Recently this Florida Pastor has been getting a lot of publicity for daring to burn a Quran in public.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/8/anti-koran-cleric-sees-modern-battle-with-evil/

 The world is outraged.  What a terrible thing to do.  This is going to make people hate us all over the world.  Of course they already hate us, so it is just a matter of degree.   Now granted this is a two-bit clown totally undeserving of his 15 minutes of fame.  This is a dumb thing to do, since it will stir up hate and discontent with no discernible benefit to anyone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_as/quran_burning_reaction

 But perhaps the more important issue is the hypocrisy of the main stream media.  What was barely noticed is that our own military is burning Bibles, to avoid offending the Afghanistan people:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/

Why is no one outraged over the burning of the Bible?  !   If the military didn’t want these Bibles, shouldn’t they have respectfully returned them? Instead, troops are ordered to “burn their trash.” At a minimum, shouldn’t these have been treated with respect at least equal to the Quran?  Suppose our troops had received an unsolicited copy of the Quran?  Would our military even consider ordering them to burn it along with the rest of the trash?   I seriously doubt it

President Obama was very vocal in supporting the Ground Zero Mosque.  He was even more vocal in condemning the burning of the Quran.  So has been a lot of other people, including Hillary Clinton.  But the real question should be:   “who is outraged at our troops being ordered to burn Bibles along with the trash?”  Who is outraged that the people our troops are dying to defend seem to have no problem burning our flag and shouting down with America?

The Florida Pastor is deliberately insulting Islam.  That is wrong.  We get it?  But what we don’t get is the indifference to those people who deliberately insult Christianity.  Where was the outrage when Rosie O’Donnell said that Christians were more dangerous that Islamic terrorists.  Where is the outrage when Christian ministers are constantly portrayed in the movies as naïve, self-righteous bigots?  It is increasingly obvious that one must never insult any religion, except Christianity.  Then insults are not only acceptable, they are celebrated.

I am outraged at the burning of the Quran, but I am even more outraged at the daily barrage of insults against Christianity.  I am also sick and tired of hearing Islam described as a religion of peace when Islamic Terrorists are blowing people up all over the world, in the name of jihad shouting Allah Akbar.  When Christians start blowing up people in the name of Christ, then and only then will I consider the two religions equally dangerous.

A final thought.  In case any of you were wondering exactly how far out of touch Obama is with regard to the American people, his most recent speech is very interesting.  He described his principles as the “values of self-reliance and individual responsibility” and “a country that rewards hard work.  A country built upon the promise of opportunity and upward mobility.”  He contrasted his principles with Republicans who are “asking us to settle for a status quo of stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness and a shrinking middle class.”  What is most remarkable is that Obama probably believes this, and does not even see the obvious conflict between these stated principles and his policy decisions of massive government spending and complete control over individual lives.  I don’t see how it is possible to reason with a person whose view of the world is so far detached from reality.

TDM

Obama’s Ship of State is now sinking at an unprecedented rate.  The following article calls Obama’s Foreign Policy a failure.  He is compared unfavorably with… George W. Bush:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-06/obamas-foreign-policy-fails-on-afghanistan-israel

This is hardly a right-wing rag.  Tina Brown, the founder, is very liberal and they were very supportive of Obama, until recently.

This last weekend, just about everyone turned on Obama.  He is no longer getting high grades from either left or right:                 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/07/wapos-cohen-obama-needs-fire-key-people-or-americans-will-fire-him

The tea leaves are all lined up and they are showing a full-fledged Democratic disaster this fall.  While a few die-hards are pretending that Democrats can maintain control of the House, most strategists are now predicting the Republicans will take back the House.  In addition, for the first time, Democratic strategists are admitting that the Senate is also in play.

 What’s astonishing is that nearly two months before the election, Democrats are already into the blame game.  The person they are all blaming is Obama.  Clearly, everyone expected better than this.  Even more clearly, very few people in either party think Obama is up to the job.  Republicans are angry at what Obama is doing to the country.  Democrats are angry at what Obama is doing to the Democratic party.  For the first time in decades, Republicans and Democrats agree on one thing; they are all angry at Obama.

 Obama is showing more and more signs of losing his grip.  This weekend he literally complained that Republicans were treating him like a Dog.  What a remarkable comment by a U.S. President.  This is the ultimate “it’s all about me” comment.

 The following article shows that the Democratic strategy of “blame Bush” no longer works. 

