I believe

What do you believe? A few views on the matter. First, Crash Davis (Kevin Costner) in Bull Durham (NSFW):

Next, Barack Obama at Loyola University, 1998:

Finally, the wisdom of the Lady Miss Kier:

Who do you believe?
	Crash Davis
	Barack Obama
	The Lady Miss Kier
pollcode.com free polls

Got to have a mother for me

Moe Lane notices something:

Seriously: if you’re going to put up a video that purports to be the entire raw footage of a Romney fundraiser, that’s fine. If it’s too big, that’s also fine.

But for Heaven’s sakes: don’t show us two videos where the first one ends with “We poll all these people to see where you stand in the polls but 45 percent of the people vote for the Republicans and 48 or 49…” and the second one starts with “…about twice as much as China, not 10 times as much like is reported” and expect people not to notice that there is obviously a piece missing in there somewhere.

The video's at the link. And I'm sure there's a perfectly logical explanation, right?

Heh

Mickey Kaus:

We need a new rule: Pundits and bloggers can only declare Romney’s campaign dead once.  If the race gets close after that, you can’t start commenting again as if he’s got a shot. He’s already dead to you! No second fatal gaffes. … Use it wisely!…

And Another Reason Why I Miss Christopher Hitchens

Via Althouse, Hitchens in 2006, from a speech at the University of Toronto:

Bear in mind, ladies and gentleman, that every time you violate, or propose the violate, the right to free speech of someone else, you in potentia [are] making a rod for your own back. Because the other question raised by Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes is simply this: who’s going to decide, to whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what the harmful consequences [are] going to be that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor?

I wouldn't trust anyone to do that job. Especially myself.

I'd also add that a number of passages in the speech are personally offensive to me. And if you read the speech, chances are pretty good you'll find something that offends you. I'll let you find those passages yourself, but you know what? That's the point. So when you read something like this:

While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to produce this film, arguing that the ensuing violence was not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. "Based on my understanding of the events," 1st Amendment authority Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, "I think this meets the imminence standard."

Ask yourself this -- do you trust Anthony Lewis to be your censor? And if so, why?

MoJo Catches Mitt Telling the Truth

Feelin' guilty, feelin' scared, hidden cameras everywhere 
Stop! Hold on. Stay in control 
                                                 -- Ray Davies, "Destroyer"

Sounds like ol' Mitt Romney was at a fundraiser recently and someone recorded his comments. And it also sounds as though we're supposed to shocked, shocked by what he had to say. David Corn of Mother Jones has the breathless dispatch, complete with money quote:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Ooh, that cold-hearted bastard.

Actually, he's got the math pretty much right. About 47% of Americans don't pay income tax, although the many of them do have income taxes withheld from their paychecks in what becomes essentially an interest-free loan to Uncle Sam. I don't think all of the 47% in question are Democrats, although many are.

Romney is actually explaining something that matters rather a lot. The reason pruning back government is going to be so horribly difficult is that many millions of Americans are essentially on the dole, either through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI and other general relief programs. And because we've been running over 8% unemployment for the past four years, with a workforce participation rate of only 58%, the government has a lot of clients. And since the Democrats are the Party of Government, they will have a lot of support.

I don't think there's anything especially controversial about any of that. The devil is in the details, of course. The 47% number is pretty steady right now, but the composition of those in that 47% changes. Young people start out in that number and, if their lives go well, leave and become net taxpayers. Old people pay taxes, many for years, and as they retire they become part of the 47%. Politicians understand these things, which is why the Party of Government is always trying to scare seniors about Medicare. Lately the Republicans have been doing the same thing.

For me, the most interesting part of Corn's dispatch is what Romney says about the disenchanted Obama voters he's trying to reach:

We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.

This is a pretty realistic assessment of what has happened to this point. I've long understood and agreed with Romney on the main point -- no one likes having his (or her) nose rubbed in it. So I get the approach he's taken.

Of course, now that this snippet is out, that strategy will be well-nigh impossible to maintain. So what does Romney do?

I think the right answer is to call out Obama's failings, every single day and in every single way. The stimulus didn't really do much of anything. The bets Obama and his team made on green energy were busts. The Cairo speech was just a speech. And he needs to explain why the current path is unsustainable.

And Romney needs to tell people what he intends to do to change things, in clear terms. I do think the American people deserve that. If Romney does those things and loses, that's the way it goes. But if he tries to pretend that the clear meaning of what he said isn't really what he meant, he'll lose. And deserve to lose. At this point, Romney needs to own the statements, because the Democrats will make him do it anyway. And it's possible that the American people will understand.

Meanwhile, in Chicago

The blue-on-blue fun continues:

The week-old teachers strike in Chicago's public schools will continue into the new week, after a representative group of the Chicago Teachers Union decided not to end the walkout even though union leaders and school officials had reached a tentative contract deal.

The move left Mayor Rahm Emanuel vowing to go to court to force teachers back to work, calling Sunday's actions by the union "a delay of choice that is wrong for our children."

The mayor announced in a statement that he's asked city lawyers "to file an injunction in circuit court to immediately end this strike." He contended the strike is illegal because "it is over issues that are deemed by state law to be nonstrikable, and it endangers the health and safety of our children."

Here's a suggestion, Rahm -- when you're out forum shopping, remember not to call anyone like Juan Colas.

Lost in the Funhouse

There are plenty of times in my life where I'm not sure what to believe, or whom to believe. But this isn't one of them:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

Do you believe that people just spontaneously decide to fire rocket-propelled grenades at a consulate? Ah, those Libyans, always living for the moment. Or do you believe this dispatch?

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.

"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.

Blogger Sean Medlock, who blogs under the name "Jim Treacher" at the Daily Caller, has had a long ordeal trying to recover from being hit by a State Department vehicle while crossing the street in Washington, DC. He's been trying to get answers from the State Department for two years now. His conclusion about what happened in Libya, I think, is closer to the mark:

God rest your soul, Christopher Stevens. You tried to make the world a better place, the people you trusted let you down, and now they care about nothing but saving their own asses. You deserved better.

