Click here to register, email rw@jewishcenter.info or call 215.497.9925 .

Why did Obama broker a victory for Hamas? 

Posted: 25 Nov 2012 12:03 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

With unusual candor, the Washington Post declares in its top headline that "Hamas' tactics garner support" and that "Palestinians see path to victory through fighting." This strengthening of Hamas is the entirely predictable consequence of the cease fire that the Obama administration worked to impose on Israel. Because Hamas waged war against Israel and the Israelis backed down, it is (to quote) the Post "the commonly held view in both territories (the West Bank and Gaza) that the Islamist militants of Hamas - who refuse to recognize Israel - defeated their enemy, and that they did it with weapons, not words."

Since this consequence flows so naturally from he U.S. arranged cease fire, it is very difficult to believe that the U.S. did not intend it. But the Post does not even consider this possibility (its candor has limits). Instead the Post suggests that Israel wanted to strengthen Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian Authority, which looks increasingly irrelevant following Hamas' victory. The notion is that Israel will find it easier to avoid making peace with Hamas.

However, the Israelis are fixated on Iran, not the PA. Stengthening Hamas strengthens Iran's hand. So it is highly unlikely that Israel would have handed Hamas victory had the U.S. not applied pressure.

But why does Obama want to strengthen Hamas? Probably because he views it, not unreasonably, as the authentic and rising voice of Palestinian aspirations. This has long been the view of the American left - for example, Obama one-time adviser Robert Malley - and of European policy makers. In 2009, a very senior European diplomat told me (and some other bloggers) that Hamas, which he characterized as "moderate," is the party with which Israel must ultimately settle. (The word "moderate" in this context has nothing to do with ideology; rather it means, precisely, the party with which Israel is expected to settle).

So through the cease fire Obama was, I think, trying to give history (as he sees it) a nudge. He did so by (1) pushing a used up force (the PA) off of the stage and (2) giving Hamas the boost it needs to treated by Israel as an entity with whom peace needs to be made.

Meanwhile, however, the Palestinians are more than ever convinced, as the Post says, that the "path to victory is through fighting." And Iran now has an undefeated, confident ally on Israel's southern border.

How Solow Can You Go? 

Posted: 25 Nov 2012 08:16 AM PST

(Steven Hayward)

Robert Solow

The current issue of The New Republic has a long attack on Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and free market economics generally by the Nobel laureate economist Robert Solow, entitled "Hayek, Friedman, and the Illusions of Conservative Economics."  Ostensibly a review of the brand new book The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets Since the Great Depression by Angus Burgin, the review is less about the book than it is an excuse for Solow to vent his complaints against the more popular Friedman and Hayek.  (That TNR intends it as a hit piece is seen from the unattractive photos TNR chose to use with the online version of the article.)

It really chafes his chaps that people like Hayek and Friedman receive such attentiveness from biographers while no one ever writes books about Solow, or Galbraith, or Samuelson.   And Solow works overtime to heap scorn on the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS), the intellectual organization Hayek helped to found in the late 1940s that became a leading node for reviving free market thought.  And Solow employs one of the oldest tricks in the book, trying to divine a "good Hayek" from a "bad Hayek," which is what you do when you want to marginalize the uncongenial findings of an intellectual that are impossible to dismiss.

It's even worse than that when you think about it for a moment.  While conservative intellectuals, office holders (think of Paul Ryan, or Michele Bachmann, who cited Ludwig von Mises as an influence in her thinking), grassroots Tea Party activists all speak openly of the their fondness for Hayek and Friedman, when was the last time you heard a liberal-any kind of liberal-express excitement over or attribute inspiration from a liberal economist-even Keynes?  Does anybody still read John Kenneth Galbraith?  Does any real human being anywhere say, "Oooh, Paul Samuelson!  He's my hero!"  Does anyone still read the economist who was the co-winner of the Nobel Prize along with Hayek in 1974?  (Anyone know who it was? Bueller? Bueller?  It was Myrdal . . . Gunnar Myrdal.)  Is there any equivalent organization to the Mont Pelerin Society for liberal economists?  If there is, I'm unaware of it.  (Offering the American Economic Association is cute, but doesn't count.)  Yes, liberals love Paul Krugman, but not for his economic scholarship.   Can anyone at MSNBC name a single economic concept of Krugman's?  (Higher income tax rates don't count.  Heck, Krugman hasn't even bothered to come up with his own curve on a restaurant napkin.)

So, yeah, this review looks like a fancy case of envy mixed with sour grapes, which is not a drinkable varietal except in appellation Harvard Square.  Moreover, it seems to me that his dismissal of the Mont Pelerin Society is way off the mark.  So what if the MPS didn't publish an academic journal; by my count, its membership or frequent attendees includes at least seven Nobel Prize winners-Hayek, Friedman, Buchanan, Stigler, Coase, North, and Bhagwati.  (Cancel Bhagwati: turns out he only won the Nobel Prize on an episode of The Simpsons.)  It also counted among its members Vaclav Klaus, the splendid sometimes president of the Czech Republic.  Not bad for what Solow finds an "insignificant organization."

