December 4-8, 2015
Dec 04 00:42 Chris Murphy vs. Peggy Noonan Dec 04 16:04 President Obama's credibility crisis Dec 05 23:19 Condemning terrorism Dec 06 16:03 Hillary: we must up game vs. ISIS Dec 07 00:42 Trampling civil liberties for no reason Dec 07 14:32 Thinking the unthinkable? Dec 08 07:22 Trump, Erickson: ignore the Constitution Dec 08 15:42 Limbaugh's straw man argument
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Chris Murphy vs. Peggy Noonan
Chris Murphy is a Democratic senator from Connecticut and, as near as I can tell, a staunch advocate for censorship and a hater of religion. He can afford to be. He's from Connecticut, which isn't known for its deep religious roots.
Peggy Noonan is a former speechwriter for the greatest president of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan. She's a gifted wordsmith and a lady of stature and dignity. Even when I disagree with her, which is occasionally, I still have immense respect for her. That's because, at heart, she's constantly cheering to see America at its best. She isn't an ideologue. Instead, she's a patriot. That's why I couldn't resist reading Ms. Noonan's column about the fragile state of the First Amendment.
She noted that Sen. Murphy injected invective into the conversation about San Bernardino while it was happening, saying "Your 'thoughts' should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your 'prayers' should be for forgiveness if you do nothing - again." Then Ms. Noonan made the observation that there's "a real censorship movement backed by an ideology that is hostile to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
Twenty years ago, that statement would've been laughed at. Today, thoughtful people furrow their brow and worry that Ms. Noonan is right. Then Ms. Noonan offered this insight into winning debates:
If you really are for some new gun-control measure, if you are serious about it, you just might wait a while, until the blood has cooled, for instance, and then try to win people over to see it your way. You might offer information, argument, points of persuasion. Successful politics involves pulling people together. You don't use a tragedy to shame and silence those who don't see it your way; that only hardens sides.
I won't assume that Sen. Murphy is interested in winning a debate. (Ms. Noonan didn't either.) It's quite possible that Sen. Murphy only wants to speak up and be heard.
Now that the blood has started cooling, it'd be easy to criticize Sen. Murphy. I won't do that, though. I'll just add some information and, hopefully, a little insight into this nightmare. First, the information flooding in is that this wasn't a criminal action as much as it was a terrorist attack. Though President Obama and the FBI have tap-danced around that possibility, the truth is that that proverbial train left the station when the FBI found literally thousands of rounds of ammunition, a bomb-making factory in the Farooks' apartment and an assortment of pipe bombs and IED in the Farooks' SUV.
The insight I have for Sen. Murphy is to start talking about how President Obama, the FBI and our other intelligence agencies can connect the terrorist network dots faster. They clearly were caught flat-footed on San Bernardino. Couple that with their unwillingness to call it what it obviously is and you've got a recipe for disaster.
This post is meant as a bit of a thank you to Ms. Noonan for writing something insightful on the subject of winning debate. Here's hoping for more sanity to break out shortly.
Posted Friday, December 4, 2015 12:42 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Dec-15 08:00 AM
Short lifetime?
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Dec-15 08:03 AM
Further thought - without following the link - the Noonan excerpt surely had Ted Cruz in mind, or might have.
President Obama's credibility crisis
Thanks to Sean Davis' article for the Federalist, President Obama's credibility problem is growing. Davis has collected some of President Obama's most laughable statements on ISIS and al-Qa'ida in the article. Davis's article starts with President Obama's quote that "ISIS is contained," which Davis calls the new "American tanks are not in Baghdad."
During his 2012 re-election campaign, President Obama insisted that al-Qa'ida was "on the run." Wednesday, President Obama insisted that "The American people should feel confident that, you know, we are going to be able to defend ourselves and make sure that, you know, we have a good holiday and go about our lives." Later that day, 2 terrorists killed 14 Californians in San Bernardino while they attended a holiday celebration.
Yesterday, President Obama said that the massacre might have been a terrorist attack but then quickly said that "it might be workplace violence." This morning, the FBI confirmed that Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS. So much for the San Bernardino terrorist attack possibly being workplace violence, though that doesn't mean President Obama will admit that it isn't an option anymore.
