afghanistan, just enough to claim that he’s in the fight, but not enough to shatter his liberal base.
However, as the body count rises and the tactical and strategic situation in Afghanistan deteriorates, Obama will, in slow motion, bring the troops home, thereby surrendering to radical Islam. And, according to the Democrats, rescuing us from a Vietnam like quagmire.
The blowback will be massive.
1. The Islamists will—rightly—declare victory over the Crusader infidels.
2. Radical Islam will point to a failure of Western resolve in the face of imperial Islam. The propaganda value of this claim cannot be overstated.
3. The Taliban will swallow the entire country and a reign of Islamic terror will spread like the Black Plague.
4. Rapidly, Afghanistan will devolve into a terrorist and drug cartel state, sending out death squads to Europe, North Africa and America.
5. Emboldened, the Taliban will set their sights on neighboring Pakistan, a failed nuclear state ripe for picking. India will be compelled to act or face a nuclear Taliban—dirty suitcase bombs will proliferate—and their non-state Islamist allies, including Iranian proxies. Hamas and Hizbullah.
6. America’s allies will view Obama’s America as an unreliable ally and draw away from America’s orbit.
7. Obama’s fetish for sitting down, in community organizer mode, and yapping away with totalitarian regimes signals massive naivete and weakness. Hence, the Taliban, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela will stomp all over this administration like a rug. The number one rule of geo-politics is: weakness invites aggression.
Ladies and gentlemen, fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Copyright © Robert J. Avrech
Afghanistan: Obama’s Setup and Payoff
Posted by Robert J. Avrech in Obama, Politics on October 7th, 2009
Skillfully written screenplays are frequently structured around a series of setups and payoffs.
The most rudimentary example is, of course, the pistol in the desk drawer: revealed in Act I, and then in Act II, the gun is used to kill someone.
For an intensive workshop in cinematic setups and payoffs you should screen the Back to the Future series, where setup and payoff are elevated to an entirely new level.
It’s kind of fascinating, watching Obama construct the setup for his Afghanistan policy. He follows a familiar dramatic structure:
1. Anguished self-reflection, all quite public in order to display nobility of character.
2. Striking out at supporting players—Generals Petraeus and McChrystal—for their disloyal behavior.
3. Floating ideas through the court jester, Joe Biden, regarding an alternate—i.e. losing—policy in Afghanistan. The fool is allowed to speak the truth in order to maintain plausible deniability, but actually designed to prepare the great unwashed for a series of radical policy shifts.
It’s all very Will Shakespeare.
But of course this is all a set-up for Obama to do nothing for as long as possible, which is, by the way, doing quite a bit. Inaction on the part of America and her allies benefits the Muslim terrorists by giving them time to recruit, raise funds, regroup, train, and conquer more real estate.
Obama’s next move will be to deploy a few extra troops to Afghanistan, just enough to claim that he’s in the fight, but not enough to shatter his liberal base.
However, as the body count rises and the tactical and strategic situation in Afghanistan deteriorates, Obama will, in slow motion, bring the troops home, thereby surrendering to radical Islam. And, according to the Democrats, rescuing us from a Vietnam like quagmire.
The blowback will be massive.
1. The Islamists will—rightly—declare victory over the Crusader infidels.
2. Radical Islam will point to a failure of Western resolve in the face of imperial Islam. The propaganda value of this claim cannot be overstated.
3. The Taliban will swallow the entire country and a reign of Islamic terror will spread like the Black Plague.
4. Rapidly, Afghanistan will devolve into a terrorist and drug cartel state, sending out death squads to Europe, North Africa and America.
5. Emboldened, the Taliban will set their sights on neighboring Pakistan, a failed nuclear state ripe for picking. India will be compelled to act or face a nuclear Taliban—dirty suitcase bombs will proliferate—and their non-state Islamist allies, including Iranian proxies. Hamas and Hizbullah.
6. America’s allies will view Obama’s America as an unreliable ally and draw away from America’s orbit.
7. Obama’s fetish for sitting down, in community organizer mode, and yapping away with totalitarian regimes signals massive naivete and weakness. Hence, the Taliban, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela will stomp all over this administration like a rug. The number one rule of geo-politics is: weakness invites aggression.
