Obama's $1.5 Trillion Election Ploy

Check the editorial at IBD.

Obama's hoping to make the Republicans look obstructionist. And Professor Caroline Heldman's down with that. Indeed, she's even sold on the (voodoo) economics of it all, saying she's convinced the administration's jobs act will --- wait for it! --- actually create 1.9 million jobs.

Right.

The Buffett Tax

At Wall Street Journal, "The Buffett Alternative Tax."

And a great Gerry Willis interview with House Speaker John Boehner:

Michele Bachmann Predicts Republican Victory in California Presidential Vote

I'm still not convinced, but Obama's losing his base even in the Golden State, so we'll see.

At LAT: "Bachmann predicts a GOP win in California in 2012."

Meetings on European Debt Crisis End in Debate, but Little Progress

This story's interesting beyond the financial crisis itself. Europeans snubbed Tim Geithner, but why? They think he's a clown? They think the Obama administration's a joke? Or America's weakened structurally, and it wouldn't have mattered who was Treasury Secretary?

See New York Times:

WROCLAW, Poland — European finance ministers ended a two-day meeting here Saturday without making substantial progress toward solving the region’s debt crisis, or any pledge to recapitalize Europe’s banks.

The meetings were highlighted by the appearance by Timothy F. Geithner, the United States treasury secretary, whose advice, and warnings, drew a tepid reaction from the euro zone’s finance ministers. And Mr. Geithner’s rejection Friday of a European idea for a global tax on financial transactions prompted a debate about whether Europe should go ahead on its own.

Meanwhile, with an October deadline looming for international lenders to agree to the release of around 8 billion euros, or $11 billion, of aid to Greece, without which it could default on its debt, George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister, canceled a trip to the United States.

“The coming week is particularly critical for the implementation of the July 21 decisions in the euro area and the initiatives which the country must undertake,” Mr. Papandreou said in a statement on Saturday.

The attendance of an American official at Friday’s meeting was unusual, and Jacek Rostowski, the finance minister of Poland who invited Mr. Geithner, said it showed “unity within the transatlantic family.”

That glossed over the grumbling about Mr. Geithner’s comments from several European ministers Friday, including Maria Fekter of Austria, who publicly said she was unimpressed with Mr. Geithner’s contribution.

Yet the American plea for urgent decisions to shore up the euro zone was echoed Saturday by two European ministers whose nations have stayed outside the single currency.

What We Got Right in the War on Terror

I was hoping to do some big analysis of Abe Greenwald's masterful essay, at Commentary, but never got around to it. This is simply the best piece I've read on the war on terror:

Over the course of the 10 years, American authorities foiled more than two dozen al-Qaeda plots. Those averted tragedies were not foremost on the minds of revelers who gathered to celebrate Bin Laden’s demise on May 1 at Ground Zero, Times Square, and in front of the White House. But if a mere few of the plots had materialized, those spaces might not even have been open to public assembly.

Not only have U.S. authorities managed to keep America safe from al-Qaeda for a decade; by the time he was killed, Osama bin Laden was barely a leader. Among the items recovered at his compound in Abbottabad were some recent writings, in which the former icon lamented al-Qaeda’s dramatically sinking stock and pondered organizational rebranding as a possible antidote.

His growing insignificance as a global player was not the product of chance. The marginalization of the world’s principal jihadist was the result of audacious American policy—indeed, the most controversial and hotly debated policy undertaken in the wake of 9/11. In the words of Reuel Marc Gerecht writing in the Wall Street Journal, “the war in Iraq was Bin Laden’s great moral undoing.” In his desperate attempt to drive American fighting forces out of Mesopotamia, Bin Laden sanctioned a bloody civil war in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. The carnage failed to repel the United States, but in the end, the countrywide slaughter of Muslims proved too much to bear for al-Qaeda’s own one-time and would-be supporters. The “Sunni awakening” that helped transform Iraq was an awakening out of al-Qaeda jihadism, and the blow it delivered to Bin Laden’s ambitions was stunning.

After the turnaround in Iraq, the landscape of the Muslim world suffered even greater changes—with ordinary Muslims rising to revolt against Persian and Arab tyranny, not against American hegemony. As Fouad Ajami has written: “The Arab Spring has simply overwhelmed the world of the jihadists. In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and Syria, younger people—hurled into politics by the economic and political failures all around them—are attempting to create a new political framework, to see if a way could be found out of the wreckage that the authoritarian states have bequeathed them.”

It was the Freedom Agenda of the George W. Bush administration—delineated and formulated as a conscious alternative to jihadism—that showed the way. Indeed, the costly American nation-building in Iraq has now led to the creation of the world’s first and only functioning democratic Arab state. One popular indictment of Bush maintains that he settled on the Freedom Agenda as justification for war after U.S. forces and inspectors found no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The record shows otherwise. “A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East,” he said before the invasion, in February 2003. “Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both.”

And something of the kind has come to pass. “One despot fell in 2003,” Ajami has said. “We decapitated him. Two despots, in Tunisia and Egypt, fell, and there is absolutely a direct connection between what happened in Iraq in 2003 and what’s happening today throughout the rest of the Arab world.”

Thus, there are three intertwined achievements that have proved to be the dispositive features of American success in the war on terror: formulating the Freedom Agenda in the Middle East, reversing the course of the war in Iraq, and establishing a national-security apparatus to foil multiple terrorist attacks. It is no coincidence that they are also the most controversial foreign policies America has implemented since the Vietnam War.

September 11 was a hinge moment in American history. The attacks plunged the nation into a full-scale war against non-state entities. Any adequate American response had to break with previous approaches in previous conflicts. War could not be waged on parties inside states in the same way it had been waged on states themselves. Prisoners captured on a battlefield in a country not their own and with no interest in following the rules of conventional war could not be handled as they had been. Getting the edge on Islamist terror would mean fundamentally rethinking our approach to both the blunting of deadly threats and the shuttering of the political hothouses of the Middle East in which such threats thrive.

The adoption of these unprecedented and uncompromising means of war inspired animated debate in the United States. In fighting the war on terror, we have been told, America has become—depending on the accuser—either too dismissive or too enamored of democracy. Some on the left think our national-security apparatus undermines our defining ideals. On the right, outraged voices condemn our naive enthusiasm for helping to secure liberty for Muslims abroad, calling it a form of multicultural self-sabotage. After civil war seized post-invasion Iraq, critics from across the ideological spectrum denounced our misguided effort. The fits and starts and frustrations of the war decade have this one thing in common: we have done battle in an age when spectacular setbacks appear to provide irrefutable evidence of our own baseness and incompetence—a few years before drab good news arrives to refute both expert opinion and common knowledge.

The arguments that we have prosecuted the war on terror immorally and ineffectually are important, and deserve the respectful hearing they have received, even if many of those arguing these points have resorted to launching the most abject slanders and accusations toward those who believe the war on terror is just and has been fought honorably. To be sure, not everything the United States has done in the war on terror has been correct. Far from it. As Winston Churchill said, “War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.” In the fight against Islamist terrorism, American blunders have come in all shapes and sizes, and in truth there are few small wartime miscalculations. This is especially so in an age of instant global headlines.

We continue to suffer for our biggest mistakes. Concerning the failure to catch Bin Laden and make serious efforts to nation-build early in the Afghanistan war, inaccurate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons, and the Pentagon’s ill-preparedness for the Iraqi insurgency, there can be no absolution. These errors have cost the country tragic sums in money, credibility, and life. They also set our efforts back precious years.

But these blunders, great as they are, have not undone America’s outstanding accomplishments. Ten years ago, the most delusional optimist among us would not have predicted the irrelevancy of Osama bin Laden or a decade without another al-Qaeda attack, let alone a democratic Iraq and a transformative explosion of antiauthoritarianism in the Middle East.

Nor do American achievements in this war mean we are in a position to quit the fight. The notion that America achieved closure with Bin Laden’s killing suggests to some, perhaps even the occupant of the White House, that the war on terror has had its decade and the United States can now move on. “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” said Barack Obama this summer as he announced a sizable drawdown of troops in Afghanistan for the fall of 2012. The suggestion that our work is done has traction only because resolute American action at home and abroad have provided a sense of security so pervasive it now goes unquestioned.

The United States has fallen prey to false comfort in the past. So before we submit to the siren song of closure, we would do well to recall that that is exactly where this war began—and our retaining some genuine measure of security has been the result of thinking and acting more boldly than we have in generations.

Now go read the whole thing.

