Real Conservatives Discuss 2012

On episode 86 of The Richocet Podcast, James Lileks, Peter Robinson, and my favorite conservative, Rob Long, discuss the 2012 election with Michael Barone and Haley Barbour.

If you’re interested in election politics, the full discussions with Michael Barone and Haley Barbour are worth listening to (starts around 5:30). If you just want to hear Rob Long (my favorite conservative) rail against the bankers, making the case that the folks who helped get us into this crisis should be broke and selling apples on the street, fast forward to the last 20 minutes (starts about 58:00), and listen to him go. The real populism (and punish the bankers rhetoric) starts at 1:02.
As a RINO, conservative-ish moderate, I tend to resent that the forums for conservative thought are dominated by (and, sometimes, I think, being squashed by some who may be rabble-rousing poseurs) Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and others. I like Rush Limbaugh, and though I rarely listen to his show these days, I listened regularly for 10 years, and I like the show. But I don’t think that style, which is about 80% bloviation (entertaining) and 20% substantial content, should not be the only thing that represents conservative thought in the public forum. I find talking heads shouting at each other on Fox even less appealing (and not reflective of the depth of any side of any argument).
That’s why I like Ricochet. I bet most folks on the left (not you fine people here, but elsewhere) would be a little surprised by Haley Barbour, or the kind of dialog that goes on between conservatives when they have a broader canvas than 5 minutes on Fox.
Or Jonah Goldberg. Common lampooned as an idiot or demon, even very liberal folks would have a hard time getting that vibe if all they had to go on was his appearance on episode 87 of Ricochet: Looking for a Hero.
I don’t have any specific call-outs for that episode, but there’s a lot of discussion of the 2012 race, with a lot of hard-headed, no-nonsense analysis from the conservative side.
The title makes me think of Frou-Frou’s cover of Bonnie Tyler’s I Need a Hero. Love that cover. But I love covers, generally.

Friday Light (An Open Thread)

I don’t know how many of you have been following the “Occupy Wall Street” protests but I thought this was a decent historical perspective of the movement. There’s a great tradition of populist anger against the economic elite. The protesters don’t seem to have any real leadership or defined goals, they appear to want it that way, but they are reflecting similar complaints going all the way back to the Shay and Whiskey Rebellions.

It is my possibly vain hope that reading up on such historical matters might inspire efforts like Occupy Wall Street to greater cogency and a deeper, more solid foundation in longstanding (if embattled and problematic) American values than they now seem to possess. You don’t have to look as late as the 19th-century Populists and the 1930′s labor movement, for example, to find an American left deeply immersed in both economic issues and an ambitious vision of a better country. Those things were present at the creation.

Occupy Wall Street probably doesn’t, when you shake it down, want to secede from the union like the whiskey rebels — happily enough. But those rebels didn’t start out by wanting to secede, either; they’d fought in the awful front lines of the Revolution in hopes that those sacrifices might lead to something for them and their families; it didn’t. Occupy Wall Street does seem to want to secede, somehow, from the hopeless-feeling regurgitation, through the two political parties, of elite finance theories and policies that never seem sincerely dedicated to any fundamental improvement of opportunity for what they call, not wrongly, “the 99%.”
But a lot of efforts to state a goal for the protest itself devolve in sloganeering about the economic situation and self-admiring paeans to the virtues of protesting. Wouldn’t galvanizing this stuff require… leadership? Our founding democratic-finance activists weren’t such communitarians that they refused to have leaders and set achievable goals. They were used to being rank-and-file — even though as miltiamen, they elected their leaders.

And they knew where they’d succeeded and failed. This thing in Zuccotti Park is open-ended. It has no declared closing date. How can it ever declare victory, get the hell out, build its organization, and come back to fight another day? (lms)


Here’s a story that people have been waiting for:

SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure in al-Qaida’s most active branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks in the United States, was killed Friday in the mountains of Yemen, American and Yemeni officials said. (lms)


From the department of who didn’t see this coming:

Most Bank of America customers will soon see a new charge on their statements — $5 for any month in which they use a BofA debit card to make a purchase.

Consumers should prepare for more such charges, analysts say, as big banks strive to recover revenue they have lost to financial reforms adopted in the aftermatch of the economic meltdown.

The new Bank of America fee will be phased in early next year, said Anne Pace, a spokeswoman for BofA, the nation’s largest retail bank.


Customers will still be able to use their cards at the bank’s automated teller machines without being charged, the bank said Thursday.

They also can make debit purchases free if they have a mortgage from Bank of America or if they have a total of $20,000 on deposit at Bank of America and in certain Merrill Lynch accounts (you may recall that Bank of America’s corporate parent bought Merrill Lynch as the financial crisis set in).

The bank, like others, has been testing ways to recover debit-card revenue that is going away because of new regulations.

