NEOAVATARA

Ouch.

Nothing hurts quite like this.

Public Policy Polling (the outfit that DailyKos now uses for their polls, funny enough) may have the poll of the week:

We’ll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but there’s one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they’d rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.

Um, what?

You mean the Messiah, President Obama…is liked less than the liberal equivalent of Hitler in America, George W. Bush?

Say it ain’t so!

What is amazing is the wide breath of those feelings for old ‘W’.  Independents in Ohio favored Bush by 42-37.  Remember…that is a larger margin than Bush won the state of Ohio over John Kerry in 2004!

And this is seemingly not a local trend.  How about this:

But a poll of Louisianans by Public Policy Polling shows those reassurances may have a hard time. Just 32% give Obama good marks for his actions in the aftermath of the spill, while 61% disapprove.

By contrast, those polled said that Bush’s leadership on Katrina was better than Obama’s on the spill. A majority,  54%, said that Bush did the better job of helping Louisiana through the hurricane crisis compared to the 33% who chose Obama, PPP said on Friday.

That 21-point spread was more than when PPP asked the same question in June and found Bush ahead by 15 points.

Yup.  That is right.  Bush’s Katrina disaster…was handled better than Obama’s Gulf Oil spill, according to those in Louisiana.

Again, ouch.

Now, liberals will surely place the blame of all the poll numbers on the lagging economy.  Fair enough…the economy is a large part of it.  But there are several amazing things about this.  First, Bush was not a ‘beloved’ President when he left office…his numbers are improving under the Obama regime.  And that is with President Obama’s constant pounding of  his predecessor, continually blaming him for everything that has gone wrong in the last 18 months.   In other words…people simply are not listening or registering any of Obama’s spin on current events.

In short, these numbers say much more about Obama than his predecessor.

This is something that conservatives had long believed, but until today we didn’t have the ultimate sledgehammer to pound Democrats on the issue: the Congressional Budget Office estimate.

The CBO today released a report showing that the total U.S. expenditures in Iraq came to $709 Billion.  A staggering amount, no question…but still about 15% smaller than Mr. Obama’s  $862 Billion 2009 Recovery Act (a.k.a. the Obama Stimulus).

The numbers are incontrovertable.

The CBO figures show that the most expensive year of the Iraq war was in 2008, the year when the surge was in full swing and the turning point in the war. The total cost of Iraq operations in 2008 was $140 billion. In 2007, the cost of Iraq operations was $124 billion.

According to an analysis by the American Thinker’s Randall Hoven, the cost of the Iraq war from 2003-2008 — when Bush was in office — was $20 billion less than the cost of education spending and less than a quarter of the cost of Medicare spending during that same period.

The deficit numbers are even uglier.

The U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2010 is expected to be $1.3 trillion, according to CBO. That compares to a 2007 deficit of $160.7 billion and a 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion, according to data provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

In 2007 and 2008, the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 1.2 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively.  It was 9.9% in 2009, and will be 9.1% this year.

Democrats have little defense for such spending…especially considering the lack of results we have seen.

The righteousness of the Iraq War can be debated among reasonable people, and only the history books (likely decades from now) will determine if it was worth the cost, not only in money but in lives.

But there is no debate about what has cost more to this country’s pocketbook.

Everyone with a brain knew what would happen. Unfortunately, those controlling Washington, D.C. these days are of questionable intelligence.

What am I talking about? Obama’s ‘brilliant’ Cash-for-Clunkers program.

Now, let us not even debate whether the program was stimulative; I don’t think it was, the White House disagrees, and we both have evidence to prove otherwise. Let us leave that debate alone.

But one thing is for certain: the effect on the used car market today.  According to Edmunds.com, used car prices have skyrocketed over the past year, the most since the value of the market was being monitored.  On average, a used car costs 10.3% (or about $1,800) more today than a year ago.

Why?

Well, couple points from Edmunds.  “So many economic factors affect automobile sales and prices. It’s believed that the program delayed purchases prior to the program and also pulled sales forward while in place,” said Joe Spina, a senior analyst for Edmunds. “The program also eliminated inventory of older vehicles that were traded and then scrapped.”

Well, duh.  The answer is simple:  supply and demand.  The Federal government, through this program, did increase short term sales of new cars.  Whether anyone bought cars that otherwise would not have is questionable, but at least is debatable.  What isn’t debatable is that all of those cars scrapped…are now off the market.  And thus, the market of used cars has obviously shrunk…thus decreasing supply and increasing demand.