Now I could go through a lengthy fisking of Solow's piece, but Tyler Cowan has a nice short smackdown over at the Marginal Revolution blog (a site worth reading frequently if you follow economics):

Solow neglects to mention that Milton Friedman turned out to be right on most of the issues he discussed (though targeting money doesn't work), that MPS economists shaped at least two decades of major and indeed beneficial economic reforms across the world, or that some number of the economists at MIT envied the growth performance of the Soviet Union and that such remarks were found in the most popular economics textbook in the profession.  You can consider this essay a highly selective, error-laden, and disappointing account of a topic which could in fact use more serious scrutiny. . .  Solow should have started his piece with a sentence like "Milton Friedman was not right about everything, but most of his criticisms of my earlier views have been upheld by subsequent economic theory and practice...."

And that's just the warm up act.  I'll add that it is some of Solow's core ideas about economic growth that are now under suspicion by a number of economists, as noted in my post here just the other day.  I'll confine myself to just one observation about the churlishness of Solow's piece, which comes with this statement: "There is not much guidance here for a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission who has to worry about the regulation of imperfectly competitive railroad and trucking industries."  Wait a minute-would this be the same Interstate Commerce Commission that was abolished 25 years ago primarily as a result of the critiques of people like Friedman that ICC regulation actually stifled competition and harmed the consumer?  Perhaps no one has told Solow. . .

Of Rice and men, part 3 

Posted: 25 Nov 2012 05:34 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

Reader Peter Rice is retired from the United States Foreign Service. He spent his first four years with the government as an Army officer, including one year of service in Vietnam. Mr. Rice writes to comment on Susan Rice and the Washington Post editorial "The GOP's bizarre attack on Susan Rice." As Mr. Rice points out below, the adjective "bizarre" more aptly applies to the Post editorial:

This past Thursday the Washington Post published what I view as its most bizarre editorial ever. They condemned all who oppose Susan Rice as the next US secretary of state, implying that the opposition is largely racist white men from former Confederate States. In addition to the bizarre editorial, see the 5000-plus comments that it generated.

Ninety-seven members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Obama concerning the nomination of Susan Rice to be the next Secretary of State. Notably, two black Republican Representatives, Tim Scott and Allen West, as well as a number of female Republicans, also signed the letter. Apparently, the Washington Post considers these black and female Republicans to be typical white male racist bigots.

Over the years I have observed both Condoleezza Rice and Susan Rice. They have been of interest to me partly because they share the same surname as me and also because my beautiful wife of 42 years, Frances, is black. Frances is often asked if she is related to Condoleezza Rice. She is not because I am not. Frances is a lawyer and a retired Army lieutenant colonel, Judge Advocate General's Corps. She is also active in the Republican Party, serving as chairman of the National Black Republican Association. Hence I do not suffer from white guilt.

What makes the Washington Post's editorial so peculiar? There is NO mention of two former black secretaries of state-Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell-both appointed by Republican President George W. Bush. Nor is one word written about the multiple and reprehensible racist attacks by the Left against Powell and Condoleezza Rice, including overtly racist cartoons, some published in the Washington Post.

I reviewed a substantial portion of the comments posted in response to the Washing Post's editorial, about 90 percent of which supported the idea that it was racist to oppose Susan Rice. I detected only three comments that mentioned Powell and Condoleezza Rice. All three of those comments declared the two black Republicans to be liars. Almost all of the comments struck me as inarticulate and often very nasty-not at all the type of reasonable assessments one would expect from college-educated readers of the Washington Post. Our country is in dire straits if these readers are typical of what is produced by our liberal colleges today.

How could the editors of the Washington Post proffer the notion that the Republicans who supported Powell and Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State are now racist for opposing Susan Rice? Obviously, these Republicans are not racist. Rather, they are opposed to having as our Secretary of State a woman who deceived Congress and the American people just to help a Democrat president get reelected. She is a woman whose moral compass is so skewed that she willingly lied about the al Qaeda attack on our consulate in Benghazi, where four Americans including our ambassador to Libya were killed.

I remember Susan Rice from the late 1990s when she was Bill Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. To me, she seemed to be an ignorant, typical anti-capitalist Marxist useful idiot whose world view is that America is always wrong. It surprised me to learn recently that she received a Rhodes scholarship. Nothing I observed about her during the late 1990s or over the past four years has impressed me. Her most important attribute appears to be her loyalty to Obama.

Our diplomats, CIA officers and armed forces who go to dangerous places such as Benghazi expect our country's leader to come to their aid when aid is requested. President Obama heard the three requests from Benghazi, refused to send aid, proceeded to cover up his despicable conduct and got the assistance of Susan Rice with the cover-up. Now our diplomats, armed forces and CIA officers know they cannot expect President Obama to respond to a plea for help. Instead, Obama's response will be as a corrupt Chicago politician. Factored into his calculation will be what helps or hurts Obama, nothing more. We are stuck with President Obama for four more years, but we do not have to accept the appointment of Susan Rice to be Secretary of State.