Ladies and gentlemen, fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Copyright © Robert J. Avrech
Was Buffy Wicks Also Behind Missouri’s Obama Truth Squad?
Posted by Dana Loesch in Obama, Politics on October 7th, 2009
Coincidence? Buffy Wicks ran Obama’s Missouri campaign and two of St. Louis high-profile prosecuting attorneys, both Democrats, threatened to target anyone who dared to spread misinformation about the then-candidate, known as “Obama’s Truth Squad.”
If the NEA conference call is any indication, the answer is no.
Wicks, who works in the Obama White House as the Deputy Director of the Office of Public Engagement, helped orchestrate, and took part in, the infamous NEA call which asked the artistic community to sell their souls for a partisan political agenda.
You know, in the name of art.
One year ago on September 23rd, KMOV Channel 4 in St. Louis reported that St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough and St. Louis Circuit attorney Jennifer Joyce joined a high-profile group of law enforcement officials (including Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer) threatening to invoke “Missouri ethics laws” against anyone the prosecutors determined had spread misleading information about Obama.
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
Said McCullough:
“If they’re not going to tell the truth, somebody’s got to step up and say, ‘That’s not the truth. This is the truth.’”
The KMOV report stated:
“They will be reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year. They also say they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that violate Missouri’s ethics laws.”
Is it too much to assume that perhaps Wicks convened with McCullough and Joyce to ask for their assistance in stamping out dissent?
KMOV reported:
“The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.”
The campaign is asking. The only assumption with which we’re left is that Wicks, as the head of the Missouri campaign, was directly involved with the attempt to misuse St. Louis prosecutors against the people they serve – especially considering the precedence established by the NEA call. Wicks’s modus operandi is enlisting others to do Obama’s dirty work, disrespecting the skills and responsibilities of professionals and artists by co-opting their talents in the name of partisan politics.
These tricks bring to mind one of my favorite monologues from Julia Sugarbaker (Dixie Carter):
“Growing up in the rural part of Georgia, I’ve been around compost all my life. I’ve seen it tilled and hoed and spread across fields far and wide, but until today, I’ve never seen it tied up and gift-wrapped in such a neat and tidy and pretty a package. Congratulations! You’re a very clever girl–but it’s still compost.”
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
Was Buffy Wicks Also Behind Missouri’s Obama Truth Squad?
Posted by Dana Loesch in Obama, Politics on October 7th, 2009
Coincidence? Buffy Wicks ran Obama’s Missouri campaign and two of St. Louis high-profile prosecuting attorneys, both Democrats, threatened to target anyone who dared to spread misinformation about the then-candidate, known as “Obama’s Truth Squad.”
If the NEA conference call is any indication, the answer is no.
Wicks, who works in the Obama White House as the Deputy Director of the Office of Public Engagement, helped orchestrate, and took part in, the infamous NEA call which asked the artistic community to sell their souls for a partisan political agenda.
You know, in the name of art.
One year ago on September 23rd, KMOV Channel 4 in St. Louis reported that St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough and St. Louis Circuit attorney Jennifer Joyce joined a high-profile group of law enforcement officials (including Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer) threatening to invoke “Missouri ethics laws” against anyone the prosecutors determined had spread misleading information about Obama.
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
Said McCullough:
“If they’re not going to tell the truth, somebody’s got to step up and say, ‘That’s not the truth. This is the truth.’”
The KMOV report stated:
“They will be reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year. They also say they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that violate Missouri’s ethics laws.”
Is it too much to assume that perhaps Wicks convened with McCullough and Joyce to ask for their assistance in stamping out dissent?
KMOV reported:
“The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.”
The campaign is asking. The only assumption with which we’re left is that Wicks, as the head of the Missouri campaign, was directly involved with the attempt to misuse St. Louis prosecutors against the people they serve – especially considering the precedence established by the NEA call. Wicks’s modus operandi is enlisting others to do Obama’s dirty work, disrespecting the skills and responsibilities of professionals and artists by co-opting their talents in the name of partisan politics.