So why should we care?  Well, if you are rich or well off, you probably don’t care, in your shiny new car.  But there is a large swath of the population that never buys a new car; it is estimated that almost half of the U.S. adult population only buys used cars.  And stating the obvious, most of these people are in the lower middle to poor classes.

So, even assuming that Obama’s program helped stimulate some car sales, it as certainly made it harder for the poor and lower middle class in this country to afford decent transportation.

Now, if our leaders knew simple economics, they could have easily predicted this damaging result.  Oh well.

This is a running joke from journalists; it has to be, doesn’t it?  From, of course, Reuters:

New claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed to a nine-month high last week, government data showed on Thursday, yet another setback to the frail economic recovery.

You gotta be kidding. What is unexpected about this?

Job losses were ‘unexpectedly’ higher last month, with the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 500,000, an increase of 12,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 488,000. The 4-week moving average was 482,500, an increase of 8,000 from the previous week’s revised average of 474,500.  That is the highest rate since November 2009.

The increase suggests the economy is creating even fewer jobs than in the first half of this year, when private employers added an average of about 100,000 jobs per month. That’s barely enough to keep the unemployment rate from rising. The jobless rate has been stuck at 9.5 percent for two months.

“You can sometimes dismiss a big number and say , ‘Oh, it’s just one week,’” Tim Quinlan, an economist at Wells Fargo, stated. “But with the four-week moving average continuing higher, you can see this is just a bad trend.”

A bad trend indeed.  In fact, even the dip that you see in the upper right hand portion of the chart above is fictional:  it corresponds to the Independence Day weekend, when people sometimes have short term jobs, or don’t file benefits because they are on vacation.  That doesn’t even take into consideration temporary census worker jobs, which we knew would disappear by late summer.  Overall, there has been a virtual consistent upward trend in unemployment for months.

It is now too late for Democrats to prepare for the November elections.  Nothing in the current trend will help them politically this year.  It is all bad news, and although liberal outlets continue to be surprised by these findings, the American public has made a decision on the Democrats economic abilities.  Obama’s ‘Summer of Recovery’ needs resuscitation.  And so, the Democrat Party better batten down the hatches for the storm that is obviously approaching in November.

For Republicans, the answer is simple:  “It is the economy, stupid”.  I have no problem spending short periods of time on other issues, whether it be immigration, foreign affairs, or the mosque issue.  But it always, in every discussion and debate, should come back to jobs, and what we as conservatives will do to  help revive the economy.

There was nothing unexpected about any of this.  I, as well as any conservative blogger and pundit with a brain, plotted this path when the Obama Stimulus was passed in early 2009.  This is what always happens with large-scale government spending.  When the money is spent, it produces short term stimulus simply by getting money into the pockets of individuals.  But long term, government cannot sustain growth, only private industry can.  So once the government money dries up, the government needs to restore its balance books, and raises taxes, which in turn decreases, not increases, economic output.  And thus, businesses don’t hire.

What is unexpected in that?

There will be little or no positive news for the economy in the foreseeable future.  Of course, Obama could come to his senses, follow conservative ideals, renew the Bush tax cuts, cut extraneous spending, and maybe even cut corporate taxes after the election.

But now, that would be unexpected.

In 2008, in both the Democrat nomination process as well as the general election, candidates that faced off against Barack Obama, time and again, stated that Obama was simply not ready for prime time.  His inexperience was a major hindrance to being an effective President.  Then Sen. Joe Biden (now Vice President Joseph Biden) stated the Presidency is not a position for ‘on the job training’.

How true that is.

Forget about the multiple foreign policy blunders.  Forget about the inability to have any coherent economic policy other than tax-and-spend.  Dismiss the fact that Obama doesn’t really care about securing the border, illegal immigration, or a multitude of other issues that the public is concerned about.

Let us simply look at the hard nosed politics involved.

And even in that arena, Obama falls far short.

The latest example is the mosque that is being considered for lower Manhattan, just blocks from the World Trade Center site.

Forget the argument over the mosque itself; many, if not most, bloggers have discussed the right of freedom of religion versus the common sense questioning of if the mosque location is appropriate.  I will leave that argument to others.

