All Obama, all the time

At a time when his Washington honeymoon is turning into a hazing, President Barack Obama and his team are launched on a strategy to sail above the traditional White House press corps by reaching out to liberal commentators, local reporters and ethnic media...

Obama has continued to engage aggressively with the establishment outlets. The New York Times recently had an interview, and CBS News’ “60 Minutes” has conducted two long interviews with Obama since Election Day.

These sessions reflect Obama’s belief, according to aides, that in a fragmented media universe, presidents must communicate nearly constantly across an array of platforms, both traditional and new...

Gosh, maybe Obama can have his own dedicated satellite channel. Or maybe his own seven hour Saturday TV show.

You have to think that, at some point, there is such a thing as too much exposure. When his presence becomes ubiquitous and unavoidable (another preemption of American Idol for a prime time Obama gabfest?), I have to think people are quickly going to tire of him.

At least I hope so. Despite low oil prices and a failure to deliver on his promises, Hugo Chavez remains fairly popular in Venezuela. Granted, he has more control over the media and his portrayal therein than does Obama. Up until recently, the mainstream media has largely been supportive of Obama, but he has recently received strong criticism from reliably left wing outlets such as the New York Times and Newsweek. And the networks aren't thrilled about losing millions of dollars in ad revenue every time the President wants primetime face time.

How many more preemptions of Dancing with the Stars or American Idol will it take before pop culture America tunes out of the Barack Obama Daily Show? It can't happen soon enough.

Sin City News: The reality of intelligence operations

On Friday, March 20th, the Washington Post reported:

As a novice CIA case officer in the Middle East, Andrew Warren quickly learned the value of sex in recruiting spies. Colleagues say that he made an early habit of taking informants to strip clubs, and that he later began arranging out-of-town visits to brothels for his best recruits. Often Warren would travel with them, according to two colleagues who worked with him for years.

His methods earned him promotions and notoriety over a lengthy career, until Warren, 41, became ensnared in a sex scandal. Two Algerian women have accused the Virginia native of drugging and sexually assaulting them, and, in one instance, videotaping the encounter.

Sin City News correspondent Marv comments:

The bottom line on this is, Americans just are not comfortable with the reality of intelligence operations.

Most Americans, if asked, would prefer intelligence-gathering operations to be like "James Bond" movies...handsome, incorruptible "agents", armed with all manner of high-tech gizmos, going to exotic, dangerous places to ferret out vital information that prevents wars and saves lives; while still remaining Good American Boys/Girls. Or, perhaps, to be like Tom Clancy's "Jack Ryan" character...a selfless, moral fighter for the Constitution, immune to all evil influences and compromises. Maybe, failing this, to have technogeeks slaving away in front of computer monitors, obtaining information through the clean, dirt-free methods of electronic eavesdropping.

Reality sucks. HUMINT (human intelligence) ops are often dirty, sleazy affairs. CIA case officers are literally in a position where they are lying about who they are and what they do, and doing so to break the laws of other countries, both friend AND foe. They recruit agents (in the true sense of the word, an "agent" is a foreign national who is working for you) through means both fair and foul to accomplish this. Case officers bribe, make promises, blackmail, pressure, decieve, lie, and yes, provide sex to snare agents into doing this dirty work. It's inherently dangerous, distasteful work, and the means to accomplish it are often what most Americans would consider "bad".

This, and not the James Bond/Jack Ryan meme, has been the reality for as long as the practice of intelligence-gathering has existed. Most other countries and cultures accept this, and simply do what is required to protect themselves in a dangerous world.

American are different, though. In our culture, we want to be the Good Guys, the White Hats. We want to win, but we want to do it fairly and sportingly and honestly. The underhanded, back-alley means used in intelligence operations repel Americans, who want these things done Elliott-Ness style. We can't handle the idea that our government might sanction the (necessary) actions that must be taken to provide vital intelligence. They really don't like the concept that you have to do these things against your "friends" sometimes.

This isn't a movie. You simply cannot get all the information you require by electronic means. Sometimes you need informants, "eyes" within the enemy's (and friends') camp. And you have to use any means necessary to get those "eyes" working for you. That can include sex. And since humans are what they are, this means that your own officers are susceptible to corruption on occasion.

Americans are going to have to realize this, and deal realistically with it. The solution is not to severely restrict the methods and means our case officers and intelligence professionals use through some misguided sense of morality in an inherently immoral industry, or to continue fantasizing about movie and literary "ideals", but to accept that the world is an extremely hazardous place with all shades of grey, black, white, and plaid in which, to provide our government with the information it needs to conduct its relationships with other nations, corrupt means must often be used.

