It’s Wednesday, December 7th, 2011….but before we begin, we remember Pearl Harbor, and those who gave their lives in the service of their country 70 years ago today:

http://www.en-derin.com/artworks/rare-photos-of-pearl-harbor-attack

Forgive….but never forget.

Now, here’s The Gouge!]

First up on the mid-week edition is this bit of brilliance from Gene Healy in the Washington Examiner, courtesy of George Lawlor:

Now it’s ‘Obama the irrelevant’

 

If our fashion-conscious president still finds the time to read the lad-mags, December’s GQ had to hurt. Obama made the magazine’s list of “The 25 Least Influential People Alive,” along with Tiger Woods’s ex-caddie, the prosecutor who couldn’t convict Casey Anthony, and MTV tart Tila Tequila. (Al Gore and Joe Biden were tied for 26th!)

Obama “should be the most transformational figure of the century,” GQ carped, “Instead, he wields all the power of a substitute teacher at night school.”

Sure, the piece was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there’s real venom behind the smirk. Now is the hour of liberal discontent with the Obama presidency. The “thrill up my leg” is gone for MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. Obama has “the worst kind of a notion of the presidency,” the Hardball host railed recently: “Why are we in this fight with him? Just tell us, commander, give us our orders and tell us where we’re going, give us the mission.”

Sigh. Where to begin? It’s absurd to complain that Obama – who can launch wars without congressional approval and assassinate American citizens via drone strike, a man who sits atop an executive branch of 2.1 million civilian employees claiming authority over everything from how much salt we ingest to what sort of light bulbs we’re permitted to use – is powerless.

And it’s utterly perverse for anyone – let alone a journalist – to address a politician as “commander” and beg him for marching orders.

Obama’s current difficulties were entirely predictable, however. It isn’t just that he’s been a terrible president, it’s that no earthly figure could deliver the miracles he promised: among other things, “a complete transformation of the economy, “care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless,” to “end the age of oil in our time,” begin to heal the very planet and, perhaps most unrealistically, “fundamentally change the way Washington works.”

Like they say, though, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. Since Obama has stoked irrational public expectations for presidential salvation in virtually every public policy area, it’s hard to feel sorry for him.

Yet some folks manage the feat. That’s apparent from an article called, “The Carterization of Barack Obama” in the new issue of Esquire. (Some guys peruse the lad-mags for the racy pictures; I read them for the articles). In it, Charles P. Pierce argues that: “The problem with redemptive presidents is that, invariably, they call upon the country to be as good and decent a place as they described when they were running. They ask for sacrifice, for putting ” aside party for the national good.”

Alas, “They then discover that the country isn’t as good or decent as they had been saying it was …. The redemptive president is caught then,” Pierce said.

Obama’s problems are all our fault, you see. If only we were good enough to deserve him!

Actually, the problem with “redemptive presidents” is that when they fail to deliver national redemption, they invariably demand more power for the task. Thus, it’s not surprising that Obama is now invoking Teddy Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” as part of his re-election strategy. Roosevelt had nothing but contempt for limits on presidential power, and issued more executive orders than any president before or since.

The Framers’ envisioned a modest constitutional “chief magistrate,” who would secure the rule of law, not overturn it. But decades of longing for a national redeemer have turned the presidency into a constitutional abomination: an office that promises everything and guarantees nothing, save public frustration and the steady growth of federal power.

The quest for “transformational figures” and “redemptive presidents” reflects a dangerous, adolescent view of the presidency. If only it were limited to the lad-mags.

 

 

Speaking of uncontrolled adolescents, Ramesh Ponnuru, courtesy of Bloomberg.com, offers his two-cents on a man who could use every penny of sense he can get:

Heartbreak Awaits Republicans Who Love Gingrich

 

Before Republicans put Newt Gingrich at the top of their party, they should consider what happened the last time he led it.

In the mid-1990s, Gingrich was the de facto head of the Republican Party. He helped lead it to victory in the congressional elections of 1994, which brought about real accomplishments such as welfare reform. But once he attained power, both his popularity and that of his party started to plummet. In the aftermath of his leadership, a Republican was able to take the presidency only by pointedly distancing himself from Gingrich.

Conservatives who dislike George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism have Gingrich to thank for it. After Gingrich lost the budget battles with President Bill Clinton, it took 15 years for any politician to take up the cause of limited-government conservatism that he had discredited.

