But At Least He’s Not Sarah Palin
I had written several days ago about how certain Administrations (not just the Presidents that they center around) have been a pivot point to a wholesale changeover in government. One issue I had touched on is that the right person has to be on the lever. What we lack at present is that "right person" to make for a revolution.
The CPAC conference for 2010 is over, and with a surprise "bang". The straw poll at this conference is seen as the most prescient barometer of conservative sentiment. The results of this year's straw poll show some interesting things: first, that students are more active in conservative politics than ever before, accounting for 48% of attendees. Those student, when asked to choose between individual liberty, traditional values and national security, chose overwhelmingly for individual liberty (80%). A very strong 98% disapprove of the job the President is doing. Size of Government, Government Spending and Taxes where the three most important issues to attendees. An overwhelming majority saw gains in Congress for the 2010 elections, with one-third predicting that a Republican majority will be restored. But the most surprising thing is the winner of the Presidential Straw Poll. It wasn't current media-spotlight darling Sarah Palin. It wasn't even former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It was someone you haven't likely heard of for more than a few years: Ron Paul.
When you think about the demographics, it makes sense. 54% of attendees fit into the 18-24 age category with 73% being under 40. This is also the age range of the Ron Paul Revolution, and the top issues at CPAC this year are issues that Ron Paul has been crowing about for years.
Sarah Palin came with a paltry 7%. Most pundits would seem to think that she is the most electable of the three given her ability to make major inroads in the last few years. They also forget that youth are the driving force in politics today, and that the age group that elected Obama on the probable belief that he was going to govern from the center and end the acrimony in Washington politics are now realizing their own gullibility. Their passions, once invested with Ron Paul, are returning to the perennial candidate.
One thing Ron Paul has in common with Sarah Palin; they're not electable. Sarah Palin hasn't taken control of her own image, and by the time she was able to define her own public image, she had already been painted as a right wing whackjob. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has masterfully controlled his public image, but failed to control his army of acolytes, most of whom are whackjobs. The pendulum has swung in his direction, however. We'll know better after 2012 if Ron Paul is the lever this country needs.
Obama Is The Second Coming… Of Carter
During the campaign, while ol Mac was showing us how not to run a campaign, pundits started to note that the rise of Obama was taking on messianic tones. These observations reached the height of ridiculousness (yeah, I wrote that) when Obama's election-night acceptance speech was given in a stadium on a stage featuring greek columns. The Obama camp was ready to play up the imagery of Obama as the second coming, and Newsweeks Evan Thomas (kool-aid drinker!) even went as far as to remark that Obama was "like God"1.
The bloom is now fully off the rose. Far from the second coming of Christ, Obama now appears to be the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter. More on that in a moment. First, I want to focus on the change in tenor in politics. Obama has inadvertantly heralded a new animosity in American politics. This is not his fault; mens rea cannot be established. Indeed, I can definitively show that if Obama had intended to making politics more divisive, he would have failed miserably. My proof? Health care, economic recovery, jobs, the War on Terror™, Climate Change™, the Chicago Olympic Bid... I could go on. The man has been Agenda: Fail. However, the 'new tone' in politics these days is one of chicago-style thuggery, aggression and personal animosity. And unlike Dick Cheney's "go f*ck yourself" of lore, this is a consistent pattern of acrimony2.
I got off track with my point above. Let me re-align: Obama has failed, let his core grass roots down and now the kool-aid drinkers are pissed. Pissed I say! We have Roland Martin of CNN telling Obama that he has to "go gangsta" on the GOP3. Bloomberg's David Reilly says that Obama needs to "crack some heads". As an impassive observer (which I'm not normally, but for the sake of argument, I can fake it), Obama has shown an executive style that can be best summed up as "talk loudly, and carry a wiffle-bat." Tough talk from Obama on the speech trail has not been backed up by tough action out of the Oval Office. Attempts at political retaliation Chicago-style have been like rubber bullets off of a tank. The complete and utter failure of Obama to implement his aggressive and radical agenda is underscored by the dramatic waffling of his focus after the electoral victories of Republicans in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Obama is effectively like a neutered cat at this point.