If I wasn't exceptionally polite, I'd say that President Obama is full of s---. Thank God I'm exceptionally polite.
Posted Friday, December 4, 2015 4:04 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Dec-15 08:27 AM
Gary, you are polite. I honestly have viewed you that way, consistently, over time.
Opinionated?
Well ... you are, indeed, polite.
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Dec-15 08:45 AM
Does the crystal ball at LFR foresee an October Surprise next year, with regard to Syria? Or is that and the tealeaf reading too inexact for that less immediate time frame?
As a bet, the Russians and Iranians might be willing to negotiate one, just as Mubarak was not necessary to keeping a status quo in Egypt, despite the interlude, so Assad might find himself under the bus.
Libyans might ask themselves, "Are you better off now, or were you better off before?"
In that sense, do you see any parallel between the present regime in Syria and the past one in Libya?
As to the Iranians, their history was to have negotiated during the Carter administration, with others, about held hostages.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Dec-15 11:35 PM
Russia won't throw Syria under the bus. Period. As for the Iranians, they've gotten away with things because Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are the 2 worst foreign policy presidents in the last century.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 05-Dec-15 10:06 AM
Obama's creditability has always been in crisis because nothing he says is credible (ACA will save you $2,500, you can keep your doctor, ISIS is the JV, ISIS is contained, etc.). This president never, ever seems to know what he is talking about, says he finds out about things through the same news channels the average American does, and if it isn't scrolling on a teleprompter, he's a complete idiot. This president has been full of s--- since day one.
Condemning terrorism
Since the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, CA, various people have said that Muslim organizations should condemn terrorists and terrorism. Some organizations, like the Minnesota chapter of CAIR, aka the Council on American-Islamic Relations, got proactive and quickly condemned terrorism .
Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of CAIR's Minnesota chapter, said "The Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Americans in repudiating any action that harms innocent civilians."
My initial reaction to Hussein's statement is ... that isn't enough. It isn't close, in fact. Has CAIR ever reported suspicious activities by radicalized Muslims? Does CAIR admit that specific Muslims are terrorists? How many tips have CAIR's members called into the FBI or other law enforcement agencies?
Most importantly, has CAIR bit its lip when it saw radicalization happening? If they didn't speak up, why didn't they say something? Is it because CAIR, especially its leadership, isn't capable of spotting radicalization?
Condemning terrorism is better than nothing but not by much. If CAIR leadership and their members aren't reporting on radicalized Muslims, then they aren't part of the solution. In his speech to the nation on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush told nations that if they weren't with us, then they were against us. I'd submit that the same principles must apply to people, too.
If CAIR or other Muslim organizations don't help spoil terrorist plots, then they're part of the problem. They aren't part of the solution.
Posted Saturday, December 5, 2015 11:19 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 06-Dec-15 09:43 AM
Gary, were you at the Monticello leadership straw poll, Saturday? Strib has a report online, today. The results were something of a surprise to me.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Dec-15 03:24 PM
I wasn't. What are the results?
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Dec-15 08:14 PM
Cruz had most votes, Rubio second, Fiorina third.
I forget how the others lined up, but it's available from Strib's home page. "Thought leaders," is the term Downey applied to the 240 or so attendees.
I use the term Inner Party. I recall it used in literature.
Hillary: we must up game vs. ISIS
Hillary Clinton insists that the United States must up their game to defeat ISIS . That's true in one extent. Hours before the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, President Obama insisted that ISIS was contained. Hours before the San Bernardino terrorist attack, President Obama insisted that ISIS didn't pose a threat to the United States.
Considering how frequently his administration hasn't caught terrorists before they hit, there's plenty of room for improvement from this administration.
It isn't fair, though, to say that the Obama administration isn't the only group of Democrats that need to pull their head out of their butts. It's certainly fair to tell Hillary that she's been almost as worthless at fighting terrorism as President Obama has been. Hillary's statement that Muslims " have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism " is frighteningly stupid. That's one of the dumbest statements I've heard a politician make.
Hillary said "What happened in San Bernardino was a terror attack. No one is arguing that." Except Democrat senators like Feinstein and Boxer from California, Murphy and Whitehouse from Connecticut and Schumer from New York. They're the ones who introduced a gun control bill before law enforcement determined what had happened in San Bernardino.
