It’s The Unemployment, stupid.

The announcement a week ago of 10.2% unemployment is a significant political event for President Barack Obama. It could well usher in a particularly serious crisis for his political standing, influence and ability to advance his agenda.

Double-digit unemployment drove Ronald Reagan’s disapproval ratings in October 1982 up to a record high 54%. It was only when unemployment dropped to 7.3%, roughly two years later, that he was able to win a landslide victory over Democratic challenger Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election.

Alas, Barack Obama will not have the same opportunity that Reagan did – he doesn’t have the tools (the ideology)…or the people.

Barack Obama is all-in already with his “Stimulus Plan” in the sense that

1) He wants us to think that it’s working, and it is not.

2) As such, he doesn’t want us to think that his Stimulus Plan made things worse, which it did.

Had Barack Obama given America the message that they should have had, that they deserve, it would have been something like this:

Dear fellow Americans: You’ve lived beyond your means and so has your government, and now we must all pay the painful price as our economy returns to a more normalized state. We in the federal government will do what we can by extending unemployment benefits and such, but beyond that, as much as you will hear otherwise from those on the far left, stimulus programs and other gargantuan government spending programs will only worsen and extend the inevitable pain we must all go through to right the ship.

Instead, he doubled down on the failed fiscal policies of George Bush and simply dug the hole deeper.

Now the hole is filling with water and Barack Obama can’t get out.

Obama’s only option politically is to lobby for more stimulus spending and sell the American people on the efficacy of the last one. The former will fall on deaf ears as the deficit becomes an issue with the American people; the latter as the din of high unemployment washes over Obama’s Teleprompterings^™.

His dithering on Afghanistan and misappropriated focus on health care “reform” will be transferred to his economic impotence, and so on and and so on.

A look at more detailed data shows why Mr. Obama’s ratings are likely to drop even further.

A CNN poll released Nov. 6 found that 47% of Americans believe the top issue facing the country is the economy, while only 17% say its health care. However, the bulk of the president’s efforts over the past six months have been not on the economy but on health care, an issue in which he continues to draw negative ratings.

In a Rasmussen Reports poll taken after the House of Representatives passed health-care reform by the narrowest of margins last Saturday night, 54% of likely voters say they are opposed to the plan with only 45% in favor. Furthermore, in the all-important category of unaffiliated voters, 58% oppose the bill. That’s one of the reasons why so many moderate Democratic House members opposed it.

The CNN poll also shows that in addition to health care, a majority of Americans disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, unemployment, illegal immigration and the federal budget deficit. Put simply, there isn’t a critical problem facing the country on which the president has positive ratings.

The only way the President gets out of this alive is to willfully and publicly abandon the failed liberal approaches to virtually every issue that has presented itself in his short Presidency.

What are the chances?

Mr. President, Mr. Rock.

“Hello, nice to meet you.”

“Likewise, Mr. President.”

Mr. President, Mr. Hard Place.

“Hello, nice to meet you as well.”

“It’s an honor, Mr. President. Thank you for inviting us into your Presidency. Should we get started?”

2012.

Indeed.

In the early years of the US Civil War, after some initial disasters, Lincoln appointed George McClellan as the commander of the Army of the Potomac (which was to the main front of the Civil War as CENTCOM is to the main front of the War On Man-Made Disaster War On Terror today.

McClellan was a popular general with a long track record of military excellence, first as an engineer, then as a logistician – both of them vital jobs.  He also did something very few other Union Generals managed to do in the early years of the Civil War – won some victories.  His invasion of the Union-leaning parts of Virginia (which created what we call West Virginia today) was one of the very few successes the Union could point to in the early years of the war.

And so Lincoln appointed him commander first of the Army of the Potomac,and then of the entire Union Army.

He then spent his entire time in command “polishing the cannonball” – seeing to training and logistics (which were, to be fair, vitally important to the Union’s eventual success, in a long-term kind of way).  But his actual job – engaging and defeating Robert E. Lee – was another matter altogether. Terrified of the consquences of defeat, he spent months dithering, seemingly avoiding battle, overestimating Lee’s force to the point where it paralyzed him.