For more on the points addressed by Mr. Rice, see Bill Jacobson's post "Saturday night card game" and the New York Post editorial "Race rants over Rice."

Sunday morning going up 

Posted: 25 Nov 2012 05:10 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

If you were listening to AM radio in 1969, you felt the blast of fresh air provided by the unlikely gospel/pop hit "Oh Happy Day" by the Edwin Hawkins Singers. Who were the Edwin Hawkins Singers and where did that song come from? The Wall Street Journal's Marc Myers goes to the principals to get the story behind the single in "When he washed my sins away." (The format of the story is screwed up by the videos posted with it online, but I think you'll find what remains unobscured is still of interest.)

Singer Dorothy Morrison recalls: "I ad-libbed on When Jesus washed, oh, when he washed, my sins away. And I threw in a James Brown good God toward the end, which made the song feel even more current." Forty-plus years later, the song still packs a wallop.

State Department wonders why Egyptians can't get along 

Posted: 24 Nov 2012 08:19 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

The U.S. State Department responded to Mohamed Morsi's grab of near dictatorial powers, and to the protests of the Egyptian people thereto, with this statement:

The decisions and declarations announced on November 22 raise concerns for many Egyptians and for the international community. One of the aspirations of the revolution was to ensure that power would not be overly concentrated in the hands of any one person or institution. The current constitutional vacuum in Egypt can only be resolved by the adoption of a constitution that includes checks and balances, and respects fundamental freedoms, individual rights, and the rule of law consistent with Egypt's international commitments. We call for calm and encourage all parties to work together and call for all Egyptians to resolve their differences over these important issues peacefully and through democratic dialogue.

Even by State Department standards, this is mush. There is no condemnation of Morsi's power grab, only a meaningless expression of concern, coupled with a call for calm and dialogue. In effect, the Obama administration is asking the protestors who insist on democracy to stand down and hope that Morsi will compromise with them. But a compromise power grab should be unacceptable, and "calm" is precisely what's not called for in response to Morsi's move towards dictatorship.

Accordingly, Mohamed ElBaradei, a leader of the democratic opposition and a Nobel Peace Prize winner rejected out of hand the idea of a dialogue with Morsi under the present circumstances. He declared that there can be no discussion with Morsi until he rescinds his "dictatorial" decree that gives him the powers of "a pharaoh."

ElBaradei also said that he is "waiting to see, I hope soon, a very strong statement of condemnation by the US, by Europe and by everybody who really cares about human dignity." Clearly, he saw no such thing in the State Department's initial serving of pap. Nor should he hold his breath.

Where CO2 Comes From 

Posted: 24 Nov 2012 03:54 PM PST

(John Hinderaker)

Whether or not you think that human-generated carbon dioxide has any significant effect on the Earth's climate-I don't-the data on where CO2 comes from are interesting. This chart, based on data maintained by BP, was generated by Ed Hoskins and reported by Anthony Watts on Watts Up With That:

A few observations: 1) CO2 emissions are mainly a measure of economic growth. 2) U.S. emissions are lower today than they were 15 years ago. The current decline is due to natural gas. 3) The Kyoto Protocol, which liberals both here and in Europe have berated the U.S. for not signing for the last 15 years, excluded China and India, along with other developing countries. Can we now all agree that the Senate was correct when it voted 95-0 in favor of a resolution rejecting Kyoto?

Larry Hagman, RIP 

Posted: 24 Nov 2012 11:00 AM PST

(Steven Hayward)

Larry Hagman, who died yesterday at the age of 81, was of course best known for playing the evil J.R. Ewing on Dallas, a show that I never much watched and found boring on the few occasions when I did.  I enjoyed Hagman much more on I Dream of Jeannie.  I recall backpacking around Europe in the summer of 1980 right after graduating from college, and people I'd meet, upon discovering that I was American, would immediately ask, "Who shot JR?"  Somehow they thought Americans must have the inside track.  They were always disappointed when I said, "Who cares who shot JR?"  After a while I'd start to baffle them by saying, "Who's JR?"