These tricks bring to mind one of my favorite monologues from Julia Sugarbaker (Dixie Carter):
“Growing up in the rural part of Georgia, I’ve been around compost all my life. I’ve seen it tilled and hoed and spread across fields far and wide, but until today, I’ve never seen it tied up and gift-wrapped in such a neat and tidy and pretty a package. Congratulations! You’re a very clever girl–but it’s still compost.”
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
So, Now You Tell Us?!
Posted by John Ziegler in Entertainment, Politics on October 7th, 2009
I have always been fascinated and frustrated by the phenomenon in our public dialogue that when we get new information after a “debate” is deemed to be over, that the original dispute is never “reopened.”
For instance, when Barack Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah Wright “under the bus” a month after he was praised lustily by the media for not having done so in his famous “race” speech, the history of that event was never rewritten. Similarly, the dramatic positive impact of the surge in Iraq never came close to altering the media’s premature conclusion that the war there was a “disaster,” and the most recent data on the global temperature drop has done next to nothing to change the notion that the debate of global warming is “over.”
In the past week we have seen two classic examples of this quirk in the unwritten rules of media history.
The Obama/Oprah led flameout for Chicago’s hopes to host the 2016 Olympics certainly fits in this category. Much has already been said about the disastrous nature of this development from the economic and political perspectives. However, not nearly enough has been stated about how this event seems to prove that one of the basic foundations of the argument for Obama’s election was a complete lie.
It was just over a year ago when Obama choose to go to Europe for his grandiose victory lap for having won the Democratic nomination. Hundreds of thousands (allegedly) of enlightened ones flocked to the streets to see and hear the new Messiah promise to bring the now hated United States of George Bush back into the good graces of the “civilized” world.
The message was clear. We elect Obama and the rest of the world will instantly love us again (as if they ever really loved us to begin with). The media hammered this point until even the people who literally couldn’t find Europe on a map (you know, the ones that actually decide elections in this country) understood how vitally important this was.
Well, based on what happened in Copenhagen, how in the world can anyone conclude anything other than that whole concept was just simply made up?
Never before in modern history had a U.S. President needlessly put so much prestige on the line in front of the world community and been so roundly rejected. The fact that Chicago didn’t even get out of the first round eliminates any real ambiguity about what was really happening here and exposed the theory that Obama’s election did anything to elevate our country in the eyes of the world as being completely bogus (keep in mind that all it took for golf to get in 2016 Olympics after a century long absence was for Tiger Woods to appear in front of the IOC via videotape; once again proving that Obama is no Tiger).
And yet, very little has been said that even questions whether we were lied to about this audacious promise. Instead, some have laughably tried to blame the Bush hangover for the embarrassment even though Chicago somehow made it successfully to the final stage while the evil one was still President.
This episode is reminiscent of the Cambridge police flap where Obama’s words and action totally destroyed the obviously phony narrative that our new President was a different kind of black leader and was going to be “post-racial.” The evidence could not be more overwhelming that we were lied to about this as well, and yet (due mostly to rampant media malpractice and conservative wimpiness) in the consciousness of the average American, that slam dunk case is still largely unproven
The other incident which followed this same pattern involved the revelation that David Letterman has apparently had numerous affairs with members of his staff.
This one is particularly personal for me because I somehow found myself at the forefront of the Fire David Letterman “movement” after his inappropriate “jokes” about Sarah Palin and her daughter. At the time, it seemed pretty clear to me that Letterman had “issues” and that the basis of his obsession with Palin and her family was obviously sexual. After all, Letterman had continuously referenced Palin’s attractiveness in a creepy sort of way and had even invited her on his show while urging her husband Todd to stay home.
But when I went on Fox News Channel to discuss this issue and referenced my theory, I was almost mocked by anchorwoman Megyn Kelly.
Now, based on these most recent disclosures, how can you conclude anything other than I was probably right? Heck, even Letterman himself seemed to back up this conclusion when he seemingly bizarrely (though in the context of my supposition perfectly understandable) “apologized” to Sarah Palin in the middle of begging for understanding from his fans and wife for his indiscretions.
This is on top of the numerous previous statements and “jokes” that Letterman had made about Palin just before and after his original “apology” was so eagerly accepted by the news media which cast great doubt about the sincerity of his efforts to make amends.
