More Democrat Hypocrisy

Well now, what have we here? I know it's a shock that the story behind the rush to fill Ted Kennedy's seat hasn't gotten much play in the Democrat-controlled national media, and I hate to sound like another strident voice out there, but honest to Pete, this is small even by Democrat standards:

In 1984, when Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was running for President, there was fear in some quarters that he might actually win. While those actually paying attention feared what a Kerry victory would mean for the country, the Left's biggest fear was that a Kerry victory would leave a Massachusetts Senate seat open. Why a problem? Because Massachusetts, in an uncharacteristic moment of sanity, had elected Republican Mitt Romney as governor, and the fear was that he would appoint [OMG] a Republican to fill the vacancy. So the Massachusetts legislature hurriedly passed a law that any Senate vacancy would be filled by a special election, which would take the power away from the [evil] Republican governor.

Fast forward to now: Massachusetts has returned to form and has a Democrat governor, Deval Patrick. Ted Kennedy expires 40 years late by means other than drowning, and having scandalously escaped spending that time locked up, by which probably the country, and certainly justice, would have been better-served. Oh Joy! Patrick can appoint a Democrat to fill Teddy's seat. But Shazzam! The law the Democrats passed for short-term expediency has now come back to bite them. Drat! I hate when that happens. And right when that vote might be crucial in the rush to shove this Health Care Debacle (or some other ill-considered legislation inimical to the interests of the country) down the public's throat! Can't possibly wait for an election.

Dear oh dear, what to do? Well, in the finest tradition of Massachusetts son Elbridge Gerry (after whose shenanigans the term Gerrymandering was named), the Democrat-controlled legislature is now cynically scrambling to re-manipulate the system, now that their previous cynical manipulation has backfired. They have now re-written the law they re-wrote when convenient before, allowing the governor to immediately fill the vacant Senate seat! I'll bet it comes out that one of them sells Liquid Paper to the State. Gilbert and Sullivan could have written a whole opera around this.

In my book, in the annals of State Legislature Scandals, this is right up there with the [Democrat] California State Legislature absconding with the State Lottery money that was supposed to fund the schools. Anyone have an example of when the Republicans have pulled a stunt like this?

Why Obama's In Trouble

As usual, I don't claim to be that smart or to have the whole answer, but this is sure part of it: I think Obama's has gotten where he is largely courtesy of a constituency that is either a) dumb, b) not paying attention, or c) seeking power on his coattails. I'm not going to say any more about it than that, but it sure is easier to win an election where you simply pander to the gullibilities of your constituency.

Those who win that way then face the dilemma that Obama now does: how do you back away from the clearly unworkable promises made to secure the votes of the aforementioned innocents, while avoiding the tantrums we're now witnessing, when you've already burned your bridges to those who saw thru your cynical campaign charade.

On the subject of dumb constituencies, I occasionally hear cited by race pimps the fact that, in the census of the ante-bellum South blacks were counted as 3/5th of a man. This is brought up to demonstrate to their gullible audience another way that blacks were "kept down". I may as well set this one straight right now (although anyone reading this probably already knows the story): the 3/5 ratio was not the product of racist white southerners trying to devalue blacks; on the contrary, it was devised by northerners at the Constitutional Convention, who were trying to reduce the power of southern plantation owners. In other words, blacks outnumbered whites in the ante-bellum South but, like non-property owners and women, could not vote. If blacks were counted the same as whites, southern states would be over-represented in Congress, giving the South disproportionate power . . . to, among other things, possibly admit more slave-holding states. See what happens when you're blinded by victimhood?

Used to be that only property owners could vote in this country. This was one of Alexander Hamilton's ideas, and its purpose was to combat the reasonably foreseeable situation where votes were obtained by promising the moon to those with little, at the expense of those who would have to pay for them. His idea, borne out by history, is that if everyone were allowed to vote, the majority Have-Nots would invariably vote themselves goodies at the expense of the Haves, ultimately bringing down the whole system. Is not the advent of social welfare programs beginning with FDR (tho with good reasons at the time) and expanded by LBJ (with considerably less justification) a manifestation of that?

Obama appears to love the sound of his own voice. When he speaks in public (I doubt he speaks to Michelle at dinner this way) he seems to be focused on how his words and voice will sound on the future version of "I Can Hear It Now" -- the whole carefully crafted phrase about taking the torch of freedom and "delivering it safely to a new generation" or the whole styrofoam-supported "This is our time, this is our moment" were recent good examples. If this guy thinks he's Lincoln, FDR, or even Reagan, he needs to realize that these guys had earned their way, and their words were backed by a long record of public service and accomplishment, which affects how their speeches were judged by history. You have got to earn your place thru accomplishment before your words are enter the pantheon of Presidential utterances, and Community Organizer followed by a few months as Senator doesn't get it. In other words, Warren Harding was a good looking guy who gave a good speech, but I don't hear them quoted all that often.