But what is more interesting in the long term for the people of the United States, and Democrats in particular, is Obama’s tone deaf political nature.

For weeks, the White House actually took the smartest approach to the mosque controversy:  “It is a local issue”.  Honestly, I don’t think George W. Bush would have had a different policy.  It is a local issue, ultimately, despite the constitutional repercussions. White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs, over and over, refused to respond to questions about the mosque, deferring to the city of New York.

And then, our President-in-training came out to play.

Obama, at a White House celebration for Ramadan, took what sounded like a firm stand in support of the mosque.

“Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” he said to applause from the largely Muslim crowd.

That would have been fine…but Obama took it a step further.  The entire quote:

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the founders must endure.

That was a far more reaching statement than simply defending the mosque supporters First Amendment rights.  It appeared as a tacit approval of the site itself.

This is the part where the West Wing got spooked.  Vulnerable Democrats, many moderates in risky seats, were outraged.  Not so much for the Constitutional stand (which even right wingers have accepted), but for the blanket statement of support for the mosque at a time when many, if not most, Americans oppose the mosque site.

On Saturday, the president said, “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque” near Ground Zero, he told reporters during a visit to the Gulf Coast. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.”

Except, sir, that you already commented on the wisdom and decision.

The irony is, between the time of the comments on Friday and the Saturday ‘revision’, many liberal outlets praised Obama’s courage under fire.  One example, from Greg Sargent of the Washington Post:

Obama didn’t just stand up for the legal right of the group to build the Islamic center. He voiced powerful support for their moral right to do so as well, casting it as central to American identity. … Obama went much further than [to acknowledge the legal rights of the project's backers]. He asserted that we must “welcome” and “respect” those of other faiths, suggesting that the group behind the center deserves the same, and said flat out that anything less is un-American.

Which was fine…until the President, and later the White House itself, quickly and abruptly backed away from this ‘moral stand’.

The whole thing is a joke.  First, the President was stupid to involve himself in the debate in the first place.  This is a local issue that should be decided by the people of New York City.  Second, once he decided to wade into the debate, the least he could have done is actually take a principled stand.  Mr. Obama’s stand, I believe, is incorrect in its blanket approval of the mosque site, simply because of the First Amendment; the issue is much more complicated than that.  But as the Constitutional professor he thinks himself to be, for him it was a black and white issue…with no middle ground.  That is an analysis that 70% of Americans disagree with, if you believe recent polling.  Then, to compound the matter, he could not even stand up for those principles (and who of us don’t believe he was speaking the truth from his liberal, left-leaning heart when he spoke on Friday?).  So, in the matter of 24 hours, he alienated the 70% of Americans against the mosque site, then alienated the Muslims he tried to reach out to, as well as much of the Democrat Party.

Pretty impressive.

It speaks volumes when most Democrats want no part of this.  Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand won’t touch the issue with a 10 foot pole.  Harry Reid came out against the mosque site today, in stark contrast to the White House.

“The main reaction is ‘Why? Why now?’” said one House Democratic leadership aide. “It’s just another day off message. There have been a lot of days off message.”

The chief of staff to one politically vulnerable House Democrat said it “probably alienates a lot of independent voters” and “it’s not a good issue to be talking about right now.”

The answer, my Democrat brothers, is simple:  when you pick a neophyte to be your leader…you get what you pay for.

This has been an excellent year for comic book afficionados.

Between Kick-Ass (which may have been the best of the bunch), Iron Man 2, and the anticipatory orgasm going on over The Green Lantern, Thor, and the Avengers, comic book geeks have never had it so good.

And now comes Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World.

For many, Scott Pilgrim is an enigma.  It is a comic book, but not one that mainstream non-comic book viewers have read.  So this is in many ways the public’s introduction to the character.

And what an introduction.

Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) has directed a novel way of presenting a comic book hero…without really making a comic book movie.  Not in the traditional sense, anyway.

The basic gist of the story?  Boy meets girl.  They fall for each other.  Girl then mentions that she has seven evil ex-boyfriends, that, oh, by the way, Scott Pilgrim must fight to the death.

Yeah, love is a bitch.

Scott Pilgrim (played by Michael Cera, who is quickly becoming a huge Hollywood star) is, frankly, a loser.  He is a loser on many levels.  But somehow, he gets his dream girl in  Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).  And then, the story begins.  Wright uses echoes of many themes from past movies, in an almost operatic sort of way.  He uses the super-sweetness of 80s high school movies, mixes in some kung fu ala Bruce Lee, and the adds musical overtures?

