Europe has a Change of Viscera, too

Denis Boyles offers a humorous take on Obamaphile Euros.

 At Long Last Love by Denis Boyles on National Review Online

Americans, especially those on the Left, love to be loved, and there hasn’t been this much of the stuff aimed at the U.S.A. for a long time — just over seven years in fact. The last time Europe erupted in a clamor of amour it was because terrorists were flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. That bout of affection lasted about 48 hours. This love is made to last for weeks, maybe even months, but probably not years. Still, by the standards of the trans-Atlantic marriage, that’s an eternity.

When the internationally esteemed, noble peace prize winning "Great Satan" Jimmy Carter was President -- and our embassy personnel still captives of the Iranian Mullahs -- I was traveling through Asia. I ran across many people on the international left who told me that the Japanese, for instance, hated Americans. I never encountered much overt anti-Americanism myself, but perhaps that is because I come from the "so what?" school.

It was an attitude I developed when traveling in Europe when Nixon was President and I would often find myself talking to leftist -- the riotous "1968ers" I encountered in '70. I remember once they snarkily demanded to know when the US would stop being racist. I said in fifty years (this is almost forty years ago). They got intrigued: why fifty years? I said, "Because most people alive today are going to have to die." Or they would demand that we stop occupying West Germany (We had 300,000 troops there at the time). I'd say, "Sure, we can do that. But West Germany would either double the size of its military or become a satellite of the Soviet Union. Which outcome would you prefer?" Generally speaking, since their pushing anti-American buttons didn't get me upset or apologetic or just generally defensive, they'd just as soon carry on a healthy conversation as go for the cheap thrills.

I think what gives anti-Americanism its charm is that many Americans actually seem to care.  And so I think it will be back.

The World has a Change of Viscera

According to Philip Stephens, "In recent years, the anti-Bushism born of Iraq, Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo has hardened into visceral anti-Americanism." But seems it ain't hardened into concrete and must be made of ice because the blow-torch election of Sen. Obama to the Presidency has melted it. "The election confounds the prevailing image (always something of a distortion) of a nation described only by its arrogance and indifference." Well, good. I'm glad they're confounded, confound it! But is it arrogant to be indifferent? Here's more (FT.com Obama’s victory: a change the world should believe in):

With Dick Cheney, the vice-president, hovering ever present in the wings, few have believed that the [Bush] administration’s motives could be anything but bad, its embrace of engagement anything but tactical. Mr Bush completely lost the benefit of the doubt.

That will change. It will no longer be possible (it should never have been so with Mr Bush) for America’s adversaries to draw moral equivalence between the president of the world’s most powerful democracy and tyrants, despots and terrorists everywhere: Mr Obama as the Great Satan?

In demonstrating the infinite capacity of the US to reinvent itself by rediscovering idealism, Mr Obama robs friend and foe of their alibis.

The way I look at it, anti-Americanism comes in two types: that based in self interest and that based in emotion. Typically, the self interested anti-Americans are using it to manipulate the emotional ones. During this stage it is more their problem than ours. Only when the Demagogues take over does it become ours -- typically because of what they are doing to everyone but us.

There is only one difference between the anti-Americanism of the recent past and of that going forward: When Bush was President, the media cared (or pretended to) and going forward it won't. That is because their interest in anti-Americanism was utilitarian in nature (something to whack Republicans with) and its utility is now gone. In fact it was they who drew the "moral equivalence." The adversaries of America need only repeat it.

Those who need anti-Americanism as a political crutch will continue to use it at the expense of those who need it as an emotional one. We just won't hear much about it. I grant you, this will be an improvement.

Mr. Stephens goes on:

A week ago Moscow’s latest threat to site its missiles on Poland’s borders might have been greeted with a pained shrug: after all, Russia, many in Europe would have said, had been provoked by Mr Bush.

As it was, the sour response of Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, to Mr Obama’s victory spoke to his own failure to grasp the significance of the event. Moscow has precious few friends even now. Henceforth it will find it a lot harder to hide its belligerence behind America’s unpopularity. The same might be said of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and one or two others.

There is an important lesson here for Washington’s allies, too. Mr Bush has been an excuse for inaction. Many Europeans have spent the past few years carping from the sidelines: the US has been messing things up everywhere, so why should they contribute anything to global security?

Apparently a new day has dawned and the Russians have hit the snooze button. But not to worry, the Europeans are already making coffee and croissants.

Actually, as his supporters on the left know, President Elect Obama has pledged to kill anti-missile defense. Now when he abandons missile defense (and the radar and missile sites in Poland) it will look like he folded in front of the Russian threat.

I once had a girl friend who explained to me the difference between fashion and style. So let me put it this way: Obama may have fashion. But the Russians, they have style.

