October 16, 2011

The Great Unraveling

It’s here, people. Obama’s plan is to marshal this “People’s uprising” into a political attack on the engine of capitalism, using the Wall Street he’s in bed with as an attack on the capitalist system, and the “bankers” and traders as the scapegoats.

The outlines of the plan have long been clear, but sadly, those who bothered to look and to express alarm early on were dismissed as fringe cranks and unhelpful “purists” whose outlandish Visigothery would drive away “moderates” and “independents” (who, incidentally, flocked to the GOP in the wake of the TEA Party movement, giving us a 2010 electoral landslide. But we’re to bracket that. Our betters know what’s best, regardless of how many times they prove themselves astoundingly out of touch with the mood of their own base). And now the next stage is beginning: an assault on the “fat cats” and the money men, launched from different angles, with the Occupy Wall Street crowds providing the civil unrest, the social tension, and the optics, making the more outlandish demands (and including the most repugnant fellow-travelers), while Obama serves as the voice of reason and moderation, fashioning his campaign around a populist soft-socialism in which the banks and bankers and money men are required to pay “their fair share” and the “wealth disparity” is addressed — even as the evil Republicans try to “protect the rich.”

Reality doesn’t play a part. Propaganda to stoke envy and animate the programmed students of institutions long ago infiltrated and solidified by the organized left, is all that needs be concentrated upon — to create the illusion of a mass social uprising (of “the 99%”)

Anyone who’s read Alinsky, or familiarized themselves with Cloward-Piven, or has read Edward Bellamy’s socialist Utopian blueprint, Looking Backwards, knew what was coming — and we knew because we didn’t pretend Obama was anything else but the radical leftwing ideologue, marketed as a pragmatic empty slate, he truly is. Billy Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn told us that. Jeremy Wright and Frank Davis told us that. ACORN and community organizing and local endorsements by communist parties told us that. All we did was look.

The legacy media’s aid (and cover) in selling this orchestrated leftwing Marxist movement is, frankly, horrifying — but it, too, is to be expected, given who the mainstream press in this country is: they are j-school “progressives,” and as such they are too sophisticated to believe themselves Marxists, preferring instead to fit themselves in less exact contours as proponents of a rule by merit (and then, conveniently, determining merit based upon level of commitment to “progressive” ideas). But no matter what they call themselves, or how flippantly they dismiss those “fringe right wing extremists” who see them for what they are (with the help of those right-leaning “pragmatists” who don’t wish to be seen as gauche or cartoonish), any way you cut it, the meat of the movement is a move toward tyranny. Individual liberty is subsumed to the Greater Good; truths are built around political consensus, not founded on some arcane system of Enlightenment logic; meaning belongs to the group bold enough to claim it and strong enough to defend their claim; and the government, because it promises to enforce egalitarianism, is the only moral entity in a world otherwise riddled with rank self-interest.

Crony capitalism is conflated with capitalism; crony capitalism is, internally, promoted by the government; outwardly, the very crony capitalism government is engaged in is singled out and frozen, the object at which the public is direct its ire; government steps in to protect us from the ravages of an unjust capitalist system, promises to spread the wealth more equitably and to clamp down on predatory capitalists and capitalism.

In short, this movement represents the complete deconstruction of the American ideal as founded and later framed in a Constitution itself under constant linguistic and hermeneutic assault (on which I’ve discoursed at length over the years) by representatives of the left in every branch of government. And because all this is happening now — with one major political party and their allies in the press — it is safe to say that we are indeed in the midst of the soft civil war I spoke of an inevitable more than six-years ago.

What is important to remember is that, regardless of what the media presents to you, we are still, in fact, the majority in this country. We needn’t waste our time on counter protests; instead, we must redouble our efforts to make sure that we protect the system from voter fraud, and then resolve to win every local election outward by identifying and supporting the most conservative / classically liberal candidate we can find.

