This is must read stuff for any conservative leaning soul who believes the GOP is lost and confused and incapable of conjuring up a coherent and workable strategy for containing and countering the growing liberal ascendancy and that therefore the country is probably doomed - well, doomed may be a bit much - let's say increasingly locked into a seemingly inevitable decline - which is sort of the same as being doomed since an America that is not preeminent is more a thing of sadness than anything else.

Now it is possible this 'it's all downhill from here' scenario for the GOP is overstated - after all it's a virtual certainty that ideological blindness and arrogance and cupidity will cause the left to overplay it's hand resulting in moderate, common sense liberals and independents becoming increasingly sceptical of and disenchanted by Obama and all he represents [see Mrs O at Oscars for glaring, gag inducing example of this] - and the media and press may grow weary of their emasculating relationship with the administration and consequently actually start talking about its flaws and blemishes in terms that suggest critical objectivity is not a lost trade craft for the left leaning intelligentsia. Why just yesterday venerable lefty Bob Woodward assigned to Obama a species of 'madness' for the way he has acted in regards to pending sequester - watershed moment for the media viz their incestuous love of Obama? Doubt it, but we'll see.

Still, the last election laid bare some serious problems and threats facing the GOP and raised legitimate questions regarding whether republicans have the wherewithal to answer and address those problems - changing demographics, a culture that is increasingly liberal in its mindset and default behaviours, a biased media that has demonstrated under Obama that it is quite willing to throw away any pretension to integrity and objectivity if it believes a socialist nirvana is up for grabs, structural economic changes that have nothing at all to do with how bad a president Obama has been and threaten to do away with the notion of a contented, well fed, prosperous middle-class sharing in the wealth of the country, thus leading to increased inequality and the resentment and instability that comes with it - all these things pose serious threats to the long term viability of the GOP.

But it's the highly sophisticated electoral wehrmacht described in article referenced above that delivers the coup de grace here by drawing all these negative strands together and weaving them into a death shroud for conservatives. Democrats have for many years now drawn core strength from the poor, minorities, immigrants, women and youth, people dependent on the good graces of a nurturing government for either survival or emotional satiety - but it's the digital warmachine that is turning this sympathetic union into a juggernaut of woe for the GOP. And the big problem for the GOP is, sure, they can go out and copy the operations, the strategy and tactics and logistics of this electoral wehrmacht, they can do the whole sabermetrics thing and the exquisite fine tuning of messages and voter data bases etc etc - they can copy all that and maybe in the end approximate liberal successes with such - but the big problem for the GOP is that there are two key elements in above equation that cannot be usurped or imitated: changing demographics that favor the left - and media bias.

And I continue to believe that media bias is the real rat in the cellar [?] here - it's one thing to target Hispanics with a certain message in a certain way in order to coax them out to that voting booth - it's one thing to tell them that if they don't get out and vote for Obama the evil, privileged white guy will win and he'll take away their healthcare so that they die in the street and then with a sneer of contempt he'll ship back to Mexico the ones who manage to survive - sure, that's clever and all - but to me without a media bias authenticating that message, lending it a legitimacy, the tactic becomes a much less viable thing.

Now, yes, republicans can make a more concerted effort to nominate media friendly candidates and that will help - this is why I said last year that I suspected that the only potential GOP nominee who had a chance of beating Obama was Christie - so being smarter in that regards can certainly mitigate the media disadvantage - problem is I'm guessing that to really take the sting out of that bias the GOP is going to have to shove social conservatism off to the side and I see no way of that happening. Case in point - Mitch Daniels - when he was considering a run in 2012 and sent out the trial balloon of calling a truce in the 'culture wars' I reckon he did so not because it was a good idea in general but rather because he knew he had no chance to win the nomination nor subsequently any hope of beating Obama without such a guarantee - and sadly of course the mandarins of moral absolutism promptly shot that balloon down and Daniels walked away. Conservatives will forever be fighting with one hand tied behind their backs if quality candidates like Daniels cannot get through the primary process without having to constantly parade their social conservative bona vides garishly about.