I did include a short meditation about the whole Dallas phenomenon in the scene-setting opening chapter of The Age of Reagan.  I think the most interesting factoid about the global Dallas craze was that the show was not a hit in Japan:

The seeming decrepitude of America [in 1980] extended beyond the intellectual class to popular culture.  The highest-rated television program of the moment was the prime-time soap opera style drama Dallas, whose central character was a grasping, amoral oil man, J.R. Ewing.  Ewing was the archetype anti-hero for the anti-heroic times, portraying what prosperity still existed to be wholly decadent.  When an unknown assailant shot J.R. Ewing in the last show of spring 1980, "Who shot J.R.?" became an international obsession.  London bookmakers gave odds on the suspected killers and took in several hundred thousand dollars in wagers.  The episode that revealed the answer, broadcast two weeks after Reagan's election in November, received the highest TV viewership in history up to that point.  That the show centered around oil, the commodity thought to be at the heart of America's economic difficulties, undoubtedly added to the show's fascination.  Dallas was hardly unique among Hollywood products; studies of TV shows and movies from the time found that a disproportionate number of films depicted businessmen and commerce as corrupt.  The conclusion viewers drew was that private sector institutions were as dysfunctional as our political institutions.  Dallas was also a huge hit internationally with a single curious exception.  It did poorly in Japan, perhaps because commerce and businessmen were still regarded as heroic there?

UPDATE: Our friends at Reason.com add a fascinating item on "How JR Ewing Saved Romania from Communism."  I may have to reconsider.

The Weekly Winston: "The Happy Warrior of Squandermania" 

Posted: 24 Nov 2012 07:42 AM PST

(Steven Hayward)

The Wall Street Journal this morning carries a feature by my pal Stephen Moore about the elfin Grover Norquist, who reminds us that Democratic promises about future spending cuts to accompany immediate tax increases are "imaginary unicorns."  Which brought to mind a useful phrase that Churchill applied to his old friend David Lloyd-George that we ought to revive and deploy just now-"the Happy Warrior of Squandermania."  Here's the full quotation, from 1929:

The Rt. Hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs [Lloyd George] is going to borrow 200 million Pounds and to spend it upon paying the unemployed to make racing tracks for well-to-do motorists to make the ordinary pedestrian skip . . .  Lord Rothermere, chief author of the anti-waste campaign, has enlisted under the Happy Warrior of Squandermania. . .  This is the policy which used to be stigmatized by the late Thomas Gibson Bowles as the policy of buying a biscuit early in the morning and walking about all day looking for a dog to give it to.

Too bad Britain never had the wit to put this obscure Thomas Gibson Bowles person together with King Edward's mistress Wallace Simpson, thus to form their own Simpson-Bowles Commission (rim shot).

The case of the missing voters [With Comments by John] 

Posted: 24 Nov 2012 05:56 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

In the new issue of the Weekly Standard Jay Cost undertakes a retrospective on what happened in the election just passed. Cost detects a mystery. It's the case of the missing voters:

In 2008, some 131.5 million Americans went to the polls; while the votes are still being tallied, this time around there probably were between 127 and 130 million votes cast. Most of the decline came from white voters; in fact, between 6 and 9 million white voters went missing this year, relative to 2008. It is a reasonable guess that the number of white votes in 2004 roughly equaled the number in 2012, despite the fact that millions of new whites have become eligible to vote and the aging white population has entered peak voting years.

Much has been made of the increasing whiteness of the GOP coalition, with the implication being that Mitt Romney lost because he failed to attract enough support from ethnic or racial minorities. Without doubt, this was a problem for the GOP nominee and certainly made a difference in key swing states. In Colorado and Florida, Romney's support among Hispanics was lower than that of George W. Bush and even John McCain.

But Romney's problems were much bigger than this, as he failed to pull enough white voters into his coalition to win. In Colorado, Florida, and Ohio, Romney improved on McCain's share of white voters, but these states saw notable declines in white turnout. Meanwhile, in Iowa and Virginia-where white turnout was roughly constant-Romney failed to match the levels that Bush pulled when he won both states.

This suggests that the identity politics explanation is insufficient to explain Romney's electoral problem. It was not merely a failure to attract Hispanics and, to a lesser extent, African Americans into the GOP coalition (preliminary data actually suggest that Barack Obama won fewer African Americans in 2012 than he did in 2008). There seems to have been an overall hesitation among many types of voters-white or not-about entering the GOP coalition. It looks as though many backed Obama over Romney, and many more simply chose not to vote.

An examination of the exit poll makes it easy to see why. Obama's campaign against Romney, which portrayed him as an out-of-touch plutocrat, appears largely to have been successful. Romney's favorable rating in the exit poll was just 47 percent, with 50 percent holding an unfavorable view. By 53 to 43 percent, voters said that Obama was "more in touch with people like" them, and by a staggering 53 percent to 34 percent, they said Romney's policies would favor the rich instead of the middle class.

In other words, Romney lost in large part because of a yawning empathy gap. Typically, this plagues Republican candidates to some degree, even victorious ones, but it was pronounced this year, and appears to have been determinative. The voters who showed up on Election Day identified more closely with Obama than Romney, and those who stayed home presumably identified with neither. Importantly, this problem transcended age, race, ethnicity, and gender. Compared with Bush in 2004, Romney simply failed to connect with people.

What of the Democratic performance? There is little for the left to celebrate here beyond the fact that their candidate won a second term in the Oval Office. After all, President Obama won fewer popular votes, a smaller share of the popular vote, and a smaller share of the Electoral College. The last president to be reelected with such a diminished coalition was Franklin Roosevelt in his third and fourth terms. No president in American history but Barack Obama has ever entered a second full term with his coalition diminished across the board.