We all do.

There's a lot more about what Medlock has gone through at the link and it's worth your time.

Freedom of Speech. . . just watch what you say

Chances are you've heard that the  LAPD L.A. County Sheriff's office brought in the guy who purportedly made the EVIL EVIL EVIL movie that's up on YouTube that has cause the ENTIRE ARAB WORLD TO EXPLODE!

Or something like that. Here was the photo of the event, where five, count 'em five guys brought him in for "voluntary" questioning:

You have the right to free speech, or the right to remain silent. Choose wisely.

This is a hell of a pass we're at, if you think about it. And it's about time we think about it. This guy might be a crank and an asshole, but he has a right to free speech. And in this country, that should mean something. I'm not so sure it does any more.

The Instapundit is in high dudgeon over this series of events:

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literally sent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.

But Obama’s behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office. I hope and expect that the voters will agree in November.

Emphasis in original. I have to agree. Free speech means nothing if brownshirts can show up and take you away. The way to stop this sort of thing from happening in the future, and from happening to you, is to speak up now and to make your voice and your vote count.

And in the meantime, you can have some fun with it, because free speech should be fun. Over at Quickmeme there are already a bunch of people enjoying conditional free speech by captioning that image. Here are a couple on the "popular" page that are spot-on:

And I added a few, using music lyrics that came to mind:

First, the Clash:

With your hands on your head, or on the trigger of a gun?

Next, Steely Dan:

Soon it will be too late. . . bobbing for apples can wait

And finally the Talking Heads:

Crosseyed and Painless -- the best-case scenario

I'm going to enjoy free speech for as long as it lasts. Lots more at the link. Create your own meme too, while you can.

UPDATE -- a few more I like:

See Gino's blog for more details on that particular topic

and

No business like show business

I'd better stop now, otherwise this blog might not get the following seal of approval:

We do our part

Another reason why I miss Christopher Hitchens

From an essay Hitchens wrote in 2007 for City Journal (H/T Scott Johnson), a reminder that disputes between the United States and Muslims in North Africa date back a very long time:

One immediate effect of the American Revolution, however, was to strengthen the hand of those very same North African potentates: roughly speaking, the Maghrebian provinces of the Ottoman Empire that conform to today’s Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. Deprived of Royal Navy protection, American shipping became even more subject than before to the depredations of those who controlled the Strait of Gibraltar. The infant United States had therefore to decide not just upon a question of national honor but upon whether it would stand or fall by free navigation of the seas.

One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or “tyranny,” let alone “terrorism.” He resists any comparison with today’s tormenting confrontations. “The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology,” he writes. “Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America’s War of Independence.”

Let us not call this view reductionist. Jefferson would perhaps have been just as eager to send a squadron to put down any Christian piracy that was restraining commerce. But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)

Emphasis mine. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this crap has been going on for a very long time.

Now, in the subsequent 200+ years since these events, the United States has become a somewhat ambivalent empire itself and Muslims certainly have grievances against us for any number of reasons. But the underlying message of the Koran, and its possible interpretations, hasn't really changed at all. In other words, some movie on YouTube doesn't have much to do with what's been happening.

The rest of the essay is well worth your time, as is usually the case with Hitchens, especially his conclusion:

Perhaps above all, though, the Barbary Wars gave Americans an inkling of the fact that they were, and always would be, bound up with global affairs. Providence might have seemed to grant them a haven guarded by two oceans, but if they wanted to be anything more than the Chile of North America—a long littoral ribbon caught between the mountains and the sea—they would have to prepare for a maritime struggle as well as a campaign to redeem the unexplored landmass to their west. The U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean squadron has, in one form or another, been on patrol ever since.

And then, finally, there is principle. It would be simplistic to say that something innate in America made it incompatible with slavery and tyranny. But would it be too much to claim that many Americans saw a radical incompatibility between the Barbary system and their own? And is it not pleasant when the interests of free trade and human emancipation can coincide? I would close with a few staves of Kipling, whose poem “Dane-Geld” is a finer effort than anything managed by Francis Scott Key:

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbor and to say:
—“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

Kipling runs briskly through the stages of humiliation undergone by any power that falls for this appeasement, and concludes:

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—


“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

It may be fortunate that the United States had to pass this test, and imbibe this lesson, so early in its life as a nation. 

And the lessons continue.

This Week in the Campaign

Ably summarized by the indispensable Michael Ramirez:

For what it's worth

Stream of consciousness blog post, with a little math:

I'd assume you've noticed that gas prices are scraping around $4/gallon again in the Twin Cities. That's a problem and even when you factor inflation into the mix, it's very expensive right now.

As it happens, I'm enjoying one of my favorite indulgences this morning, which is listening to "Saturday Morning Flashback" streaming from WXRT in Chicago. They are featuring the year 1975 and they happen to playing "Ooh Las Vegas" by Emmylou Harris as I write.

Host Wendy Rice just mentioned in passing that the average price for a gallon of gas in Chicago in 1975 was $0.58/gallon. In 2012 dollars, that would be $2.48. You can verify the calculation here. As I write, the average price of gas in Chicago is $4.32. That means, in constant dollars, the price of gas is 74% higher than it was in 1975.

In 2008 the price of gas was a big story. I was in Chicago in August, 2008 and paid about $4.20 for a gallon of gas. Comparing that price to the 1975 price, gas should have been the equivalent of $2.32 in constant dollars. That meant, in constant dollars, that the price of gas was 81% higher in 2008 than 1975. Of course  in August, 2008, the price was falling, eventually heading to a price around $2/gallon by the end of the year. It's been rising steadily lately. And I don't suppose that the current adventures in the Middle East are going to help the prices go down much.

So why aren't we talking about the price of gas now? I'll take your guesses in the comment section.

Oh, and by the way, now that Ben Bernanke is launching the latest round of quantitative easing, that $4 price you're paying now is more likely to be a floor than a ceiling. But that's another post.