Hillary herself brought up the issue of gun control in the minutes after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. Mrs. Clinton didn't ponder the possibility that terrorists had attacked. Instead, Mrs. Clinton played the role of lead ideologue instead of finding a solution to this crisis.
As long as Mrs. Clinton, President Obama and the Democrats put a higher priority on playing politics than they put on fighting terrorism with all of the weapons in the United States' arsenal, they'll rightly be seen as being part of the problem, not part of the solution.
President Obama has the opportunity of starting fresh with the right strategy of defeating ISIS when he addresses the nation tonight from the Oval Office. It's a shame he won't use that opportunity to make America safe again.
Posted Sunday, December 6, 2015 4:03 PM
No comments.
Trampling civil liberties for no reason
During his speech from the Oval Office Sunday night, President Obama called on Congress to trample innocent people's civil rights in the name of national security, saying "To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security."
That's interesting since the Washington Free Beacon reported that 72 employees of the Department of Homeland Security are on the Terrorist Watch List . Either there are lots of terrorists working at DHS or that list isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I suspect it's the latter. Either way, using that list to deny people the right to protect themselves would be a great injustice to the law-abiding people on that list.
That doesn't mean I think everyone on the list is innocent and should have the right to purchase weapons. What I'm saying is that the TWL isn't airtight and shouldn't be used to determine a person's civil rights status. Sen. Rubio explains it perfectly during this interview:
Posted Monday, December 7, 2015 12:42 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-Dec-15 10:29 AM
Good post, Gary. Blacklisting people, without suitable safeguards, is repugnant.
Next, should people on that list be allowed into or barred from entry into federal buildings? Or onto the Internet.
Sure, slippery slope argument is at times suspect, but, Gary, if wholly innocent people are wrongly getting listed, it could be us, next.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Dec-15 01:57 PM
Eric, we're in total agreement on this. Without due process, I don't trust much. I certainly don't trust a government bureaucrat or a political appointee to do the honorable thing 100% of the time.
Without due process, it's too easy to violate a person's civil rights. That isn't acceptable.
Thinking the unthinkable?
With Donald Trump riding high in national polling, it's almost foolish to think that he could finish third in Iowa. Still, that's what this Monmouth Poll shows:
Since August, Trump has dropped 4 points while Dr. Carson's support has essentially cratered. Sen. Cruz has seen his support almost triple, going from 9% in August to 24% in December.
The sub-headline, though, is Marco Rubio's rise. He's gone from 4% in August to 17% in this poll. He's now essentially in a statistical tie with Trump in this poll. It's important to note that this is just one poll so it's foolish to read too much into it. It isn't wrong to question whether it's the start of a trend in Iowa.
Iowa has always been the tougher win for Trump because of the evangelical Christian vote as compared with New Hampshire. That part isn't surprising. It isn't essential for Trump to win there. It isn't a stretch to think, though, that Trump finishing third in Iowa might stop Trump's momentum.
Finally, with Sen. Rubio now gaining traction, will Jeb's donors abandon Jeb! for Sen. Rubio in the hopes of pulling off the upset victory in Iowa? I've said for months that Jeb's got an Iowa problem. It's apparent that Iowa isn't his only problem. If Jeb's donors abandon him, they could push Sen. Rubio to a surprising victory in Iowa, which would give him momentum heading into the first primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Even a strong second-place finish in Iowa to Cruz would give him momentum going forward because New Hampshire usually rejects Iowa's winner.
Posted Monday, December 7, 2015 2:32 PM
No comments.
Trump, Erickson: ignore the Constitution
Back in August, Donald Trump criticized Erick Erickson for banning him from the RedState Gathering for Trump's disgusting misogynistic statements about Megyn Kelly. It's December and Erickson is suddenly he's Trump's biggest fan .
Erickson's 'proof' that Trump is brilliant is that "Trump demanded we bar any Muslims from entering this country and bar any American citizen who is Muslim from re-entering the United States." Erickson then said that we should set "aside the merits of what amounts to at least, in part, an unconstitutional position."