The GOP, as a national organization, has become a feckless appendage to the Big Government movement; so long as taxes are lowered, most in the GOP establishment are content to allow a powerful centralized government to allocate its “compassion” to the people. How else to account for their overt desire to press upon their own base candidates — be it their begging for Christie, their completely surreal attempts early to promote Jon Huntsman as a “top-tier” candidate, or now their attempts to help rig the primary dates to give us an “inevitable” Mitt Romney candidacy — who are soft on the second Amendment, firm on the fact of man-made climate change (and the need to “do something about it”), supportive of mandates, supportive of TARP, derisive an of calls to reform Social Security; and who in many ways are merely pro-business versions of the very statists we wish to see thoroughly rebuked?

We have to decide now: do we really want limited government, individual autonomy, a competitive free enterprise system, and the rule of law? Or do we want an engineered society in which most of us become part of the “masses” or “working class,” forever “protected” by the Nannystate, whose power is absolute, and whose “partnerships” with select corporations will ensure that we spend our futures in an ostensibly benevolent liberal fascist state — one that will persist until the next phase of the movement, when government steps in to aid failing industry, and begins nationalizing various institutions.

Freedom is ours only if we demand to keep it.

I take these protesters seriously not because they are coherent or themselves at all powerful; but rather because they are puppets who are being controlled by an organized and well-financed radical left hoping to complete the movement they began in the 60s — this time having used different tactics to put themselves in position for an attempted coup.

I know. All this sounds paranoid and conspiratorial. And yet, it’s not my plan. I’m just one of the people who recognizes that those who are attempting it really are attempting it — and that the only way they can succeed is if we continue to pretend it isn’t happening.

update: related.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:16am

Comments (80)

  1. When Romney designed obamacare he probably thought it would head this sort of protest thing off at the pass.


  2. Occupy Wall Street protesters Democrats shit on American flag. “God Bless them,” said Nancy Pelosi.


  3. How to imagine Isidore Auguste Marie François Xavier Comte scientifically accounting for the young fool shitting on his nation’s flag?

    it fails.

  4. The “shitting on the flag” pic is apparently old. From a Portland anti-war march in 2007. Didn’t happen during this protest, though I’m sure that same DirtySmellyHippie was at Occupy Portland, if he’s still alive and out of jail.

  5. A very solid argument, without actually saying it in so many words, in favor of taking over the reins of the national GOP. A third party is a non-starter, so the key is to take over the machinery of the existing party.

    How to do so, of course, is open to debate, but IMHO a two-prong approach is needed. First, actual conservatives have to be elected to public office at all levels, especially national office, as the top-down influence they have on the party as a whole is vital.

    But equally importantly, conservatives need to work within the party structure from the bottom up, at the local precinct/ward level, in the state parties, and so on. The problem is that too often conservatives think they have better things to do with their time than to get involved, and defaultly leave such matters in the hands of people who wear the GOP label for various reasons not having to do with conservatism.

    [Sure, there’s a limit to how conservative the party will be in places like, say, Massachussetts {Romney is no conservative, but he’s probably the best we might expect from MA} but over time, and with strings of electoral and policy victories, people can be swung rightward. People like winners.]

    To do either approach without the other is a losing course of action; as we have seen over the last 30-40 years, the (I do hate this word) “establishment” nomenklatura will find ways to survive, otherwise.

    (“Establishment,” as such, isn’t necessarily a dirty word… particularly if conservatives seek to remake said establishment in a conservative mold.)

  6. Pingback: small dead animals

  7. The crapping fool is a 2007 pic from Portland. Not that it matters much. They’re crapping somewhere.

  8. A collective walking on a flag is as bad or worse than one bozo taking a dump on one.

  9. These OWS people are a gift to the GOP. Pelosi blessed their endevor. Debbie Wasserman Schultz can own them like the Dems own the economy right now.

    Then again, 52% of American voters in 2008 did not care that Barack and the Democrats embraced people who shit wiped their shit covered shoes on the flag.

  10. post revised. Without flag shitting pic, another will do. Point is the same.

  11. Are you still considering moving to Portland? I am sure you can observe similar offensive things first hand in Portland or Denver (or Boulder).

  12. A trip back in time might be useful: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html?ref=tea-party Here is Huff Puff back in 2009 during the tax protests with the 10 most offensive signs they saw.