Moreso, even now that we are engaged in a struggle with absolutely ruthless adversaries who are fanatical in their hatred of us and tireless in their efforts to defeat us. These adversaries are also from an area of the world where "traditional" American notions of "Fair Play" and "Honesty" do not exist, completely alien cultures dominate, and violence, brutality, torture, and death are the norms.

What is worrisome is that idealistic, pie-in-the-sky politicians and activists might curtail vital intelligence-gathering becuse its reality is too bothersome to their sensibilities. It's already happened numerous times dating as far back as the 1970's and the Church Commitee hearings which resulted in the CIA's evisceration by the Carter administration, and continued all the way through Iran-Contra to Jamie Gorelick's "wall" to this current fiasco. Along the way, all sorts of operations, some which WOULD have prevented wars and deaths, were aborted or were left undone out of fear. Agents died. Presidents went without key pieces of important puzzles. Our nation was left without the means to protect itself.

Idealism is okay, as far as it goes. but it has to be tempered by a good sense of reality and a sober realization that the world is manifestly NOT as we want it to be.

Virginia Republicans form a circular firing squad

Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported:

Jeffrey M. Frederick raised the stakes Tuesday in his bid to remain chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, taking on almost every top-ranking GOP officeholder in the state by labeling them "insiders" and saying they are partly to blame for the party's recent decline.

In a lengthy statement sent to Republican activists and the media, Frederick said those trying to remove him as chairman are a "small minority" who want to turn the Virginia GOP "into a rubber stamp for its long-time insiders."

Since I have two politically active friends who live in Virginia, I thought I'd ask them their impressions. It turns out that one of my friends knows Frederick personally. Here are excerpts of their replies:

Our local party members support him because he stands for conservative values. Many state party leaders want the committee to be more moderate. This is simply a tactic to accomplish that. But a majority of state party members voted for Jeff as a conservative and he won.

This conservative v. moderate battle is perpetual in Virginia. After many years of active membership, I quit the party when the party lost its way. (It was interesting to see the names of the same folks in connection with this I battled in the 90s.) It's sad that Virginia Republicans haven't learn the lesson that most of the Republicans in Congress seem to have learned -- that is: Republicans that espouse conservative values win, those who do not lose. Why vote for a democrat who calls himself a Republican when you can vote for an actual Democrat. I'm afraid the Virginia Republican Party has more losing to do before they learn.

Virginia is a state that has been slowly shifting from red to blue, but it is still conservative enough that Republicans should be able to win elections there without running northeast moderate types as candidates. Maybe only an Olympia Snowe can win in Maine, but a Jim Gilmore still ought to be electable in Virginia.

I have to wonder how much of this internecine warfare is about true philosophical differences, and how much is a turf battle for control of the state party. Hopefully Republicans in Virginia can work through their differences and put their efforts into more productive activities, such as developing a platform that is appealing to a supermajority of voters, recruiting strong candidates and winning elections.

Iowa flooding and Katrina

I received a circulating e-mail forwarded to me by my friend 'The Virginian'. It seeks to compare the attitude of midwesterners affected by flooding to residents of New Orleans impacted by Katrina. It further questions media and celebrity reaction to the two events. I'll leave out the photos depicting the flooding and just post the text (spelling and punctuation as in the original).

Yep, sure is strange. Some people scream, loot and stick out their hand and demand a handout. Others don’t speak up, they just go back to work cleaning up the mess.

Iowa

MAKES YOU THINK.......

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IOWA (THE HEARTLAND OF AMERICA ) AND THE DECAYING CESSPOOL THAT WE CALLED NEW ORLEANS

NEW ORLEANS KNEW THAT A HURRICANE WAS COMING AND CHOSE TO DO LITTLE ,

THEN EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT AND THE TAXPAYERS TO REBUILD THE CITY AND THEIR HOMES BETTER THAN THEY WERE PRIOR TO THE HURRICANE

IOWA JUST WATCHED IT RAIN AND DEALT WITH IT

Where are the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons
asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks
affected by the floods? Where is good old Michael Moore?

Why is the media NOT asking the tough questions about
why the federal government hasn't solved this problem?
....Asking where the FEMA trucks and trailers and food services are?

Why isn't the Federal government moving Iowa people
into free hotels in Chicago and Minneapolis ?

When will Spike Lee say that the Federal government
blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines ?

