The Taranto Principle, Leftist 2004 myths, and why Obama will (probably) lose (big)

Several years ago, Wall St. Journal columnist James Taranto introduced an idea that came to be known as the Taranto principle, it states:

the liberal media often ill serves liberal politicians by creating a feedback loop in which both sides reinforce each other's prejudices while public opinion goes its own way.

I think the 2012 election could become the biggest vindication of the Taranto principle since Paulene Kael in 1972.  At a minimum, the Obama re-election campaign has based its strategy around liberal myths about George W. Bush's 2004 re-election that leave it disconnected from reality.

The liberal 2004 mythology can be summed up as follows: "after a horrific first term for Bush, thatrottenSOBKarlRove(tm) knew Bush couldn't win so he brought in the Swift Vets to trash warheroJohnKerry(tm) and thatrottenSOBKarlRove(tm) also ginned up anti-gay sentiment to get his base to turnout."  All of the preceding statements are false.  Consider the following:

• George W. Bush had a reasonably successful first term -- People tend to forget this, because of what followed, but George W. Bush's first term was reasonably successful.  In his first term, George W. Bush cut taxes, responded appropriately to 9/11, and removed Saddam Hussein from power.  The disastrous "freedom agenda," amnesty push, and Wall St. bailout that unraveled Bush's Presidency were, in November 2004, still in the future.  Barack Obama's first term record, by contrast, speaks for itself.  George W. Bush didn't head into the 2004 election with 43 months of 8%+ unemployment (that would be closer to 11% if they weren't cooking the books) and embassies on fire.

• The Swift Boat Veterans were telling the Truth -- It's impossible to overstate the importance of the Swift Boat Veterans to the myths leftists tell themselves about the 2004 election.  Heck, leftists have event turned 'swift-boating' into shorthand for an underhanded smear campaign.  Unfortunately, for the left, the reason the swift boat veterans charges stuck is because they were true.  Leftist attacks against Mitt, by contrast, are laughably false.  That's why the over these over the top attacks aren't working.

• Homosexual 'marriage' wasn't a particularly important issue in 2004 -- First things first, Karl Rove didn't make homosexual 'marriage' a campaign issue in 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme court did.  That being said, homosexual 'marriage' wasn't particularly important.  Most of the states that had marriage referendums were solidly Republican and, in Ohio, the marriage referendum passed with a wider margin than Bush's victory.  Bush's 2004 voters weren't motivated by homosexual 'marriage,' they were motivated by post-9/11 national security issues.  Fast forward to 2012 and you see why the 'War on Women' narrative has been such a flop against persistent unemployment and embassies going up in flames.

In 2004, you had a reasonably successful, if unspectacular, incumbent (whose real policy disasters were still in the future) going against a challenger who told serious fibs about himself.  In 2012, by contrast, you have an incumbent with a disastrous record going against a challenger who has, if anything, undersold his own record.  Team Obama cannot replicate George W. Bush's 2004 re-election strategy, largely because they don't understand how Bush's victory happened in the first place.

Why Vladimir Putin is an Asshole (Partial!)

Recently, Google added analytics to the blogger package, so I've been able to track where readership from this blog comes from.  I was shocked to learn that the #2 country in the world for traffic to Cahnman's Musings is Russia.  Since that either means I'm being monitored by the FSS (the modern equivalent of the KGB), or I'm an inspiration to dissidents, the time has come to talk about Vladimir Putin.

Who is Vladimir Putin?!?

Vladmir Putin is the newly re-inaugurated "President" of Russia; in reality, he's the Dictator of Russia.  He's a former KGB guy.  He's wildly corrupt.  All-in-all, he's a really bad dude.  I stand by my characterization in the title, here's why:

The following seven examples are a small sample of Vladimir Putin's malfeasance.