That is exactly what he does.  And somehow, it works.  It works as what it is supposed to be:  a live action comic book.  Many have attempted it (Dick Tracy comes to mind) and failed miserably.  But Wright somehow pulls it off.

The amazing thing is…you like these characters.  You feel for them.  And that is even though the environment is completely insane.  Wright has been able to pull what appears to be a very superficial storyline (no offense to the writers of the comics…I have not read them, only know a little of the back story) and made the story intelligent and engrossing.

Unlike other comic book movies, this is a movie I think my wife could like.  Yes, your wife/girlfriend/significant other will have to get past the fight scenes and the overall geekiness…but below that is a touching romantic comedy about how people deal with each others problems when in a relationship.  Sure, it is over the top…but if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be so enjoyable.

Definitely on my watch list for the top movies of the year.  Highly recommended.

“Stay the course.”

That became the Bush mantra in Iraq, as the war was going down the drain.  In 2006, it also became a liberal catch phrase to crystallize public sentiment against the war.

I wonder if Obama remembers that lesson.

Last weeks job numbers were ‘worse than expected’ (that, too, is becoming a joke, as every month we hear economists say that; what do you expect, a huge jobs increase?).

Obama’s answer is, ultimately, more of the same.  More stimulus.  More taxes on the rich (in lieu of letting the Bush tax cuts expire).  And more regulations.

The question is whether Obama has the intelligence that Bush had after the 2006 election to change course.  Bush’s adaptability allowed in to show a Presidential profile in courage, via the troop surge that, this week, is allowing Iraqi forces take over military actions in Iraq, and will soon allow the Iraqis to virtually control their own country in all critical aspects (of course, with over 50,000 American troops remaining in the country as a backup if problems arise).

Obama doesn’t appear to have such dynamic thinking.

Without any significant improvement in the labor market, and with business outlook worsening, not improving, this would appear to be the ideal time to change course.  With the exits of Peter Orzag and Christina Romer, Obama could easily revamp his economic team with little or no political after effects, and move his agenda forward.

But Obama is not that type of leader.  Obama is smart, knowledgeable, and decisive.  What he is not is modest and self-reflective.  His choices over the last year and a half largely have defaulted to the big government liberalism of his past, without much thought of his action’s effects on the greater marketplace.

Well, the markets have reacted.  They have reacted as they always do in times of uncertainty:  they batten down the hatches.  After giveaways to banks and car companies (both of whom, you will note, are prospering after those gifts), the other industries that America needs to thrive are all in emergency mode:  cut inventories, cut staff, no hiring or growth until you seem some evidence of stability.

That stability may never come under this President.  He simply has no understanding of the free market, and has no faith in government letting the private citizens of this country make choices that will lead to their own individual success or failure.

So, Obama’s message to America on the economy:  “Stay the course.”

.

.

Clearly, we all know this is a witch hunt.

How could the beloved Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters be guilty of anything?  Especially corruption?

This week, Maxine Waters was the one to stand up for her innocence:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) strongly denied allegations that she broke House ethics rules and rejected a deal that would avoid what could be a bruising doubleheader of public trials for veteran Democrats in a tough election year.

“I have not violated any House rules,” Waters said in a statement released Monday, minutes after the ethics committee posted a report finding “substantial reason to believe” a violation occurred.

“Therefore, I simply will not be forced to admit to something I did not do and instead have chosen to respond to charges made by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in a public hearing,” the 10-term lawmaker said.

Waters is alleged to have helped a bank receive TARP funds…in which her family holds large financial interests.

Then there is Charlie Rangel, who on Tuesday went to the floor of the House of Representatives and declared, “I am not going away!  I am here!”

Last week, Rangel avoided any pretrial solutions to 13 ethics violations against him (including the meager punishment of Congressional sanction, which means nothing).  He instead has fought tooth and nail, blaming everyone, but himself, for the charges brought against him by a bipartisan ethics committee.

Well, good for the both of them!  Fight on!  Fight to the bitter end!

I am glad to see that Democrats have found their motto on ethics charges:  Deny, delay, and defend, at all costs.