First, let's not set aside the Constitution to judge the merits of Trump's political genius. Next, let's see Erickson's 'logic':
Donald Trump not only got himself to the right of all the other candidates, but also got every single one of them save for Sen. Ted Cruz, (R-TX), to align themselves with Barack Obama.
That's chilling thinking, if it can be called that. Last night, when Carly Fiorina said that Americans wouldn't "set aside the Constitution" just because Mr. Trump says so, Erickson apparently thinks that that's aligning with President Obama. Here's a little hint for Erickson. That's putting yourself in a position of strength.
Further, Trump looks like a third-world dictator, not a presidential candidate. If this is a negotiation and I'm one of the negotiators, I'd start by telling Mr. Trump that his view of the Constitution is disgusting and that it's time he stopped ignoring the foundation that the United States was built on. Then I'd tell him that his anti-constitutional policy is a nonstarter. Next, I'd tell Mr. Trump that his bombastic rant sounds suspiciously similar to President Obama's disgust with the Constitution.
Once I'd demolished Trump's conservative credibility, then I'd tell him that protecting the United States while obeying the Constitution is possible.
Idiots like Erickson are Trump enablers. Their message essentially is 'Who cares if Trump ignores the Constitution like Obama? Who cares that his ideas don't work?' If ignoring the law and pushing policies that don't work are all that's required to make the GOP base happy, then they should be thrilled with President Obama.
Posted Tuesday, December 8, 2015 7:22 AM
No comments.
Limbaugh's straw man argument
I've frequently criticized President Obama for his use of straw man arguments. Ditto with Hillary Clinton. If I want to maintain credibility, I can't sit and listen to Rush Limbaugh's straw man argument . During his monologue on how Trump plays the media, Rush mentioned that Harry Reid criticized Republicans after Trump's speech. Reid said "Donald Trump is standing on the platform of hate, and, I'm sorry to say, hate that the Republican Party has built for him."
Rush's knee-jerk reaction was disgusting and foolish. He criticized Republicans, saying "You Republicans, you can denounce Trump all day, all week, all month, and the Democrat Party and the media are still gonna say you laid the table for it. You can condemn Trump all you want, but it is not going to buy you any love or respect or admiration from the Drive-By Media and the Democrats."
That's breathtaking. When I've criticized Trump, it's been substantively. I've never done it to win a Democrat's admiration. Period. Apparently, Rush hasn't learned the first rule of holes because he kept digging:
Now, folks, the conventional wisdom is that Trump is scum, that Trump is a reprobate, that Trump is dangerous, that Trump is obscene, Trump's insane, Trump's a lunatic, Trump's dangerous, Trump's got to go. Why join in with that phrase? Why join that crowd? We never fall in with conventional wisdom here.
If Rush thinks that it's "conventional wisdom" to think that Trump's a lunatic or a reprobate or that he's dangerous, then Rush's brain isn't what it used to be. The definition for lunatic is "a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness." The definition for reprobate is "a depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person."
It wouldn't require Einstein to defend the notion that Trump is a reprobate or a lunatic. Therefore, it isn't conventional wisdom that Trump is a reprobate or a lunatic. It's just the indisputable truth.
It's time for someone to tell Limbaugh that his arguments about Mr. Trump are embarrassingly stupid. He used to be smart. While it's possible that he's still smart, it isn't showing lately.
Posted Tuesday, December 8, 2015 3:42 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Dec-15 09:42 AM
Trump is an outsider.
Outside that fabled "Big Tent" looking in.
And saying what he sees as resonant with those the pollsters, legitimately or not I do not know, call "likely Republican voters."
Should Trump be standing up talking AGAINST likely Republican voters? That would seem to be a waste of Trump's time, and when he does not waste time, he is not being illogical.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 11-Dec-15 06:32 PM
Rush is exactly right about how the Republican establishment (and the Democrats) (and the media, oops, redundant) don't understand why Trump is resonating. At their peril. John Hinderaker at Powerline gets it.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Dec-15 12:53 PM
I understand why Trump's resonating. People are frustrated as hell & Obama's policies are failing miserably. What the media, Rush included, are doing is accepting Trump's shotgun blasts as solutions. They aren't! They aren't even coherent thoughts. Thus far, Trump's proven he knows how to yank people's chains. The last I looked, that isn't an important qualification to being POTUS.