I wonder if this is what explains Christie's actions - he's almost gone out of his way to antagonize the uber right so that one imagines that there's now no path to the presidency for him that runs through a GOP primary - but possibly he felt that was always the case regardless and he's trying to craft a third way for himself - or maybe he thinks the only way to force the GOP into a needed self correction is by drawing the extremists out into the open in order to put their ultimate vulnerabilities on display, thereby laying before the conservative establishment a stark choice. Look what happened when CPAC in a fit of pique refused to invite him to their big party later in the month - several big time conservatives stood up and said they were acting like fools. To me Christie is too good of a politician and has made too clear his desire to be president for me not to see a method to his madness here.

"... it's not surprising after all that liberals should want to abrogate the second amendment since in surrendering claims to independent thought and untethered speech for the greater glory of the Obama they've already essentially rendered null and void the first..."

Problem for Hagel is - one of the many problems for Hagel is that he has now gone on record as maintaining he did not or has no memory of saying the various 'anti-Israeli' things he has been accused of saying - so if confirmed and a video pops up of him indeed saying these things [not a small likelihood given the times] that's gonna cause some serious problems for Obama and his foreign policy agenda. And that's what's striking about this - if you're Obama, why on earth would you stick with the guy [or nominate him in the first place] since you're inviting complications that were and are not necessary? Well the answer to that is what I said all along the meaning of the Hagel nomination was - Obama sees a big political win for him in demagoguing a GOP filibustering of one of their own, and a decorated veteran at that - he doesn't care about some 'embarrassing' fallout down the road because he believes, and rightly so, that the press and media will never hold him accountable for any of it. Don't get me wrong - I entirely believe Obama and Hagel are on the same page foreign policy wise etc etc - but to me it has always been about the political win Obama sees coming his way when he gets to demagogue a GOP filibuster - I mean, why else risk the 'complications' you're setting yourself up for with Hagel? Because there are no risks of real consequence in Obama's mind: he gets his political victory and if it turns into a dumpster fire later on, well, so what? When has the press ever held Obama accountable for his failings and missteps? They got annoyed with him not letting them follow along as he played golf with Tiger - Benghazi they don't care about, but Tiger Woods, now that's a story and they're pissed off about missing it. Jesus. Why wouldn't Obama play it this way - makes complete sense given his priorities and given that for good reason he believes he can get the media to do whatever he wants them to do. I absolutely get what he's thinking - I find it totally reprehensible and think the man an atrociously bad president - but I get it.

With evidence appearing that not only places Iran as a spectator at recent North Korean nuke test but also probably as a financier of the project, it brought to mind a possibility I had wondered about a few years ago - namely, that in order to forestall preemptive Israeli attack on its nuclear program Iran brings in a bomb from elsewhere, detonates it as if they were testing a device they had developed themselves, and then says to israel “ok, call off the dogs, we’ve already got thing you don’t want us to have”.

Sure, there’s all kinds of problems with that scenario - still, not an impossibility I’d think - and it makes clear something that cannot be denied: any nuclear device and delivery system thereof that North Korea develops is perforce a technology that belongs to whomever wants it and can get access to it - Iran wants it and apparently they have access of a sort - it’s no longer just Lil’ Kim’s bomb.

Which is why I’ve always argued that we should be considering very seriously the option of, when NK gets its crazy on and shoots off a rocket, blowing that sucker out of the sky. To me it’s a very dangerous game allowing these guys to perfect this technology so that they can constantly up the ante - sure, intervention is full of dangers too - but allowing this constant escalation of threats is highly problematic, eventually it acquires a momentum and logic all its own and forces you into a rather unpleasant corner: intervene into a now nuclearized cesspool, or let the proliferation happen.

Italy having an election - whore mongering Berlusconi a candidate and polling half decently - ok - and I’m supposed to take this country seriously? Why doesn’t northern Europe just get it over with and break away from the south, form a northern EU as it were, ‘cause the south is obviously lost, right? But wait, with the European socialist model falling apart everywhere France just went ahead and elected a socialist very much in keeping with that model - so maybe a Scandinavian/Bavarian EU? Oh my - but c’mon, Berlusconi? Really? This has to be something of a nadir for Western democracy. Electorates it seems are increasingly becoming detached from reality - it’s like politics has devolved into that feel good movie you go see in order to take your mind off your troubles. It’s hard to avoid the impression that Western democracies are at a crossroads where the tension between what needs to be done and what an ignorant, gullible electorate being pandered to by delusional politicians is willing to accept being done is slowly fracturing the system.