    Okay, one could be deemed offensive if you are really thin skinned (Did I say skin? Shit, I denounce myself!) (Although I when blacks and minorities cry they are being picked on, that is okay. When whites do it, well that is raaaaacist.).

    Why are the remaining photos offensive?

  13. IF I move it’s work related.

  14. I know it was a work thing, I was wondering if it is going to happen.

  15. What’s the difference between crony capitalism and facism?

  16. crony capitalism has alliteration

  17. Depends which side of crony you are on?

  18. Pingback: Daily Pundit » They Aren’t Serious, But You Have to Take Them Seriously

  19. – I’m struck by the smallness of the turnout at the OWS rallies.

    – Sort of embarrassing. If this is suppossed to represent the “Anti-T-party” movement, it doesn’t seem to have much meat.

    – Rather it looks like the real <1% nut cases that populate the hard Left.

  20. I have been watching the protests and they are insignificant. I ask people what they think and they just shrug. At this point I don’t think it is on most people’s radar (unless they have to walk near them on the way to work and smell them).

  21. Pingback: Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Remembering the Vietnam era as a context for OWS

  22. Russ, I don’t see “taking over the reins” of the GOP as any more realistic than a third party. The people actually in control have no desire to give up that control, because it is their livelihood and their access to Power. As long as they know you will never ever leave the party no matter what they do, they also have no inducement to hand control over to someone else or to change their course.

    I mean, “actual conservatives need to be elected at the national level”? Seriously? The GOP is going to give up the Bushes, McCains, Romneys, Chrities, and McConnells for people like … who? Herman Cain or Rand Paul? Uh, that’s a nice dream, but the GOP controls the primaries, which means they control the candidates.

    As for conservatives being more active in the party — again, that’s a nice idea, and there are probably a lot of people who could do something. But I work at least 65 hours a week, and so do most other people who have small businesses or professional positions. And that’s without counting things like families, doing stuff at church, or volunteering. I have much, much better things to do with my time than attempt to infiltrate an insanely unwelcoming GOP party to work to raise myself to the top in the vain hope that 10 years from now they won’t rig elections in favor of candidates like McCain and Romney.

  23. “Why do so many Jews vote Democrat?”

    “Because tonight we’re gonna party like it’s 1932!”

  24. Look, I’m not going to carry water for Romney, though I did support him against McCain last go around, but let’s be clear that if one believes in the 10th amendment then if the voters in MA wanted Romneycare, then that’s their business. Also, Obama’s cynical attack on Romney as an investment executive (nudge nudge wink wink say no more) when at least Romney was successful and he did rescue the Salt Lake Olympics needs to be challenged. Romney is not Obama or even McCain and we should make that clear and not do Plouffe’s job for him.

  25. You’re right, Romney is not McCain. He’s the guy who lost to McCain.

  26. The Olympics are gayer than when putin wants to play that 9-1/2 weeks game where he puts a blindfold on and you’re supposed to feed him stuff

  27. They used to be an NBC product. They still are, aren’t they, or has NBC given them up?

  28. yes NBC for a while yet

    interestingly ABC didn’t bid to share with ESPN last time they let ESPN field the bid all by themselves it says

    I don’t know that I believe that …

  29. My criticism of Romneycare isn’t that it’s unconstitutional, since clearly as a state-level system it isn’t.

    My criticism of Romneycare is that it’s socialism, and that means it is stupid and wrong.

    As is the guy who made it happen.

    And that guy will never have my vote, no sir no way no how.

  30. With over a year to go what will this morph into I wonder? Should we consider how the New Black Panther Party was treated?

  31. Here’s a nice warm swim through Hayek’s intellectual life, with particular attention to Hayek’s addressing the issue of the modern welfare state, aiming at what to do about it, ultimately (his work, that is).

  32. I wonder if Obama may use these stinky OWS protestors later on as target practice for the Team Obama bus. To make himself look more moderate and mainstream before the General Election in 2012. Like his “spiritual father” said, he is a politician.