• Bullying the 'Near Abroad' --  In the imperial Russian mind, former Soviet 'republics' are known as Russia's 'Near Abroad.'  Whether it's murdering the President of Poland, attempting to assassinate a Ukranian Presidential candidate, invading the sovereign republic of Georgia, or any one of hundreds of other examples, Vladimir Putin bullies those countries to keep them dependent on Moscow.  Vladmir Putin makes it impossible for tens of millions of people beyond Russia borders to live in freedom.

• Helping Hugo Chavez -- Over the years, Putin has sold hundreds of Billions of Dollars worth of weapons to America's #1 enemy in the Western Hemisphere, Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez.

• Helping Iran Build Nukes -- Time and again (and long before Obama), Vladimir Putin has run diplomatic interference for and actively assisted construction of Iran's nuclear program.

• Helping Saddam Hussein ditch his WMD's -- In February 2003, Saddam Hussein's WMD exited Iraq via Syria with Russian assistance.

• Murdering Journalists -- Hundreds of Journalists have been murdered by the Security Services in Russia since Putin assumed power.  (Apologize for the Wikipedia link, but it has the full list in one place.)

• Provoking the 2008 Stock Market Collapse -- Yup, Putin helped provoke the 2008 stock market collapse; his exact role is in dispute, but it's now widely agreed he played a part.

• Homoerotic Propaganda Photos -- Whether he's riding a horse, flexing his biceps, or trouncing around with his gun Vladimir Putin has been photographed without his shirt time and again for years.  I can't STAND these photos, they're creepy and gross.  The fact that Barack Obama does the same thing doesn't help....

A small sampling of the evil Vladmir Putin has done over the years.  Vladimir Putin is an Asshole.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Marginalizing Congress: Obama's Revolutionary Consistency

Two months ago, I had a meeting with the Staff of Texas U.S. Senate Candidate Ted Cruz.  A few days later, I had an extended conversation with Ted.  I know is sounds craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy, but Barack Obama's actions over the past few weeks are totally consistent with one of the major concerns I expressed in those conversations.

One of Barack Obama's long-term objectives is to replace the constitutional authority of Congress with the unconstitutional authority of Commissions and Czars.  Making this objective an inescapable reality is much more important to Barack Obama than winning any election.

Barack Obama's unconstitutional war in Libya is always going to be piece of evidence #1 in this analysis.   Libya was about establishing a precedent for U.N. Security Council resolutions to be more important to deploying the U.S. military overseas than the Article I, Section 8 authority of Congress.  Also, just so we're clear, whatever his flaws, George W. Bush at least had Congressional authorization in removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Over the past few weeks, we've seen two MAJOR pieces of confirmation for my hypothesis.

Piece of Confirmation #1:

Barack Obama isn't going to raise money for members of Congress of his own party.  Huh?!?  Isn't the President ALWAYS the number one fundraiser for members of Congress of his own party.  Of course he is.

I can't help thinking back to a Houston fundraiser George W. Bush attended for a GOP Congressional Candidate in 2008.  Two people I know were in the room when George W. Bush made news.  The key, however, for this analysis is that that incident occurred when George W. Bush's approval rating was in the mid-30's.  Barack Obama is refusing to raise money for members of Congress of his own party when his approval rating is about 8 points higher than Bush's in 2008.  It doesn't make any sense; unless, of course, you have a long term goal to marginalize the constitutional authority of Congress and you don't really care about any transient election.

Piece of Confirmation #2:

Did you hear Obama's speech in Oklahoma on Thursday?!?  Among his many lies in that speech, Obama told this whopper:

"Unfortunately, Congress decided they wanted their own timeline.  Not the company, not the experts, but members of Congress who decided this might be a fun political issue decided to try to intervene and make it impossible for us to make an informed decision."

 Notice how, in that statement, Congress is the bad guy and so-called 'experts' are the good guys?!?  That's Progressivism 101.  You'll note, also, that Obama isn't distinguishing between parties in that statement.

Obama's real game is obvious, if you're willing to admit the truth to yourself.

What really happened to Saddam's WMD's

Looks like they went to Syria: