The Occasional Observer

Ron Burgundy: Brick, what are you eating? 
Brick Tamland: Oh, it is one of those delicious falafel hot dogs with cinnamon and bacon on top. 
Ron Burgundy: What do you mean "one of those?" Those don't exist... that's a used coffee filter with cigarette butts on it. 

Anyone else as juiced for Django Unchained as I am?

Remember back in 2010, when a Tea Party rally of 3,000 would have one moron get caught with a stupid a sign and the press would describe the whole rally as "angry," "racist," with "violent overtones?"

Michelle Malkin is covering the happenings in Michigan this week.  The legislature there passed bills making MI a right-to-work state, and Gov. Snyder signed it into law.  Thus, Unions now will actually need to have their membership deicide to join the Union.  They will have to convince workers that they are getting a value commensurate with the dues they are paying to join.  The Union won't simply be able to confiscate a portion of every employee's paycheck, regardless of whether they like the Union, think the Union is working in their best interest, etc.

As a result of this legislation, Unions are out demonstrating, in a largely peaceful fashion, according to the MSM.

Michelle Malkin captures the reality of these "peaceful" demonstrations.

... or at least the hour.

As you can see in this article (and please do watch the video), JoAnn Watson has publicly called for "leadership" out of Detroit's city government.  What is "leadership," you may ask?  Creating incentives for businesses to invest in Detroit and rebuild its woeful economy, and hence, its tax base?

Nope.  Leadership means going to Washington to get some "quid pro quo" in return for the city's denizens supporting the reelection of Barack Obama.  As she terms it, "bringing home the bacon."   She also gets in a little historical footnote, recalling when Mayor Coleman Young successfully, er, leveraged his relationship with President Carter.

Personally, I feel that JoAnn Watson has done a public good here.  Not in lowering politics to city-level electioneering.   But in being honest, clear, and direct.  Our politicians (the "good ones", anyway) have become paid actors, adept in obfuscation and half-truths.   I can live with JoAnn Watson asking D.C. for a Dem GOTV payback if it allows some sunlight into the dark back-rooms of the American political establishment.  If the American public is given enough truth, I am confident that this approach to politics (as well as other forms of radical redistribution) will be rejected.  And if not, the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of our citizens. Fox 2 News Headlines

I'm really having a hard time understanding tax math.

Obama wants to raise rates for individuals making $200 K, or families making $250 K. Hmmmm... So if the level for one person is $200 K, then how is the level for two or more people (say a family of four) $250 K? Seems to me that the family level should be at least $500 K to be comparable, but maybe I just forgot to carry a 1 somewhere. It's also possible I'm just not qualified to do math. Perhaps I should have spent more time and gotten two Ph.D.s in engineering, instead of just the one. 

Also, here's another outrageous suggestion. Maybe, must maybe, there should be a cost of living adjustment to the levels. I'm thinking cash doesn't go quite as far living near major cities along the coasts as it does in the midwest. But what do I know, I'm probably just being silly again. It's not like my wife's family is from the Midwest and I have direct firsthand knowledge of living costs on the coasts vs. Midwest.

 Yeah, I'm just being silly. The central planners know best.

Analysis from Ben Shapiro at Brietbart:

This is only the latest in a string of groundshaking events demonstrating that the Obama administration hid information vital to the American people during the last days of the 2012 election cycle. The fact that the most respected soldier of his generation, Petraeus, would be leaving the administration during an Obama second term, had to be known by the White House prior to the election. And they said nothing in order to run out the clock.

The fact that Attorney General Eric Holder was considering stepping down from the administration had to be known by the White House prior to the election. Meanwhile, during the election cycle, the Obama administration claimed executive privilege in order to shield Holder from questions about Fast and Furious.

The fact that an American drone was fired upon in international airspace by Iranian airplanes was hidden from the American public for a week in order to prevent the American public from recognizing the failure of the Obama Iranian foreign policy. The facts in Benghazi were lied about by virtually every member of the Obama administration for weeks upon weeks.

The fact that the administration had been slow-walking reams of vital regulation to beyond the election in order to avoid scaring off voters was hidden from the public. Now that the Obama administration has succeeded in winning a second term, they are cleaning house. The two figures most linked to the disaster in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Petraeus, are gone. The figure most linked with Fast and Furious, Eric Holder, will be gone. The figure most linked to the administration’s economic failures, Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, will be gone.

Only Obama remains. He ran out the clock on his scandals, and now throws anyone associated with them overboard.

The Petraeus resignation is only the most recent evidence that the Obama administration will lie to the American people to achieve its ends. But with all of his experts gone, Obama’s cabinet will now be staffed by the political C team in a time of crisis, both domestically and internationally.

Trying to pick up the pieces, there is a thread at Race 4 2012 discussing what's next, likely '16 candidates for the GOP, and how the GOP needs to position itself.   This was one of the better observations I read:

People are taking the wrong lessons away from this. It is not about issues. It is not about being more vicious in campaigns (though that may be an effective tool is used correctly). It is about empathy, stupid.

Look back at every Presidential race. 9/10 (or more) the candidate that is perceived as more empathetic wins the race. You can’t get a better predictor than that. That is the goal … be more empathetic than the other guy. Make your policies so that they appear better for the middle class than the other guy’s. If that takes character assassination (as it did in this race), you might need to do it. If it takes lofty rhetoric of “hope and change,” do it.

The problem is not the tactics, it is the positioning. You can be more qualified than the other candidate, and you can still lose. The other candidate can be incompetent and inexperienced, and you will still lose. The key is empathy.

Romney (yes he deserves blame) and his campaign made a terrible mistake by not responding to Obama’s character assassination, and the 47% video (while taken out of context and a complete freak accident) was a death knell for Romney.

We must get our heads in the game and focus everything we say and do on convincing people that we care about them as people (because we do). That doesn’t mean we give them handouts or engage in liberal policies. But we must change our tone and rhetoric.