  33. Another ‘repugnant fellow traveler‘: note: trigger alert.

  34. Ann Althouse thinks Herman Cain nailed Meet The Press and that David Gregory revealed himself as biased.

    Coming from an Obama voter who was critical of Cain in his last debate, that is worth noting.

    serr8d, thanks NOT for “Guy Fawkes.” Was that Portland or Madison?

  35. In future, serr8d, warn those who might click your link that you recommend having an ample supply of eyebleach available.

  36. Ick, serr8d! Those are some saggy ta-tas. She has a “Fast with me tomorrow” sign by her feets. Tomorrow never comes, does it, sugar?

  37. Romney is not McCain. He’s the guy who lost to McCain.

    Damn. I’d forgotten that.

  38. lady there’s something wrong with your boobies

  39. Maybe I should be cheered that they’re getting all their turnovers done in the first half, but somehow I don’t think it actually works that way.

  40. Romney is not McCain. He’s the guy who lost to

    …the guy who lost to the guy Romney now wants us to think he can beat.

  41. Headlines, of course, are popping up: “Herman Cain says admits some people will pay more in taxes under new scheme” etc. blah blah blah.

    What’s the unstated dependent assumption? The tax scheme currently in place was WRITTEN BY GOD HIMSELF AND CAN NEVER CHANGE FOR ALL TIME.

    This’s what goes for the smart-set’s criticism nowadays. If the polity can’t see through that silliness, it deserves to disappear.

  42. President Buumblefuck admits some people will pay more in taxes under new scheme

    where is this headline? Please to show me.

  43. *Bumblefuck* I mean

  44. I’d like to see the headline that reads simply “New government borrowing MEANS MORE TAXES”

  45. Tremendous post, and an object lesson in having the courage of your convictions.

  46. This has probably been posted but here is the transcript of Meet the Press with Herman Cain. If I was David Gregory I’d have them pull it an the video because it makes me look like an flippin’ idiot whose ability to understand the English language is quite limited. Like this exchange.

    MR. GREGORY: The other defect in the plan comes from fellow conservatives who say, “You’ve got some problems here.” This is what The Wall Street Journal said about it this past week. “The real political defect,” the Journal writes, “of the Cain plan is that it imposes a new national sales tax while maintaining the income tax. Mr. Cain’s rates are seductively low, but the current income tax was introduced in 1913 with a top rate of 7 percent amid promises that it would never exceed 10 percent. By 1918 the top rate was 77 percent. The politics of a national sales tax is bad enough on its own. A 9 percent rate when combined with state and local levies would mean a tax on goods of 17 percent or more in many places. The cries for exemptions would be great.”

    MR. CAIN: Don’t combine it with state taxes. This doesn’t address state taxes. If you add them together, yes, you’ll get that number. This is a replacement structure. These are replacement taxes. They’re not on top of anything.

    MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

    MR. CAIN: We replace capital gains tax. We replace the payroll tax. We replace corporate income tax, replace personal income tax, and replace the death tax. It is a replacement tax structure.

    MR. GREGORY: But where do state taxes go? You’re saying they’re going to be repealed?

    MR. CAIN: If you–with the current structure, you have state taxes, right? So with this new structure, you’re still going to have taxes–state taxes. That is muddying the water.

    MR. GREGORY: How so?

    MR. CAIN: Because today, under the current tax code, state taxes are there if they have it. If they don’t have a state taxes, they don’t have it. It has nothing to do with this replacement structure for the federal tax code.

    MR. GREGORY: But that doesn’t make any sense to me. If I’m already paying state taxes, and I have a new Cain administration national sales tax, I’ve got more state taxes.

    MR. CAIN: No you don’t.

    MR. GREGORY: How so?

    MR. CAIN: David, David.

    MR. GREGORY: You’re not saying they’re going away.

    MR. CAIN: Your state taxes are the same. Your federal taxes, in most cases, are going to go down. That’s muddying the water.

    MR. GREGORY: The Wall Street Journal says you have one on top of the other. There’s a combined levy.

    MR. CAIN: That is not correct, David.

    MR. GREGORY: Right.

    MR. CAIN: Let’s try this one more time. State taxes are there today. The current tax code is a 10 million word mess. You have probably 100–you have thousands of loopholes and tricks and what I call “sneak attaxes” in the current code. State taxes today, whatever they are, zero or some number, has nothing to do with replacing the tax code. Nothing.

    Gregory is a blithering idiot, QED.

  47. powerline

    Cain is making a very important point here, but Gregory just isn’t sharp enough to get it and follow up in a meaningful way. I am not sure whether Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is a good idea or not, but the level of sophistication that David Gregory can bring to the conversation to too low to be helpful.



    We could update an old joke Ronald Reagan used to tell: “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And a recovery is when David Gregory loses his job.”


  48. @33: Far more horrifying with the mask off. Trigger warningx100000.

  49. that’s not even trying

  50. Now I’m browsing these images and laughing at the ones that are just a bunch of cops lined up watching the crowd with the description “This is what Police State looks like”.

    I’m going to make a flickr album of every football game with security lined up in front of the stands, every public event with police out in front of the crowds, etc. with that caption. They’re not even in riot gear, they’re just standing there, keeping an eye on things–This is what Police State looks like. Chilling.

  51. Hmmm.

    MR. GREGORY: You said in the summertime, you told my colleague Savannah Guthrie, that you were still getting up to speed about foreign policy. You remember in the last campaign Hillary Clinton ran that ad against President Obama, then Senator Obama, “the 3 AM phone call.”

    MR. CAIN: Right.

    MR. GREGORY: You know, the–in an international crisis, you want to know that the commander in chief is tested and ready. What do you say to Americans who wonder whether you’re ready at this point to be commander in chief.

    MR. CAIN: I would say to them, `First of all, consider my philosophy to foreign policy and my principles.’ That’s where you start. You can collect the information and make an informed decision. My philosophy is an extension of the Reagan philosophy, peace through strength and clarity. It’s not clear who all of our friends are. It’s not clear who our enemies are. I believe we need to clearly define who our friends are, clearly define who our enemies are, and then let the rest of the world know we will stand by our friends.

  52. “MR. GREGORY: What about the Supreme Court? Who’s your model of the ideal Supreme Court justice who you would appoint?

    MR. CAIN: I would say that there are several that I have a lot of respect for. Justice Clarence Thomas is one of them. I believe that Justice Clarence Thomas, despite all of the attacks that he gets from the left, he basically rules and makes his decisions, in my opinion, based upon the Constitution and solid legal thinking. Justice Clarence Thomas is one of my models.

    MR. GREGORY: Has he been targeted unfairly, you think?

    MR. CAIN: I think he has been targeted unfairly.”

  53. “This is what Police State looks like”

    Actually, this is what “Police State” looks like.

    I wonder if they have a good football team?

  54. If I move, it’s a miracle.

  55. OT: a Drew Brees end zone INT keeps Jeff from a perfect day picking games thus far. Every other week I’m good. This year: Week 1, 8/16; Week 2, 13/16; Week 3, 8/16; Week 4, 14/16; Week 5, 7. Today, 10/11.

  56. I am in shock at the Tampa win. Glad, but shocked. After the Frisco drubbing last week I couldn’t imagine them beating NO, much as I wanted to.

  57. he did rescue the Salt Lake Olympics

    That counts against him, in my book. His willingness to go-along and get-along with the most corrupt organization outside of actual organized crime should disqualify him from public life.

  58. Romney’s Bad Advice

    Posted 10/14/2011 06:46 PM ET

    Campaigning: The GOP front-runner for 2012 sought advice on global warming and carbon emissions from the president’s current science czar — an advocate of de-developing America and population control.

    Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, but no coupling in our view is more bizarre than when John Holdren, now President Obama’s assistant for science and technology, once advised GOP presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on environmental policy.

    Holdren’s bizarre views are best suited for an adviser to someone like, say, Pol Pot.

    He views humanity as a plague on the planet and the Industrial Revolution as a tragic mistake. The fewer people, he believes, the better, and he’s not shy about the ways he would use to reduce their number.

    Why Gov. Romney, a reasonable person, would pick such a man to advise him on anything is beyond us.