Obama Approval Dips in Latest New York Times Poll

See: "Support for Obama Slips; Unease on 2012 Candidates":

President Obama’s support is eroding among elements of his base, and a yearlong effort to recapture the political center has failed to attract independent voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, leaving him vulnerable at a moment when pessimism over the country’s direction is greater than at any other time since he took office.

The president’s effort to seize the initiative on the economy was well received by the public, and clear majorities support crucial pieces of his new job-creation program. But despite Mr. Obama’s campaign to sell the plan to Congress and voters, more than half of those questioned said they feared the economy was already in or was headed for a double-dip recession, and nearly three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.

Republicans appear more energized than Democrats at the outset of the 2012 presidential campaign, but have not coalesced around a candidate. Even as the party’s nominating contest seems to be narrowing to a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a majority of their respective supporters say they have reservations about their candidate. Half of Republicans who plan to vote in a primary say they would like more choices.

Yeah, a larger field of candidates would be good, but what can you do? I'm frankly surprised at the shape of the GOP field as it is. Seems like we'd have more heavyweights, and having Sarah Palin in the race would have been nice. But the main thing is that, clearly, whoever wins the nomination is going to pound Obama and the Democrats. Victory's going to be sweet!! I can't wait to remind Markos Moulitsas about how he failed to "crush" our spirits, the idiot.

“Any Republican who gets the nomination, whether it’s my first choice or not, is going to be better than what we’ve got now,” said Allen Hulshizer, 77, a Republican and retired structural engineer from Glenside, Pa. “By the time you get down to the final selections, any one of the top contenders will certainly be better than Obama.”

Libyan Rebels Enter Bani Walid in Final Push

At Telegraph UK.

Ford Drive One 'Press Conference' Commercial Rips Auto Bailouts

At Hot Air, "Wow: Ford ad blasts bailouts — and perhaps more."

The statement that America is about taking risks and enduring failure rather than expecting government to bail everyone out sounds more like a big thumb in the eye of the Obama administration, whose latest jobs bill keeps extending unemployment benefits, and which continues to propose spending billions on subsidies for businesses that can’t succeed on their own — like Solyndra.

No doubt. It also backhands Obama on his dismissal of American exceptionalism.

Tareq Salahi Files for Divorce From Wife Michaele

Not only are the Salahis getting divorced, but Tareq's banned from Journey concerts. Man, talk about insult to injury. That's harsh: "TAREQ SALAHI - BANNED from Journey Concerts."

I blogged the party crashing story in 2009, and was picked up at WND, "White House 'gatecrashers' tied to terror sympathizer."

Speaker John Boehner Speech at the Economic Club of Washington

At New York Times, "Boehner, in Washington Speech, Reaffirms No-Tax-Increase Position."

New York-9 and the Democratic Coalition

I love this story, from Sean Trende, at RealClearPolitics (via Memeorandum).

It's a political science-y essay, with charts and graphs. And here's a clue: "Obama has had problems with working-class whites in particular."

After New York Race, G.O.P. Sees Ripple in Jewish Vote

Now get this, at New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Not since Jimmy Carter in 1980 has a Democrat running for president failed to win a lopsided majority of the Jewish vote. This has been true during times of peace or war, and even when there has been deep acrimony between the White House and the Israeli government.

Republicans see a chance to change that in 2012, with President Obama locked in a tense relationship with Israel’s leaders and criticized by many American Jews as being too tough on a close and favored ally. Tuesday’s Republican upset in New York’s Congressional election, they say, is a sign of bad things to come for Mr. Obama.

Sensing trouble, the Obama campaign and Democratic Party leaders have mobilized to solidify the president’s standing with Jewish voters. The Democratic National Committee has established a Jewish outreach program. The campaign is singling out Jewish groups, donors and other supporters with calls and e-mails to counter the Republican narrative that Mr. Obama is hostile to Israel.

More at the link.

And from the editors, who aren't please by developments, natch: "Israel and New York’s Ninth District."

Attack Watch

Or, at Michelle Malkin's, "Attaaaaack Waaaaaatch."

Plus: "Obama Campaign: AttackWatch Gains Over 100,000 Sign-Ups In Less Than 24 Hours."

Yeah, that oughta help. Not!

BONUS: "Attack Watch, new Obama campaign site to ‘fight smears,’ becomes laughing stock of the Internet."

