Harry Reid and what's wrong with Washington

Andrew Johnson, writing at The Corner:

Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appears to have believed that the ends justified the means when he used the Senate chamber to level unsubstantiated accusations against the Koch brothers and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. 

In his first television interview since announcing his retirement last week, Reid shrugged off criticism that his infamous claim, without any evidence, that Romney never paid any taxes was “McCarthyite” and a reflection of what is wrong with Washington.

“Well, they can call it whatever they want,” a coy Reid told CNN on Tuesday. “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

This is a but a modest example of the cynical and shameful way Harry Reid does business. He is a liar and a bully, and a particularly loathsome human being. He is, indeed, "a reflection of what is wrong with Washington."

He is a reflection of something else, however, which is far more troubling. He is a reflection of us.

Consider that Reid's lack of character is no secret. There's a reason they call him "Dirty Harry." Yet his Nevada constituents have endorsed his corruption each election for nearly three decades. His Democratic colleagues have repeatedly chosen him as their leader, granting him one of the longest runs as Majority leader in Senate history.

Now, as Reid retires, will come the praise and honorifics. We can look forward to magazine articles, television segments, and even books lauding his effective leadership and unwavering dedication as a public servant. The lies and corruption will be largely be ignored or, worse, lauded as hallmarks of his "tenacity" and "fierce commitment" to fighting for those who couldn't fight for themselves. Good Ol' Harry. He may have been a thug, but that's what it takes to get anything done in Washington!

I'm tempted to document how the vast majority of liars, bullies, and thugs seem to amass on the political Left, and how Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) enable, support, and endorse them. But I don't want to distract from this one, somber point:

Yes, Harry Reid reflects what is wrong with Washington. But who sent him there? Who gave him all that power to corrupt and abuse? The thing is that Harry Reid, and all the other miscreants in Washington are, in every sense of the word, our representatives. They reflect us. And that is what's wrong with Washington.

Foreign policy, the next four years

Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is talking much about foreign policy these days. This is understandable given the state of the economy. Still, it's important to understand the candidate's foreign policy positions, as back burner issues have an uncanny habit of turning into crises when we're not looking.

Jackson Diehl has put together a helpful summary of what he believes are "big and bright" differences between Obama and Romney on matters abroad. Here are the bullet points:

• Russia: Obama is committed to striking a deal with Putin to reduce nuclear stockpiles and intends to offer compromises on NATO missile defense to bring this about. Romney intends to do the opposite, holding nuclear capabilities where they are and increasing missile defense.
• Afghanistan: Both candidates support plans to withdraw forces by the end of 2014. However, Obama is likely to order a cut in 2013, while Romney will follow the advice of U.S. generals to maintain troop levels through the end of next year.
• Syria: Obama rejects proposals to set up safe zones for civilians or supply weapons to the rebels. Romney is in favor of arming the rebels.
• Iran: Obama will likely use force only after the Iranians start building a bomb. Romney will likely act if Iran gets close to obtaining all the materials for a bomb.
• Israel-Palestine: Obama remains eager for the establishment of a Palestinian state, despite failing in his first-term attempts. Look for him to try again in a second term. Romney is not likely to push on this front.

With these having been documented as the things to watch, look for the real crisis to emerge in North Korea, China, or Latin America.

Socialism, coming soon to a country near you

President Obama, while villifying [sic] Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back. “I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry."

 Several points here...

First, of course the auto industry came "roaring back." You gave them 85 billion dollars!

What company isn't going to come "roaring back" if you slip them a cool 85 billion? Hell, even Solyndra would be "roaring back" if we'd given them 85 billion tax payer dollars instead of a measly half a billion.

Second:

The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.

In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.

The report may still underestimate the losses.

Note that this report comes from "the Obama administration." So Obama is out touting the "success" of a project that his own people are saying is costing tax payers $25 billion and counting. Worse, he's vowing to do the same thing "in every industry." I'm thinking this could get expensive.