Where are Sean Penn, Bono, and the Dixie Chicks?
Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes,
cases of beer and television sets?

When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants
to rebuild a 'vanilla' Iowa .... because that's what God wants?

Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete
with reports of shootings at rescuers, of rapes and murder?

Where are all the people screaming that George Bush hates
white, rural people? My God, where are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Oprah, and Ray Coniff Jr?

How come in another two weeks, you will never hear about the
Iowa flooding ever again? Where are the government bailout vouchers? The government debit cards?

There must be one hell of a big difference between the value of the people of Iowa and value of the people of Louisiana .

Pass this unedited, un-doctored, factual information forward..... to get Americans thinking.

Let's float this one around for a while in contrast to all of the hullabaloo that New Orleans received......

The pictures are accurate, but I think the text of the e-mail paints a false picture of Iowans as hardy (white) Midwesterners who rebuilt without complaint, all on their own.

In fact, in 1993, "A total of 534 counties in 9 states were declared eligible for federal disaster aid; 168,340 people registered for federal assistance."

For the lesser flooding in 2008, "$2.7 billion in federal flood relief has been approved to aid 2008 flood victims." Also,

"Grand Forks was the victim of flooding in 1997. In April of that year, 80% of the town was submerged. By 2006, the area was largely restored with the region’s economy growing at a faster pace than before the flood. This was due largely to the influx of $600 million in federal disaster aid (approximately $10,000 per resident)."

Disaster aid was not just limited to flood insurance claims and rebuilding loans; FEMA purchased properties in flood-prone areas and even relocated an entire town. "After the Great Flood of 1993, thousands of properties in flood plains around the Midwest were bought out by the government."

Surprisingly, those in flood-prone areas in the Midwest lag homeowners in hurricane zones in purchasing flood insurance. Why might this be?

Rain-soaked Midwesterners have had enough flooding to last a lifetime. What they are about to discover they do not have nearly enough of is flood insurance.

The lack of coverage could force taxpayers elsewhere to pick up hundreds of millions of dollars in extra costs.

All across the upper Mississippi River drainage basin from Minneapolis to St. Louis, Midwesterners have consistently refused to buy government-sponsored flood insurance, relying instead on federal disaster relief, according to federal officials and statistics.

Why buy flood insurance, when you can count on Uncle Sam to come in and bail you out? Rugged individualism this isn't.

But this isn't really surprising to me, considering that midwest states are among the biggest benefactors of federal farm subsidies.

Even as the Bush administration tries to persuade member nations of the World Trade Organization that it is serious about trimming agricultural subsidies, federal spending on farm payments is closing in on the record of $22.9 billion set in 2000.

None of this is to diminish the genuine suffering that disaster victims anywhere in the United States endure. Agree or not, we have decided as a nation that part of the role of government is to aid victims of natural disasters. I hope this dispels the notion that rural Midwesterners are somehow more virtuous when it comes to seeking to benefit from government assistance.

Dan: Why I don't respect 'centrist' pundits

WT's Dan comments on a Stuart Taylor article in the National Journal.

Small wonder that liberal commentators who complained about Obama's initial stabs at bipartisanship are ecstatic about his budget. And small wonder that some centrists who have had high hopes for Obama -- including New York Times columnist David Brooks, my colleague Clive Crook, David Gergen, and Christopher Buckley -- are sounding alarms.

I saw this coming......starting in 2004, long before my advanced degree. Stuart should have seen this coming. Mr. Neocon David Brooks should have seen this coming. Chris Buckley should have seen this coming. David Gergen should have seen this coming. Kathleen Parker could have seen this coming if she didn't get over her hissy fit and obsession with Palin. Even Tommy the Pinball Wizard could have seen this coming.

Obama was a member of the Joyce Foundation. He was ACORN's attorney. Stuart's National Journal ranked him the most liberal senator. Obama has had 4 years of US Senate experience and about 8 years in the State Senate with votes there. Leopards do not change their spots. These FOOLS could have seen this with a MINIMAL amount of homework at his actions, instead of drinking the flavor-aid of Obama's words and joining his cult.

These "centrists" had their candidate in 2008. They then bolt and vote for the Cult of Obama when their candidate got in. McCain wasn't my pick in the primary. I was a team player and voted for him because I knew how bad Obama was. I have more respect for liberals than these people.

People like these are why I will NEVER refer to myself as a centrist or a moderate. Small L libertarian, yes. Mainstream conservative, yes. Far right (depending on the definition) yes.

But I want to be far away from the David Brooks crowd.