 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/voters_arent_listening_to_dem_message.html

 The White House is in panic mode.  This is a time to be alert, because they can literally see power slipping away before their eyes.  The $50 billion stimulus program proposed by Obama on Sunday was dead on arrival.  It should be clear, even to Obama, that most Democrats are not about to vote for anything between now and December.  Desperate people do desperate things.  Read my “Wag The Donkey” post:

 https://scotshonor.com/?p=333

Nothing is impossible with this administration.

 TDM

Some of you may recall that I used to teach Statistic at the college level.  I could not resist running some fairly simple regression analysis based on polling data to date to see if I could come up with a statistically sound range of possible outcomes. 

 According to Gallop, today in the generic vote for congress, there are 51% Republicans, 41% Democrats and 8% independents.   The same poll shows that the enthusiasm level for Republicans is 54% while the enthusiasm level for Democrats is 30%.  Here is what that means.    Let’s assume that the enthusiasm level is identical to expected turnout.  That means that 54% of Republicans would probably vote, 30% of Democrats would probably vote and 50% of Independents would probably vote.

 If we calculate assuming nothing changes between now and November 2, this would be what to expect:

 GOP  62%   DEM  28%  IND 10%

Now let’s assume Democrats make a major effort to generate enthusiasm.  They are unlikely to change the generic percentages this late in the game, but they may succeed in changing the enthusiasm.  Let’s assume they hit it out of the park and increase enthusiasm to 60%, while GOP enthusiasm plateaus at 57 percent.  This is what that election would look like:

 GOP 48%  DEM 45%  IND 7%

 Now let’s assume that the Republicans surge even more, up to the enthusiasm levels they had in 1994.  The Republican enthusiasm could soar to as high as 67% and we will assume that Democrats also increase, up to around 40%.   In that case the results would look like this:

 GOP 68%  DEM 28%  IND 8%

 Now, lets do a standard statistic analysis and provide even weighting to each outcome.  The average result is:

 GOP 58%  DEM 32%  IND 10%

 I know these numbers appear to be too good to be true, but recent results are very consistent with them.  For example in the recent ballot on Proposition C, the vote to repeal Obama care a poll was conducted of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats just before the election.  61% of Republicans were for the Proposition, 48% of Democrats were against the proposition.   In Missouri most of the elected officials are Democrats, but it is also somewhat conservative and John McCain carried Missouri by a very tiny margin in 2008.  Normally one would expect more Democrats than Republicans.  So most polling firms evaluating a poll of 300 Republicans and 300 Democrats would have adjusted the final estimate in favor of Democrats.   Scott Rasmussen, who typically rates Republicans higher than other polling firms estimated that Proposition C would pass 58% to 41%.  But the actual results was that Proposition C was passed with more than 70% of the vote.  

 Even if one assumes that the generic party affiliation in Missouri has shifted from 50/50 to 51/41, it would not explain this result.  That would have indicated a final vote of about 62% to 38%.  Clearly, at least in Missouri with regard to Proposition C, the difference in Republican enthusiasm was equally important as the difference in the generic ballot.  In fact when I used my analysis to factor in the expected voter turnout to be roughly proportionate to enthusiasm, based on the results of that last minute poll, I come up with an expected result of 73% to 27%, not that much higher than the actual 71% to 29% actual result.

 My methods are obviously crude, because I do not have access to sufficient data and because I have only spent a small amount of time on this.  However when existing data is this skewed, the projected outcomes, baring major unforeseen intervening events, are at least possible.  I am not predicting results, just commenting on the probability of some outcomes based on the Gallop Poll today. 

 I strongly suspect that all of the pollsters are seeing similar results but they are too shocked to report them.  I don’t blame them, because these kinds of results are unprecedented.  It is really hard to imagine Republicans coming close to getting 60% of the vote under any circumstances and doing better than that is pie in the sky range.  It would result in a political landslide of proportions never seen before in this country.  It is like predicting that the laughing stock of the National League for the period from 1962 to 1968, the New York Mets, would win the World Series in 1969.   Oops.  That happened!

 TDM

Tony Blair just published his long-awaited memoirs.   It is important to realize that Tony Blair was a liberal, adored by the main stream media.  He was everything George Bush was not, suave, sophisticated and undeniably brilliant.  But here is what Blair wrote about Bush:

Many Brits are perplexed that Blair was apparently persuaded to join that foreign adventure by President George W. Bush, who is often portrayed in the U.K. media as a dumb hick. But the former prime minister insists that Bush was “very smart” while possessing an “immense simplicity in how he saw the world.”