The Wisdom of Dane County Judges

Eventually they'll run out of Dane County circuit court judges. But for now, the Wile E. Coyotes have struck again:

A county judge in Wisconsin on Friday struck down much of the 2011 state law pushed through by Gov. Scott Walker that severely restricts the ability of public employees to bargain collectively.

Judge Juan B. Colás of Dane County Circuit Court overturned the law with regard to city, county and school district workers — although not state employees — ruling that it violated the federal and state Constitutions.

Judge Colás said the Republican-backed measure, which led to huge union protests, violated union members’ freedom of speech and association as well as the equal protection of the laws by subjecting them to penalties not faced by nonunion public employees.

So what happens now? A few guesses:

• The decision rips open all the old wounds again.
• It probably will help Tommy Thompson and Mitt Romney, because people in Wisconsin are just tired of all this and want it to stop. So the people who won't take no for an answer will get slapped down again.
• It will also affect the upcoming legislative elections, to the detriment of Democrats. Because of redistricting, the Wisconsin Senate is likely to switch back to Republican control.

Meanwhile, this little tidbit from 2011 is worth considering as background on the Honorable Juan B. Colás:

Yesterday, a judge ruled that the state had improperly closed the Capitol and ordered it opened, but did rule that there could be date and time limits on the protests. (The decision was delayed because the first judge, the Honorable Juan Colas, assigned the case had to recuse himself because his own daughter was sleeping in the Wisconsin State Capitol.)

Justice isn't blind -- it sees what it wants to see, apparently.

The Wisdom of Facebook

From Mitch -- makes the point as succinctly as it can be made:

And it goes without saying that the people who are most victimized by Muslim terrorists, and their supporters, are other Muslims.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Post-Lambeau Beatdown Edition

We now return to our regularly scheduled HYYYYYYYPPPPPPPEEEE! But first, a few brief thoughts about the game last night. Jay Cutler's mouth wrote a check his team couldn't cash. The Packers defense has been criticized a lot. And it should be. But not last night, baby! It was 2010 Tramon Williams and 2010 Clay Matthews out there! And finally, the Packers have a quasi-bye week to get healthy. The funny thing about the NFL season is that panic can turn to happiness in just a few hours. And yes, the Benster is happy. How about you, old dude?

I'm good with it.

Thought so. Watch me work!

Western Michigan Broncos (+2 1/2) vs. Minnesota Goooolden Gophers. I was dead wrong about the Gophers last week. In fact, to accept my great regret at picking against them, I submit the following video:

That's actually a childhood representation of Jerry Kill as he played in his youth on the plains of Kansas, or wherever the heck he's from. But enough of that. I would normally put the Gophers on upset alert, but they seem to be figuring a few things out and Jerry Kill is a former MAC coach, so he knows how to beat Western Michigan. And so, Go Go Gophers 35, Broncos 10.

Western Michigan has had a few good teams and players over the years, including one of our favorites, Greg Jennings. Unfortunately for the Broncos, he won't be at TCF Bank Stadium tomorrow unless he's there as a spectator. So I'll take the Gophers, too. Gophers 27, Western Michigan 17.

Utah State Aggies (+14) vs. Beloved, Battered Wisconsin Badgers. So, what the heck happened in Corvallis? Are we sure that the Badgers actually were there? It sure didn't look like the Badgers, especially the offensive line, which got stuffed big time by Oregon State. This is a little alarming, but Bret Bielema has already taken bold action:

But there's one thing to keep in mind about recent history -- in the 2010 season, the Badgers lost to Michigan State. That didn't derail the season. In 2011, the Badgers lost twice in a row in heartbreaking fashion. That didn't derail the season. Do you really think the Badgers are done? I don't think so and Utah State, I don't care how good they are -- no team wants to play an angry group of Badgers in Madison. Badgers 100, Utah State 0.

Uh, no. Don't get me wrong -- I think the Badgers will win, but this team isn't as good as the teams in 2010 or 2011. They could get better, but based on what I've seen thus far Danny O'Brien looks like Scott Tolzien with a better haircut. That might be good enough to win the Leaders Division, but they've got work to do. Badgers 31, Utah State 24.

Minnesota Vikings (-1 1/2) vs. Indianapolis Lucks. So check that line out -- the Vikings are a road favorite? Really? These Vikings? Are you kidding me? Well, the wise guys in Vegas usually know something we don't, which is why their offices are in multi-million dollar entertainment complexes and we're writing this on a laptop at the dining room table. But do you think that stops us! No! The Vikings looked better last week against a terrible Jacksonville team. How terrible were they?

Just turrible. And yet the Vikings almost lost to some guy named Cecil Shorts. The Vikes got lucky because they've got the Project. The Blair Walsh Project. A scary little kicker who boots 55 yard field goals like it's nothing. And he's easier to understand than Martin Gramatica. Vikings 13, Colts 12.

The Vikings should win if they get a pass rush. I think Andrew Luck will eventually be a very tough quarterback to beat, but the Vikings picked a good time to play him. So yes, the Vikings could be atop the NFC North at the end of the weekend. We'll explain why shortly. That's called foreshadowing. . . . Vikings 27, Colts 19.

Detroit Motor City Kitties (+6 1/2) vs. San Francisco 49ers. So, how good are the 49ers? Based on last week, pretty good. They went into Lambeau and kicked our beloved Packers around like they were barely there. Given that, why should we assume that the Lions, who barely beat the woeful Rams in Detroit last week, will have any shot at Candlestick, or whatever they're calling that dump these days. Niners 42, Lions 24.

I was impressed by what I saw last week, too. San Francisco looks like a complete team -- athletic, nasty and well-coached, as much as that pains me to say, given Jim Harbaugh's colossal ego and overall poor deportment. I believe the Lions haven't won a game in San Francisco since the Eisenhower administration, although I might not have that exactly right. I don't see it changing on Sunday. 49ers 34, Lions 17.

Hey Geritol Fan, you know what? We didn't disagree on anything this week. You must be learning something. Ben out!