Cost's analysis suggests to me the devastating effect of the Obama campaign's personal attacks on Romney during the months after Romney sewed up the GOP nomination. The Obama campaign turned Romney into dead man walking.

The Romney campaign had no funds to respond to those attacks. Prior to the convention, Romney was prevented by law from accessing the funds he had raised for the general campaign. After the convention, Romney had plenty of money, but many voters had tuned him out. Why didn't Romney self-fund a response to the merciless attacks he was sustaining from the Obama campaign in the battleground states prior to the GOP convention? That is a mystery for another day.

Cost offers this to unravel the case of the missing voters: "Voters did not trust Obama to handle the tough issues, but even less did they trust Romney to represent them in the Oval Office." Looking ahead, he sees both hazard and opportunity: "It is not hard to see how the nation's deep disgruntlement could produce a major upheaval in two or four years' time."

FOOTNOTE: For a good companion to Cost's retrospective, see John Podhoretz's Commentary essay "The way forward," while Pat Caddell offered a variety of related thoughts in his post-election analysis at David Horowitiz's Restoration Weekend earlier this month. And Michael Barone is wrestling with the case of the missing voters as well.

JOHN adds a couple of thoughts: First, Romney's tactical error went beyond not using his own funds pre-convention. Money that was raised after Romney had the nomination sewed up could nevertheless have been designated for the primary phase of the campaign, but the Romney campaign believed that money spent during the summer is basically wasted, since undecided voters don't make up their minds until October. The two campaigns followed opposite strategies here, and it seems that the Romney camp was proven wrong.

Second, I fear that Republicans are making a serious mistake if we blame the election's outcome on Romney's failure to connect with voters. Obviously that happened to some degree, but the real question is, why? The most alarming statistic quoted by Jay Cost is that, by a wide margin, voters believed Romney's policies would benefit the rich and not the middle class-this despite the fact that Obama's policies had already proven to be a disaster for the middle class. I am afraid that this demonstrates, not just a lack of support for Romney, but a lack of support for free enterprise.

Despite all of the nonsense that surrounded the campaign, I think nearly all voters understood that Romney's policies favored smaller, less intrusive government and more reliance on free enterprise, while Obama stood for more government. A generation ago, the idea that free enterprise only benefits the rich would have been regarded as ridiculous in the light of history. Today, I fear that a great many Americans believe that free enterprise only favors the rich, or something close to that proposition. This is reflected in the survey done a few months ago that suggested young people have a more favorable view of socialism than capitalism.

When Ronald Reagan said that in the present crisis, government isn't the solution, government is the problem, he was appealing to something that most Americans already believed. I am concerned that the bedrock belief in free enterprise that was taken for granted in our youth may now be mostly gone. It is not hard to see why that might be the case, since all of the organs of our culture, from the public schools to the television networks to the comedy industry to Hollywood to higher education to the women's magazines have been diligently working to undermine faith in economic freedom for several decades now. I fear that what failed to connect with voters in 2012-with enough voters, anyway-was not Mitt Romney the man, but rather free enterprise, the philosophy. There is no way conservatives can undo the baleful effects of our culture on political assumptions in the course of a presidential campaign, no matter how eloquent our candidate may be. And, of course, the problem is compounded by the fact that increasing numbers of Americans live outside the free economy, either as public employees or as dependents on government benefits.

Political suicide, anyone? 

Posted: 23 Nov 2012 07:41 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

In an article referenced by Scott earlier today, Byron York shows that Mitt Romney did not lose the election because of his failure to win the Hispanic vote. Romnwy would have lost in Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire even if he had gained a large portion of the Hispanic votes in these key battleground states.

York also demonstrates that, as we have argued, Hispanics are not a natural Republican constituency. If anything, they are natural Democrats for reasons unrelated to the immigration issue. Exit poll information suggests that Hispanics based their votes on a number of issues beyond illegal immigration, and those issues favored Democrats. A majority of Hispanics who voted this Election Day favored keeping Obamacare, higher taxes for higher earners, and (by 2 to 1) keeping abortion legal.

This brings me to the question of immigration reform. Such legislation is best evaluated on its merits, rather than on its politics. However, to the extent Republican legislators undertake a political analysis, it should weigh heavily against a vote for any package that provides a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, including the children of those who are here illegally.

The Hispanic vote wasn't decisive in states like Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire because, although it favored Obama big-time, it wasn't a large portion of the vote. The kind of immigration reform pushed by Democrats would tend to change this.

Moreover, because Hispanics favor Democratic positions on a wide range of big issues having nothing to do with immigration, supporting liberal immigration reform will not win many Hispanic votes. Given these realities, I see no political case, from a Republican point of view, for supporting a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. To contrary, supporting such reform looks something like an act of political suicide.

