Losing his party

The assumption of Obama as the automatic Democratic Party nominee in 2012 takes another hit:

If you haven’t read today’s Wall Street Journal column by Senator James Webb (D-VA), you owe it to yourself. The key line is this one, where Webb argues that our “present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.”

What makes it key is: Why now? Why write this column today? What brought this particular issue out at this particular moment?

These questions are important, because Webb’s column is a virtual declaration of war on President Obama — at a time when Obama’s head must be already spinning after two weeks of racial strife from the NAACP and Andrew Breitbart. And a “recovery summer” that’s anything but. So it’s not often I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan, and when I do — even only partly so, like today — I always wash afterwards. But when Buchanan says that the White House is in a “panic” because it “fears it is losing white America,” he’s absolutely right.

But what Obama really ought to fear is losing his own party — because Webb’s column is just the most recent sign.

I just thought it was worth pointing this out, given that it appeared precisely one day after I was accused of being a political moron for stating that Obama is going to lose control of his party and will pushed to the exits during the 2012 Democratic primary, presumably in favor of the Lizard Queen. Now, I could quite clearly be wrong, and after all, the safe bet is to assume the status quo. After all, my original prediction of Obama as a one-term president is looking pretty good right now and I could have simply rolled with that if I was at all concerned about credibility as a political analyst.

But I’m not a political analyst and I find it much more interesting to follow trains of thought as they happen to occur. Go read Nate Silver and listen to his many convoluted explanations of why the polls prove the Democrats will hold the House and Senate this fall if you want professional political analysis. (My opinion is that they’ll lose both.) The point is that when you look at where the economy appears to be headed in the next two years and combine that with the probable Democratic electoral debacle this fall as well as the growing panic among Democratic office-holders and Obama’s increasingly disastrous poll numbers, it adds up to what I see as an unusually volatile Democratic primary.

The original Internet tough guy

Spencer Ackerman on Michael Ledeen:

Let’s just throw Ledeen against a wall. Or, pace Dr. Alterman, throw him through a plate glass window. I’ll bet a little spot of violence would shut him right the fuck up, as with most bullies.

And to Lenny Ben-David:

Lenny Ben-David, you and I will meet someday, face to face. I hope it comes very soon. I promise you it will be an unforgettable experience.

In case you’re interested, here is that intimidating hard man, Spencer Ackerman.

He looks like Rambo, the Punisher, and Ivan Drago all rolled into one awesome, genetically-engineered fighting beast, doesn’t he? Spencer – seriously dude, you do know your name is Spencer, right? – if you would genuinely like to engage in a little spot of violence with a right-winger, I would like to cordially invite you to step into the octagon for two minutes of full-contact violence with me. I’d offer more, but frankly, I doubt you’ll make it that long. No bullying, no talking, no posturing on the Internet, just straight-up MMA action until one party taps out or is rendered unconscious.

Speaking as a former full-contact martial artist who has been knocked out, had ribs, thumbs, ankle, nose, toes, and feet broken, and been knocked down by a punch or a kick at least 200 times, I really find these pugnacious little media pipsqueaks who have never taken nor thrown a punch in their lives to be tremendously tiresome.

Sports Guy Game

Despite being a natural negger, Bill Simmons demonstrates that he’s not only a Delta, but he doesn’t actually understand the concept of Game:

Q: As a female, I usually have a hard time admitting that I read your articles. I have a harder time admitting that I think you’re hilarious. I feel like I should despise you on principle, because let’s be honest, you’re a pig. But I do like you. More than I care to admit. I find myself referencing you in everyday conversation. If I can use you to back up what I’m saying, I think it has more weight. And when guys find out I like you, they love it (thanks for that). So my question is, how do you do it? How have you managed to make a self-respecting woman eagerly await you next column, even though I’ve come to expect you to have at least one disrespectful comment in there?
— Amanda, Richmond

SG: Typical e-mail from a female reader: expresses her disgust, insults me, changes her mind three times and ultimately admits that she can’t live without me. I don’t blame Amanda because she’s been weaned on 20 years of chick flicks, and the one rule of chick flicks is this: “Find the one guy who either drives you crazy or you can’t have, then fall madly in love with him even though you know it’s completely wrong.”

Incorrect. Amanda doesn’t read the Sports Guy because of the chick flicks, the chick flicks are a hamster rationalization of the natural female tendency to be drawn to men who don’t put them on pedestals. Throw in the DHV aspect of fame – the woman wouldn’t find the column so irresistible if it wasn’t by a columnist who has rightly become famous by virtue of taking his talents to ESPN – and it’s quite natural that she would like it despite finding it despicable on principle.

I used to be puzzled when women would send me emails complaining about my columns… accompanied by their pictures. WTF? Now, in light of Game theory, it makes considerably more sense. Of course, it doesn’t happen as often now that my feminist critics of yore are all deathly afraid of provoking public responses to their criticism. It’s been rather interesting to see how the amount of public criticism has fallen dramatically while the daily blog readership has continued to steadily grow.

Better late than never

Joseph Farah flips on the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq:

For the life of me, I cannot begin to understand our objectives in either Iraq or Afghanistan any more.

Because I appreciate the sacrifice our men and women are making over there, it is with a heavy heart that I make this proclamation. But enough is enough. We have spent over $1 trillion on these two wars and spilled far too much American blood. We are obviously unwilling as a country to do what is necessary to kill the bad guys in either place, so what is the point? Isn’t it time to declare victory and get out? What is the point? Can someone, anyone, tell me?

I admit I was a supporter of both of these campaigns. I was obviously wrong.

Being one who flipped on the Iraqi War in 2004, I’m hardly in any position to condemn latecomers. I made the mistake of supporting the war under the misconception that the ceasefire Hussein had violated was an agreement between Iraq and the USA, (it was actually an agreement between Iraq and the UN and therefore had absolutely nothing to do with the USA or its national security), but I was always against any potential military occupation. Pat Buchanan, to his credit, was one of the very few who had it right from the start. As for Afghanistan, we never had any business fighting the Taliban in the first place, much less attempting to occupy the country.

Anyhow, it’s good to see relatively mainstream Republicans beginning to join the libertarians in opposing the ongoing occupations. What a pity that the anti-war Democrats have again decided that they like war after all so long as a Democrat is the Commander-in-Chief. But given the history of 20th century American military conflict, it is a mystery that anyone believes Democrats are anti-war.

WWI – Wilson (D)
WWII – Roosevelt (D)
Korea – Truman (D)
Vietnam – Johnson (D)

That is not the track record of an antiwar party. Which, of course, is why I predicted that Obama would not end the wars, but rather, expand them.