For example take the illegal immigration problem in the US - consequent to pressures which are nakedly political everyone now is basically accepting the liberal point of view that amnesty is the only solution - but what if amnesty is a mistake? What if the best solution is to throw all the illegals out of the country? I’m not saying that is the best solution - I’m saying what if it is the best solution for the long term well being of the country? Say you could step away from time and look ahead 50 post amnesty years and see that, yep, sure enough, amnesty was a real bad idea - if you’re a conservative politician having been granted this vision of the future and you went with your dire warning before the American electorate as it exists today, with the liberal media howling execrations down on you and Obama pontificating against your inveterate evilness as he lays hands upon his genuflecting minions, you’d be destroyed, your life as a nationally viable political force would be over and it wouldn't matter one little bit whether or not you were right.

Not sure about drawing a line from the clown Berlusconi to amnesty in America - but one sees the point - what happens if Western democracies have gotten to the point where what needs to be done cannot be done because there’s no way to convince a governing plurality of the necessity of these things being done? To me you can see that tension shaking our polities right now - and it’s really not hard to imagine things eventually turning quite ugly.

“... the wonder of what we are and have been as a people whittled down into insignificance by the politically correct... but then I do like to gin up outrage at the spectre of the uber left academy gleefully hacking away at the roots of Western Civilization til we get to the point where it will seem legitimate to consider the study of the Magna Carta inappropriate since there were no women or people of color present at the signing of it... hell, while you’re at it delimit the constitution as well under the astute auspices of that same, insipid idiocy... toss everything into upheaval for the world can be made as small as we need it to be in order to justify the things we want so badly to believe...”

Well, this is depressing stuff - but not surprising - which deepens the despair since sure as shit it will come as a surprise to many a naive soul. The dysfunctional core of political correctness laid bare - if you could have had a serious conversation about the ‘muslim problem’ in Europe 20 or 30 years ago maybe you avoid the current farce - but dare try and have that conversation and you were labeled a racist [how like Obama's America that]. And if you think Europe doesn’t have a muslim problem then you’re just as delusional as those naive souls who convinced themselves that the Arab Spring would usher in a new age of openness and modernity and personal freedom for those laboring under the regressive tyranny of Islamic governance. Political correctness shuts down, through imputation of shame, debate over the truth of a proposition in order to preserve a falsehood one has become dependent on - there’s a quaint Cartesianism to it: I think it therefore it must be regardless of whether or not it actually is.

Nice post at WSJ on Obama's state of the union - I tend to like Henninger when he goes after Obama because he seems to share my opinion of the guy as one of the greatest con men ever - conning an entire nation of ostensibly free people into committing suicide [well, half of them anyways] - he's the Rev Jim Jones exponentially rarefied into a god of utter deceit and delusion. The rabid pagans of ancient times could not have conceived of a more devious and pernicious deity. Bravo.

"What exactly was Obama thinking when it came to Israel anyway?" he asked as if the irony of expecting an honest answer were ironically lost on him and he found that amusing without caring why. "Now, understand" he continued, "I know as a liberal you're challenged veracity-wise by your politics... but I figure a lie is sometimes the most revealing truth of all... so feel free to keep to your dishonest inclinations and just tell me what it is you think you think." The queried quarry smiled wryly but in a cringing sort of way that made him look like a man who thought he looked like a man who absolutely knew something he certainly didn't and felt there was a kind of strength in that, and accordingly said nothing. Silence held each a moment, and then: "Ok, let me tell you how I saw it... it was my impression that Obama, newly adorned with the shimmering mantle of global celebrity and having ascended a throne-like stage of obsequious renown, was of a mind to imagine that the sheer wonderfulness of his persona could sway, draw inexorably the Israeli electorate to his cause and force Netanyahu to bend to his wishes. The rough outlines of the equation upon which the miscalculation would be strung seemed to be: reach out to the Muslims by apologizing for the egregious Americaness of Bush, say some nice things about the Caliphate of Cordoba to remind the hesitant that no history is so dark that it can't shed a little light occasionally, talk tough to the Israeli hardliners so as to convince the now remarkably pliant Muslims that hope and change were more than just words if repeated often enough by someone as astonishingly wonderful as he, and then turn to moderate Israelis, seduced into wistful longing by the charms of his charm, and hold up to their cozened hearts the now sharply delineated choice: the light of peace and universal fellowship through Obama, the darkness of war and unending division through Netanyahu." The man shifted uncomfortably, his smile pinched into a vague grimace. "That's the way I saw it. Explain to me how I was wrong..."

