Niall Ferguson: "Margaret Thatcher was right about most things"

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were the kind of leaders that the West would dearly need in these turbulent times, when so many politicians seem to have lost touch with reality. That is why it with great pleasure I urge you to read professor Niall Ferguson´s brilliant article on the Iron Lady:

It is still terribly hard for those who opposed her to admit it, but Margaret Thatcher was right about most things.
She was right that Britain’s trade unions had become much too powerful. She was right that nationalised industries had to be privatised. She was right that inflation has monetary causes.
She was also mostly right about foreign policy. She was right to drive the forces of Argentina’s junta out of the Falklands and she was right to exhort a “wobbly” George H.W. Bush to mete out the same treatment to Saddam Hussein’s forces in Kuwait.
Though labelled the “Iron Lady” by a Soviet magazine, her hawkishness in the cold war did not blind her to the possibilities of doing business with Mikhail Gorbachev. Like Ronald Reagan, she was quick to see the opportunity offered by his policies of glasnost and perestroika.
The outcome of the cold war seems inevitable with the benefit of hindsight. But for most of the 1980s, Thatcher had to endure a relentless stream of criticism from fellow travellers and useful idiots: believers in unilateral disarmament who would gladly have allowed the Soviets to establish dominance in intermediate range nuclear forces in Europe, as well as exponents of “convergence theory”, who insisted that the countries of Nato and the Warsaw Pact were gradually and peacefully growing alike (give or take the odd gulag). Above all, however, Thatcher was right about Europe. She was right to push Europe in the direction of real free trade by backing and signing the Single European Act of 1986. Yet she was equally right to oppose the idea of a single European currency.
On this issue, the Financial Times, as well as a great many other respected publications, owes Thatcher not only the respect due to a great leader, but also an apology. Throughout the 1980s, many critics consistently heaped opprobrium on her for resisting the efforts of her own cabinet to get sterling into the European exchange rate mechanism.
Consistently, Thatcher’s sceptics took the side of those, such as Nigel Lawson, Geoffrey Howe and John Major, who favoured “shadowing” the Deutschmark and then pegging the sterling-mark exchange rate.

Read the entire article here

PS

I  am convinced that Margaret Thatcher would vote for Brexit, if she still were with us.

Fortunately Nigel Lawson has seen the light, and is now a leading figure on the Brexit side!

A tale of two CVs

Extracts from the official CVs of the Finnish and Swedish Prime Ministers make interesting reading

Prime Minister Alexander Stubb:

1999 Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) international politics, London School of Economics
1995 Master of Arts (MA) political science, College of Europe, Bruges
1994 Dîplome de Langue et Civilisation Française (DL), Sorbonne Universitet, Paris
1993 Bachelor of Arts (BA) political science, Furman University, South Carolina, United States
1988 Matriculation (magna cum laude), Gymanasiet Lärkan, Helsinki
1986 Highschool Diploma, Mainland Highschool, Daytona Beach, Florida, United States

Language skills
Finnish, Swedish, English, French and German
Publications
Eleven books on the EU, about 30 academic articles on the EU and over 100 columns

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven:

Trade union training
School of Social Work and Public Administration, Umeå (1½ years)
Welder training
Upper secondary school, business programme(2 years)
Compulsory school (9 years)

Mr. Löfven´s official CV page does not include any information about his language skills. However, this brief video gives a hint:

PS

It goes without saying that a less educated politican can be as good a politician as an educated one. However, in our globalized age it certainly helps to have language and educational skills.

Someone in the Obama adminstration has a good sense of humor: Biden "one of the leading statesmen of his time"

"One of the leading statesmen of his time"?

Definition of a statesman:

"A political leader whose wisdom, integrity, etc, win great respect"

Collins English Dictionary

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates has written a memoir, which at least this blogger looks forward to reading:

The White House is bristling over former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' new memoir accusing President Barack Obama of showing too little enthusiasm for the U.S. war mission in Afghanistan and sharply criticizing Vice President Joe Biden's foreign policy instincts.

In a book set for release next week by the publishing house Knopf, Gates writes that Biden is "a man of integrity," but also a political figure who has been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades." --

... in the case of the Gates book, the White House chose to speak out quickly and sharply.

The National Security Council issued a statement late Tuesday asserting that Obama relies on Biden's "good counsel" every day and considers him "one of the leading statesmen of his time."

 

The fact that the White House considers Joe Biden "one of the leading statesmen of his time" shows that someone in the Obama administration still has a sense of humor.

 

The Pardoning of Mikhail Khodorkovsky - A Bizarre Twist

Putin's pardoning of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once Russia's richest man, is creating a huge amount of speculation. The fate of Putin's (former?) friend from his time in Leningrad, Igor Sechin, is an interesting "sideshow" in this affair:

In another bizarre twist, just after the prison service statement came out, Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin was quoted by Russian news agencies as telling Putin in a meeting that the state-owned oil giant would be willing to give Khodorkovsky a job but that "all top-manager posts are currently filled."

Rosneft acquired most of the assets of Khodorkovsky's oil company Yukos after it was liquidated and sold off in pieces upon Khodorkovsky's arrest in 2003.

This bizarre twist is even more bizarre when we consider Sechin's background as the figurehead of the Siloviki, the network of current and former security service officers who run Russia's intelligence, military and law enforcement agencies and his role in the Yukos affair:

Their figurehead since Putin's arrival in the Kremlin in 2000 has been Igor Sechin, a long-time close Putin ally from St. Petersburg. Sechin managed to transfer a majority of the assets of Khodorkovsky's defunct Yukos oil empire to Rosneft, the government-owned oil company of which he is chairman.
Sechin has always insisted that the Yukos affair was not only "about tax offenses, but also serious capital crimes like murder, torture and blackmail." Such charges were intended to put Khodorkovsky behind bars for many more long years. Now it appears that Sechin's influence is waning.