Rush wants Republicans to fail

Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

Limbaugh is embracing the line of attack, suggesting a certain symbiosis between him and his political adversaries.

"The administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence...

The bigger, the better, agreed Carville. “It’s great for us, great for him, great for the press,” he said of Limbaugh. “The only people he’s not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress.”

This irritates me to no end. I'm sure all the attention is great for Rush, and will result in a larger audience and increased revenues for his show. He is no doubt enjoying himself immensely. But he's willingly playing right into the Democrats' hands. At a time when Republicans are desperately in need of reaching out to the middle and expanding the tent, Rush is torpedoing their efforts. In this regard, he is no better than the lesser luminaries of the right wing punditocracy, who have no qualms about attacking the party they allegedly support.

Call it the Max Bialystock strategy, after the character from The Producers who figures out he can make more money from a flop than from a hit. I first coined the expression in relation to Our Lord and Savior Alan Keyes, who uses the occasional election run to prime the pump of his fundraising apparatus. But it is just as applicable to people like Rush; he is acting in his own self-interest, regardless of his actions' broader effects.

Newly elected RNC chairman Michael Steele has a job to do. Somehow, he has to broaden the party's message and outreach to, you know, get enough people to vote for Republicans so that they can actually win elections. Rush doesn't have to worry about winning elections, and seems quite content to see the Republicans fail as long as he personally succeeds.

To see someone in Steele's position nearly suffer whiplash throwing himself into a backpedal to apologize for -- rightly! -- criticizing Limbaugh shows how out of whack things are. Steele should have stood his ground, as Rush's schtick is currently doing more harm than good.

The Republicans are going to have a helluva time digging themselves out of their current hole so long as the parasitic pundits are allowed to remain the voice of the party. As long as the small-tenters maintain their grip on the steering wheel, this bus is going nowhere.

Sin City News: The Politics Of Ugly Guns

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

Sin City News correspondent Marv editorializes:

So, Mr. Holder, the new Attorney General, has announced a push to re-instate the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994, which expired in 2004. He was immediately and publicly countered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said, and I quote, "I think we need to enforce the laws we now have".

What this exchange indicates is that, regardless of her faults, Ms. Pelosi is not politically tone-deaf, nor is she ideologically suicidal. It also indicates that Mr. Holder is a fucking retard.

What Ms. Pelosi realizes, and Mr. Holder does not, is that the 1994 "assault weapons ban" had many effects, and not one of these was its intended one:

• It had no measurable effect on the national crime rate, as measured by the FBI;


• It banned NO weapons...it only banned cosmetic features of some sporting firearms;


• It caused the membership of the National Rifle Association to increase by approximately one million;


• It played a major role in the loss of Congress by the Democrat party;


• It caused Democratic losses across the entire country, especially in the South and West;


• It effectively split a reliable Democratic voting bloc, that being blue-collar union voters who, despite liking the Democrats on economic matters, still wanted to keep their guns.

What Ms. Pelosi sees is a large number of newly-elected Southern Democrats who WILL lose their jobs if they even consider supporting a gun ban. Likewise, some Western Democrats. These legislators will not vote for such a ban under any circumstances. She also sees the oh-so-vital union vote, which President Obama found so vital to his election, shattering as union voters who are also NRA members desert the Democrat party. Also, she doesn't particularly like the idea of a reinvigorated NRA, with nearly five million members, gunning for all the scalps they can find.

Very recent, and Democratically-painful, history has shown in graphic detail that banning ANY class of firearm has severe electoral consequences. As bad as the Republican Party has been recently (and it HAS been a farce), they have at least been consistent on the gun issue. They have listened to the voters. Many races have turned on this one issue.

Whatever Ms. Pelosi personally believes, she has a responsibility to maintain her Party's dominance. VERY recent history has shown her that trying to ban guns, or trying to ban "Ugly Guns", results in her Party getting the shitcan.

Therefore, Marv Hisself, me, expects that any initiative to ban so-called "assault weapons" will die an unlamented, painful death in Congress, with the only vocal carping coming from "safe" anti-gunners like Dianne Fienstein and Barbara Boxer.

Of course, I could always be wrong. So, get off your computer right now, head off to the gun shop or gun show, and grab all the hi-cap mags, folding stocks, flash suppressors, pistol grips, and semi-automatic rifles you can squeeze into a credit card balance as you can. Pay off that lapsed NRA membership. Grab an extra range membership. STIMULATE at least ONE sector of the economy!

And, store all the ammo you can get...you really never know.