The President Responds.

President Obama is well known to operate on a very even keel. Slow and steady wins the race mode. This has served him extremely well. At times it can be confusing and confounding. The right way too often reads it for weakness and the left often doesn't have the patience for it. The video below may be considered another example. In response to a Fox "News" question President Obama gives a strong answer addressing the Islamic Community Center in New York City and the Quaran burning in Florida.

Many people have commented of all the flaws that they found in President Bush he had done a good job of holding the anti-islamic hatred in check by reminding America was at war with Terrorist and not Islam. President Obama had not clearly enunciated that sentiment forcefully until this press conference.   I think this answer below starting at 1:30 mark is as fine and powerful and passionate answer President Obama has given on this subject.  Will it matter, hard to tell.  I suspect that those who need to hear it the most aren't listening much to what President Obama has to say. But, it needs to said and repeated.

.

First, these two situations are not equal. They both concern freedom of religion and speech. They both have to right to do it. That is where the similarity ends. The book burning is a deliberate publicity stunt of a "pastor" with 50 congregants. The stunt should be repulsive to anyone who passed high school history, watched Schindler's List, hell even if you watched "Hogan's Heroes" you have a pretty good idea about the message that book burning holds. Outside of Auschwitz video's of Nazi book burnings is probably the strongest link to a round them up and kill them all message one can send. The very fact that Gen. Patreaus and Defense Secretary Gates felt the need to get involved is pretty good sense of how serious the ramifications these actions would have had.

Second, I understand that there are a number of people who are genuinely hurt by what they hear about the "Ground Zero Mosque". That feeling is real. The problem is there a great number of people "leaders" who know the facts, mislead people to stir up the pains of the other (Palin, Gingrich, Beck) for their own agenda. Can you spell demogogue. 
Would the hurt have been so real had these people been told of an Islamic YMCA with a prayer room being built in a vacant Burlington Coat Factory near strip joint, Off Track Betting Parlor, and a number of Bars.  Somehow doesn't have the same impact. 

Credit where Credit is due...

Over the past 7 days two of America's most famous personalities had very good weeks. Just a week ago today liberal bloggers and talking head types were discussing and relishing the impending embarrasment that Sarah Palin was going to experience at the hands of Alaskan voters. I am speaking of the Republican Primary for Senate. Palin had endorsed and recorded robo-calls for Tea Party favorite Bill Miller against sitting Senator Lisa Murkowski. Miller was not given a chance and liberals were salivating to make hey out of Palin's demise as a political king maker. It wasn't to be Miller currently holds a 1500 vote lead over Murkowski and 10's of thousands of absentees to be counted. Regardless of the final count Palin can rightfully tout her influence on that election.

Secondly, Mr. Beck held his rally at the Lincoln Memorial over the weekend. I have never suggested that Mr. Beck is a stupid man regardless of the some of the completely stupid things he espouses. He is at heart an entertainer and is therefore not bound by any set of central fact or theme. That being said he held a "successful" event this weekend. The crowds were reported to larger than expected and impressive by most any measure. (although not near the size of Obama's inauguration. That only matters in that a number of supporters suggest that it was) It was by all accounts a peaceful rally less the offensive signage and propaganda that has at times been displayed at such gatherings. It appears that Beck made a smart tactical decision to turn this from a political rally to religious or spiritual rally. That allowed for a more peaceful and united theme.

Reason.tv an arm of Reason Magazine a truly libertarian publication was on the scene and filed what is a good thorough and even handed report of the events. Take a look.

Ask and you shall receive, Ron Paul Libertarian Icon speaks out

A few post back I called on Libertarians to speak out against the demogaugery from right regarding the Burlington Coat Factory Mosque.  Well Rep. Paul has issued a statement as such.

I was going to give you taste of the piece. I think it is better if you take a moment to read it.

PS I don't think Ron Paul issued this statement as a result of my request. Well maybe he did.

Triva Time:

Quick name the crazy radical who "blamed" the US for 9/11 with this quote.

When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems

Move along nothing to see here, Next stop beware of the scarey....

Have you noticed it too?

It seems some force out there stirs up the country about how Obama is going to destroy America. Death Panels, Indoctrinate School Children, Obama's Katrina, Burlington Coat Factor Mosque. The news media and fox news followers get their emotions raised to a fevered pitch.

Then the truth comes to light and we move onto the next big scare whether it is a fake Acorn scare, or 2 black guys scaring away votes form a predominately black inner city voting location, or well we'll have to see what is next, but I am sure it is going to be scarey.

This brings me to one of the earliest scares and rallying cries "Government Motors". You know when mean ole Obama forced all the good people of GM to go into bankruptcy, just so he could socialize the auto industry and payback his union thug buddies.

The Economist provides a rare reconsideration of this as GM announces that they are preparing for an IPO.

Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy. The label “Government Motors” quickly stuck, evoking images of clunky committee-built cars that burned banknotes instead of petrol—all run by what Sarah Palin might call the socialist-in-chief.

I recall arguing at the time that President Obama's actions were a result of a very unique set of circumstances that he inherited.  (I will note that he didn't just happen into this job, he actively pursued it)  These actions have now had 18 months to play out.  No one is satisfied with where the economy is currently sitting one can make a very convincing argument that our economic situation could and would have been much much worse.  Like wise one could make an argument (not very convincing in my mind) that a do nothing approach would have been preferred.  What I think no can reasonably make is that Obama's goal is to reign as Socialist in Chief .  The Economist comes to a very similiar conclusion.

Socialists don’t privatise

That does not mean, however, that bail-outs are always or often justified. Straightforward bankruptcy is usually the most efficient way to allow floundering firms to restructure or fail. The state should step in only when a firm’s collapse poses a systemic risk. Propping up the financial system in 2008 clearly qualified. Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one. The lesson for governments is that for a bail-out to work, it must be brutal and temporary. The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.

Enough is enough once again. Muslim bashing edition

I have not watched Countdown with Keith Olberman in quite a long time.  Mostly due to scheduling and partly to do with his overreaching and over the top approach.  That said, I think he has genuinely said what he feels and not simply acted as a College Football Cheerleader.  I was very pleased to see his most recent special comment toned down, but precise on facts.  For in this case the facts tell the story and the story needs no embellisment. This "controversy" reminds very much of the hoopla the fanatical right stirred up this time last year re: the President indoctrinating our school children.  Somehow, our children survived unscathed and maybe a few of them were inspired.  The right has moved on from that battle (never seem to bring it up anymore) to fresher concerns.  Like slicing and dicing the Constitution they so claim to love and telling a religious group where they can and can not learn to cook and play basketball.   Take a look.


I have often said that Libertarians generally have the purest form of political philosophy. I don't agree with it, but it easy to be consistent. Keep gov't out and honor private property. Libertarians and small c conservatives should be on the front lines of fighting back the xenophobia that is currently on display. "All muslims" are no more responsible for 9/11 than "all Catholics" are responsible for molesting little boys. We don't demand that churches be built more than 4 blocks from any playground.

Game Time is over let the Adults in.

Last week's apology by Rep. Joe Barton to BP about made my head explode.  Once my gut reaction subsided slightly, I attempted to think it through as objectively as possible.  I was still completely dumbfounded on this one.  Nearly a week later the Republicans are still figuring out how to respond.  The truth of the matter is there were a number of them spouting the same BS leading up to this moment.  Barton simply did it from the seat of a US House of Representatives Committee seat.  It is one thing for a politician to go all wacky.  When they do it with the air of officialdom that is a whole new ball game. 

Now the leadership has absolutely no choice but to put the hammer down and fast on Barton.  This can't be a Republican story for them, they need a scapegoat to protect them.  Barton is the one.  Don't be surprised if there is not more news about him losing seniority, chairmanship etc.  One has to ask what about the rest who got out in front of Barton with these similar statements.  Bachman, Pence, etc. 

I enjoy when a conservative thinker calls BS on "conservative" politicians. I came across this posting from The American Conservative Magazine takes an objective look at this situation.  It is well worth the read.

Impact of Deepwater

Pollster takes a look at Deepwater and Obama from a polling and political impact.  It is nice to read a poliltical article that is not simply one side cheering or booing the other side.

I'm sorry you can't sit there!

If you haven't heard the story yet, just wait for it.  You should probably hear about it soon enough.

Rand Paul GOP nominee for the Kentucky Senate Seat was on The Rachel Maddow Show last night.

Rachel attempted to pin Dr. Paul on his position in regards to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The nugget is "does the federal government have the authority to outlaw the practice of discrimination in private businesses"

I have read a number of pieces on the interview and Mr. Paul and I found the piece below by Andrew Sullivan to especially good and I recommend it.  I have often called myself an pragmatic progressive.  There are many issues that I would be considered far left on, however, I accept certain political realities and I am prepared to calculate those realities into my political formulation. One might consider Andrew Sullivan as a pragmatic libertarian.

Andrew Sullivan on Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow

A comment that I came across from a blogger known as Atrios put this way.

Government regulates – and, of course, provides the necessary conditions for the existence of – private business in all kinds of ways. So when people have a particular concern about, say, the Civil Rights Act, as opposed to, say, parking requirements, it’s reasonable to wonder why.

I am not going to suggest Dr. Paul is a racist, he made the point several times that he is not.  I think in this matter it probably is not important if he is personally a racist.  As Sullivan points out what is more important is what the effect of the position is.

Really? ( you want to go back to the "good" ole days. )