Banks previously had charged merchants 44 cents on average every time they accepted a debit card for a purchase. Under new regulations that take effect Saturday, banks with more than $10 billion in assets will be able to charge merchants only 21 cents to 24 cents per transaction.

Bank of America and other big banks have said they will compensate by charging customers. “The economics of offering debit cards have changed,” Pace said in interview. (lms)
****
Texas was a “weak Governor” state until the decade of Perry. Perry has assiduously turned perhaps thousands of appointments into crony opportunities, shaping the bureaucracy in a way no other governor ever tried to do on a grand scale. This is not insidious in itself, but there are so many instances of barely qualified “friends” replacing experienced technocrats that it hurts Texas, while it benefits Perry. Today’s big story in Austin involves the biggest money bureaucracy in state government – the Texas Department of Transportation, or “TXDOT”. Big $$ for crony

From the story:enempany lobbyist and former top aide to Gov. Rick Perry was chosen Thursday 


An energy company lobbyist and former top aide to Gov. Rick Perry was chosen Thursday to lead the 12,000-employee Texas Department of Transportation and will be paid at least $100,000 more annually than the career engineer he succeeds. lpartment of Transportation and will be paid at least -…$1more annually than the career engineer he succeeds.
The former

Amadeo Saenz, 55
Salary: $192,000
Experience: Engineer. Worked for 33 years for TxDOT.
The current
Phil Wilson, 43
Salary:$292,500+
Experience: Lobbyist, executive for Luminant Energy. Texas secretary of state for one year. Aide for 15 years: U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, Gov. Rick Perry.

Note from me: This new salary is the max allowed for a state employee, but they are going to try to gain an exemption to pay Wilson even more.

— MarkInAustin

Bits & Pieces (Thursday Evening Open Mic)

If you’ve never seen the Star Wars Gangsta Rap, you should.

Because it’s fun, and fun is good. Speaking of fun, you should also watch Muppet Bohemian Rhapsody, if you haven’t. Of course, it helps if you’re familiar with Queen’s original. It’s really well done.

Some other stuff might go here. Like this! Chastity Bono appearing on the Sonny & Cher show around age 3.




You’ve got to love that set. Okay. That’s it unless something else occurs to me. — KW


Speaking of Health Insurance . . . .

Health insurance premiums burst upwards.

Ack! The ACA! It does nothing! Nothing!


The average employer-sponsored, single-person health plan premium rose by 8 percent to $5,429 from 2010 to 2011. Meanwhile, the average cost of family coverage rose by 9 percent to $15,073. By contrast, inflation rose by just 3.2 percent, while wages increased just 2.1 percent, the foundation said.

“This year’s 9 percent increase in premiums is especially painful for workers and employers struggling through a weak recovery,” said Kaiser President and CEO Drew Altman.

Everywhere you look, it’s good news!

Sheesh.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) Gets It

“Because if you are not going to get it done, what’s wrong with going down swinging?”
– Rep. James Clyburn on President Obama’s recent address to the Congressional Black Caucus.

See more at FDL

Mullen on ISI and Haqqani: why now?


from STRATFOR:
NOTE:  I pay for this service and get many posts each day.  I  have not linked to it because so much of it is behind a pay-wall.  I am permitted to re-post as long as I acknowledge Stratfor as the source.  Y’all have followed the Mullen-Panetta review of Pakistan to Congress, I am sure; what is new to me here is that Stratfor says we no longer require Pakistan for our effort in Afghanistan so it became a good time to finally say what we know.