I sincerely hope

. . . that this article from the London Independent  is 100% wrong:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

We talked a little yesterday about what "outsourcing" meant in the context of what happened in Benghazi. In case you weren't clear about the meaning, consider the following:

According to security sources the consulate had been given a "health check" in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: "The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs."

Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya's Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet."

Emphasis mine. Do you believe Buhmeid's story, that it was a movie that caused this attack? Or does this explanation seem more plausible to you?

Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims. Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons.

There is growing belief that the attack was in revenge for the killing in a drone strike in Pakistan of Mohammed Hassan Qaed, an al-Qa'ida operative who was, as his nom-de-guerre Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests, from Libya, and timed for the anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

So if the article is correct, what to make of it?

• First, the Arab Spring isn't going to be a time of hope.
• Second, we need to stop pretending that we are dealing with reasonable people in many parts of the world. Diplomacy does not always mean making nice with people. I would hope that the gang at Foggy Bottom understands that.
• Finally, the notion that the Obama campaign has been floating, that the Obama administration has the foreign policy thing all figured out, is silly. 

It would be churlish to suggest that we have any good options in the Middle East these days, since we don't. When we say that Islam is a "religion of peace," it is true to the extent that most Muslims, if left to their own devices, wouldn't participate in jihad and would prefer to live in peace. The problem we face is trying to stop those who do. I don't think it's a task that any diplomat, or president, can really tackle without a lot of pain. The truth of the matter is this -- we can't solve the problem from without. The only way the problem goes away is if Muslims decide that Salafism and other similar doctrines are not the proper path.

Kerry On

Remember last week, when some guy named John Kerry was up at the podium in Charlotte extolling the foreign policy chops of the Obama administration? I don't really, either, but it was in the news.

Anyway, Kerry told us last week that we need to reelect Barack Obama because he knows what he's doing in the foreign policy arena.  It would appear that we're about to find out if Kerry's assertions are true:

Riot police fired warning shots and tear gas early Thursday outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to keep hundreds of protesters, while demonstrators in the Yemeni capital city of Sana'a breached a wall at the American mission, witnesses and government officials said.

The protests are the latest to roil the Middle East over the online release of a film produced in the United States that denigrates Prophet Mohammed.

Several thousand protesters demonstrated outside the embassy in Sana'a, with some breaching the embassy's security wall.

"Given recent regional developments, earlier this morning, angry protesters unfortunately flooded the security perimeter of the U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen and breached the embassy's wall," according to a statement released by Yemen through its embassy in Washington.

A few observations:

• The business about the film that "denigrates the Prophet Mohammed" is, at best, a pretext.
• The more alarming incident that happened in Benghazi, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated at a U.S. consulate, appears to have been planned in advance and may have been a reprisal against the U.S. for taking out a senior al-Qaida leader of Libyan nationality.
• In the Kerry speech, he sneered about Romney's penchant for "outsourcing." Turns out that security at the consulate in Benghazi was outsourced, which may have led to what happened there. Cheap shots tend to boomerang.
• I do wish the news media in this country were as diligent about following the story as they are about framing it. 

I have a feeling that this is going to get a whole lot more interesting, in the Chinese curse sense of the term, in the coming days.

Benster and D Pick Your Game -- Annoying NFL Network Required Service Edition

Hi everyone, we're back. If you noticed, last week we kinda brought the stink in our predictions.

Shhh. Maybe they forgot.

No they didn't, Geritol Fan! I've been hearing the murmuring voices all week long. Would you believe that there are actually 49ers fans in Minnesota?

Are you sure those aren't just Vikings fans jumping on a bandwagon?

Could be, and it might just be people who enjoy giving me grief because I'm such an open Packers fan. And I'm not especially subtle about it.

Subtle as a Panzer division, actually.

Well, someone's gotta sell the story! You old people are afraid of your own shadows! But anyway, we're here a little early this week because the annoying NFL Network has started hijacking one game a week and putting on Thursday night. And since Decrepit won't pop for the Ultra-Expensive Hoover Your Wallet Sports and Entertainment tier on the ol' cable, we won't see the game unless he drives to Hudson or something. But that won't stop me from making a pick! Watch me work:

Bear Down Chicago da Bearz (+6) vs. Glorious and Somewhat Bruised Green Bay Packers. Back to Lambeau only four days after the hideous results of last Sunday, in which our heroes were thrashed about the neck and ears by the dastardly Jim Harbaugh, who really, really, really ought to try the decaf, as the old dude is fond of saying. Now come da Bearz, who have spent the offseason acquiring very tall people to catch Jay Cutler's errant throws. They brought in Brandon Marshall, a talented but goofy fellow who had some success with Cutler back in Denver. Marshall is a classic diva wide receiver, of the school of Terrell Owens, Randy Moss and Devin Aromashadu. No, that's not right. Aromashadu isn't full of himself. Anyway, you get the point. Raging ego and certainly some talent. But here's the question for da Bearz -- when are they going to fix the offensive line? Last I saw, it looked like they were still thinking about removing Keith Van Horne and Mark Bortz from the Chicago branch of Madam Tussaud's Wax Museum. That's a problem when you are facing a Dom Capers defense. You may not have noticed this, but I'm sure Lovie Smith did -- the Packers had 4 sacks last week against the 49ers, who have a significantly better O-line than da Bearz. Another thing to consider is this: the Packers are in the position of being the desperate team at home. This is a tried and true Benster formula for success, especially when you consider that the 49ers did not have an answer for Randall Cobb or James Jones. I think this one could be high scoring and if Jay Cutler spends a lot of time on his back, he'll have a hard time throwing the ball to Brandon Marshall. He might end up throwing the ball to Brandon Cruz instead. And I have no idea who that is -- the old dude made me put in that link. Pack 49, da Bearz 17.

Oh, it will be closer than that, young fella. Da Bearz are improved, I suspect, although their defense isn't getting any younger. The Packers did not play well last week, but it was mostly because the 49ers were better. I think the Packers are going to win, too, but it won't be easy. Packers 34, Bears 27.

We'll be back on Friday with more picks. In the meantime, here's a shout-out to our pal Gino, who would have been really disappointed in us if we didn't pick this game. Have a video, Gino, and don't say we never did anything for ya! Ben out!

Arab Spring, September 11 Edition

What do you do when someone insults your religious beliefs? Do you lodge a protest? Or do you kill an ambassador?

The US ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff have been reported killed by an armed Islamist mob that stormed and set fire to the United States consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi.

The death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was reported by Reuters, who had spoken to a Libyan official. It had not been confirmed.

It was not clear if the ambassador was in his car or the Libyan consulate when the attack occurred.
"The Libyan ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them," the official in Benghazi told Reuters.

So what caused such anger?

The mobs involved in both embassy attacks were mainly comprised of Salafis, followers of an ultra-traditionalist approach to Islam that has spread across North Africa as well as much of the rest of the Arab world from Saudi Arabia in recent years.

Although they were not the prime movers in the "Arab Spring" protests, they have become much more visible in countries like Libya where secular dictators have been overthrown.

They are incensed by a film made in America and promoted on Youtube entitled "The Innocence of Muslims" that is intended to expose the "hypocrisy" of Islam. It not only portrays the Prophet, which the religion prohibits, but ridicules him as a homosexual and advocate of paedophilia, and shows him having sex.

Oh, before I forget, the report is correct. There were two embassy attacks yesterday. The other was in Cairo. Anyway, back to the story:

[The film] was apparently made by an Israeli-American businessman and backed by Terry Jones, the fundamentalist pastor who previously threatened to hold public burnings of the Koran. A version of the film, which is in English, has been dubbed into Egyptian Arabic and shown on the website of an Egyptian Coptic Christian businessman based in America.

You might remember Jones, who is less a minister than he is an attention junkie.

It's important to understand who the players are in that part of the world and the Salafists are deeply problematic. If you want to know more, this book is a very good place to start. We'll talk more about this in the coming days.

Lessons you learn

Sometimes teachers teach more when they are on strike than they do in the classroom. Well, at minimum there might be a lesson or two coming out of Chicago right now:

“The bottom line is when you look at the facts, what are they really fighting for? Name three things they’re fighting for. They haven’t clearly articulated that to the parents. We’re part of the stakeholders in this too,” said Lee Earle, the father of twin boys who attend CPS schools. “I spent $240 in child care the last two days. I’m not happy about that, and I’m sure most parents can’t afford that. So if the teachers really care, show me how they’re taking care of my children.”

Well. . . two things need to be said here. First, it's not the job of any school district to be "taking care of my children." School and day care are different things. However, this parent is also laboring under the misapprehension that he is somehow a stakeholder in this dispute. He might have a stake in the outcome of this, but he has no stake in the negotiations -- he's not at the table and won't ever be.

Meanwhile, as the strike moves on to its third day, it's clear that public relations isn't necessarily a union strong suit:

Lewis briefly left contract talks to attend the rally outside CPS headquarters, and blasted CPS administrators for blaming teachers for the district’s failed education policies.

“We did not start this fight,” Lewis said to the cheering crowd as she stood on the back of a pickup truck parked on the street outside CPS Headquarters. “The assault on public education started here. It needs to end here.”

Before leaving the rally to go back to the negotiating table, Lewis told the crowd, “I’m going to go back to the silly part of my day. … Y’all continue to have fun.”

Lewis would be Karen Lewis, the head of the Chicago Teachers Union. Apparently the negotiations are silly. Well, I suppose they are.

Forest and trees

Excerpts from Bob Woodward's new book have appeared in the Washington Post over the last few days. The excerpt I've linked discusses the period in 2011 when Congress and the president were dealing with raising the debt ceiling and how Congress essentially cut President Obama out of the deal One passage that came up for particular attention was an exchange between Obama and David Krone, a staffer for Harry Reid, in which Krone gets in the president's face about not having a Plan B. I'll not reprint it here because if you are a regular web reader, chances are pretty good you've already seen the exchange.

The more important exchange from Woodward's book comes later and involves Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary. Obama is wondering about the political consequences of vetoing a potential version of the bill under discussion.

Of course he was. Politics are what matters in Washington. But what about the economic problem of the gigantic debt that overhangs everything? When you hear about the "fiscal cliff," do you know what it means? Here's Geithner's explanation:

Could I actually veto it? Obama asked, adopting his law professor manner. What would happen on the day of the veto? The day after?

“It would have massive effects,” Geithner said. Treasury had to conduct a bond auction in the open market in about five days, the regular Tuesday auction, with settlement on Thursday. That first auction could be a kind of tripwire, setting off a chain reaction. The federal government couldn’t pay its bills. “Why would anyone buy U.S. bonds if it’s an open question whether we are going to have the authority to pay for them?”

Another possible outcome, Geithner said, was perhaps worse. “Suppose we have an auction and no one shows up?”

The cascading impact would be unknowable. The world could decide to dump U.S. Treasuries. Prices would plummet, interest rates would skyrocket. The one pillar of stability, the United States, the rock in the global economy, could collapse.

And therein lies the problem. Raising the debt limit merely postpones the day of reckoning and makes the overall problem even greater. Eventually we're going to have to start paying down the debt.

And Geithner's nightmare scenario could happen anyway, of course. It probably won't, because the ripple effect would take down everything. But eventually the treasury holders expect to get repaid.

So how will we do it? My guess is that we'll end up inflating the currency to the point where hyperinflation kicks in. It's already been happening in subtle ways. The price of gas is significantly higher now than it was in 2009. I'm seeing $3.90/gallon around town and it's up well over $4 elsewhere. You can attribute most of that increase to the inflation we don't count because it isn't "core inflation." You also see it in the grocery store and in every transaction you make these days.

In a lot of ways, this election turns on whether or not people believe President Obama will ever have a Plan B. Choose carefully.