It came to a head at the Battle of Antietam, where Union forces stemmed Lee’s first attempt at invading the North.  Indeed, they perched at the verge of defeating him…

…but McClellan dithered again.  The situation called for aggressiveness, for taking the battle to Lee.  McClellan instead hesitated, afraid that Lee’s force was vastly larger than it really was.  And so Lee escaped – turning what could have been a crushing defeat into bloody tactical draw.

Antietam has kept armchair generals busy for over a century, now.   But the lesson was fairly clear; there is a time to think, and a time to act.  Exactly what that time is isn’t always clear to theman on the ground, but it exists.

President Obama’s decision not to decide yet on what to do in Afghanistan is such a situation, and some people know it:

The president’s long decision-making process has led to accusations of “dithering” by his Republican opponents. The White House says the decision is too important to hurry, but the wait is causing growing exasperation in London and other European capitals.

One British source said that the absence of a clear strategy from the US, the largest troop contributor in Afghanistan, is hampering the British Government’s attempts to maintain public support for an increasingly unpopular conflict.

“The truth is that until we have some clarity from Obama, it’s going to be hard for us to explain to people what we’re doing there,” the source said.

Britain is urging Hamid Karzai to send more Afghan forces to Helmand province to support British troops there.

Mr Karzai was returned for second term this week after an election widely agreed to have been flawed and corrupt.

“We need the Americans to have a clear message for Karzai about what he has to do, but that’s just not there at the moment,” said the British source.

The private frustrations of British ministers and commanders were echoed by General Lord Guthrie, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, who said the American deliberations had brought the Afghan mission to a pivotal moment.

“It’s a tipping point because of President Obama’s delayed decision on whether to send more troops,” Lord Guthrie said.

McClellan was terrified of defeat; Obama is terrified of the political ramifications of defeat (on his watch) or pursuing victory (among his base).

I’m no general.  I’ve never even served in the military.  But you don’t have to be George Patton to read George Patton; when your troops are in harm’s way, you either get them out of harm’s way, or you commit to win the war. You either do what it takes to make the sacrifice in blood and treasure worthwhile, or you get out of it.

Bush did the former in Iraq – while the Administration botched the Iraq War from 2004 through 2006, he risked the political capital it took to win the war afterwards (allowing that defining “victory” in a counterinsurgency is a bit of a moving target – something that the American left has always had trouble with).

Obama’s definition of “win” seems to be a different thing altogether.

The left is going to try to spin this…:

It’s easy for me to imagine the right calling Obama a coward over this, or an America-hater, or any one of the sundry attacks reserved for our President. But to me, this is Obama doing exactly what we hired him for — weighing all of the options with a critical eye, and demanding that his advisors give him some outside-the-box solutions.

…as a sign of “intelligence”, as if second-guessing McChrystal for purely political reasons is a sign of military genius, or – as Jeff Rosenberg did above – paint Obama as a victim.

But the real decision is fairly binary; win, or leave.

Gorbachev gives Obama advice on Afghanistan

“I think that what’s needed is not additional forces,” the former Soviet leader said through a translator, “this is something that we discussed, too, years ago but we decided not to do it. And I think our experience deserves attention.”

Maybe that’s why a month has lapsed while Barack Obama dithers over Afghanistan…he’s getting advice from anyone and everyone.

While you’re at it, Sir, why don’t you seek counsel from Jimmy Carter on hostage negotiation.

…Alec Baldwin on parenting.

…Britney Spears on driving a car.

…Oprah Winfrey on losing weight.

…Sean Penn on poise under pressure.

This is fun. You try it!

Can you imagine the revulsion that would have swept the nation if George W. Bush had, say, mentioned a spree-killing after giving a “shout-out” to some bureaucratic conference?

I never did hear what percentage of active-duty soldiers voted for Obama, but I can’t imagine he’s converted a hell of a lot.

Note that I’m not bagging on what the President actually said.  Just comparing and contrasting.

You know when I knew we were headed for a big night?

It was probably 6:30 last night.  I was waiting for V to come on.  And on Drudge, I saw that the MSM was claiming, mirabile dictu, that they had all sorts of polling to show that this election was not repeat not repeat not about Obama.