The irony of all this is that if Democrats had been serious about facing ethics charges, they would have dealt with Rangel’s violations almost two years ago, when they first arose.  And Waters charges, which are probably less severe, should have been handled at an early stage.  But Democrats long feared the political repercussions of any ethics charges, especially against such prominent members of the Black caucus.

And so, here we stand.  A couple months to the midterm elections, and two major Democrats in the House stand accused of violations (which both agree they probably committed, though deny that the violations are really significant).  Heck, Rangel explained it this way:  “It may be stupid. It may be negligent. But it’s not corrupt,” he said, refusing any suggestion that he resign.  That is not exactly a glowing endorsement of one of the Democrats most prominent voices, especially the former chairperson of the Ways and Means Committee.

Even more amazing is that Rangel was able to reach the floor to give such a dramatic speech.  Pelosi and her leadership had no clue what was coming, as Rangel used the rare ‘point of privilege’ rule that allowed him to speak about anything.

Pelosi has lost all control of her caucus.  Moderate Democrats have called for Rangel to resign (and of course, were the main targets of Rangel’s wrath during the speech, even more so than Republicans).  The Black Caucus is blindly supporting Rangel, and even applauded during his defiant speech.  And then there is the rest of the Democrats, who simply wanted to hid in the shadows to avoid being involved with the entire mess.

Rangel and Waters.  Who would have thought they would bring a Christmas present to John Boehner and Republicans in August?  Well, never look a gift horse in the mouth…

The Kindle...which Obama is targeting...

For all of the talk about cutting edge technology and innovation, the Obama Administration puts little of that talk into practice.

There have been numerous examples, whether it involves military technology, the financial industry, or health care.   But maybe the most ridiculous and ludicrous of all…is their attack on Amazon’s Kindle.

That is right, the Kindle.

Last year, the Department of Justice threatened several colleges, including Princeton, Case Western Reserve, and Arizona State University, with possibly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Why?  Well, Amazon, in their evil pursuit of more profits, wanted to start a pilot program on college campuses, to see whether the Kindle could be easily used in lieu of expensive textbooks.

But one problem:  the Kindle was not fully accessible to the blind; and the DOJ considered that a prejudicial violation.

That is right; those mean colleges hate the disabled!

Amazon’s Kindle program seemed like a promising idea until the universities got a letter from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, and their Department Chief, Thomas Perez, telling them they were under investigation for possible violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Because the Kindle cannot be used by the blind, allowing their use would supposedly violated the Disabilities law.

First of all, the Kindle in many ways is ideal for the blind.  There is a text-to-speech function, where the Kindle will actually read the text to you! There is one downside:  the menu systems on the Kindle are still somewhat limited, and it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the blind to operate those menus.

The Civil Rights Division informed the schools they were under investigation. In subsequent talks, the Justice Department demanded the universities stop distributing the Kindle; if blind students couldn’t use the device, then nobody could.  Instead of working with Amazon and the universities to adapt Kindles for the blind, Mr. Perez and the leftists in the DOJ made a blanket statement that use of these devices were prejudicial.

Even advocates for the blind realize the stupidity of this ruling.  “As a blind person, I would never want to be associated with any movement that punished sighted students, particularly for nothing they had ever done,” says Russell Redenbaugh, a California investor who lost his sight in a childhood accident and later served for 15 years on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “It’s a gross injustice to disadvantage one group, and it’s bad policy that breeds resentment, not compassion.”

Of course, the market and common sense  ultimately will prevail.  In no time, Amazon now has a device that is accessible to the blind.  The DOJ is reviewing the case now, and surely will take months, if not longer, to make a judgement on what any reasonable person can judge as reasonable in about 2 seconds.

This is where hyperregulation gets you.  I am a firm believer in the Americans with Disabilities Act.  It has opened up avenues that were before closed to millions of disabled Americans.  That said…common sense should prevail.  These universities were trying to do good for their students, not to further disadvantage disabled students (and a footnote:  there were NO blind students in ANY of the classes chosen for the pilot program; so even with the DOJ rationale, not one person ever would have been disadvantaged).

But the classic message of this administration is obvious:  innovation is only good, insofar that it doesn’t hinder anyone, anywhere.  If this is what innovation means to this administration, how will we ever promote nuclear energy, green technologies, etc.?  All of them cause an annoyance to someone.  If the rule is never to offend anyone…I fear innovation is a thing of the past.