Which brings me to the headline... Obama is very well the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter. The parallels are clear:
- Inherited a bad economy and did little or nothing to improve it;
- Made health reform a campaign issue, then failed to implement it due to an ability to worth with his own majority party;
- His inaugural speech was an apology to the world in which he talked about an America in terms of "limits" and it's own selfishness;
- He failed to show strength in his Presidency and turned a blind eye towards aggressor states that threaten to or actively destabilize their neighbors.
The next important thing to point out is what happens after a Carter Presidency. Or for that matter, a Buchanan, Hoover and elder Bush Presidency. For all of these Presidents, the theme was "It's the Economy, Stupid4." In each case the result was a turnover in power in the Executive branch. Obama's milk-toast5 leadership and the continued levels of high unemployment underscore a fundamental incompetence and lack of leadership.
These elements do not guarantee a victory for Republicans in 2012, mind you. For starters, there is a viable third party movement - the TEA Party movement - which is just as sour on Republicans as it is on Democrats. If the GOP does not get it's act together, the TEA Party may field a candidate that will draw away support from a GOP contendor in 2012, leaving Obama the possibility of winning by default. Further, a GOP victory can only be guaranteed by a second coming of Ronald Reagan (that's Ronaldus Magnus to you, worm). The only personality in politics that has the Reagan "total package" is Sarah Palin, but she is still marginalized as a personality by virtue of having allowed the McCain campaign to handle her and shape her public image early on (as well as some serious - but not alltogether unrecoverable - flubs of her own).
Election 2012 is still two years away, but the campaign will begin ramping up this spring as the mid-term elections start to set the stage for upset. (Incidentally, the parallel for these mid term elections are the 1994 mid-term elections which saw the Republicans overturn four decades of Democratic rule in the legislative branch with leadership by Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America.) For now, most people will have their eyes on 2010, and the only thing they'll be thinking of for 2012 is whether the world will end as the Mayan calendar runs out. (I use a Gregorian Calendar, which goes on indefinitely; I'm not worried.)
1. Note to Evan: The only thing that God and Obama have in common is that neither of them are able to produce a birth certificate. The difference is that God is not under the impression that he is Obama. (Sub Note to Obama: Just produce your birth certificate and shut all these Birthers up, will you? They're as annoying as the Truthers.)
2. Note to Dick: Even without the open mic, dropping F-bombs on the floor of the Senate... c'mon man, you're above that!
3. Not advisable: Republicans are the ones who have supported gun rights for the past 234 years. Imagine Cheney busing some NWA on you with the lyrics "I gotta shotgun, and here's the plot: taking judges out with a flurry of buckshot." And if that wasn't wasn't proof enough of how hard-core Cheney's hood-cred is, the guy he capped apologized! Fo' real, do.
4. Buchanan's turnover was slightly more complex. The overall economy wasn't going terribly, particularly if you were involved in the cotton trade in the south. The expanding nation was resulting in a dramatic increase in resources from the West. In the North East, the jobs market was in tatters with cheap labor from Europe driving down wages and employment security. Where the similaries come into play is that Buchanan was utterly ineffective as a leader, instead opting for compromises that satisfied nobody.
5. Actually spelled milquetoast, the phrase implies one who is indecisive and therefore incapable of effective decision making. I will tell you right now that the thing I hate most is someone who lacks moral courage and leadership. As we used to say in the Army "do something, do anything, even if it's not the right things just do it!"
How Barack Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love The Bomb
I'm in danger of becoming an Obama Apologist. God help me.
Among the details of teh President's new budget is $7 Bn US for nuclear arms research and sucurity. This is a $624 Million increase over FY2009. This after pledging to work towards disarmament and to promote non-proliferation. Critics will be quick to point out that this is yet another broken promise among a list of Obama's failed policy initiatives.
To be fair, BHO deserves every bit of the criticism. I just can't help feeling a bit of sympathy. He came into office on a wave of self-generated enthusiams, believing that he had a mandate from the votors. (Refer to the infamous "but, we won" quote.) The reality of being the President of the United States coupled with the burdens of having to do what's right ahead of what's wanted is kowing him now. The security of the United States is paramount. In an age with any oil-rich tin-pot dictator can develop nukes, we need the ability to respond overwhelmingly. Reagan's MAD Policy is as pragmatic today as it was under communist threat.