But has there ever been any reevaluation of what was really going on in the Letterman/Palin flap which, at the time, actually was outrageously a net gain for Dave? No. Instead much of the media focus has been on how Letterman is a “victim” of an extortion attempt as well as how strongly his fans appear to be backing him on this.
I realize that what is about to happen or what may occur in the future is far more exciting and ratings friendly than what has already occurred in even our very recent past, but are our collective attention spans and memories really all so short that we can’t at least correct the record on these significant incidents?
Our side needs to understand the incredible importance of the narrative and when the facts allow us to win these skirmishes (even after they have seemingly been previously lost), we need to take advantage of that. Fortunately, based on recent history we will get plenty of similar opportunities in the future.
Michael Moore On ‘Hannity’
Posted by Big Hollywood in Entertainment, Politics, Video, michael moore on October 7th, 2009
Parts II , III, and discussion points after the jump:
Sean Hannity and Michael Moore had a discussion of sorts on ‘Hannity’ tonight. It was certainly an event to see Moore on a conservative’s show (much like Al Gore, Moore is notorious for not going toe to toe with prominent conservatives). The conversation itself seemed disjointed and a lot time was spent by both Hannity and Moore jockeying to set the agenda instead of clarifying and challenging differences. Moore came off as plenty appealing, a jovial and confidant representative for his side, but just as with Obama’s speeches, you would get a completely different perception of the man and his ideas if you read what he said instead of watched it. And by different, we mean nauseating.
More analysis from Big Hollywood contributors is likely to follow, but we’re turning you all loose now. Some discussion bullet points:
-“I’m not a multi-multi millionaire.” -Michael Moore
-Apparently our foes in the Middle East are perpetually on monkey bars….?
-Christians are in no position to judge the 9/11 terrorists.
-Is there a conservative on Earth who could get away with invoking God and religion as much as Moore does?
-Hannity was soft on Moore. Good or bad move?
Have at it.
Coburn: Senate Votes to Prioritize Pork Over National Defense
October 6, 2009
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today released the following statement after the Senate rejected Coburn amendments that would have forced Congress to shift earmark funds back toward vital operations and maintenance. By a vote of 25 to 73, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Dr. Coburn that would have restored to the troops $165 million earmarked within the Defense appropriations bill’s maintenance and operations accounts for congressional earmarks.
“In a time of war it is unconscionable for members of Congress to divert funds from vital operations to less-than-vital parochial pork projects. I regret the Senate voted today to protect their pet projects at the expense of our troops,” Dr. Coburn said.
The Pentagon has also expressed concern over the excessive amount of earmarks Congress has requested:
“Every dollar that we are forced to spend on things which we do not need requires us to take money from things which we do need. And the people who lose in that trade-off are our troops and the taxpayers,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman.
The operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts ensure military readiness by providing much needed funds for training troops for combat and for maintaining tanks, airplanes, ships, and related equipment such as the purchase of spare parts. O&M accounts also fund a wide range of activities such as civilian personnel management and payments, transportation expenses, health care, and child care. In May 2009, the U.S. Navy ran out of O&M funding and had to reduce training hours for carrier air wings and at-sea time for some ships. The earmarks funded in the 2010 Defense appropriations bill raid these accounts that are essential to the protection of our troops and our nation’s defense to pay for $165 million or earmarks not requested by the military.
“The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines. American families are prioritizing and eliminating waste in their own budgets, it is a disgrace that Congress has refused this common sense approach to spending taxpayer dollars,” said Dr. Coburn.
Coburn amendments to the bill included:
Amendment 2566 — To restore over $165 million in operations and maintenance funding to members of the Armed Forces to prepare for and conduct combat operations by prohibiting funding of earmarks from operations and maintenance accounts, defeated by a vote of 25 to 73.
Amendment 2565 — To require the National Guard and Reserve Component to submit their modernization priorities to the entire Congress, and seek input from Secretary of Defense Gates, defeated by a vote of 28 to 70.
Coburn amendments accepted:
Amendment 2563— To require all reports authorized in this bill be publicized and accessible to the public once completed.
Amendment number 2585 — To restore $100 million in operations and maintenance funding to members of the Armed Forces to prepare for and conduct combat operations by accounting for the August 2009 Congressional Budget Office economic assumptions and reducing funding for low-priority research and development earmarks.