U.S. Poverty Rates Hit 50-Year high

Obama promised change, and boy did he deliver. Change we haven't seen in nearly fifty years.

At LAT, "U.S. poverty totals hit a 50-year high":

Census Bureau's grim statistics show recession's lingering effects, as young adults move back home and 1 million more Americans go without health insurance.

Reporting from Washington — In a grim portrait of a nation in economic turmoil, the government reported that the number of people living in poverty last year surged to 46.2 million — the most in at least half a century — as 1 million more Americans went without health insurance and household incomes fell sharply.

The poverty rate for all Americans rose in 2010 for the third consecutive year, matching the 15.1% figure in 1993 and pushing many more young adults to double up or return to their parents' home to avoid joining the ranks of the poor.

Taken together, the annual income and poverty snapshot released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau underscored how the recession is casting a long shadow well after its official end in June 2009.

Continue reading.

Democrat Hopes Collapse Following Turner Win in New York Special Election

I've used the 1992 comparison previously. George H.W. Bush was defeated for reelection just 22 months after having record approval ratings of near 90 percent. With last night's breathtaking GOP win in NY-9, the left's utter freak out over 2012 has now hit gale force.

There's lots of stuff on this. See Caitlin Huey-Burns, at RealClearPolitics, "GOP Scores Major Upset in NY-9." Also David Seifman at New York Post, "Disaster looms for O in 2012" (via Memeorandum), and Peter Wehner at Commentary, "Panic, Then Rage Ahead for Democrats."

And at Politico, "Dems schvitzing over NY-9 results," and "Twin defeats spark Democratic fears."

BONUS: From Andrew Breitbart, "After Turner Earthquake in Weiner District, Democrats’ Civil War Against Obama Begins."

NASA Aerial Video of 9/11

Via Israel Matzav:

d

Paul Simon Sings 'Sounds of Silence' at New York 9/11 Ceremony

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

President Bush Reads Lincoln Letter at 9/11 Memorial Service in New York

Via Althouse, who publishes the text of Lincoln's letter:

September 11 Memorial Ceremony in New York

Bloomberg took heat for excluding clergy and firemen, but I'm sad I wasn't able to attend.

At New York Times, "Bush and Obama: Side by Side at Ground Zero":

For the first time on Sunday, President Obama and former President George W. Bush stood together at the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, listening as family members read the names of lost love ones and bowing their heads in silence to mark the moment the planes hit.

In May, Mr. Bush declined Mr. Obama’s invitation to join him at ground zero after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. But on this morning, they stood shoulder to shoulder — commanders in chief whose terms in office are bookends for exploring how the United States has changed since Sept. 11, 2001, particularly in its response to terrorism.

The tableau was striking: the president who spent years hunting Bin Laden next to the one who finally got him. The president defined by his response to Sept. 11 standing alongside the one who has tried to take America beyond the lingering, complicated legacy of that day.

Mr. Obama read from Psalm 46: “God is our refuge and strength,” which an aide said he chose because it spoke of perseverance. Mr. Bush, the wartime leader, read a letter from Abraham Lincoln to a widow who was believed to have lost five sons in the Civil War.

More at that link above, and at Memeorandum.

And at Althouse, "President Bush, reading Lincoln's letter at the 9/11 ceremony in NYC."

Democrats Openly Alarmed About Obama's Reelection Prospects

Well, they should be.

At NYT, "Democrats Fret Aloud Over Obama’s Re-election." (Via Memeorandum.)

Democrats are expressing growing alarm about President Obama’s re-election prospects and, in interviews, are openly acknowledging anxiety about the White House’s ability to strengthen the president’s standing over the next 14 months.

Elected officials and party leaders at all levels said their worries have intensified as the economy has displayed new signs of weakness. They said the likelihood of a highly competitive 2012 race is increasing as the Republican field, once dismissed by many Democrats as too inexperienced and conservative to pose a serious threat, has started narrowing to two leading candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, who have executive experience and messages built around job creation.

And in a campaign cycle in which Democrats had entertained hopes of reversing losses from last year’s midterm elections, some in the party fear that Mr. Obama’s troubles could reverberate down the ballot into Congressional, state and local races.

More at that top link, but clearly, the Dems are going to be crushed.

And like Bill Whittle said, it's not going to matter who the GOP nominee is. Obambi's toast.