A Gruntled American Speaks -- or rather Writes

We really shouldn't take the future of our country too seriously -- or at least that seems to be the attitude of the electorate. Just kidding. I do feel a bit like one of those Old Testament Prophets, though: Nothing to do now but wait for the locust plagues to show up. Again, just kidding. I do expect a rain of frogs on Saturday, though. OK, more like a light toad shower.

Originally I thought of Kiddington Oh! as the setting for a comic novel (I think the very first post is the very first part). Then I reread it and realized it wasn't funny. Be that as it may. I am toying with another idea for a novel.

See, there's this extended family of bankrupt coal miners. And they strap the mattress to the top of the SUV and borrow some gas money from a rich uncle who works for the government. Or maybe they have one of them stoves strapped to the back that cooks gas from coal to run the SUV. Now their coal cooking SUV spews black soot, and it's a good thing they got carbon credits from their rich uncle because they use them to bribe the enviro-police.

As they travel down the refugee filled roads, they stop at abandoned coal pits to scavenge more fuel. They have to beat off the widows and orphans who make their living clawing coal from the face of the strip mine with their fingers! (And the mine is filling with water so the kids have to dive to get it! And it's freezing! Good thing they're young!). So the family -- basically decent sorts with a few sexual peccadilloes and one potentially explosive sociopath who's just turned sixteen (should it be a girl?) -- end up stealing their coal from the young coal divers because they are desperate for fuel for their coal cooker! And some of the young coal divers might starve as a result if they can't get to where they give out food stamps to the well connected!

But the basically decent family (with the few exceptions I noted) have got to steal the coal from the children because -- you see, they're heading for the new Government work camps that have sprung up in the wind blessed Midwest! There windmill farms are built to send ever more power to Washington! And when the wind ain't blowing, the people get on treadmills because they are like, like, back-up batteries! What do think?

I think I'll call it The Shafts of Coal. No, that's too dark. I know. The Shafts of Lite.

Congratulations to the Democrats and a few predictions.

If doing a splendid job winning the Presidency is proof that you will be a good president, then I think my country, the good 'ol USA, will be in good hands for the next four years. Unfortunately, the one does not necessarily follow the other.

A Democrat friend, to whom I had described the possible downside of an Obama Presidency on a number of occasions (but who voted for him anyway) asked me today if I really thought he'd make a bad President. I said, "If Obama is as pragmatic as he often sounds, he'll be alright." Of course, that's the question: Was Obama fooling the left radicals who promoted him to the nomination? Or was he fooling us?

The Democrat Congress may come back into session this fall. If so they will pass a great big Christmas gift for the voters paid for by the Rich Uncle Collective.

The Christmas package will be tied up with several unpleasant strings -- riders the Democrats will want George Bush to sign into law (not Barack Obama). Possible examples might be the "Fairness Doctrine" (to take down talk radio) and "card check" (to thug up the unions by removing the secret ballot). In this way they can say "The Bush Republicans put in place the Fairness doctrine" (or whatever the item is) and repeat it a thousand times. If they do add poison pills, I hope George Bush has the wisdom to veto the whole $500 Billion stocking stuffer. And tar the Democrat Congress with the trick they will try to pull.

From The Volokh Conspiracy.

Looking for a Post-Election Republican Agenda?:

Here's something I think the vast majority of Republicans/conservatives/libertarians can agree on: holding Obama to this pledge, made to the American public during the third debate: "what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.... What I want to emphasize ... is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches."

We should remember that the Democrats and the Media considered the Bush Tax Cuts an increase in spending. Back in 2001 and 2003 they would say, "How much can we afford to spend on tax cuts?" So there is a cheap rhetorical out for Obama (but an expensive one for us). The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Since the US government was spending on tax cuts, allowing the taxes to increase becomes a spending cut. Extending the Bush Cuts for some tax payers becomes an Obama tax reduction for them (even though their taxes are not reduced -- only not increased). Therefore, the spending cuts in "pay-as-you-go" are actually massive tax increases. The tax cuts are, in the main, merely refraining from raising taxes on some tax payers. I believe the new figure will be couples making less than $120,000.

Mr Bernstein further comments:

it would be wonderful...the Senate and House minority leaders each congratulated Obama, and added, "we look forward to helping President-elect Obama fulfill his promise of a net spending cut."

Unfortunately, if they helped Sen. Obama fulfill his promise they will find themselves supporting tax increases.

In the national security arena, Barack Obama will find himself handicapped by the way he used the Iraq War to gain power by tearing down George Bush and Hillary Clinton over their stands on the war. Having pointed the way, he will fear that others will follow the same route to destroy the Obama Presidency. His first term will be spent avoiding the types of commitments that will lead to this outcome. He will not succeed.