Problem for China is - and this was pointed out to me by a wise Marine - but it’s so obvious once you think about it - problem for China is they wield no soft power - no one wants to be them, be like them, speak their language, mimic their ways, dynastic China of a thousand years ago was a much more influential power than the Middle Kingdom of today - sure there are autocrats out there who would like to copy the Chinese way of centrally managed capitalism, they’d like to believe they can maintain their dictatorships and be economically successful at the same time - but no one wants to be China - everyone wanted to be America - they envied the freedom, the way of life, the opportunity, the cultural artifacts, the music, the movies, the language, the intoxicating energy of the place - America had [and still has] soft power galore - so to a lesser degree did England, although as a traditional imperial power that’s a complicated story [but what is India without the British Raj - not that it's all that much to write home about with it] - do a poll now of Hong Kong and ask if they wished they were still under British rule rather than Chinese and we know what their answer would be. Rome had soft power - although possibly that’s to stretch the definition of it a bit too far - but reality is regardless of the brutal wars on the Gauls etc etc when the nascent states of Europe had thrown off the domination of Rome they still wanted to be like Rome - Latin remained the language of officialdom, they retained or imitated its laws, its civil mannerisms, its architecture - and they embraced its church.

So China has no soft power to wield, and that’s a problem - not just for them, for us. Geography is not their friend - like imperial Germany they’re an aspiring great power with economic clout but hemmed in and surrounded by enemies and peer or near peer competitors who don't trust them and in some cases outright dislike them. Not to say that China is destined to follow the same path of imperial Germany - but would be foolish to pretend it’s not possible, no? After all, if China cannot extend a dominating influence beyond the island chains then great power status is like to elude them - and without soft power, the only way to gain that influence is either through economic coercion or military force. And that’s a problem, for them and for us.

Hey, maybe the PLA should think about getting some practice in on North Korea - I jest of course [?] but tongue not entirely cheeked - I’m thinking of two things here - possibility that China is getting sick and tired of NK’s unending game of crazy - and then fact, that I’m guessing troubles the PLA greatly, that no matter how quickly they run in trying to catch up to the US military one deficit they will struggle to overcome is huge advantage in practical, real world operational experience when it comes to the modern way of war that the US military holds over them - hell, the US [with some help from the Wehrmacht] essentially invented the modern way of war - and has a damn lot of experience making it work - last time PLA saw any real world experience of war was more than 30 years ago against Vietnam and they got their ass kicked - so this must be a deficit that does not sit at all well with the mavens guiding Chinese military wherewithals.

Now of course, to my mind anyways, China has encouraged the crazies of North Korea - they obviously saw an upside to them developing missile technology and nuclear technology - and I say that because even though they chastise them for these developments they don’t really do anything about it - no punishment follows, which I interpret as encouragement. But now there is possibly an indication, with NK talking about another nuclear test and releasing absolutely deranged sounding diatribes against South Korea and the US, there’s an indication possibly that China’s starting to become uneasy with the provocations and heated rhetoric, as if they fear that spurred by some incident things could quickly spin out of control - or maybe they fear that Lil’ Kim is vulnerable to being roughed up by the military and consequently forced into some highly regrettable missteps.

So get in a little practice and invade the country - you know China has plans should such a thing become necessary - chaos could come to the Hermit Kingdom in a relative flash and it’s not like China would stand there and do nothing, if only because they don’t want South Korea, a US ally, filling the void and encroaching on their border.