“I was asked recently which of the political leaders I had met had most integrity,” he says. “I listed George near the top. He had genuine integrity and as much political courage as any leader I ever met.”

Ultimately, I strongly believe that history will agree with Mr. Blair.  No one in the world knew more about the real intelligence regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein than Tony Blair.  It would be hard to make a case that George Bush tricked Tony Blair into believing anything.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media will notice and if they do, I wonder if they will dare report it accurately.  For years the mainstream media has portrayed Bush as a naïve, stupid, corrupt right wing bigot.  It is hard to reconcile that image with the statements by Mr. Blair.  Either Mr. Blair is naïve and incompetent, or the press got this all bass ackwards.

George Bush is about to release his memoirs, on November 9th.   I believe that people are going to be stunned to find out that the Bush who shows up in print is brilliant man, with enormous integrity and unequalled political courage.   The contrast with Obama will be too obvious to ignore.  The problem for the Press is that George Bush knows the truth, which they either ignored or failed to recognize.  I think a lot of other people will recognize the truth when they see it.

TDM

Democrats are praying that very few people watched Obama’s speech from the Oval Office.  This speech was not merely bad, it was world class bad.  Obama looked like an undertaker reading a eulogy for someone he despised.  The speech started out bad, and then got worse.  At every step it was flat and boring.   He literally sat there staring at his TelePrompter, with his hands folded and a blank stare on his face.  I have no idea why he thought he needed to do this.  The only time he showed anything resembling enthusiasm was when he was blaming Bush.

 He started out by describing this as a historic milestone.  No victory.  No achievement.  Not even any goals.  The closest speech to this was when Ford took over for Nixon and said our long national nightmare was over.  But, Obama didn’t say that the Iraq war is over, he just said we were dumping the problem on Iraq and while we might continue to help a little, very little, we are out of there.

 He started by blaming everything on Bush and basically reminding us that he thought the whole war was a huge waste.  Then he explained why he thought George Bush was wrong about everything, but Obama had to admit Bush probably was just as much of a patriot as Obama.  Some people misinterpreted this as an act of class.  It was pathetic.  I am sure Bush would have prefered being ignored.  Please!

 It is clear that the primary goal of this speech was to avoid any potential for giving Bush credit for anything.  Sometimes this resulted in statements that, upon reflection, are bizarre.

 For example:

 They (American troops) defeated a regime that had terrorized its people.

 Apparently the unnecessary war “accidentally” removed Saddam from power?  Hmmm!  Bush gets no credit for defeating Saddam; it was apparently an accidental byproduct of a failed policy.

 Together with our coalition partners, who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.

 For years Democrat’s have complained that Iraq was the war where the U.S. went alone with absolutely no support from anyone.  Who were these strange people who made huge sacrifices of their own?  This actually shows that one of the big Democratic arguments against the war is and was a lie.  Obama is right; there were many countries that stood side by side with us at great cost, because they believed in our cause.  Its too bad Democrats only recognize this after over 6 ½ years of sacrifice.  Also too bad that Obama seems equally willing to toss them under the bus along with the people in Iraq.

 Then he is careful to give all the credit to the troops and ignoring the man who made it possible:

They (American Troops) shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces and took out terrorist leaders. 

 There was no “they,” there was only George Bush.  A President who refused to bow to political pressure from people like Barack Obama who were confident this change in tactics could not work.  Barack Obama kept telling people the surge couldn’t possibly work even after it was abundantly clear that it had worked.  Apparently Obama thinks that our troops got together in a huddle and just decided on their own to shift tactics.  Amazing!

Then Obama pretended that he had developed the plan to withdraw our troops.  That is absurd.  The plan to withdraw our troops was developed by George Bush and there was a signed agreement with the Iraqi Government before Obama even took office.  The only difference was that Bush refused to set an inflexible arbitrary deadline since he knew that would be very harmful for our troops.  Something like giving sustenance to our enemies.

 Then Obama flat out lied, but of course we are used to that:

 Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. 

 The opposite is true.  Violence has surged since our troops started to withdraw and the following article from CBS describes the situation as chaos:   

 http://www.keyc.com/node/41105

 The author, Joel Brown, CBS New, The White House ends with the following:

 Iraqis officials are hoping the violence is just a temporary spike . They say they’re confident the nation’s 650,000 security forces will eventually regain control.

 Either Obama was too busy golfing on Martha’s Vineyard to notice what is happening in Iraq, or he just decided to lie about it.

At this point, it is important to understand what Bush got right and what he got wrong in Iraq.   The campaign to remove Saddam Hussein was brilliant.  All of the military experts, like Wesley Clark, were predicting a long bloody conflict.  Instead the U.S. moved with lightening speed and threw Saddam out of power with record low casualties.  This Bush made a major mistake.  He listened to Democrats.  People like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were telling him he needed to win the hearts and minds of the people.  They were recommending that the U.S. military keep a low profile and instead we should invest billions in building infrastructure, avoid combat and invest primarily in training the Iraqi police and military.  We were also going to send in civilians to show how nice we can be.  It was a disaster, because al Qaeda just moved in full force and launched wide scale terrorist attacks against civilians and literally set off a civil war by blowing up a mosque.  Civilians soon learned that Iraq was death zone.  Al Qaeda didn’t view them as anything other than easy targets.  Iraq descended into near chaos.

Democrats were calling for us to just quit without regard to consequences.  But then Bush did something remarkable.  He refused to quit because he said that to quit would be to throw away the sacrifices of those who had fought there.  On numerous occasions he said he could not let those people die in vain.  Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought the situation was hopeless, so Bush keep searching until he found a General who thought he could win.  General Petraeus said we needed to reverse course.  He said we could not win the hearts and minds of the people until they felt secure.  He said we needed to send in more troops, relax the rules of engagement and take on al Qaeda and the insurgents.   Bush, in defiance of almost everyone with the possible exception of John McCain said he ordered the surge because he could not and would not settle for less than victory.  That is what a real President does.

 Here is Obama’s “new” plan:

 As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians, aid workers and advisors are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world.

 He is going to adopt the original Bush plan, that was a complete failure.  Perhaps it will work this time.  Perhaps our military has bought enough time so that Iraq can exert self control  Perhaps al Qaeda will avoid killing our civilians.  Perhaps aid workers won’t mind getting blown to pieces for the greater good, but somehow I doubt it.  But this time there is a big difference.  This time al Qaeda knows that Barack won’t fight back.  Unfortunately, that may be a fatal difference.  I sincerely hope that Iraq will be ready, willing and able to stand up to al Qaeda.  

Obama, who ignored giving credit to Bush for the surge in Iraq, announces that he is going to win the war in Afghanistan by ordering a surge similar to the one that worked in Iraq.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media will notice that this is the height of inconsistency.

Finally, Obama goes completely over the top.  His speech is so bizarre it borders on delusion.  He says:

One of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone.  We must use all elements of our power – including our diplomacy, our economic strength and the power of America’s example – to secure our interests and stand by our allies.

 Really?  We tried that approach in Iraq and should have learned the real lesson.  The best way to defeat terrorist is to kill them.  It was only when we did choose to use our military force effectively that we began to make real progress in Iraq.

 The following line is delusional:

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners.

What planet is Obama talking about?  What old adversaries are now at peace because of anything Obama did since coming into office?  Where are those emerging democracies, other than Iraq?  Liberals keep saying you cannot create democracy with military force.  I wonder if any of them have ever heard of Germany or Japan?  And where is there democracy today, in South Korea, where we won or South Vietnam where we lost?

 Finally, Obama had to once again blame all the problems in the world on George Bush:

Unfortunately over the last decade we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity.  We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas.  This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.  For too long we have put off tough decision on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform.  As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

 With Obama, everything is Bush’s fault.  There is never any other option.  Just this week the CBO published a report showing that Obama’s failed stimulus plan spent more money in one year than the cost of the entire Iraq war to date.  In addition, Bush only increased military spending to 4% of GDP, the percentage many bi-partisan experts feel is appropriate to sustain our military at the appropriate level.  Of course Democrats blame our entire deficit on the Bush tax cuts.  The same Bush tax cuts that are due to expire this fall, resulting in the largest tax increase on the middle class in history.  Now if the Bush tax cuts only impacted the wealthy, why does reversing them result in a big tax increase on the middle class?  Democrats couldn’t have been lying about that, could they?  Now, of course, even Democrats are talking about extending the Bush tax cuts.  I wonder if Obama noticed that?

 The problem is that although this is pure hog wash, Obama believes every word of it.  That is why we have no hope of economic recovery as long as he remains in power.  He lives in a delusional world none of us can even recognize.  I believe the Republicans will win the House and the Senate this fall.  However, I doubt they will win a veto proof majority in the Senate.  The good news is that it is going to be much harder for Obama to do more damage after November 2.  The bad news is that he is likely to remain clueless and delusional and will continue to think he is right regardless of evidence to the contrary. 

 TDM