Riding high on his U.S. manufactured diplomatic triumph, Morsi grabs authoritarian powers at home 

Posted: 23 Nov 2012 08:24 AM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Yesterday, in commenting on President Obama's apparent conclusion that the Muslim Brotherhood represents the wave of the future in the Middle East, I noted the unimpressive nature of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's electoral victory. But it is not popularity that makes Morsi and the Brotherhood look like the wave of the future. Rather, it is their will to power - the same sort of will that made Hitler and Stalin look like the wave of the future to Obama's predecessors in Hegelian thinking.

Now comes word that Morsi, in the words of the Washington Post, has taken "extensive new powers for himself, freeing his decisions from judicial review and ordering retrials for former top officials including ex-president Hosni Mubarak. In "an announcement read on state television by Morsi's spokesman and broadcast repeatedly with accompanying nationalistic songs," the Egyptian people were informed, among other things, that all decisions made by Morsi since he took office in June are final and not subject to appear or review.

Morsi's power grab follows his diplomatic triumph, manufactured by Obama, on behalf of Hamas. Having become the Protector of Gaza and the alleged Guarantor of Israeli Security, why shouldn't Morsi also declare himself the Dear Leader, or (as some are saying) the New Pharaoh, of Egypt?

Given the importance to Egypt of U.S. money, it's clear enough that the Obama administration has no real objection to Morsi's power grab. As Shadi Hamid, an Egypt expert at the Brookings Institution put it, "There is a real danger of returning to the Mubarak-era situation where the U.S. really cares about the foreign policy and turns a blind eye to domestic abuses."

But there's a huge difference between current U.S. policy towards Egypt and its policy during the Mubarak era. Before, the foreign policy quid pro quo of a "blind eye" from the U.S. was the willingness to serve as a bulwark of U.S. interests in the region, including our interest in the security of Israel. But Morsi gets the same favorable treatment while tilting Egypt towards Iran and reordering Egypt's relationship with Israel.

One can only assume that Morsi's policies with respect to Iran and Israel, like his moves towards authoritarian rule, are fine with Obama. Indeed, it's doubtful that, for Obama, the Arab Spring that he welcomed was ever about the triumph of democracy. More likely, it was always about the triumph of radicalism - the wave of the future.

Of Rice and men, part 2 

Posted: 23 Nov 2012 06:11 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

Referring to United States Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Paul Mirengoff has been asking (here and here) whether we want a dupe as Secretary of State. Good question.

On Wednesday at a UN press briefing, a reporter asked Rice to explain her view of the controversy concerning her 9/16 comments on five Sunday news shows regarding the 9/11 Benghazi attack that took the lives of four Americans. Thus spake Rice:

As a senior US diplomat, I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day, which at that time were primarily and particularly the protests that were enveloping and threatening many diplomatic facilities-American diplomatic facilities-around the world and Iran's nuclear program. The attack on Benghazi-on our facilities in Benghazi-was obviously a significant piece of this.

When discussing the attacks against our facilities in Benghazi, I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers. Everyone, particularly the intelligence community, has worked in good faith to provide the best assessment based on the information available. You know the FBI and the State Department's Accountability Review Board are conducting investigations as we speak, and they will look into all aspects of this heinous terrorist attack to provide what will become the definitive accounting of what occurred.

Rice translated: I was a dupe!

Rice peddled the same highly rehearsed line virtually verbatim on each of the five Sunday news shows. Here is how she put it on Fox News Sunday: "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video."

The transparent falsity of Rice's line at the time inspired me to kill the better part of that Sunday on a series of posts beginning with "Fools and knaves," followed by part 2, part 3, and part 4. Even Ray Charles could have seen that Rice was blowing smoke.

Considering that the intelligence community suspected terrorism from the very beginning, Erika Johnsen suggests that something doesn't fit here - "and the most obvious possibility for that missing link is that somebody high up in the food chain tweaked the talking points on a very inconvenient situation with only weeks to go before a close presidential election[.]" See also the painstaking analysis of Carl Cannon's RCP column "The problem with Susan Rice."

It is charitable to see Rice as a fool sent on a fool's errand. I think she was calculating her own advantage and faithfully serving her master. Even if one thinks her a fool on the larger issues of Obama administration foreign policy, as I do, Rice's defense of her performance requires something like the willing suspension of disbelief. As to that question Paul has been asking, I infer from Rice's highly scripted statement that Obama, for one, wants a dupe as Secretary of State.

The GOP turnout myth 

Posted: 23 Nov 2012 05:33 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

In her weekly Wall Street Journal column, Kimberly Strassel takes up an issue that is in need of updating since the final vote in the election has been tabulated:

To win the next presidential race, the GOP will have to understand what went wrong in 2012. To do that, they've got to come to grips with what did, and did not, happen with turnout.