Of course it could never happen here

Nothing we need to worry about here in Minnesota, of course:

A Maryland Democratic candidate quit her congressional race Monday after her own party told state officials that she had committed fraud by voting in both Maryland and Florida in recent elections.

Wendy Rosen, a small-business owner running against freshman Rep. Andy Harris (R) in the Eastern Shore-based 1st Congressional District, released a statement saying that “with great regret, and much sorrow” she was resigning from the contest.

“Personal issues have made this the hardest decision that I have had to make,” Rosen said.

Yep, committing fraud is generally a personal issue. To its credit, the Democratic Party in Maryland got rid of her quickly:

Rosen’s announcement came the same day the state Democratic party released a letter to state Attorney General Douglas Gansler and state prosecutors reporting the allegations against Rosen.

“The Maryland Democratic Party has discovered that Ms. Rosen has been registered to vote in both Florida and Maryland since at least 2006; that she in fact voted in the 2006 general election both in Florida and Maryland; and that she voted in the presidential preference primaries held in both Florida and Maryland in 2008,” wrote Yvette Lewis, the state party chair. “This information is based on an examination of the voter files from both states. We believe that this is a clear violation of Maryland law and urge the appropriate office to conduct a full investigation.”

It couldn't happen here, of course. In Minnesota, we don't investigate things like this, because it could never happen here.

Don't Give Up on Us, Baby

But PPP Has Obama Up 5 in Ohio! It's Over, Dude!

Blogger Sarah Hoyt noticed something:

Yesterday at various blogs I read over and over again that the Dem convention gave Obama a big bounce, that he’s winning, that his approval is now over 50%, that their enthusiasm is as high as that of the Republican crowd, that–

And then you look at the polls that caused this “sky is falling” fit.  What are those polls?  Those polls are, in fact, the same old sh*te.  They poll all adults, which you KNOW skews Democrat.  They poll registered voters, which you know skews Democrat.  They poll with a skew of 4% Democrats over Republicans as though this were still 2008, as if 2010 had never happened.

Then all the people on the right echo these as though they were legitimate and say “oh, but the polls were correct before.”

I've noticed it, too. In some respects I think some Republican partisans are echoing the lament that we heard coming from Jon Lovitz, when he played Michael Dukakis back in 1988 -- "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!"

Bottom line is this -- while Mitt Romney is no one's idea of the perfect candidate, the incumbent president is one of the weakest presidents we've ever had. He's in Franklin Pierce territory. The leaks coming out from Bob Woodward's book are absolutely devastating, Friday's jobs report was disastrous and Europe is on the verge of implosion again. The convention bump isn't going to last very long. Back to Hoyt:

I don’t think it is done.  I don’t believe we are done.  I’m not ready to lie down and die.  I don’t think Obama is surging – unless you make him.  So, stop doing that.  Like the recovery which has been touted for three years and which the first time around was all over every paper, Obama’s surge is a mirage.

The great and powerful Oz is a little man behind a curtain.  Obama is worse than that.  He’s the little man who wasn’t there.  A creation of the media and propaganda.  There’s nothing there.  Stop shaking in your boots and pull back the curtain.

Yep. And this advice from Hoyt, via Instapundit, also rings true to me:

Romney is better than Obama. He’s not ideal — who is? — but we’re not (thank heavens) a monarchy looking for a perfect king. We’re a sovereign people looking for the best of two candidates. We can’t go back to sleep after he’s elected. We have to stay awake, watch over our employee and make him fear our wrath and our firing him if he goes astray. But first we get rid of the total dud we (well, not me, but…) hired in 08. Frankly, I’m looking forward to the Tea Parties to keep Romney in line. But first I donate and I campaign so we can hire him. THEN we keep him in line.

Even in a time of rampant inflation, the price of liberty -- eternal vigilance -- remains the same.

Math is hard

Submitted without further comment:

The True Growth Industry

Even in a crappy economy, someone has to be doing well. The New York Times has found the answer:

As the number of people taking out government-backed student loans has exploded, so has the number who have fallen at least 12 months behind in making payments — about 5.9 million people nationwide, up about a third in the last five years.

In all, nearly one in every six borrowers with a loan balance is in default. The amount of defaulted loans — $76 billion — is greater than the yearly tuition bill for all students at public two- and four-year colleges and universities, according to a survey of state education officials.

To get the money back, the Department of Education last fiscal year paid more than $1.4 billion to collection agencies and other groups to hunt down defaulters.

Collection agencies -- that's where the money is, baby! The whole depressing story is at the link.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Really Quick Edition

Hi, we're back! If you're wondering why this appears on Saturday morning, I was busy watching my beloved Irondale Knights kick the living crap out St. Louis Park, 36-0. And let me give a shout-out to my friend Will Kah, who scored three touchdowns last night! Will's a beast, bro!

Yes he is. And a great young man, too. I had the chance to coach Will in basketball and he's the sort of kid you get to coach if you're lucky.

We're going to move fast this morning, because we don't have much time. Next week we'll be coming with more games and more smack. But for now....

New Hampshire Wildcats (NL) vs. Minnesota Golden Gophers. New Hampshire is a worthy foe. In hockey. As for football, not so much. They are a decent squad at the FCS level, but they aren't going to be much of a factor. Or are they? Let's see if the Gophers learned anything from the debacle in the desert last week. Wildcats 21, Gophers 17.

Man, that's a shot across ol' Jerry Kill's bough. I think the Gophers win, but it won't be as easy as it should be. Gophers 24, New Hampshire 14.

Beloved Wisconsin Badgers (-7) vs. Oregon State Beavers. I'm going to have to admit that the Badgers almost blew it last week. They have some work to do, especially in getting their offensive line synced up. Montee Ball had no holes to run through and had to get most of his yardage last week all by himself. It's tough to know what Oregon State has, because their game was washed out by Hurricane Isaac last week. I expect the Badgers to survive a hostile environment. Bucky 70, Buck-Toothed Varmints 10.

Uh, no. I think the Badgers win, but I think it will be tough. Wisconsin 31, Oregon State 23.

