What Would Jesus Cut?

Some one is asking the question, "What Would Jesus Cut?" The answer of course is foreskins. At least until the Council of Jerusalem changed all that.

H/T Instapundit

The Image President

You can't be an image President unless you can control all the information sources. And even that is not possible. There are leakages. The best you can hope for in this age of the Internet is about 30 to 60 days. Long enough to win an election campaign. And thus we have a quote from an Old Joe. The whole quote. Because the usual excerpt doesn't do it justice.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels

The trouble is that there are not enough leakages - yet - to cause trouble in a thirty or sixty day campaign. But a year in office? People begin to notice that the words don't match the reality. You know, people in contact with the real world rather than the reality based community in their heads.

And who would the reality based community be? People with unicorns and Obama in their heads.

There appear to be thousands of these paintings (made by mental patients, we think) of a naked Obama astride a unicorn, being rubbed down with oil by a unicorn, and doing things with unicorns that would be grossly inappropriate anywhere but deep within the bowels of Man’s Country in Andersonville.

The above was written by a male gay blogger. So you can just imagine what a joint Man's Country must be like. This search page has cataloged 152,000 images in the - Obama Unicorn - category. And let me tell you. The images are just as weird as described.

But reality seems to be settling in with some frequency (Kenneth is that you?) these days among the very people who who shielded him for long enough to win an election.

Let me start with Edward Luce of the Financial Times.

Whatever issue arises, whether it is a failed terrorist plot in Detroit, the healthcare bill, economic doldrums or the 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan, the White House instinctively fields Mr Axelrod or Mr Gibbs on television to explain the administration’s position. “Every event is treated like a twist in an election campaign and no one except the inner circle can be trusted to defend the president,” says an exasperated outside adviser.

Mr. Luce goes on to point out in detail that just having a position is not helpful. You have to have a policy or a plan. And to start having policies and plans and taking action is not in Mr. Obama's repertoire. Can he change? Mr Luce gives this answer.

“There is an old joke,” says Mr Gergen. “How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”

OK why doesn't Obama want to change? Pretty simple. He won. Against impossible odds.

...close allies of the president attribute the problem to the campaign-like nucleus around Mr Obama in which all things are possible. “There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,” says one. “Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.”

Now I read my history. And I can tell you that the Government of a certain Austrian Corporal whose Reichsminister of Propaganda I quoted above had the same problem. His political and military intuition was astounding. And then reality set in. He had gained a large domain and found to his chagrin that it was ungovernable.

Steve Clemons at the formerly reliable Huffington Post piles on. Ann Gerhart of the Washington Post has some words to add. And even hacks like Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times are firing shots across Mr. Obama's bow.

It is not all rainbows and unicorns or rainbows and unicorns any more. Or even a Plastic Jesus of one version or another riding on the dashboards or rear view mirrors of some cars.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Dems Scrap Money Bill

What do you call a bill designed to garner political contributions? A money bill. Let me set the stage a bit. Due to the wold wide boom in commodity prices, extraction industries like coal, oil, and mining are booming. What do good incumbent politicians do in a case like that? They propose a bill that would wreck those industries. And thus we have a carbon cap and trade bill.

WASHINGTON, DC, June 6, 2008 (ENS) – The U.S. Senate's much anticipated tangle with a landmark bill that would have required the nation to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming came to an unceremonious end Friday, as proponents failed to muster enough votes to formally consider the legislation.

Four days of deliberations on the climate bill were marked more by partisan bickering than substantive debate, but supporters of aggressive U.S. action to combat global warming contend the tide is turning in their favor.

"This is a landmark day," said Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat and cosponsor of the bill. "It's another milestone in the fight against global warming."

Friday's 48-36 vote fell a dozen votes short of the number needed to end debate and begin consideration of amendments to the bill.

Seven Republicans joined 39 Democrats and two Independents in voting to move forward with the bill. Four Democrats sided with 32 Republicans in opposition.

Convinced most Republicans had little interest in actually trying to move the bill forward, Democratic leaders opted to pull the legislation from the floor.

I guess the run up to the bill's consideration and four days of debate was enough to extract the maximum in contributions. And speaking of election year action, here is another money bill.

Senate Republicans killed legislation Wednesday aimed at removing limits on how long workers can wait before suing their employers for pay discrimination.

Democrats, speaking to key constituencies of women, minorities and swing voters this election year, said they weren't finished trying to pass the bill.

"Women of America: Put your lipstick on, square your shoulders, suit up" and get ready to fight, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said moments after the bill's opponents denied supporters the 60 votes needed to proceed to full debate and a vote on passage. "The revolution starts tonight."

Debate on the legislation, which was proposed in response to a Supreme Court decision last year, was steeped in election-year politics and shadowed by a White House veto threat.

The vote sparked dueling news conferences Wednesday in which leaders of both parties accused each other of playing politics with key voting blocs in a year when the presidency, every House seat and a third in the Senate are on the ballot.

That is a pretty good explanation of what went on but the real goodies are located a little further down in the news.

Besides trial lawyers, the bill could appeal to women and minority voters for whom pay equity will be a top issue on Election Day.

Get that? Trial lawyers. Some of the biggest givers to the Democrat Party. This bill is what I would refer to as a dangle. "Help us get elected and we will help you". As opposed to "give us money or we will punish you".

I have a prediction that is about as close to a sure thing as you can get. There will be more money bills in the run up to the election. However, this is nothing new. 'Twas ever thus:

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

The best defense? Divided government. All it will take is a few more Democrats elected to the Senate and we are in real trouble.

I Favor Divided Government

Don Surber is on fire with a column on the Democrat Congress. Here are some excerpts:

Democrats keep challenging the weakest administration since Jimmy Carter, and incredibly, prove to be even weaker.

Reid and Pelosi failed to get a timetable placed on withdrawing troops from Iraq, even after larding up a vital defense appropriation with $20 billion in pork-barrel projects.

Next came the Amnesty bill (or as proponents called it, the Immigration Reform bill), which failed to garner more than 45 votes, even with Republican support.

Finally, on Monday, the Senate tried for the first time ever to have a no-confidence resolution against Alberto Gonzales, the Mike Brown of attorneys general.

And the Senate failed. Even with Republican support.

I was under the impression that democrats held a majority in both houses. Doesn't majority + Republican support = bigger majority? Or is this some kind of new Democratic math? Not that I'm unhappy about it mind you. I favor divided government.

Don has some more:

The Los Angeles Times released a poll this week that showed only 27 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 65 percent disapprove.

Last April, the same newspaper poll showed a Republican Congress with 28 percent approval and 61 percent disapproval.

It took Republicans 12 years to dissolve. Democrats have done it in less than six months.

I congratulate them on their efficiency.

H/T Instapundit

On Terrorism

Men who use terrorism as a means to power, rule by terror once they are in power. --Helen Macinnes

H/T Forbes Magazine