    On Jan. 1, 2006, Massachusetts became the first state to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants, something the Obama administration is trying to do to all states through the Environmental Protection Agency’s draconian job-killing regulations and mandates.

    A Dec. 7, 2005 memo from the governor’s office announcing the new policy listed among the “environmental and policy experts” providing input to the policy one “John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University.”

    This is the same person who wrote that a “massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States.”
    mp3Listen to the Podcast
    Subscribe through iTunes

    Holdren wrote that along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” section of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

    Paul Ehrlich is also the author of the 1968 tome, “The Population Bomb,” which warned of imminent mass starvation from overpopulation unless excess humanity is dispensed with.

    Holdren has spoken in favor of such things as forced abortions, confiscation of babies, mass involuntary sterilization, bureaucratic regulation of family size, and a planetary regime to enforce climate regulation and population control.

    Romney, speaking at a University of New Hampshire town hall on June 3, said: “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.”

    So do Holdren and Al Gore.

    In June, Gore, on his blog, praised Romney’s climate stance: “While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party.”


  59. If we don’t move before the snap is another one.

  60. By the way, I can remember a time when posts like this one would get pretty good play around the blogosphere. Now? HA!

    We like to think we’ve changed the media culture. When what we’ve done is simply change the editorial board.

  61. Good find, nr. This is the guy the GOP is pushing on us: Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme! AGW is serious and the government must do something! Socialized medicine? Why, hells yes! TARP? You bet your ass I’ll bail out big corporations!

    We’re going to nominate the one guy who can lose to Obama. And to do it, the GOP establishment is going to help the Dems demonize the tea party types. Yay, team!

  62. mr. jeff, have you ever thought of putting together maybe a 5 minute video demo on the term “racist”(language) and how it is used and sending it to gbtv(i’m a subscriber)? mr. cain’s candidancy certainly adds much video to this endeavor. beck’s has 153 hours of unfilled programming available each week.

  63. Apparently Romney (as per #59) is the answer to a stupid question.

  64. also jeff i’ve seen andrew klavan do his stuff on gbtv. i’m just saying if you could transfer some of pw to a short video format it might work. allan knows the leftists on msnbc provide a lot of material.

  65. hayward @ pwrline

    But the challenge for Cain is to prove that he’s more than a one-trick pony. Up in our “Links” section we’ve flagged Jonathan Tobin’s article on Cain’s foreign policy weakness. Dan Drezner has also noted this. I’m rooting for the guy right now. But Cain doesn’t have much time to start showing there’s more to him if he is to make this a serious run instead of just being the latest GOP star-of-the-week.


    so this country is on the precipice of financial ruin and these idiots wondering whether herman cain knows about “right of return”? jen the rube is the same. good allan over educated idiots or beltway bandits.

  66. Oh right, now the Kneepad Media types want to vet the black guy.

  67. yes let’s vet

    But Cain wasn’t setting monetary policy at the Fed. Mostly, he was chairing meetings, asking questions, and offering his own views on the regional economy. Cain served on the board of the Omaha branch of the Kansas City Fed – one of several smaller branches within the Kansas City Fed – from 1989 to 1991, then as a member of the Kansas City Fed’s 9-member board for two years as deputy director before assuming the chairmanship.

    And his peers unanimously liked him, describing him as a charismatic leader.

    “Right away I liked him,” McQuillan, the Nebraska banker said. “He had a positive personality – very outgoing, very engaging guy, just impressive.”

    As chairman, his former colleagues said, he was a strong but collaborative leader who asked questions and encouraged maximum participation among board members.

    “He had a very take-charge sort of style, but one who looks for agreement among others,” said Jerry Shreeves, a senior vice president at the Kansas City Fed during that time who attended board meetings with Cain. “He didn’t drive things down anybody’s throat – I thought he was good at bringing people together.”

    McQuillan said Cain was a team player, and not overly aggressive — but “at the end of the day, I kind of knew who was in charge.”

    “We would take a break halfway through the meeting,” he said, which typically lasted about 4 hours. “To hurry us along, [Cain] always said, ‘please be back and seated in 9 minutes.’ He’d smile when he said this.”