And finally, can we finally stop pretending that Obama is not a socialist?

“Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry."

Recall that Obama didn't just give GM and Chrysler a boat load of our money. He also went in and took over operations. He fired managers, closed down plants, forced mergers, and illegally took money from share holders and gave it to the unions. He literally put a private company under government control. And now he wants to do this in every industry.

I'm increasingly convinced the guy is a Marxist at heart, who has been forced to give capitalism a nod because he knows hard core Marxism won't fly in America. But that aside, can there be any doubt, based on his own words, that he is a socialist?

I recently came across a great G.K. Chesterton quote: "Liberalism is communism in slow motion."

That so describes what we are seeing unfold before our very eyes.

Update:  "a taxpayer loss of $25 billion on the auto bailout isn't so much an estimate as a wish." (Senator Blutarsky via Instapundit)

Team Obama's vicious lies

Yesterday I commented on Team Obama's use of the name "Romney Hood" to mock Mitt Romney's economic proposals. While Obama relied on a single, dubious report to mischaracterize Romney's policies, the attempt to taint the plan by branding it in such a way was a sharp move from a marketing/propaganda perspective. I felt that, should the label stick, it could do some real damage, and I suggested that, ironically, Obama's own ineptitude might be Romney's strongest ally in making sure it didn't.

Well, only a day later and I'm proven right, though not in the way I thought I would be. Absolutely no one is talking about "Romney Hood" today, as Team Obama managed to steal it's own thunder by running what Business Insider calls "the most vicious ad of the 2012 campaign." This is a vile ad, that stops just short of accusing Mitt Romney of the murder of a steel worker's wife. But, as CNN points out, not only is the ad "outrageous," it's "inaccurate" as well.

Rather than walk through all the inaccuracies here, I recommend that you simply watch the ad, then check the timeline provided by Conservative Review:

• 1999 – Romney leaves Bain to run the 2002 Olympics (paid leave of absence)
• 2001 – GST goes bankrupt
• 2002 – Joe Soptic laid off (by Jonathan Lavine, an Obama bundler…not Mitt Romney), Soptic’s wife does not lose health insurance
• 2002 or 2003 – Joe Soptic’s wife laid off from her own job and loses her own health insurance
• 2006 – Soptic’s wife dies of lung cancer previously undiscovered because she refused to go to the doctor

I've been critical of Team Romney's tactics in past -- for example when they edited a clip of Obama quoting an aide of John McCain to give the impression that the words were actually Obama's. That was sleazy and dishonest, and is one reason why I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney.

But this new Obama ad is truly reprehensible. It's looking like it may blow up in his face, and every decent person should be hoping it does. They say elections have consequences. Well, vile and dishonest campaigning should have consequences too. If Americans don't start holding candidates responsible, then we get what we get.

Update [8/10/12]: It just gets worse:

One day after claiming the Obama campaign had no knowledge of the story of the man included in a  pro-Obama super PAC ad, spokeswoman Jen Psaki admitted the campaign had worked with him before.

A Romney spokesman said,

The Obama campaign has now admitted that it lied to the media and the American people in a disgraceful attempt to conceal their connection to this shameful smear. Americans deserve better – they deserve a president who’s willing to run an honest campaign and be honest about his own record.

That sounds spot on.

Obama's fairy tales shouldn't be taken lightly

From a WSJ editorial:

As he escalates his class war re-election campaign, President Obama has taken to calling Mitt Romney's economic plan "Robin Hood in reverse" or "Romney Hood." The charge is that even though Mr. Romney is proposing to cut tax rates for everybody across the board, Mr. Romney will finance this by imposing a tax increase on the middle class.

The Journal goes on to explain that Obama's source for this claim is "a single study by the Tax Policy Center, a liberal think tank that has long opposed cutting income tax rates." It then proceeds to dismantle the study piece by piece and show that it's utter nonsense. Far from dry reading, it's one of the most devastating and entertaining take downs I've read in quite a while. I recommend it.