Although Gingrich isn’t solely responsible for the Republican policy defeats of those years, his erratic behavior, lack of discipline and self-absorption had a lot to do with them. He explained that one reason the federal government shut down in 1995 was that he was angry that Clinton had snubbed him during an international flight. The Clinton White House then released pictures of the two men gabbing on the plane. Later negotiations didn’t go well, with Gingrich saying, “I melt when I’m around him.” (An early, undiagnosed case of Matthews Syndrome)

Erratic, Undisciplined, Grandiose

 

Gingrich’s fans say that he isn’t the same man he was then; he has “matured” in his 60s. Maybe so. But he’s still erratic: This year he flip-flopped three times on the top issue of the day, the House Republican plan to reform Medicare. He’s still undisciplined: He went on a vacation cruise at the start of his campaign. He still has the same old grandiosity: In recent weeks he has compared himself to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and said confidently that the nomination was his.

He still has the same need to justify his every petty move by reference to some grand theory. Plenty of politicians competing in Iowa come out for ethanol subsidies; only Gingrich would proclaim that in doing so he was standing up to city slickers in a culture war invented in his own mind. He still has a casual relationship with the truth. In recent weeks he has said that Freddie Mac (FMCC)paid him to condemn its business model, only for reporters and bloggers to find out that he had in fact shilled for the organization in return for about $1.6 million.

He still has the same penchant for sharing whatever revelation has just struck him, as with his recent musings about getting rid of child-labor laws. “He goes off the deep end and throws things out there,” says Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the Manchester Union Leader, which has endorsed Gingrich. He means it as a compliment, but it doesn’t strike me as one of the top traits to seek in a president. Many voters may have the same reaction.

The race for the Republican nomination appears to have come down to two intelligent, knowledgeable men in Gingrich and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Neither of them has a history of down-the-line conservatism. Gingrich can match Romney flip-flop for flip-flop and heresy for heresy. He has supported cap-and-trade legislation, federal funding for embryonic stem- cell research, the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs and a federal requirement for everyone to buy health insurance. He has been neither more consistent nor more conservative than Romney.

True, Gingrich has done more to advance the cause of conservatism than Romney. But he’s also done more to damage it. He lost his job as speaker of the House because conservative representatives were fed up with his inconstancy.

A Riskier Choice

 

There’s no guarantee that any Republican will win next year, of course. But Gingrich would be a riskier choice for the Republicans to nominate against President Barack Obama. The last time the country got a good long look at him, he turned very unpopular very fast. His decades in Washington, some of them spent essentially as a lobbyist, would muddle the party’s message. So would his unfortunate marital history.

We already know the basic strategy of the Obama campaign. It will be to portray the Republican nominee as a dangerous right-wing extremist. Romney’s demeanor — his steadiness, his reasonableness — would undercut that strategy. It seems likely to be much more successful against Gingrich. After all, it already was: In 1996, Clinton ran against Gingrich as much as he ran against his nominal opponent, Bob Dole. Clinton portrayed Gingrich as callous and radical, and used Gingrich’s ill- considered words, such as his claim that Republican plans would cause the Medicare bureaucracy to “wither on the vine,” against him. (Not to mention, we’d bet the farm Newt has more skeletons in his closet waiting to see the light of day than the swamplands of Jersey.)

Gingrich’s energy and creativity are admirable, within limits. But recognizing his own limits is not a Gingrich specialty. Voters are likely to see, as he cannot, that he is temperamentally unsuited for the presidency.

Speaking of the Speaker, the WSJ‘s Allysia Finley comments on the….

The GOP and the Donald

Participating in a debate moderated by Donald Trump would demean Republicans, an outcome that the White House is no doubt cheering.

 

After their powwow yesterday in New York, Newt Gingrich praised Donald Trump as a “great businessman.” No kidding. The reality-TV star and real-estate mogul has a new book out this week. He’s got the media talking about him. And he’s got the Republican presidential field currying his favor.

What’s the plural form of “arrogant ass”?!?

Over the weekend Mr. Trump reignited speculation that he was mulling a presidential bid. But yesterday he seemed to put the rumors to rest when some conservatives protested that it wasn’t fair for him to moderate Newsmax’s GOP presidential debate later this month if he himself was considering a bid. The debate isn’t a sure thing since the only candidates who’ve signed up so far are Mr. Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Michele Bachmann is a maybe. Mitt Romney’s camp told the New York Times that he’s “reviewing the invitation.” Both Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman immediately said no. Mr. Paul said that he doesn’t want to “contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere.”

