► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Michael Filozof’

It’s beginning to look a lot like 1996

by Mojambo ( 100 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Republican Party at November 21st, 2011 - 8:30 am

People who assume that because Obama sucks as POTUS he will be easy to defeat are whistling in the dark. All you have to do as the article shows is look at Bill Clinton’s disastrous first term. Yet we nominated the doddering old coot Bob Dole to be our standard bearer and got crushed. The same thing is likely to happen again if we do not get serious.

by Michael Filozof

For some time now, many conservatives have thought that President Obama is the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter.  They think that chronic 9% unemployment, creeping inflation, and a foreign policy of self-abasement and weakness will doom Obama to a single term, and that he’ll slink off with his tail between his legs in disgrace, just like Carter did after the election of 1980.

Maybe they should be thinking about the election of 1996 instead.

Does anyone remember the disaster that was Bill Clinton’s first term?  The first attempt to put gays in the military, the first attack on the World Trade Center by Muslim fanatics, and the “Assault Weapons” Ban?  The proposal to raise taxes, increase spending, and downsize the military?  Hillary arrogantly proclaiming that she was no little Tammy Wynette standing by her man and baking cookies?  That she would revamp the entire health care system, by herself, in secret, without congressional input?  Does anyone remember the Waco debacle, which led directly to the Oklahoma City bombing, and Clinton’s allegation that it was the fault of talk radio?  Does anyone remember the landslide Republican victory in the House in 1994, breaking forty straight years of Democratic control — a massive rebuke of the Clinton administration?

And yet…Clinton got re-elected in 1996.  He didn’t just squeak by, either — he won a crushing 379-159 victory in the Electoral College and beat the Republican ticket by eight and a half percent in the popular vote.

Conservatives were in shock.  How could this happen?  Answer: after the 1994 conservative revolution in the midterm elections, the Republican 1996 presidential campaign turned into the Revenge of the Flaming Moderates.  The Republican primaries featured banal, milquetoast candidates like Lamar Alexander (whose campaign strategy was to don a flannel shirt and stand in front of a sign proclaiming, appropriately enough, “Lamar!”), Steve Forbes, Richard Lugar, and the doddering Washington insider Bob Dole.  Pat Buchanan fought an insurgent battle against the GOP moderates, finishing second in the primaries just to keep it interesting, but he quit the party soon thereafter.

The 2012 crop of GOP candidates is no better; quite arguably, they are a good deal worse.

I’m sure Herman Cain is a great guy and that the sexual harassment allegations against him are either overblown or outright false.  Nonetheless, he demonstrated that he’s in over his head the other day when he couldn’t answer a simple question on Obama’s illegal war in Libya.  Cain has no political experience whatsoever.  A couple of terms in the Senate or a stint as secretary of commerce would burnish his credentials.  But frankly, right now, he has none.  The last person to become president without having previously held elective office was Eisenhower, and he had “Supreme Allied Commander on the Winning Side of the Biggest War in Human History” on his resume, not “pizza salesman.”

Rick Perry showed some promise early on.  As governor of the second-largest state in the country with a healthy economy, low taxes, and fiscal stability, he might’ve been a contender.  But he managed to become an example of the left-wing caricature of the Texas redneck all by himself, without the usual dirty tricks from the likes of Dan Rather and the Travis County Democratic Party to set him up.  His latest flub — the inability to remember which Cabinet agencies he’d cut — finished him.  Never before has the cliché “He shot himself in the foot” been more apropos.

There’s Newt Gingrich, who lost the 1995 budget battle to Clinton.  His political negatives were so high that he resigned after only four years as speaker so that the left couldn’t use his own infidelity against him during the impeachment of Clinton.  In 2000, two years after Gingrich left office, Hillary Clinton carpetbagged her way into New York and campaigned against the “Newt Gingrich Republicans.”  She promised to bring 200,000 jobs to New York.  Six years later, the state had lost 50,000 jobs.  She was re-elected.  Newt hasn’t held office since 1998.

Then there’s Ron Paul — interesting, sincere.  Would’ve been a perfect running mate for Calvin Coolidge in 1924.

That leaves us with the blow-dried Janus, Mitt Romney.  Romney is from a high-tax liberal state and has backtracked on almost every position he’s ever taken.

[…]

Not only is the Republican field extremely weak, but it has little appeal to the average voter.  Tea Party activists — whom political scientists refer to as “attentive publics” — are not average voters.  The average schlub will vote for the most ubiquitous political face he sees while channel-surfing between the football game, the porno channel, and Judge Judy after yet another trip to the refrigerator.  That means for Obama.  Beyond that, the primordial concern of the average American is “What kind of government freebee can I get, and who’s going to give it to me?”

A recent Bloomberg News article by Brian Falter stated that “a record 49% percent of Americans live in a household where someone receives at least one type of government benefit, according to the Census Bureau.”  Forty-nine percent!  All Obama has to do is get another two percent, and he’s in for a second term.

[…]

I sincerely hope I’m wrong again.  But I doubt it.  Instead of Obama looking like the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter, it looks like Romney may be the Second Coming of Bob Dole.

Read the rest: Prepare yourself for Obama’s second term

The world’s “Dirty Harry”

by Mojambo ( 32 Comments › )
Filed under Israel, Progressives, Tranzis at June 11th, 2010 - 9:00 pm

Israel is the world’s Dirty Harry – doing the dirty work that the world knows must be done, but refuses to do itself. From killing the Munich terrorists, pulling off the Entebbe rescue, to taking out Saddam’s nuclear reactor, to assassinating Hamas terrorists,  to turning back the Gaza terror flotilla, too knocking off Palestinian terrorists doing arms trafficking with Iran in Dubai – the Jewish state is showing the world how it is done – all the while absorbing the slings and arrows of the more cowardly amongst us.  As the great Oscar Wilde once wrote – “No good deed goes unpunished!’

by Michael Filozof

With the recent “peace flotilla” incident, we have yet another Arab-Israeli dust-up. It’s been going on as long as I’ve been alive, and we can expect “more of the same” for the foreseeable future.

I reflexively side with Israel — every time. Why do I, though? I am not a Jew. I don’t know many Jews, either. I have a couple of Jewish acquaintances, but no close Jewish friends.

What about national security? For all the talk we hear about how Israel is an “ally” of the U.S., the fact is that we have no American military bases there, and American troops have never fought alongside Israelis in any of the numerous Arab-Israeli wars. Unlike Muslim Turkey and Muslim Albania, Israel is not a member of the NATO collective-security alliance. And of course, Israel has no oil to sell us, unlike the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, both of whom we have fought to defend.

So why support Israel? When I was a kid in the 1970s, the Arab-Israeli conflict was front-page news just about all the time. Back then I didn’t really understand what the whole thing was about. But one thing became perfectly clear: the Israelis were very tough, very cool, and very professional, and the Arabs were lunatics.

[…]

Why has the Left turned its back on Israel and sided with the Palestinians? The same reason, I think, that “urban culture” is celebrated in affluent suburbs. It’s “radical chic.”

It’s cool to wear baggy pants and listen to rap songs about pimps, “hos,” and gangbangers, so long as there are no actual prostitutes, no graffiti, and no gang warfare in your neighborhood. It’s the same reason that the cultural Left celebrated Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, in which he wrote that rape was “an insurrectionary act.” Fine and dandy in an English Lit seminar at UC Berkeley, so long as ol’ Eldridge wasn’t raping you or your sister or your mother. It’s the same reason Jane Fonda could go to Hanoi and talk about how wonderful “Uncle Ho” and the North Vietnamese communists were — she didn’t have to spend the next twenty years in a “re-education” camp. Communism sure is grand when you can hop a flight back to the U.S. and eventually marry a billionaire. It’s the same reason that Leftists tote pictures of Che Guevara and admire Fidel Castro — none of them actually had to face the prospect of Comrade Che putting a bullet in the back of their head in the basement of a prison in Havana.

[…]

A good measure of the dividing line between supporters of Israel and opponents of Israel is how you react to Dirty Harry. Remember the classic 1971 Clint Eastwood flick? A crazed serial killer terrorizes San Francisco. The craven politicians want to appease the killer’s demands for ransom, and the media denounces the police for “brutality.” But Inspector Callahan, Eastwood’s character, cuts through all the crap and coolly blows the scumbag away with his .44 Magnum. Score: Civilization 1, Perp 0.

In my view, Israel is the world’s Dirty Harry. For the Left, Israel is “The Man.” Israel has become “The Establishment.” Israel is like “the pigs,” and the flotilla incident another “bust.”

If you prize civilization and oppose anarchy, you support Israel, even if it has to utilize Inspector Callahan’s methods. Israel is the Hadrian’s Wall of the West — on the other side of it, civilization ends. Anyone who were forced into exile and had the choice of going to Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, or Tel Aviv would be out of their mind to choose anything but the last one. But that’s not a choice that anti-Israel partisans on the Left actually have to make. Like Jane Fonda on that machine gun in Hanoi, they’ll never really have to live there. So they can afford to adopt a pose, an affectation, supporting Israel’s enemies. In the short run, it won’t affect them adversely.

Read the rest here: Israel, the world’s ‘Dirty Harry’