But setting the facts aside for a moment, I have to say that Team Obama has come up with something pretty brilliant here. Dubbing Romney's proposal "Romney Hood" is a great stroke of marketing and propaganda. The phrase is clever, evocative, and highly memorable. I'm already imagining the caricatures of Romney romping through the inner cities, clad in green tights and felt cap, relieving the poor of their meager possessions. I bet you are too. Now try to get that image out of your head.

Yes, substantive or not, this mockery has the potential to gain legs and be a real problem for Romney. If it takes hold, it could suck all the oxygen out of the campaign, taking the focus off Obama's record on jobs, the economy, and a handful of major scandals that are only now managing to percolate through the filter of the liberal media and into public awareness.

Ironically, Obama himself may be Romney's biggest ally in preventing this from happening. Despite all the hype surrounding the force of Obama's personality, his public speaking prowess, and his superior intellect, there's very little evidence that any of it matches the reality. He's still reading the same canned speeches he was three years ago. He's managed to take a flagging economy and make it appreciably worse. And his purported abilities to influence and persuade have been found lacking in everything from his attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago to his selling of Obamacare, which remains as unpopular now as it did before he launched his relentless speaking tour to promote it. In short, there is a huge Obama fatigue factor; we're simply tired of listening to the guy.

Still, Romney would be foolish to rely on his opponent's fecklessness to fend off what could be a game changer for Obama. As always, the media will have Obama's back. Romney needs to respond quickly and decisively, and keep the focus on Obama's performance.

Romney will beat Obama handily

I'm not especially good at predicting political outcomes, but I'll go out on a limb early and predict that Romney will beat Obama handily in November. Ask me to define "handily" and I'll hedge a bit. I don't know. But I don't think Obama will win. And I don't think it will be a squeaker. Nor do I think it will be a blow out. Four or five points maybe? Or is that considered a landslide these days? That's probably a bit too high. Maybe three points. I don't know. I've got a very poor memory for these things, so I've got nothing to compare it to. So a "handy" win, a few points -- not a squeaker; not a blowout -- is my guess.

Here's my thinking:

Imagine 20 people who voted for McCain last time. How many of them are thinking, Gee, Obama's done such a good job that he deserves to be reelected. I didn't vote for him last time, but he's really won me over?

Now imagine 20 people who voted for Obama last time. How many of them are thinking, Boy did I get suckered. This guy just wasn't ready. Bush may have got us in trouble, but this guy promised to make things better and now they're worse?

My take is that not very many McCain voters have been impressed with Obama's first term, and that quite a number of Obama voters are disappointed with his performance. I'm not sure how many of them are disillusioned enough to switch sides this time, but I'm thinking it's more than will go the other way by a "handy" amount.

Most polls say differently, predicting a close race with Obama slightly ahead, so maybe I'm all wet. But a lot of polling companies are including a lot more Democrats than Republicans in their surveys, and that makes things look a lot better for Obama than they are. Also, I think some who have decided on Romney or are on the fence are saying they will vote for Obama because they fear being labeled a racist.

Anyway, I saw a Gallop poll today that seems to support my thinking:

Eighty-six percent of voters who say they voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are backing Obama again this year, a smaller proportion than the 92% of 2008 John McCain voters who are supporting 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Nine percent of 2008 Obama voters have switched to supporting Romney this year, while 5% of McCain voters have switched to Obama.

As I said, I'm not especially good at prognosticating these types of things, but I thought it would be fun to stick my neck out. Maybe I'll get it right this time.

I hope I am, because I'm definitely in the camp that considers Obama a disaster. Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of Romney either, so while I think Romney is a much better choice than Obama, I'm afraid we lose either way. It's the difference between shooting yourself in the foot and stabbing yourself in the heart. I'll vote for the bullet in the foot, but I'm not happy about.