A new NBC News/Marist poll from New Hampshire shows that Mr. Trump’s endorsement would make 37% of voters less inclined to support a candidate. Only 19% would weigh Mr. Trump’s endorsement as a positive factor. But if the Trump brand is a net negative in the Granite State, snubbing Mr. Trump could get candidates fired by Iowa caucus-goers. Mr. Trump has a small contingent of populist supporters in the tea party who are drawn to his anti-Obama, anti-China, anti-immigrant rhetoric. Mr. Gingrich and Ms. Bachmann are vigorously courting these voters in Iowa. Now that Mr. Gingrich has accepted the debate invitation, Mr. Romney and Ms. Bachmann might feel compelled to follow suit. Let’s hope not.

Mr. Paul is right in saying that participating in a debate moderated by Mr. Trump — a “birther” who says he’s not convinced that President Obama was born in the U.S. — would demean Republicans, an outcome that the White House is no doubt cheering. If Mr. Gingrich failed to consider such ramifications before accepting the debate invitation, he demonstrated imprudence. If he decided to participate for political gain, he exhibited selfishness. Regardless, his acceptance reaffirms conservative critics who say that the former speaker of the House is immature and can’t be trusted to lead the party, let alone the country.

And this just in from Townhall.com:

Mitt Romney to skip Trump debate

 

Demonstrating, if nothing else, Mitt has far more sense than Newt….which unfortunately isn’t that tall an order.

Meanwhile, in today’s Phineas T. Barnum  memorial “There’s A Sucker Born Every Minute” segment, we learn….

Gov. Jerry Brown implores California voters: Please raise taxes on yourself

Republicans blocked the efforts of California Gov. Jerry Brown to fix a budget crisis through more tax revenues. So his new plan is to go straight to voters in 2012.

 

Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday proposed a ballot initiative that would ask Californians to raise taxes on themselves. Facing huge deficits despite $10 billion in budget cuts last year, California needs new tax dollars in order to avoid catastrophic cuts to schools and government services for the elderly, Governor Brown said.

After all, it’s not like cutting bloated public employee pensions or government services to illegal immigrants is an option!

For more on the subject of Liberal Governors unwilling to face reality, we turn to the editorial pages of the WSJ:

The Two Left Coasts

Cuomo and Brown decide to ‘occupy’ taxpayers.

 

New York and California were once America’s economic growth engines, but their political leaders seem determined to keep them sputtering. Their Democratic Governors are now pushing big new tax increases in the name of soaking the rich and balancing their budgets, as if that same strategy hadn’t put them in their current fiscal straits.

In New York, Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that he’s agreed with legislative leaders to rewrite the state’s tax code to create four new tax brackets and rates. Mr. Cuomo is pitching this as “tax reform,” but that’s a ruse to disguise the fact that he’s repudiating his 2010 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on anyone while letting a previous income-tax surcharge expire on schedule at the end of this month.

This is the same Governor who said as recently as October 17 that “You are kidding yourself if you think you can be one of the highest-taxed states in the nation, have a reputation for being antibusiness—and have a rosy economic future.” The people who were really kidding themselves are voters who thought Mr. Cuomo (Like The Obamao before him!) believed what he said. With the “occupiers” in the streets of New York, perhaps this is Mr. Cuomo’s first left turn in his campaign for the Democratic Party’s 2016 nomination.

Equally worthy of scorn are the Republicans who run the state Senate who buckled under union pressure because they don’t have many millionaires in their rural districts. New York’s GOP is essentially worthless. Blame, too, goes to the Partnership for New York City, the big business grandees who supported a tax increase and for whom higher taxes are a rounding error. They’re sticking it to small business owners with narrow profit margins.

Mr. Cuomo is also tossing out the most desirable part of New York’s tax code, which is its relative flatness, with a top income tax rate that would have been 6.85% next year (after the previous surcharge expires). The new code will include a “progressive” ladder: 6.45% for couples earning between $40,000 and $150,000, 6.65% from $150,000 to $300,000, 6.85% from $300,000 to $2 million, and 8.82% above $2 million ($1 million for individuals).

Such a progressive code will make the state fisc even more dependent on millionaire incomes, which soar on capital gains and bonuses during good times but crash during recessions. This is the same progressive trap that has made California’s budget hostage to economic boom and bust.

The good times create an unsustainable revenue boom, which the politicians spend, only to find that the budget goes quickly and steeply into red when the economy slows. Then the politicians cry poverty and raise taxes again, driving more of the wealthy taxpayers the politicians need out of the state. This is why the highest-taxed states are always under fiscal duress.

And speaking of California, Governor Jerry Brown announced Monday that he’ll put a huge new tax increase on the ballot for voter approval next November. The income tax rate would rise by one percentage point to 10.3% for individuals making between $250,000 and $300,000, to 10.8% for those up to $500,000, and two percentage points to 11.3% for anyone making more than $500,000. All retroactive to Jan. 1, 2012.