Jacksonville Jaguars (+4) vs. Minnesota Vikings. This might be the worst game of the week, but it's the Vikings, so we need to discuss it. The question is simple -- which young quarterback is better, Christian Ponder or Blaine Gabbert. Based on last year, it's Ponder. And the Vikings are playing at home. Will Adrian Peterson play? I think so. Will Maurice Jones-Drew play? Probably, but he's not going to have a good year because of his insane holdout. So we'll give this one to the Purple. Vikings 31, Jaguars 30.

I think the Vikings win, but I'd be surprised if these offensively challenged squads can put up those kinds of points. Minnesota 21, Jacksonville 17.

San Francisco 49ers (+4.5) vs. Glorious Green Bay Packers. This might be the best game of the week. It's the unstoppable Green Bay offense against the immovable San Francisco defense. Who wins? Simple -- the team that made the right decision in the 2005 draft. Aaron Rodgers still hasn't forgiven the 49ers for blowing him off for Alex Smith. And he hasn't forgotten January, either. Packers 59, 49ers 56.

I'm not sure the 49ers can score 56 points in a month. I think it's close but a lot more lower scoring than that. Green Bay 27, San Francisco 20.

We were going to pick da Bearz, but we're out of time. Sorry, Gino. Next week we'll give the Bears more attention. Ben out!

The Chart That Matters Most

If you want to understand why Barack Obama is in trouble, here's the chart to see:

The unemployment rate is based on the amount of people who are actively seeking work. That number is going down and quickly. Some of the decline are retirements, but we're adding more people every year. A lot of people are simply leaving the workforce because they can't find work. 368,000 people left the workforce in August. That's more people than live in New Orleans.

We're going to have an awfully tough time keeping things going if people give up. And based on this chart, a lot of people have. This isn't the Hope and Change people signed up for in 2008. If you want to blame George W. Bush for the trend line, be my guest. But he's been gone for nearly 4 years now. And you can't vote George W. Bush out of office.

Charlotte-tans

It's all over but the shouting in Charlotte. And oh my, there was a lot of shouting. A few impressions:

• Jennifer Granholm should really try the decaf. This is a pretty amazing performance:

• Charlie Crist appeared for a few minutes. If the Democrats want him, they can have him. 
• Joe Biden's speech was alternately ranting and halting. He seemed to have trouble tripping over his words a fair amount. He's well known for his tendency for malapropisms, and for lifting biographical details from British politicians, but this was different -- at one point he couldn't remember which day Michelle Obama spoke, getting it wrong twice, and at other time it almost seemed like he was losing his train of thought. You can watch for yourself and see if you agree. Or you can repeatedly strike yourself with a ball-peen hammer; it would be equally enjoyable. Since we were told all week long that Republicans offer false choices, I figured you should have a real choice.

As for the President. . . well, it was the usual thing -- soaring oratory and a battlefield littered with strawmen. Here's a typical example:

 I don’t believe that firing teachers or kicking students off financial aid will grow the economy, or help us compete with the scientists and engineers coming out of China.

Or this:

I don’t believe that rolling back regulations on Wall Street will help the small businesswoman expand, or the laid-off construction worker keep his home. 

I must have missed it when Mitt Romney started talking about firing teachers or kicking students off financial aid. And if you were paying attention at all to what was being said in Tampa, the focus wasn't on Wall Street firms but rather on small businesses and entrepreneurs. Of course, the president is hoping that the voters weren't paying attention. Voters who have been paying attention aren't especially likely to vote for him.

The takeaway for me from the whole week is this -- the Dems don't have much to offer except yelling. They talked a lot about optimism, but the entire week was an effort to scare the horses. Are the horses scared? Guess we'll find out.

Did not know this

President Obama, yesterday:

Millions of students are paying less for college today because we finally took on a system that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on banks and lenders.

Huh -- and here I thought college tuition has continued to go up a rate significantly higher than inflation. That's the sort of thing you'd have thought a president would have mentioned before now. Mr. Obama needs to stop keeping his light under a bushel.

Bad Amateur Pundit -- DNC Edition

I saw very little of last night's DNC convention because we decided to watch the Giants/Cowboys game instead. There's reason to believe we made the right decision. From what I can tell, the highlight of the evening was Bill Clinton going on for nearly an hour about the bad sins of Republicans. The reviews are mixed, as you might expect -- the liberal pundits seem to be ecstatic and the conservatives less so.

One thing, though -- if you saw the speech and were impressed with how Bill Clinton speaks truth to power, you might want to remember that you were watching:

1. A man who was found to be in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false testimony" in a lawsuit was testifying on behalf of:
2. A man who created composite girlfriends in his autobiography; and 
3. A running mate who lifted the autobiography of British politician Neil Kinnock for his own use.

The Teleprompter as Parliamentarian

You may have heard about the dustup at the DNC convention concerning the removal and subsequent re-addition of references (a) to God and (b) considering Jerusalem to be the capitol of Israel. The second platform change was a controversial moment, as this video shows:

I have some sympathy for Antonio Villagairosa in this case, because it wasn't supposed to be controversial. It does help to have a parliamentarian available to interpret things, as this picture shows:

Pro-Choice Democrats

Cognitive dissonance at the DNC. Choices are good, so long as you make the right ones, apparently.

(h/t:  Hot Air)

Charlotte's Web -- DNC Day 1

I watched a few hours of the DNC convention in Charlotte. Time for the amateur punditry!