Even as Republicans have engaged in some agonizing over their candidate and agenda, many have sought comfort in the notion that a big part of the loss came down to simple mechanics. President Obama had a stunning Election Day operation, which turned out his base. Mitt Romney's shop, by contrast, failed to get people to the polls. That explanation is soothing because it suggests that, in the future, all the GOP needs is a slicker piece of get-out-the-vote software.

It's also broadly wrong....

It's an issue to which we will inevitably return in thinking through the results of the election, but Strassel performs a service in putting the issue back on the table with some relevant numbers.

UPDATE: Byron York has more.

Obama helped hand victory to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood 

Posted: 22 Nov 2012 07:51 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

I haven't seen a better analysis of the cease-fire agreement that ended, for now, the conflict between Israel and Hamas than this one by David Goldman in FrontPage Magazine. Here are excerpts:

Hamas fires 275 rockets at Israel and is rewarded with de facto acceptance as a legitimate negotiating partner in the Middle East peace process, as well as with a relaxation of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza coast. Israel is prevented from exacting a price for Hamas' actions sufficient to deter future attacks or degrade Hamas' capabilities. In one stroke, the Obama administration has overturned thirty years of American policy, which rejected negotiations with Hamas and other terrorist organizations. . . .

When Hamas cranked up its rocket barrage against Israel ten days ago, numerous analysts asked: Why now? In retrospect, the answer appears obvious: Because Barack Obama had been re-elected and had a free hand. From February 2011, when National Intelligence Director James Clapper praised the Muslim Brotherhood as a "largely secular" organization, the White House has made clear that it believes that the Brotherhood represents the wave of the future in the Middle East. . . .

Morsi read the American political landscape accurately. He perceived that the White House was so deeply invested in the success of the Muslim Brotherhood that it would respond to a crisis provoked by Hamas by splitting the result down the middle, giving Hamas sufficient concessions to allow the terrorist group to declare victory. . . .

Presuming that Morsi's ceasefire holds, the absence of rocket fire from Gaza during the next several months holds little comfort for Israel. Hamas will have more opportunity to stockpile the longer-range Iranian Fajr rockets that struck near Tel Aviv and Jerusalem last week. Iran has boasted that it has transferred the technology to Hamas to quickly produce the rockets in Gaza. Whenever the ceasefire breaks down, Hamas will have far greater capacity to kill Israelis in the future. If Israel were to strike Iran's nuclear capabilities, the price it would pay in rocket attacks from Hamas as well as Hezbollah in the north would be substantially greater than it is now. . . .

Nothing that happens in Gaza will decide the future of the region. Israel still must decide whether to attack Iran's nuclear program in the face of adamant opposition from the Obama administration. It is not clear how long the window of opportunity will last for Israel to pre-empt Iranian nuclear weapons deployment, but it is measured in months, not years.

I am particularly intrigued by Goldman's statement that President Obama perceives the Muslim Brotherhood as representing "the wave of the future in Middle East." To Obama, the perception that something is "the wave of the future" goes a long way. Like most hard-core leftists, Obama craves to ride the wave of the future and possesses the intellectual arrogance to believe he can unerringly discern that wave.

But we shouldn't overlook the strong possibility that Obama wants the Muslim Brotherhood to be the wave of the future in the Middle East. Perhaps it is that wish that causes him to conclude, for example, that Morsi's rather unimpressive electoral victory in Egypt is evidence of a wave that will sweep away more moderate, pro-democratic, and pro-American elements.

Iran, what Iran? 

Posted: 22 Nov 2012 06:51 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Fareed Zakaria claims that Israel dominates the New Middle East. He concludes, therefore, that Israel's existence is not in danger.

But in his analysis, Zakaria never once mentions Iran.

I think it's widely understood that Zakaria is overrated as a pundit. With this column, he shows himself to be unserious.

Uh oh. Now Obama wants your RETIREMENT savings

Is there no end to the financial outrages of the Obama administration?

Now it appears your retirement savings such as 401(k) plans are being eyed by you-know-who ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

MONSTER phenomenon sparks major catastrophe fear

This is no ordinary problem, folks.

It's already estimated to be more than 6 acres in size, and one U.S. state is in danger of experiencing an environmental calamity rivaling the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster.

You've got to see this.

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Conservative Christians win vote - why aren't they happy?

Despite the decision of laity in the Church of England to reject the ordination of females as bishops, America's Anglican conservatives aren't celebrating.

They still view the church as a failing organization, "drifting from her catholic and apostolic roots."

Here's why ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

'Passion of the Christ' 'sequel' looking for YOU

If Mel Gibson's movie about the death of Jesus could rock Hollywood, breaking down doors for the gospel and new generations of Christian filmmakers, imagine what a motion picture about Christ's resurrection could do.

And imagine if the filmmakers had a role for you to play ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Imagine that! A president who publicly repents of sins

Over 50 million unborn babies' lives extinguished since passage of Roe v. Wade ... homosexual marriage legalized in more states ... sexual perversion normalized and taught in public schools ... dishonest politicians stirring up envy to justify their unlawful grab for wealth and power ...