That’s when I knew we were going to run away in Virginia, and probably win Jersey.

Ecker on the Christie win:

It is easy to overstate the importance of this election, as it is after all a local race which centers around local issues and personalities just as much as it does higher issues. But voter attitudes towards their government in general can influence how voters approach those issues. In this case, Christie ran on the issue of property taxes and other economic issues, where voter opinions are certainly strongly influenced by the Democratically controlled Washington DC.

It’s also worth mentioning that Obama invested heavily in both races, stumping for both candidates a number of times, including in the final days before the election. It is a sign that his majestic holiness is no longer enough to sway voters with flowery speeches and hollow hyperbole.

Virginia – a traditionally Republican state – was a “must make a good showing” state for The One.

But Jersey?  Not only have they not elected a Republican in sixteen years, but that “Republican” was Christine Todd Whitman, a woman who sent Rockefeller Republicans scampering for their Hayek.

Think that if Obama Deeds had won, or even kept it really really close, and/or if Corzine had won by the usual huge margin, we wouldn’t be hearing Katie Couric chiming that The Dream Is Still Alive this morning?

The most immediate effect of this will be in the outcome of ObamaCare/PelosiCare/etc. Already Blue Dog Democrats were feeling the heat of public opinion regarding the absolutely horrendous bill that is before Congress. Both Pelosi and Reid were already having problems convincing Democrats from swing districts to vote for the bill. This election is likely to reinforce that hesitation. If even an incumbent Democrats in a core blue state can lose, a Democrat in a swing or even a conservative district is officially on notice. Voters are not in a forgiving mood.

You listening, Tim Walz?

And I quote:

If Obama’s skin was any thinner, he’d have a reservoir tip on the top of his head.

From long-time friend of Shot In The Dark, Thorley Winston, at Megan McArdle‘s blog, via Kevin Ecker, who notes the comment was “in reference to Obama’s pitiful need to pick a fight with anyone that offers anything short of glowing praise for him.”

I liked the original version of “V” which, back in the Reagan years, was pretty much a rockin’ good war story (as I recall it at the time).

I’ve been looking at the new remake with the usual trepidation one gets when something good gets remade.

But my trepidation is changing to something else:

Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.

The news media swoons in admiration — one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: “Why don’t you show some respect?!” The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader’s origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: “Embracing change is never easy.”

So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait — did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who’s come here to eat us?

Welcome to ABC’s “V,” the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it’s also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president’s supporters and delight his detractors.

OK, it’s worth a shot.  I hope it’s on On-Demand.

I have a hunch that’s what I’ll need; writing aside (fingers crossed), here’s hoping it survives what will no doubt be a full assault from Obama’s faithful in Hollywood.

UPDATE:  Dang.  I’m remembering why I liked the first one so much.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama greeted Hamid Karzai’s election victory with as much admonishment as praise on Monday, pointedly advising America’s partner in war he must make more serious efforts to end corruption in Afghanistan’s government and prepare his nation to ultimately defend itself.

Shot In The Dark exclusively obtained the transcript from US President Barack Obama’s telephone call to Afghan President Hamid Karzai today:

[sound of technician pushing start button on teleprompter]

Obama: I want to emphasize that this has to be a point in time in which we begin to write a new chapter.

Karzai: Let me offer you assurances that a new chapter that we will begin at this point in time will be one like which you have emphasized.

Obama: The proof is not going to be in words. It’s going to be in deeds.

[sound of Karzai’s hand covering mouthpiece of reciever and muffled sounds of snickering and then laughing audibly; mockingly]

Obama: Karzai! What are you doing?!!

Karzai: [chuckles] I’m sorry…uh…Mr. Obama, did you…Barack Obama…say….[chuckles] words [chuckles]…not deeds?!

Obama: Yes, make no mistake. The proof –

Karzai: [chuckles] I’m sorry. Are you serious? “Click”

[sound of dial tone]

Obama: [pretends to still be in conversation for the benefit of adjacent staff members]

[sound of technician pushing stop button on teleprompter, snickering]

Bill Clinton: See? I toldja Barry. Let me call ‘m next time.