Now I’m talking a bit of silliness here, sure - still, this wide experiential gap separating the PLA and the US military has got to be a concern for them - and for us too - yes, in one sense it’s to our advantage - but on the other hand I’d say it sharply increases the chances of a serious miscalculation by the PLA that leads to something nasty that easily could have been avoided. Then again, China invades North Korea and it goes well, could lead to some dangerous over confidence - and let's not forget the message a highly efficient take over of North Korea would send to China's competitors viz the pivotal island chains.

Of course, on second thought, assuming this farfetched scenario ever played out, China would be in a position of essentially owning North Korea - putting them then in the position of having to say no to a reunification with the South - which would never happen [at least I don't think could ever happen] - so, fun to think about but, ah, forget everything I said - well, except for that experiential gap separating the PLA and the US military - that problem is real.

I see people starting to become concerned over Obama’s drone wars - to which I say, ah... took you long enough. I’ve always been highly sceptical of Obama’s end game here - I’ve been in several arguments with conservatives no less who in a state of neoconish confusion it seems fell prone to praising Obama’s aggressive use of drones, me remonstrating with heavy heart are you people nuts? do you not see what’s going on here? - and I’m not even talking about the extra-judicial abuse, which one guesses is something worth being disturbed by - certainly the duplicitous hypocrisy of it rankles since Obama is supposedly one of the bringers of light and therefore ostensibly can do no evil - David Brooks assured me of this - I’m talking about Obama’s plan to dramatically change the posture and mission of the American military so he [or an acolyte that follows] can eventually gut it. That’s what Libya was about, that’s what the drone wars are about - a hi tech police force, that’s the uber liberal dream of a downsized, neutered American military. Two positive outcomes from that if you’re ubered in your liberalism: one, the left views the American military as a force for evil, not good, and its size and power a seductive, jingoistic invite to imperialist [don’t forget racist] overreach - reduce its size and power and all the bad stuff magically goes away [if you're an idiot]; and two, money diverted from the Pentagon can feed the social welfare state, keep the ‘blue model’ alive and well [providing clever use of smoke and mirrors] in the earnest young hearts of the sentimental and wistful.

It’s this whole European thing, or a version thereof - cut back the military, jack up taxes on the most productive elements of your society, and then use that money [and, like I said, lots of smoke and mirrors] to subsidize a large bureaucratic state that hands out services to the least productive elements of your society in order to keep them ‘happy’, ie - placated. That’s what single payer, universal healthcare is about - it’s not about improving peoples lives - and it’s definitely not about improving healthcare - it’s about creating a dependent underclass that feels eternally grateful and therefore indebted to the state that cares for it and consequently can be relied on to keep the enlightened proto-autocrats who run the state in power until which time evil conservatives, outnumbered, wither and die and the proto-autocrats then flower into full fledged despots [but good despots you understand - imagine a president Angelina Jolie - something like that].

Of course problem is Europe got away with playing this sort of shell game, of cutting back it’s militaries to a dysfunctional smallness, because America was there to backstop any nonsense going on - Europe’s militaries are just show horses now - hell, the French can’t even do Mali without some American help, and Mali’s just a couple of thousand Islamists running around the desert - god help them should these hapless fucks pick up a bit of logistical support from their Jihadi friends in the form of IEDs, MANPADs and RPGs - not to mention a few motivated virgin seekers decked out in exploding underwear. And so the problem then is: if liberals have the same plans more or less for the American military, who will be the backstop then? Unilateral disarmament is it? Sure we can trust the Chinese to look after our interests.

Don’t forget Obama referenced Chamberlain in his inauguration speech - some thought it an oversight - I thought it was deliberate - peace in our time - China wants to become great power and it can’t do that, to its way of thinking, without controlling the first and I’m guessing second island chains - to do that it needs to push the US out of the way so that it can coerce, through economic or military force [or both], Japan and Taiwan and South Korea and etc etc into acquiescence, acceptance of writing on great wall - Obama announced an Asia pivot but then doesn’t make any move to pay for it, just the opposite actually - so merely rhetoric it was [as I said it would be at the time] - Chinese aren’t fools, they see what’s going on - they targeted a Japanese destroyer the other day, a rather astounding provocation - for Obama, Chamberlain wasn’t wrong, he was just unlucky with his history - but Dear Leader will be more favored, his minions and maenads verily testify to it - peace in our time - ironically Obama imagines getting there means first blowing stuff up with drones.