    And even though monetary policy wasn’t his career, Cain made himself knowledgeable about Fed policy and always asked tough questions.

    “Everybody liked Herman because his personality was so open and friendly and not abrasive,” said Barry Robinson, a public affairs officer at the Kansas City Fed who remembered Cain from board meetings.

    “He wasn’t reluctant to ask questions of the presenters [at meetings], mostly Ph.D. economists,” said Robinson. “He was absorbing, he was intellectually curious and his comments were almost always, you know, humorous and to the point.”

    And while the Fed employees POLITICO interviewed were reluctant to go into too many specifics about what happened behind closed doors in board meetings, fellow director Don Adams, then-president and CEO of the private agricultural firm Adams Enterprises, said Cain sometimes “had his opinions of how the Fed ought to run, which wasn’t always the … politically correct way to go.”


  68. Victor Hanson concurs Jeff:

    The skeptics of 2008 proved prescient; those who demonized them should be embarrassed. And we should remember that candidates, of both parties, will govern mostly as they campaign. Slips are not indiscretions, but often will prove in hindsight windows of the soul.

  69. The press being of, by, and for the left themselves are always looking for the kind of leader that is the standard model of the left. The “One” who knows all, sees all, does it all. Their questions reflect that world view. I prefer the Mr. Cain in #52.

    Good leaders set a direction, an objective. Hire people smarter than themselves in the fields needed to achieve it and inspire them to do more than they thought they possibly could in getting there.

    Candidate Bush didn’t know Musharraf’s name, he did know how to get him to do what President Bush needed to achieve his (Bush’s) objective though.

  70. Jeff, that article of nr’s just crystallized my determination to vote for Obama and straight Copperhead if ORomney is the nominee. The only difference between them is that ORomney has Michael Jackson’s skin bleacher on speed dial.

    Crash the server and re-implement the original design after the flames die.

  71. Pingback: The Great Unraveling | Tea Party Courier

  72. Excellent post, Jeff. Just excellent and spot on.

    I do worry, though, because I’ve found more moderates seem to be totally taken in my the OWS movement, mostly the sob stories on the tumblr thing. I was in a debate over the weekend with a friend who used to be much more conservative in her view, who seems to be all for European style socialism now. People are hurting, you see. Her kids can’t find jobs, etc.

    These protests are such an enormous gift to Obama, because most won’t actually delve into what these folks are saying. I was at the one in detroit, and it was (straight up) communism. They’ve managed to keep their message more populist, but all you need to do is talk to them.

  73. y the way, I can remember a time when posts like this one would get pretty good play around the blogosphere. Now? HA!

    Well, I’ll do my bit to spread it, because it is just wonderful and I think rather important. I didn’t read it until this morning (ran a half marathon yesterday) and I’m sure others were occupied away from their puter as well.

  74. President Buumblefuck admits some people will pay more in taxes under new scheme

    where is this headline? Please to show me.

    duh, that’s only the rich. Who cares.

  75. Cain has said that his tax scheme is revenue neutral. We don’t need a revenue neutral tax scheme. We need a tax scheme that is revenue negative. And yes, Gregory is a moron for conflating state with federal taxes, especially since I’m sure he knew what he was doing. This love for Cain is odd, though. This is the same guy that said just a week before the collapse began that our economy was in good shape.

  76. Buumblefuck

    For the record, that’s pronounced “BYOO-mbl-fuk” and denotes a sufficiently large degree of bumblefuckery that the one-U pronunciation can’t do it justice.

    Henceforward my mental auto-correct will be adding that extra U to the word “bumblefuck” wherever I see it in reference to Obama, and pronouncing it accordingly in my head as I read.

    BYOO-mbl-fuk. Your new word for the day. Use it in conversation.

  77. We don’t need a revenue neutral tax scheme. We need a tax scheme that is revenue negative

    This. Tax rates are kabuki until spending is controlled.

    Spending will not be controlled until there is no other choice.

    Welcome to to Greece.

  78. The man is a demagogue and is looking more like Lucius Appuleius Saturninus as each days passes.