So why is Obama in trouble? Because now he's the President of the whole country, including people with whom his old, transparent tactics simply won't wash. Now he's got to answer to people who can actually figure out that government run health care insurance will lead to government intrusion into aspects of our lives, and to government health care deficits not apparent to those unwilling or unable to think about it. And he's got to answer to the people who will end up paying the bill for the societal and fiscal quagmire that this is guaranteed to produce. The smooth, melifluous voice, the dramatic turn of phrase, the skill with a teleprompter, do not fool those who have made it on their own, the type of people who have made this country the envy of the world, and who see the fruits of years of personal initiative and hard work about to be confiscated.

Alexander Hamilton, if you can come back (I can get you Shirley MacLane's number), this would be a good time. But don't tell her why you're coming back -- she's part of the problem.

The only good news in this whole thing is that it will limit the damage Obama can do to just one term.

Nobody Studies History: Part 1

The Left currently has its panties in a bunch over the Right's objections to Obama's national address to elementary school children. I guess Bush I gave a televised speech to schoolchildren in 1991 admonishing them to stay away from drugs and in school. I sure don't remember it but, in any event, that's a lot different than the way this one started out:


Obama's speech definitely wasn't conceived the way it's now being billed. Those that weren't paying attention may not realize that, as originally proposed, part of this speech was a homework assignment where the 4th grader was to write an essay on "how I can help President Obama". In other words, whatever Obama wants is, by definition good, and should be supported. These are elementary age kids, easily influnenced and indoctrinated, and without the capacity to understand where this leads. At best, this is the kind of thing that goes on in 3rd world countries, and comes from the Supreme Leader For Life. At worst, it harkens back to such as the Hitler Youth. The Lefties will scoff at this, as the mere mention of "Hitler" evokes a visceral, knee-jerk reaction, boosted by a general lack of information.

This is where the study of history comes in. I am not a fan of Hitler, on balance, and this is not about Hitler, so don't get me wrong; however, I am a fan of an objective, informed view of history, and the occasional lessons that can be learned from it. I would like to avoid in this country some of the bad stuff that occurred in Germany courtesy of Hitler.

The fact is that, thru most of the 1930's, Hitler was not considered such a bad guy. Given the dire straits Germany was in following Versailles, Hitler straightened things out pretty quickly beginning in 1932 -- built roads, re-built industry, got the economy going, and generally restored to the Germans a sense of national pride. In this environment, it was easy to build a cult of personality.

Those unschooled in the history of the period focus simply on the bad stuff, much of which they impute to this period from Hitler's later actions. If you don't want to take my word for it and think the world was united in its condemnation of Hitler, it's just not true. For a quick and dirty indication, name one country that boycotted the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Not one did. In fact, 12 more countries attended than was the case with the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics.

One of the things one learns thru the study of history is that the crystal ball has yet to be perfected. Those who think it has will condemn Kimmel and Short at Pearl Harbor, Lee at Gettysburg, the Big Four at Versailles, Cornwallis at Yorktown, Paulus at Stalingrad, Nagumo at Midway, etc, for not making full use of it. The lesson here is that, once the unfavorable result is known, it is easy to find fault with the decisions that led to it, even tho they may have been the logical ones at the time. Same thing with Hitler: much of what Hitler was doing to re-build Germany during the Depression was similar to what FDR was doing in the US. Sure, there were signs of racism, but that was true all over the world. "Oh, but Mein Kampf laid it all out" -- yeah, yeah, yeah -- how many books detailing evil stuff have been written and never acted upon?

Notwithstanding their convenient post-defeat denials and the lionization of a few dissidents at the expense of perspective and context, the vast majority of Germans were wildly supportive of Hitler (at least until the War began turning in 1944), and membership in such as the Hitler Youth was a badge of honor. Germans were encouraged to pledge their loyalty to Hitler first, Deutschland second. The salute "Heil Hitler" was not by chance; note that it wasn't "Heil Deutschland". Obama and his supporters would do well to remember that Obama simply occupies, for now, the office of President. He is not the Office. There are many examples currently and throughout history of leaders who confused themselves with the office -- Mao Tse Tung, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Emperor Hirohito, Vlad Dracula, etc. None of the countries they led are places the US should model itself on.

Back to Obama's address: when the "essay" thing came to light, the White House immediately revised the assignment to something like "why kids should stay in school", which no one could possibly dispute, right? Well, I could, but that's for later. The point is that the mainstream media, big Obama supporters and, by all on-air evidence, absolutely bereft of all but the most superficial knowledge of history, quickly buried the original agenda, and are spinning the current controversy to make conservatives look silly. Such as David Gergen actually pretend not to know "what the fuss is all about", and the news readers go right along.

Obama (and his supporters) would do well to remember that roughly half the country (the half that's paying attention) doesn't trust him. I mean seriously, when Nancy Pelosi is your Head Cheerleader, you've got problems. As I said during the election, Obama is an empty suit that speaks well. The Health Care thing has clearly demonstrated that Obama thinks that more government is the solution for society's ills. That approach is not what caused this country to become the envy of the world and that, in combination with what looks like an attempt to build an Obama personality cult beginning in 1st grade, has thankfully got the attention of those whose historical knowledge goes further back than the day they were born.