Hillary Clinton: Guys! I’m still on the speakerphone…I heard that!

[sound of former President Clinton hanging up on former first lady and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton]

[sound of Vice President Joseph Biden awakening from catnap on Oval Office couch]

–end of transcript–

Remember when the Administration was going to change the way things were done in Washington?

More than 40% of President Obama’s top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds. Twenty of the 47 fundraisers that Obama’s campaign identified as collecting more than $500,000 have been named to government positions, the analysis found.

 Overall, about 600 individuals and couples raised money from their friends, family members and business associates to help fund Obama’s presidential campaign. USA TODAY’s analysis found that 54 have been named to government positions, ranging from Cabinet and White House posts to advisory roles, such as serving on the economic recovery board charged with helping guide the country out of recession.

Nah.  Me either.

But at least the key job of making the US beloved around the world will be entrusted to seasoned foreign service officers, rather than a bunch of Chicago ward-heelers with deep pockets.

Right?

 Nearly a year after he was elected on a pledge to change business-as-usual in Washington, Obama also has taken a cue from his predecessors and appointed fundraisers to coveted ambassadorships, drawing protests from groups representing career diplomats. A separate analysis by the American Foreign Service Association, the diplomats’ union, found that more than half of the ambassadors named by Obama so far are political appointees, said Susan Johnson, president of the association. An appointment is considered political if it does not go to a career diplomat in the State Department.

Someone wake me up in November of 2011.

One of the Administration’s big campaigning points (back when Obama was campaigning before the election, as opposed to whatever he’s been doing this past nine months) was that he’d re-establish America’s purported image abroad.

Which, at this remove, brings up two questions:

1. With whom, exactly, has our image improved since January, in any meaningful way (and by “meaningful” I am not referring to cheap talk and blandishments like the utterly meaningless Nobel Peace prize)?
2. More importantly:  Of the countries that hated, disliked, were utterly ambivalent to, or competed with the United States in 2007, which did not exhibit precisely the same feelings toward us in 2000?  For purposes of this discussion, leave out the Taliban goverment in Afghanistan and the Ba’ath government in Iraq.  List ’em, and give specifics, please.

I’ll be interested in seeing the responses.

It looks like even the Administration is sticking a fork in Creigh Deeds.  And it goes deeper than just a candidate with a funny name.  If current trends hold, it might just mean that not only is the Hope ‘n Change honeymoon over, but dead, buried, and pushed out to sea.

Democrats seem to be learning that life without a boogeyman is hard:

They’re learning, painfully, that campaigning without George W. Bush is baffling, frustrating and scary. Worse, it offers a preview of what the congressional campaigning will be like next year. One Obama doorbell ringer, working neighborhoods in Northern Virginia for Creigh Deeds, says even the promise of free pizza can’t lure faithful Democrats to a rally.

And when you can’t get Democrats to let other people pay for their stuff, you know you got a problem.

(badda-BUM)

Suddenly, the White House is treating the bereft Mr. Deeds as if he’s on the fourth day of a three-day underarm deodorant pad. Bill Clinton, accustomed to speaking to cheering thousands at a hundred grand a pop, was dispatched the other night to a Deeds rally to set the throng on fire with one of his late-October stumpwallopers. The rally, such as it was, was held not at an arena or a hotel – not even a Motel 6 – but in a campaign office in the Washington suburbs. The “throng” was counted in the dozens, about the size of a PTA meeting. Not even Bubba could dispel the gloom of a wake.

It’s not all good, of course – polling shows John Corzine is coming back in New Jersey, which on the one hand isn’t much of a shock, since New Jersey is just New York without the nightlife, but there had been hope.

Still, this could be a good sign.

The old big-“L” Libertarian dream is to have no president at all in the White House; to just let the executive branch almost completely wither away.

Of course, in the era of Hope ‘n Change, there’s no danger of the executive branch going the way of the Dodo, Vanilla Ice or Crispin Glover.

But is Barack Obama the un-President?