Could you ever imagine President Obama publicly confessing and repenting of America's sins? Or dedicating his nation to God?

No? Well, here's a president who did just that for his own country ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Forensic profiler: Obama confessing election fraud

You don't want to lie or try to hide anything around this guy.

He's worked on some of the biggest crime cases of the last 20 years, and now this forensic profiler is applying his skills to evidence massive election fraud gave Barack Obama his second term.

And, he says, it's Obama himself who's spilling the beans ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

15 grinches you may want to avoid at Christmas

The Christmas season is profit time for these big retailers who use all the trappings of Christmas - colors, lights, gift-giving - in their advertising, store displays and on the Web.

But they refuse to make ANY mention of "Christmas."

Here are the Top 15 Christmas chameleons trying to get your money by pretending they're celebrating the same holiday you are ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

TV comedy wants you to die laughing ... no, really

Laughter, it's said, is the best medicine.

But that won't be the case for the terminally ill killed off on this upcoming TV comedy sitcom that uses laughter to advance acceptance of assisted suicide ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Surprise! Audit uncovers rampant fraud in fed program

It started with good intentions ... a program for people who just needed a little help to live a "normal" life ... a little help that would keep them from becoming huge burdens on the taxpayers ...

If you want a classic example of government incompetence - and fraudsters knowing how to take advantage of it - this is it!

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Home-alone hero 'armed to the teeth' against intruders

They thought they picked the perfect house to burglarize, instead the cowardly crooks found themselves face-to-face with a hero who refused to go down without a fight.

And now this brave victim is fighting for his life ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Between 1 and 100 ... what's YOUR Obama-support number

If you live in one of these states, there's a good chance Barack Obama has got your number.

It tells him if you support him ... or not. He knows your friends and which ones might be most effective at swaying you to his point of view.

Government has just gotten even more intrusive ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Are you ready for the hair on the back of your neck to stand up?

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Dem operative suspected in serial rapes

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

My 2 dads: Kids not so 'happy and gay'

Conventional wisdom is that children of same-sex parents do as well as, or even better than children from intact, two-parent married households.

Now a "breakthrough" study has blown the lid off that narrative ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Add this to list of disguises that won't fool IDF

If you are a senior Hamas terrorist ... in a war zone ... hoping to evade one of Israel's precision guided missiles ... and you're looking for a disguise ... definitely DON'T pick this one ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Look who's 'being Romneyed by media'

Will his faith in God and the Bible keep this popular Republican from ever being president?

Look how not only the media, but also some in the GOP, are pummeling this Reaganesque politician ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Romney was not the problem

Small minds always leap to the answers given the last time around, which is probably why Maxine Waters keeps getting re-elected. But the last time is not necessarily the same as this time. A terrorist attack is not the same as the Cold War, a war in Afghanistan is not the same as a war in Iraq, and Mitt Romney is not the same as John McCain or Bob Dole.

But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: "What we got was a weak, moderate candidate handpicked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The presidential loss is unequivocally on them."

Is this the 'dumbest' political Tweet ever?

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Exposed! Criminal acts of anti-gun mayors

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Are you ready for 'the largest tax increase in history'?

When Kermit the Frog sang, "It's tough being green," he hadn't even gotten the tax bill for what green campaigners hope to pass into law in Barack Obama's second term.

Sen. James Inhofe has the numbers, and the only good thing we can say about them is they make Obamacare look like a bargain ...

Read the latest now on WND.com

Plus!

Have you ever found yourself thinking the Obama administration operates more like a crime family than the servant of the people you learned about in civics class?

And those election results ... have you wondered if maybe all those illegal aliens had something to do with Obama's "victory"?

Well, you're not the only one ...

Click here for details

Shhhh! Obama has Internet secrets

Are you concerned about Internet privacy?

So is Barack Obama.

He's so concerned, he has issued a directive permitting the National Security Agency to "reach into private Internet communications."

So, what does this mean for your privacy?

Can't tell you -- that's private.

Welcome to the most transparent administration ever ...

Read the latest now on WND.com

Iran: Here's what our weapons did to Israel

Iran's claims of damage its weapons, placed into the hands of Hamas, did to Israel -- if confirmed -- are a game changer, and the implications for the next war are sobering.

This isn't over ... not by a long shot.

Read the latest now on WND.com

Plus!

A court has stepped into a school dispute in San Antonio, Texas, where the district ordered a student expelled for refusing to wear a badge signifying participation in the district's computer-chip based "Student Locator Project."

Click here for details

Feds take action on 'illegal Obama money'

Remember all the allegations about Barack Obama stuffing his campaign war chest will all sorts of illegal donations? Well, the federal government is now taking action.

Read the latest now on WND.com

Plus!

It's perhaps one of the most outrageous rulings in history. The Republican Party has been legally barred from fighting vote fraud, but the same rule does NOT apply to Democrats. What in the world is going on here?

Click here for details