• At the outset, I'll mention that the whole evening was an excellent example of how to thrash a straw man. I've always been told that Republicans are the ones who tend to view the world in Manichean terms, but yesterday was a festival of us-versus-them. And most of it was crap, of course.
• One thing that was evident from the get-go is the desperation the Democrats are feeling. This is not a confident party right now and the hectoring from the platform was tough to listen to at times. Some of the speakers, especially former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and the sainted Lily Ledbetter, gave their speeches at a pitch that was nothing less than a full-throated scream. I suppose you could chalk that up to passion, or something, but it wears on you after a while.
• It was revealing that Nancy Keenan from NARAL got as much time as she did on the podium. I checked the list of speakers from the RNC and they didn't give any time on the podium to a lobbyist, especially one who represented an organization like NARAL. She was screaming, too.
• The Dems rolled out the usual "I used to be a Republican" suspects as well, including a woman named Maria Ciano. Ciano had been featured in ads before and it turns out that she's been a Dem operative since at least 2006. They also rolled out Lincoln Chafee, the governor of Rhode Island. He still calls himself an independent, but he's been an operational Democrat for at least as long as Ciano. I assume that Chafee is still an independent because the national Democratic party is smart enough to not want him.
• Amidst all the screaming, Kathleen Sebelius did a very credible Nurse Ratched imitation. She's kinda chilling, actually.
• I've heard that Martin O'Malley, the governor of Maryland, is supposedly a contender for 2016. Based on his lackluster performance yesterday, it's hard to see that. Less charisma than Tim Pawlenty, even.
• The keynote speaker was Julian Castro, who is the mayor of San Antonio. His speech reminded me a lot of the speech that Marco Rubio gave last week at the RNC, including the "my grandmother held a mop so I could hold this microphone" trope that was the same as the one Rubio used about his father working the back of the room as a bartender. Castro's problem isn't a lack of charisma or a good personal story; rather, his problem is geography. He's stuck in Texas and it's awfully difficult to see how he can move up to become a senator or governor there. I've read a few places where DNC touts are claiming that Castro could be the first Hispanic president. Perhaps, but I can think of at least three people on the Republican side who are further up the ladder -- Rubio, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and Ted Cruz, who is the odds-on favorite to win election to the Senate in Texas. Cruz in particular is problematic for Castro's prospects, since he's from the same state.
• Michelle Obama's speech was very nice. She's improved a lot since 2008.
• I wish I'd seen Cory Booker's speech; I'll try to find it and watch it later. From what I can tell, he's the one young star on the Dem bench who has a chance to get somewhere, especially since New Jersey is considerably more amenable to Democrats than some other places. While I like Chris Christie's ability to throw the red meat, I'm guessing his act will grow stale and Booker will have a chance to move up at some point.

To sum up -- did the Democrats have a good day yesterday? I suppose, to the extent anyone is paying attention. All their efforts could go poof on Friday, though, when the jobs report comes out. In the end, personal anecdotes and stem-winding speeches can't change the reality that too many Americans are suffering right now. It's going to take one hell of a sales pitch to convince people that better times are ahead if we stay the current course.

Charlotte Sometimes

And now it's time for the DNC fandango in Charlotte. How do you sell what the President and his party have on offer? A few guesses:

At a minimum, you'll get a continuation of the Emmanuel Goldstein treatment for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. The attacks are getting almost unhinged at this point. If you doubt that, you might consider reading this broadside from Maureen Dowd:

The stage show looked like America, but the convention hall did not. The crowd seemed like the sanctuary of a minority — economically wounded capitalists in shades from eggshell to ecru, cheering the man from Bain and trying to fathom why they’re not running the country anymore. The speakers ranted about an America in decline, but the audience reflected a party in decline.

I don't know about you, but I really enjoy it when a white person upbraids other white people for being white. That's some kick-butt marketing. While I expect that diversity will be a theme, bashing white people won't be too much on the podium this week.

You won't see a lot of vision, because at this point the purpose of the election is simply winning. This drives purported Republican David Brooks nuts, which is why he wrote this:

But, mostly, I wish he’d be for something. I wish he’d rise above the petty tactical considerations that have shrunk him over the past two years. I wish he’d finally define what he stands for. A liberal populist? A Clintonian moderate? At some point, you have to choose.

Four years ago, Obama said we could no longer postpone tackling the big problems. But now he seems driven by a fear of defeat. His proposals seem bite-size. If Obama can’t tell us the big policy thing he wants to do, he doesn’t deserve a second term.

You would think that a guy who got his undergraduate degree at the University of Chicago would recognize a Chicago politician, but apparently not.

Will the president run on his successes? It's hard to see how. The greatest accomplishment of his term is passing Obamacare, which is still largely unpopular. He promised to bring unemployment down to around 6% or thereabouts and there's no chance we'll be at that level by election day. Closing Gitmo? Still open and not even mentioned anymore. I hear Osama bin Laden is dead -- that's something, I suppose.

I think perhaps he ought to choose any five random topics from this list. That might be the best solution. Just don't tell Maureen Dowd about it.

Late summer reruns

The problem with watching television at this time of the year is that a lot of things are in reruns. We'll see a big rerun this week:


And therein lies the problem that Barack Obama, and the Democrats more generally, have to face. What are they going to tell us this week in Charlotte that they haven't told us before? And what will be different this time? I'll take guesses in the comment section.

Well, yeah

The always excellent Wisconsin blogger Kevin Binversie makes the proper point, again:

The War of Talk­ing Points over Paul Ryan and the Janesville GM plant amuses me.  Lib­er­als are fight­ing about try­ing to deter­mine a time­line, all the while con­ser­v­a­tive are going…“You know that plant is still closed right?  You’re com­plain­ing about ‘When’ and not about ‘How do we get those peo­ple in Janesville back to work?’  How in the tank for Barack Obama are you that you’d rather fight seman­tics than accept the real­ity on the ground?”

Semantics are all Obama's supporters have at this point. There's a lot more at the link. Read the whole thing.

Home Truth

James Taranto:

Obama's journalistic supporters live in a bizarre alternate reality in which a politician's actual words mean nothing. When the president says something foolish and offensive, he didn't say that. Meanwhile every comment from a Republican can be translated, through a process of free association, to: "We don't like black people."

And,

It is healthy for America that the president be criticized and even mocked. Deference to a Dear Leader has no place in a democracy. It's healthy for race relations, too, that he be judged on his record rather than held to a lower standard in the name of racial progress. When a black politician is treated just like any other politician, that's genuine progress.

We'll be getting a progress report quite soon.