Good luck and God bless.

What do you call Bankrupting Coal? A good start.

A tape of Sen. Obama talking to his campaign staff in San Fran surfaced. These folks man the office at the San Francisco Chronicle.

CBS News

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” Obama said. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”

An Obama spokesperson said that Obama’s remarks were taken out of context and pointed out that in another part of the interview, Obama said that the idea of eliminating coal plants was “an illusion.”

The "illusion" is that talking about destroying the coal industry and getting elected is a possibility. Actually destroying the coal industry after being elected is the reality, not the illusion. The CBS Obama spokespeople quoting other Obama spokesperson go on:

“The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies--and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program,” the spokesperson said. “We know that additional work is necessary to develop and deploy these technologies. That is why Obama has argued for a robust funding program for carbon capture and sequestration. It’s strikingly similar to what McCain has said (in fact McCain goes a step further saying he wants to transition completely away from coal).”

The real story is the escalating costs of the Obama plan -- that his energy alternatives will cost trillions of dollars to rate payers. His use of regulation and taxation to ruin industry may start with coal but that is just the beginning. Regulation will stop the use of Nuclear power. Regulation will force the adoption of expensive alternative fuels. Regulation will stop oil drilling.

Folks, I am all for a alternative energy future. What I'm not for is crashing the economy now.

I come here not to Damn the Coal Industry, but to bury it.

Via Gateway Pundit:

OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY

When I tell Democrats that Obama's alternative energy future will require seven or eight dollar a gallon gas they just sort of shrug. Tell a coal miner that Obama's alternative energy future will require his mine to shut down and I suspect he'll shrug, too. And even if he does not, his kids probably will. It is a strange election in which a fantasy future of peace and plenty -- "Tom Tomorrowland" -- will win (if you believe the MSM). I call it a crash plan to crash the economy.

As for the voters in my area, here are a few observations I left as a comment at the Belmont Club:

In my last 12 hours of driving around Western Pa and Eastern Ohio I’ve seen two bumper stickers: one McCain, One Obama. I haven’t seen a large number of yard signs. I live in a heavily Democratic area and the Obama signs are not numerous but they have been around for a few weeks. McCain signs have sprouted up in the last few days in “upper working class” areas. You see a lot of McCain signs along the rural roads — a lot of signs but, unfortunately, few voters.

I joke with a lot of Democrat voters about the election. They seem to have proudly returned to their party because of the financial meltdown and the Dems’ reputation (deserved or not) for fighting for the little guy. They even listen to me trash that reputation (with a smile on my face and a lilt in my voice). Their commitment to Obama seems less solid then their pride in the party, though. I’ve had Democrats say to me, “When people get in the booth, who knows?” I tell them they can vote for McCain and still stick with their party. And sometimes I think they’re not sure how their friends will vote for president — or what they might do themselves. They will all be a brick wall down ticket, though.

By the way, they’ve asked me not to have a wig out Wednesday if McCain loses.

I drive through African American neighborhoods, too, and don’t see many Obama signs. Of course he will carry those areas by 98 percent so they might feel yard signs are redundant. Or maybe African Americans will sit out the Civil War the English Profs will wage if the One comes up short one elector. I have not talked politics with any African Americans this go round, nor they with me. But regardless of color or party, people are keeping their politics on the down low.

From what I’ve seen I would not rule out a McCain win: Just the likelihood of it.

To which I'll add that I talked to a small business man who said if he votes his interest he will vote McCain but if he votes the nation's interest he will vote Obama. Now, he is much better off than me (financially, at least) and I ended up explaining where his interest and the nation's coincide -- and sending more power and money to DC is not in the nation's interest. Geez. The Washington Guard Dog Media does it's work well.

But what if voters decide not to pull the lever for Tom Tomorrowland? Then there is this Audio which is just wacky enough to be believed. A McCain landslide? The hosts, Quinn and Rose, have a radio talk show with good ratings in Western Pa and Eastern Ohio (I'm a sometime listener). Still, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the prognosticators involved.

Happy election day and may all sides emerge victorious (that's a McCain win, for the underinformed)!

120K is the new 250

From Fox news via Instapundit. How Low Can It Go?

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.

Now that is change we can beleive in. A few days ago I noted:

On tax increases, his floor has come down from $250,000 to $200,000 in one week. Sen. Biden then knocked it down to $150,000. Let's see, dropping at fifty thousand a week their tax increase floor should be under me by Thanksgiving. In fact my feet feel more firmly planted already.

Yep. I'm going to cash those checks Barack sends me and buy gold.