“... well, for sure I’ll be called all sorts of bad names for having the gall to even suggest such a thing, but a little honesty is always to be appreciated I think, given the whoreson insincerity currently holding sway... and so let’s be honest... if the New York Times were a pro gun rights advocate and a significant, overwhelming amount of the gun violence plaguing the nation were being perpetrated by crime addled good ol’ boys south of the Mason Dixon, who doubts that the running commentary spooled daily from the Grey Lady would be America doesn’t have a gun problem, America has a good ol’ boys problem?... I’d like to think that an honest person wouldn’t call that crazy talk because, let’s face it, all the blather we endure these days really isn’t about gun control is it, it’s really about controlling opinions and inconvenient points of view, it’s about a political agenda... it’s my guess that you could grant liberals their fond wishes, get rid of the second amendment, make all guns not being carried by bodyguards protecting the elite illegal, and you’d see little or no drop in violent crime in America outside the norm... hell, you might even see an increase... and I’m wondering, if such happened, if you consigned the right to bear to the dustbin of history and it accomplished nothing aside from making Piers Morgan and his blithering idiot ilk happy, I’m wondering what are the odds the lefty rabble of talking heads would admit their error and re-embrace the wisdom of the founding fathers?... oh, how we laugh with such sadness... I do at least hope then they will be consistent in their thinking and move on to the banning of alcohol because I’m not sure but it must be true that many, many more innocent lives are swept away by drunk drivers each year than are by faux assault rifles in the hands of lunatics...”

Did Chuck Hagel let Obama's Iran policy cat out of the bag yesterday when he said he agreed with the president's embrace of containment over prevention viz Persia's nuke ambitions? He later corrected himself and people are treating it as a misspeaking - but what if it was a slip that revealed substance of actual conversation with Obama regarding Mideast policy? I've always believed Obama is telling a bold faced lie when he asserts the military option is on the table when it comes to Iran - he has no intention of bombing Iran - his goal in pretending he does is trying to hold Israel back long enough so that an attack is no longer an option for them either - I don't think Bibi's falling for that one, but whatever - point is I'd say Hagel just let the truth slip out here [not an intellectual powerhouse, is he] - Obama's ultimate goal is containment and somehow tricking or bullying Israel into accepting that reality.

Remember, Hagel promotes Ike's approach to the Suez Crisis as the way to deal with Israel - get tough with them, insist they comply and they will back down. Problem is Israel backing down on Suez did nothing to heal or simply ameliorate the dysfunction roiling Muslim polities then and still nor did it do much for Israel, a fact which Israel is painfully aware of since you can probably trace the beginnings of the wars of '67 and '73 to dynamics set in motion or emboldened by the way Suez was resolved. Now, yes, war with the Soviets was avoided and one can make cogent arguments either way regarding whether Ike and Dulles deserve credit for that or the likelihood of such a thing anyway - but the Mideast stayed a festering bog spewing out miasmic clouds and sundry other ills to this day. Is Hagel arguing that if we don't press Israel to backdown, force them into an unpopular [not to mention unworkable] peace they will drag us into a big war we want no part of and that a 'Suez' approach is the only way to avoid that war? I don't see it - there's no Soviet-like power to worry about - China's not getting involved - all the Sunni Arab states would welcome an attack on the feared/reviled Persian apostates - and the Gulf Wars have changed everything: the first made clear to all aggressor parties that you don't want to give the US an excuse to be dropping bombs on you and the second made clear to us that invasion and subsequent occupation, especially when it comes to Muslim polities, is kinda hard so you wanna try and avoid such if it ain't necessary to the goal - point being, there's no 'big' war Israel can drag us into [or, at least, not one that likely wasn't gonna happen anyway] - Iran wants no part of a war with the US - sure, Israel bombs their nuke sites there'll indeed be retaliation but I'm pretty confident it will be calibrated to avoid provoking a reciprocating onslaught of American JDAMs and cruise missiles that Iran lacks the ability to get out of the way of.

No, all the Ike/Obama/Hagel approach to Israel gets you is what we got now - emboldened Islamists and Israel feeling increasingly threatened so that chances for compromise fall while chances for conflict rise.