===========================================================
In an interview published in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen reiterated his view that the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate provided support for the  Haqqani network. And he continued to juxtapose Haqqani attacks on American troops and American targets with the ISI’s “strategic support” for the group.
The interview was released as Mullen’s final testimony before Congress last week continued to elicit reactions. It was during this testimony — not a setting in which casual comments usually slip out — that he explicitly connected the ISI to Haqqani. During Mullen’s tenure as America’s top military officer, he traveled to Pakistan more than two dozen times and maintained close relations with Islamabad’s senior military leadership. Despite attempts in Washington to moderate his testimony, and anger and denials from Pakistan, we can be sure that Mullen chose his words carefully — a point that Wednesday’s interview further underscores.
“The U.S.-Pakistani relationship has begun to change in a fundamental way.”
The U.S.-Pakistani relationship has begun to change in a fundamental way. The United States and its allies are leaving Afghanistan. The peak of military operations there — itself intended as an attempt to shape the circumstances for a withdrawal — has already passed. A new officer, U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, has been put in charge of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan not to perpetuate the counterinsurgency-focused strategy of David Petraeus.
The move to an exit from Afghanistan is not immediate, but it is inexorable. Washington’s only long-term strategic interest in Central Asia is to deny it as sanctuary to transnational terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has been defeated in Afghanistan and Washington is moving from a position of needing Pakistani territory to logistically facilitate a surge and ongoing military operations, to one where it requires Pakistan to ensure that Afghanistan will never again serve as a staging ground for attacks against American interests.
Mullen did not recently discover Pakistani connections with Haqqani, or the Taliban in general. They have always existed — Pakistan was instrumental in creating the Taliban and ensuring their ascendancy — and it was never in Islamabad’s interest to sever them. Those ties served as a fundamental means of ensuring Pakistani leverage in Afghanistan. What changed is what the United States needs from Pakistan. The United States’ willingness to overlook Pakistani actions against its interests, in exchange for the cooperation necessary for operational expediency, has ended.
Already, the United States has quietly moved its logistical burden onto the Northern Distribution Route — an astonishingly long and tedious alternative traversing Russia and Central Asia to Pakistan — so much so that only about a third of supplies and fuel continue to reach Afghanistan via the port of Karachi and Pakistani refineries. But as the total number of foreign troops continues to decline, excess stockpiles are burned through, austerity measures take effect and the tempo of combat operations declines, the point at which the war in Afghanistan can be sustained independent of Pakistan is fast approaching.
This is a remarkable inflection point. Washington’s logistical vulnerability and reliance on Islamabad has left combat operations in Afghanistan hostage to Pakistan, which has been a defining dynamic of the war. To sustain the large-scale combat operations, the United States had been forced to tolerate Pakistani support for hostile forces in Afghanistan. Mullen’s testimony last Thursday and the interview this Wednesday reflect a change in the rules.
Whether Pakistan is capable of adjusting course and satisfying new American demands — even if it wants to — is unclear. But with the American exit on the horizon and the twilight of logistical reliance on Pakistan at hand, the rules of the game have undergone perhaps their most fundamental change since the beginning of the war.

Operation Fast and Furious

This House investigation gets a lot of play on the right because of an innate rightwing view that all Democrats would ban and/or confiscate ALL firearms If possible. There is a belief by some righties that Holder set this up purposefully to demonstrate that U.S. Sold guns are killing people as a way then to introduce (more) gun control. I disagree with that. To me, this just smacks of typical government incompetence. Napoleon said, “Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.”

If you don’t know the backstory, check it out. It’s awful and stupifying.

This is Really Nasty Stuff

–Troll

Taking it to the SCOTUS

It looks like the SCOTUS will be weighing in on the Constitutionality of the ACA sooner rather than later. The Obama administration could have tried to delay the issue but they went the other route
. The administration has said they are confident they will win but there has to be a political reason they are choosing to have the fight during the election season rather than attempt to delay a decision until after next November.

On one hand, it makes sense for Obama to stand up for what is widely seen as his signature piece of legislation. If he tried to delay a decision, it seems likely his opponents would point to it as weakness and liberals may see it as yet another sign of poor leadership. On the other hand, the law is unpopular among liberals and conservatives so I am not sure appearing to strongly support the bill does Obama a whole lot of good.

Is it possible that Obama may actually be better off if the SCOTUS finds the mandate unconstitutional and the ACA begins to unravel? That may motivate the liberal base a bit because a Republican plan signed by a Republican President would scare the bejesus out of them. Such a ruling may also force Obama to come out with a plan that includes a public option.

I’m headed for a babymoon with my wife and am swamped at work the rest of the day. Then I have a firm retreat Monday and Tuesday, so I may be scarce until later next week. I promise to put up a tort reform post next week though.

Unresolved Issues

Michi linked a piece last night as a counter argument to Melissa Harris-Perry’s claim that President Obama is the victim of a double standard and that white liberals may be abandoning him because we have set a higher standard for a black president. A few of us discussed this on Tuesday night and came to the conclusion that her claim was a stretch at best. Here’s David Sirota with more analysis.

By seeing this record and then explaining away declining liberal support for President Obama as a product of bigotry, Harris-Perry exhibits the ultimate form of both denialism and elitism. It assumes voters (and readers of the Nation) are all lockstep partisans who don’t — and shouldn’t — care about actual issues, public policies and governmental actions, and that they should instead just line up with their party’s leaders without question. It further assumes — without any factual evidence — that if and when voters don’t follow this partisan script, it means that some deeper psychological factor like racism (rather than, say, rational, considered analysis of public policy) is the primary motivating factor in their behavior.

Betraying the arrogant elitism at the heart of such an argument, Harris-Perry declares that the “legislative record for [Obama’s] first two years outpaces Clinton’s first two years” — a line that suggests that Obama is automatically more deserving of liberal support than Clinton. Yet, in making this part of the basis of her “electoral racism” allegations, she implies that liberal voters are so ignorant that they automatically believe sheer numbers of bills passed trumps what’s actually in the bills. She hopes — or, perhaps, believes — that nobody remembers that many of those bills (the Patriot Act extension, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the bank bailouts, the no-public-option health insurance giveaway legislation, to name a few) were initiatives that many liberals opposed.


Here’s another follow up to an issue we discussed yesterday. The USPS Office of the Inspector General has released its “management advisory” report on the funding of the postal service’s pension obligation. I’m fairly certain there’s a political football counterpoint to all of this but I thought this was a fairly straight forward stating of the relevant facts. Please correct me if you find something contrary.

In July 1971, when the Post Office Department became the Postal Service, employees that belonged to the federal pension fund began contributing to the Postal Service’s portion of the pension fund. These retirement costs were divided according to the number of years employees had belonged to each fund. However, the federal pension fund paid for retirements was based on 1971 salaries, not final salaries as administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

OPM has explained that these mischarges were in response to what they believed to be the will of Congress expressed in 1974 legislation. However, the 1974 language was repealed by Congress in 2003. Congress directed OPM to use its authority to oversee the reforms using accepted “dynamic assumptions” that include pay increases and inflation. OPM switched to dynamic funding for the Postal Service portion, but did not for their share. The Postal Service paid the $75 billion difference.

In 2004, the Postal Service appealed the OPM’s methodology for pension fund allocation and the appeal was denied by the OPM. The denial relied on 1974 legislation that made the Postal Service responsible for the pension costs related to salary increases. However, the 1974 language was repealed by Congress.

In addition, the OPM directed the Postal Service to use 100 percent pre-funding for both pension and health care retirement funds. In contrast the OPM has pension funding levels of 41 percent for federal employees and 24 percent for the military. The OPM’s own retiree health care prefunding for federal employees is 0 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 companies’ pension funding is 80 percent.

Correcting either the $75 billion overcharge or reducing the 100 percent target prefunding level to 80 percent would result in the ability of the Postal Service to pay off the Treasury debt associated with paying the $75 billion overcharge.


Admin Note: I think it’s important that as many of us as possible, work schedules allowing, try to contribute new posts and find ways to add to our contributors list. I don’t believe new posts necessarily need to be long-winded each and every time, although I like those, it can be something short and sweet that will spark a discussion.

lmsinca

Bits & Pieces (Wednesday Evening Open Mic)

I am on record as predicting Obama wins in 2012, based on historical trends. That is, the last incumbent to lose the Whitehouse without a 3rd party or primary challenger (folks who died or decided not to run don’t count) was Herbert Hoover.

However, the general level of dissatisfaction with government seems to be at an all-time high.

I can’t imagine a time when it’s been more likely that the majority of voters are going to go to the polls with a “throw the bums out” mentality.

…

41% of North American mobile phone users plant to buy the iPhone5. However, I intend, after the release of the iPhone5, to buy an iPhone4. Does pretty much everything I want, and I’m expecting they will cut the price. I can’t wait, because my iPhoneG3 sucks. The WiFi radio is dead (and since I don’t have the data plan, there’s no internet me, which makes getting any new apps on it a pain), and the battery is getting increasingly weak. I think I’ll have to get the data plan when I upgrade, but at $15 a month, I’ll live with it. I haven’t had a cellular data plan for about two years, and I miss it.

…

If you played a lot of video games in the 80s and 90s, and you haven’t heard of the Angry Videogame Nerd, you need to. He does a lot of great old video game reviews, most of them negative (about games he hates) and laced with profanity.

However, this is a special announcement (a positive “special message, without pro
fanity) review about an obscure title called Ninja Baseball BatMan.

http://blip.tv/play/AYK%2BhkEC.html

http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYK+hkEC

Warning: there will be some more AVGN embeds from in the future. I love the profanity strewn show, the coverage of so many classic video games and consoles, and apparently he’s moved to a format (blip.tv) that I can actually see and embed. So . . . I will! The Moonwalker review is a classic.

…
Ever wondered if there were parochial schools for Scientologist (I can never type that word without thinking of Frank Zappa’s Joe’s Garage, and L. Ron Hoover and the First Church of Appliantology)? Well, wonder no more. There is one: Delphian! — KW

We’re so damn smart on this blog people should start paying us for what we write! Here’s a guy who’s paid to come to the same conclusion that we did last night about Melissa Harris-Perry’s piece:

It is far too early, of course, to know how race will affect Obama’s performance in the general election in November 2012. It may also be true that liberals do not give Obama
sufficient credit for his legislative accomplishments. But for the moment at least, I don’t think we [can] confidently attribute the differences between Obama’s and Clinton’s support among the general public to race.
He’s got charts and everything to back his point up. Score for ATiM!
— Michigoose

Couldn’t resist passing this on. . .

— Michi again