Lest you think Mr. Brown and Democrats let the middle-class off the hook, he also wants to raise the state sales tax by half a penny on the dollar to 7.75%.

Unlike Albany, where the insiders rule without cavil, California voters have imposed a two-thirds vote requirement for the legislature to raise taxes. Republicans in Sacramento won’t agree to a tax hike unless Mr. Brown pushes aggressive pension reform, but the Governor’s recent pension proposal is merely a baby step to solving that problem.

So now he’s resorting to the ballot box, and to what will no doubt be a year-long campaign to scare voters into believing that if they don’t raise taxes their children will go uneducated, their roads will decay, and the middle class will go without health care. Hollywood and the unions will be his financiers.

The larger lesson here is the difficulty of changing the politics of union-enforced entitlement. Both states are dominated by public unions that refuse to allow serious reforms in pensions or state welfare spending and whose default policy is always higher taxes. Like Greece or Italy, the illusion is that you can chase revenue by raising taxes without regard to economic growth and the mobility of people and capital.

Mr. Cuomo claimed to be different when he ran in 2010, but his resistance didn’t even last a year in office. So two states are now taking one more whack at the people who create wealth, in order to redistribute more of it. For how that story ends, look to Europe.

Take a good look….’cause if things don’t change, it’s coming soon….to a city, county, state and country near you!

Next up, Tales From the Darkside, and another bogus bogeyman from our friends at the NAACP:

 

The largest civil rights group in America, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), is petitioning the UN over what it sees as a concerted efforted to disenfranchise black and Latino voters ahead of next year’s presidential election.

The organisation will this week present evidence to the UN high commissioner on human rights of what it contends is a conscious attempt to “block the vote” on the part of state legislatures across the US. Next March the NAACP will send a delegation of legal experts to Geneva to enlist the support of the UN human rights council.

The NAACP contends that the America in the throes of a consciously conceived and orchestrated move to strip black and other ethnic minority groups of the right to vote. William Barber, a member of the association’s national board, said it was the “most vicious, co-ordinated and sinister attack to narrow participation in our democracy since the early 20th century”.

Let’s see….you need a picture ID to get on an airplane….make a return at most any store….drive a car….cash a check (welfare or otherwise!); what an vicious intrusion to require similar identification to cast a ballot!  Of course, the real issue has nothing to do with narrowing the participation of anyone but illegal aliens, criminals and the deceased, none of who, the NAACP’s prevaricating protestations notwithstanding, have the right to vote anywhere in America.

Then there’s this bit of Christmas cheer from nearby Loudon County, VA:

County Displays Crucified Santa on Courthouse Lawn

 

A Christmas display outside the courthouse in Leesburg, VA featuring Santa Claus crucified on a cross was torn down by an angry resident in spite of arguments by elected leaders that the display was Constitutionally-protected free speech.

“I am shocked that the county would allow such a thing as a crucified Santa on the courthouse lawn,” Elizabeth McGuirk, a mother of three told Leesburg Today. She it would “seriously disturb my children.” “Disgusting, outrageous and absurd,” Supervisor-elect Ken Reid told MyFoxDC.com. “This fellow crossed the line. I’m worried about kids seeing this at the parade Saturday.

The display was erected by Jeff Heflin, whose application was submitted and approved by the Loudon County Board of Supervisors. “The county would not dismantle it, the county gave it permission for it to be there,” Supervisor Steven Miller told the local newspaper. “We had the same thing happen a year ago when Ed Myers put up some vulgar parody lyrics of the “Twelve Days of Christmas.” Well those came down within an hour and that’s vigilantes.”

The Loudon Times reported that Heflin described his display as “art work of Santa on a cross to depict society’s materialistic obsessions and addictions and how it is killing the peace, love, joy and kindness that is supposed to be prevalent during the holiday season.” “It was meant to show the over-commercialization of Christmas,” said Jonathan Weintraub, of the NOVA Atheists. “I agree. It is over commercialized. People should keep their hands off the display, all the displays.”

The display was torn down by an unidentified local resident, according to the Loudon County Sheriff’s Dept. So far, no one has been arrested.

Harry Callahan’s extreme experience aside….

….here’s to vigilantes!

On the Lighter Side….

Then there’s this classic from G. Trevor, Lord High King of All Vietors:

And in the Emily Litella Memorial Edition of the Wonderful World of Science, we learn:

Astronomers discover biggest black holes ever

 

What’s that….”black” holes, not “a*s” holes?!?  Oh….never mind!

Magoo