It is important that the nation is suddenly awakening to the possibility that the president has no real plan for anything whatsoever, and never did. He literally seems to be making it up as he goes along, and his strategy is to do nothing at all but procrastinate.

In the recent past, we have watched the White House and its branch offices gaze glassily past Iran, the Taliban, North Korea and Moscow in hot pursuit of their real enemy, which appears to be the dissenting media.

Economic policy, formerly the purview of rooms that at least contained Larry Summers, is now directed by a Chicago-hood playground pal named Valerie, and its focus is on the compensation levels of 200 people.

Joe Biden is the commander in chief.

Of course, the problem with un-Presidents, especially un-Presidents who get in too deep in foreign affairs, is that eventually they have to prove they’re not un-Presidents.  John F. Kennedy was dubious at best at foreign affairs; after getting a huge black eye at the Bay of Pigs, he approved sending troops to Vietnam – for the quick win, naturally, to show that he was really in charge.  Carter, of course, embarked on the Desert One debacle.

What’ll Obama do to show that he’s really not a pretty suit in a fancy office?

To: President Obama

From: Mitch Berg, staunch critic and forthright conservative

Re:  Setting The Record Straight

Mr. President,

You stink.  Your policies are destroying this country, at home and abroad.

I say this as a representative of a conservative blog and a conservative talk radio show.

Please sic your PR goons on the blog and the show.

That is all.

The Obama administration continues to drag its feet, exposing their utter incompetence on yet another front; the war in Afghanistan – ironically the one Obama wanted.

Now he has it. Predictably, his administration is once again resorting to the tiresome practice of blaming the previous administration for their own inability to manage the war Obama campaigned on as the one we should have been fighting.

Now’s his chance…

…to blame Bush.

…again.

On October 18, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel appeared on the Sunday morning talk shows and, in the process of answering questions about Barack Obama’s strategy on Afghanistan, accused the Bush administration of failing to ask the most basic questions about that country and our war there.

Gibbs went on…claiming that a request for troops from General David McKiernan during the final year of the Bush administration “sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president’s, for more than eight months.”

Obama lies. Emanuel lies. Gibbs lies.

In fact, the Bush administration did ask those questions. From mid-September to mid-November 2008, a National Security Council team, under the direction of General Doug Lute, conducted an exhaustive review of Afghanistan policy. The interagency group included high-ranking officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the office of the director of national intelligence, the office of the vice president, the Pentagon, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Its objective was to assess U.S. -policy on Afghanistan, integrating a simultaneous military review being conducted by CENTCOM, so as to present President Bush with a series of recommendations on how best to turn around the deteriorating situation there.

…and the troop requests?

McKiernan wanted more troops–he asked for three additional brigades in the summer of 2008–but he understood that he could have them only when they became available. “McKiernan was making requests down the line,” says a Pentagon official, “and late in 2008 we did have the ability to commit more forces. So we did.” Indeed, Bush sent nearly 7,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before he left office, including one brigade that had been repurposed from Iraq.

Barack Obama is the President of Broken Promises. When he can’t or chooses not to keep his word, he waffles; he lies.

…and is so arrogant so as to think no one notices.

HT Chris F.

…how, starting with the NYTimes and the WaPo, and then filtering down through the HuffPo and the Daily Kos…

…and thence downward through MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC…

…and then through “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report”, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, the “Ed Schultz” and “liberal knockoff of Laura Ingraham” “Stephanie Miller” shows…

…and from there down through the morass of the leftyblogosphere, the “TBoggs” and “Think Progresses”, “PZ Meyerses” and “Minnesota Independents”…

…the meme will spread over the course of the next few days…

 …that “Republicans do as they are told”.

P.S.:  Mr. President?  Stop campaigning!  You are, ostensibly, everyone’s President.

For another three and a quarter years, anyway.

To: President Obama

From: Mitch Berg

Re:  The War That Matters

Mr. President,

You’ve been extremely lukewarm about supporting General McChrystal’s proposal for a troop surge to support his counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq.

You basically abdicated the US policy of support for missile defense, selling out our allies in Eastern Europe in the face of Vladimir Putin.

When the Soviets Russians pounded the uppity Georgians, you sent the plucky, pro-Western, freedom-loving Georgians a ship full of Hope and Change, and nothing else.

And of course, when the Iranians were shooting protesters in the streets, you made concerned noises and went quietly away.

Little did the world’s despots and tinpots know that you were just saving your energy for the real battle:

The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.

Attaway, Mister President.  Because even if it were true, and even if Fox were a GOP “mouthpiece” – and as far as its news-gathering goes, it’s not – well, goodness knows that our country doesn’t need at least one group of contrary journalists keeping big government accountable, do we?  Because your Administration has abolished the laws of human behavior and created a government that doesn’t need to be held accountable?

As visibly as you crave the approval of European elites, you do realize that most private European news outlets actually are partisan in editorial stance?  That while The Guardian and Die Zeit and Le Monde lean left, the Times and the Frankfurter Allgemeine lean overtly to the right, and are open about it?  And that each of them rides their “opposition” pretty hard, which makes the “opposition” sad, but occasionally trips up some big scandals?  Hence holding government accountable…

…Aaaaaah.  I get it now.

That is all.

P.S.:  When does the 2008 campaign end, anyway?

Does being an Ivy-Leaguer endow one with an intellectual reach that exceeds one’s grasp?

Case in point, the storied chaps at Harvard bet their billions that they were smarter than the market: Wrong

Harvard University’s failed bet that interest rates would rise cost the world’s richest school at least $500 million in payments to escape derivatives that backfired.

Further, Barack Obama bet that his Harvard-acquired education and billions in taxpayer dollars “invested” under the guise of economic stimulus would be enough to lead a nation and create millions of new jobs: Unsurprisingly, wrong.

Data published Thursday showed contracts from the $787 billion economic stimulus created or saved 30,083 jobs…

And finally the highly respected Harvard graduate Matt Birk, who many thought would finish his NFL career with the Minnesota Vikings, left in favor of a substantially similar offer from the Baltimore Ravens earlier this year. Birk ostensibly bet his chances of winning the Super Bowl would be greater in Baltimore: Surprisingly, wrong.

MINNEAPOLIS – As Steve Hauschka’s potential game-winning kick sailed wide left, nearly all of the Ravens on the sideline dropped their heads in unison, feeling another last-minute punch in the gut in a season that continues to veer off course.

It just goes to show a Harvard education is no guarantee of success. In the now legendary words of Forest Gump’s momma: “stupid is as stupid does.”

There are grounds for honest disagreement on gay marriage.  The disagreement centers around the definition of what “marriage” actually is; to most proponents of gay marriage, it’s just a contract, a legal agreement enforced by the state.  To most opponents, marriage is a religious institution; indeed, in the exceedingly unlikely event I ever get married again, I believe I’ll join the growing number of people I know who’ve eschewed getting a state marriage license, if only to tell the state “you really have nothing to do with this”.

So if I turn around and fail to support gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions, which I do support), you can accuse me of a lot of things, including of being wrong on the issue.  Wrongly, of course, but that’s your right.

One thing you can not accuse me (and by extension other opponents of gay marriage) of is cowardice and hypocrisy.

Now, the left?

I’ve never forgotten the howls of rage from my various liberal gay acquaintances when Paul Wellstone betrayed them and voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.  Now, bear in mind that in his first Senate race against Rudy Boschwitz, Wellstone got about 155% of the gay vote in Minnesota; they palpably expected big things from him.

And they got them – albeit not the “big things” they expected.  They learned the hard way; Paul Wellstone could do math.  Wellstone could see that for all the thousands of gays and gay supporters who turned out at gay marriage rallies, many many times as many people opposed changing marriage – including the imponderably vast majority of blacks and hispanics who, reliably Democrat though their votes are, broadly oppose gay marriage with a vehemence that’d make a Southern Baptist blanche, and without whom no Democrat can win a normal election.

And I, and many other conservatives, asked “so, gays?  Here’s palpable evidence; the left views you, as a group, as such a reliable bunch of votes that they can regularly betray  you (and remember, while roughly 125% of gays voted for Bill Clinton, he also backed down on gays in the military – for exactly the same reason that Wellstone did on DOMA); how long are you going to sit and take this?”

Apparently for all eternity:

Rainbow flags fluttered above the crowds near the White House as tens of thousands of gay rights supporters rallied to demand that President Barack Obama keep his promises to end discrimination against gays and also let them serve openly in the military.

“Hey, Obama, let mama marry mama” some chanted Sunday. Others cried out, “We’re out, we’re proud, we won’t back down.”

Gays:  the Democrats see you like a spousal thumper sees a spouse; as someone they say and do anything they want to, without fear of anything ever changing.
Does anyone out there, gay or straight, for or against gay marriage, doubt that Obama can do the math, too?

…and all of Obama’s voters, that it’s been nine months, and Osama Bin Laden hasn’t been taken into custody yet?

Still at large.  But why?

Wasn’t that supposed to have been dealt with by now?

(more…)

Mo Rocca again, from Twitter:

Barack Obama : Nobel :: Marisa Tomei : Oscar

Heh.

But to be fair there’s no way Obama could pull of that opening scene from Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (pbui).

“Life is full of ironies, if you’re stupid”

— P.J. O’Rourke

———-

Europe is beginning to seethe with contempt for the US – partly over the Administration’s early social gaffes, and partly because of its fecklessness.

The Administration sold the Poles and Czechs down the river, causing two nations that have risked boundlessly to express their allegiance to the US to openly wondering if the US is good for its obligations.
Israel is nervous that the US has abandoned it – or at least that it will when the chips are down, one day.

Georgia is still rebuilding from when the Soviets Russians gang-raped it.

Our president bowed to a tin-pot potentate.

Afghanistan is spiralling into the toilet.  (Thankfully, the grownups were in charge long enough to buy Iraq a decent chance).

The Administration is pushing socialism, which is inevitably disastrous for the environment, and gundecking capitalism, which is the world’s best hope for benefitting the environment.

Iran is building nukes, and there’s not a damn thing we can (or will) do about it (short of defend against them – which the Administration eschews on dogmatic grounds).

China – a nation that’s killed tens of millions of its own people –  is ascendant, while the US,which as recently as twenty years ago freed hundreds of millions, is rapidly neutering itself.

Naturally, Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize.

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

Of course, after Algore, “cheapening the brand” is all very relative.

Um, “congratulations”, Mister President.

UPDATE: Or as Mo Rocca says on Twitter, “Nobel Peace Prize officially awarded to “Not George Bush.” Most passive aggressive Nobel ever?”

UPDATE 2: Nominations for the Peace Prize were due by the end of January.

Ten days after Obama was inaugurated.

UPDATE 3: A friend of mine wrote asking if the Onion hadn’t pulled the ultimate hoax.  He wasn’t alone.

UPDATE 4: Jeff Rosenberg from MNPublius:

Extraordinary efforts? I’m sorry, but what extraordinary efforts has he made? This prize should be given for a major lifetime achievement, and while I like Obama, this is really, really jumping the gun.

Even lefties – some of them – are astounded by this.

UPDATE 5: A prize winner who actually earned one – Lech Walesa, 1983 winner and former president of Poland:

“So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far,” former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, said Friday. “He is still at an early stage.”

Also, his record since the nominations closed, on February 1, has been so utterly dismal…

…about Obama’s honeymoon being over and his political capital falling to mere human levels…

…might be an eventual end, sooner or later, to all those “Obama asks moms to go back to school” banner ads.

Just saying.

…is a jilted, pissed off President, with a bent for Socialism, who can now refocus on bringing our nation to the brink of insolvency.

South America gets its first games: The 2016 Olympics are going to Rio de Janeiro

Chicago was knocked out in the first round — in one of the most shocking defeats ever [emphasis happily mine-JR] in International Olympic Committee voting. Even Tokyo, which had trailed throughout the race, did better — eliminated after Chicago in the second round.

I feel bad for Chicago. Nonetheless, Mr. President, and with all due respect:  In your face!

You will have to find other less public forms of payback to your cronies in Illinois…and you would be well advised to brace for impact as more “shocking defeats” are almost certainly in the offing for you, sir.