What makes Vladimir Putin "succeed at everything he does"?

German Der Spiegel has an interesting article about why Vladimir Putin seems to "succeed at everything he does":

In September, he convinced Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control. In doing so, he averted an American military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad and made Obama look like an impotent global policeman.
In late July, Putin ignored American threats and granted temporary asylum to US whistleblower Edward Snowden, a move that stirred up tensions within the Western camp. The Germans and the French were also outraged over Washington's surveillance practices.
Since then, Putin has scored one coup after the next. In the fall, when meaningful progress was made in talks with Tehran over a curtailment of Iran's nuclear program, Putin once again played a key role.
And now, by exerting massive pressure on Viktor Yanukovych, he has persuaded the Ukrainian president to withdraw from an association agreement with the European Union that took years to prepare, just a few days before the scheduled signing at a summit of EU leaders. In doing so, he brought Ukraine back into Russia's sphere of influence, at least for now. --

"For Putin, all it took was 20 minutes with Obama on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg to avert a bombing of Syria and to lay the groundwork for a solution to the Syrian chemical weapons problem," says a senior Russian diplomat.
According to an unpublished, 44-page report by the Institute for Strategic Studies, the Kremlin's most powerful think tank, to which SPIEGEL has gained access, Putin's authority is now "so extensive that he can even influence a vote on Syria in the US Congress." The report praises Putin as the "new world leader of the conservatives."
The report's authors write that the hour of conservatives has now come worldwide because "the ideological populism of the left" -- a reference to men like Obama and French President François Hollande -- "is dividing society."

Of course the Kremlin's "most powerful think tank" is completely wrong about Putin being a "world leader of the conservatives". Their man is nothing but a corrupted authoritarian in charge of a mafia state.

The fact that the former KGB man now "seems to be succeeding at everything he does" has nothing to do with conservatism. No, it is wholly a result of the fact that the US now has the probably weakest and most incompetent president ever. With a strong leader in charge in the US, Putin would never have been able assert himself. And the weakness of the other western "leaders", Hollande, Cameron and Merkel above all, is making it even easier for Putin to "succeed".

Former DDR communist party youth organization member Angela Merkel today took charge of Germany's new (leftist and environmentalist) government

An FDJ (DDR communist party youth organization) badge.

Former DDR communist party youth organization member Angela Merkel today began her third term as German chancellor. Merkel, who is the leader of the CDU - the largest of the two social democratic parties now working together in the new government - was elected by 462 votes to 150 in Germany's lower house of parliament.

Merkel's CDU has long ago ceased to be a conservative party, although German media for some strange reason still insist on calling her a "conservative leader":

The 59-year-old conservative leader accepted the record result and thanked the country's politicians for their trust in her. No chancellor has ever received as many votes by parliament, even though at least 32 members of her own coalition didn't vote for her.

Merkel's new "grand coalition" government -- which partners her Christian Democratic Union (CDU), its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) -- now holds 505 of the Bundestag's 631 seats. The alliance came about after Merkel's CDU nearly achieved a parliamentary majority in the Sept. 22 federal election, but saw their coalition partners, the liberal Free Democrats, crash out of parliament by falling short of the 5 percent threshold needed to win seats.

The coalition agreement is a compilation of primarily leftist and radical environmentalist items which are not even remotely connected with anything a conservative government would be working for:

Their coalition agreement includes the SPD-backed introduction of a national minimum wage, the continued pursuit of the Energiewende, the country's transition to renewable energy, and a steady-as-she-goes approach to the euro crisis.

The CDU's Bavarian sister party CSU, which still includes a number of real conservatives, is almost fully marginalized in the new government.

Quote of the week: Fouad Ajami on the difference between Obama and Reagan

"The Reagan presidency was about America, and never about Ronald Reagan"

Fouad Ajami, senior fellow at the Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, on the difference between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan:

During his first campaign, Mr. Obama had paid tribute to Ronald Reagan as a "transformational" president and hinted that he aspired to a presidency of that kind. But the Reagan presidency was about America, and never about Ronald Reagan. Reagan was never a scold or a narcissist. He stood in awe of America, and of its capacity for renewal. There was forgiveness in Reagan, right alongside the belief in the things that mattered about America—free people charting their own path.

French president Hollande gives up his summer residence - Will other political leaders follow suit?

One must admit, that our political leaders often have a tough and difficult job, particularly in times of austerity. On the other hand, in a historical perspective, elected (not to speak of unelected) heads of state and prime ministers have been rather good at creating an environment for themselves, which makes it a little bit easier for them to endure the hardships of the job.

Authoritarians and dictators are of course in class of their own in this regard. Take e.g. Russia's Vladimir Putin, who's presidential perks include 20 palaces and other luxury residences, 58 planes and helicopters, several yachts and a collection of watches worth many times his annual salary.

But even in western democracies, presidents and prime ministers usually enjoy a rather opulent lifestyle, which does not go along very well with the austerity measures they prescribe to ordinary tax payers.

The Brégançon fortress, the French president's former summer residence.

That is why this decision by French president François Hollande is a clever symbolic move:

"François Hollande has given up the Riviera fortress that has served as a retreat for French presidents since Charles de Gaulle, in the name of austerity.

The Brégançon fortress, perched on a rocky outcrop overlooking the Mediterranean, will from next year be thrown open to the public as one of France's national monuments, Mr Hollande's office said."

Will David Cameron follow suit by giving up his summer residence Chequers? Or how about Angela Merkel selling off her second residence in Bonn?

Or would e.g. the president of Finland, Sauli Niinistö, who is known for his rather modest lifestyle, be prepared to get rid of his official summer residence, which is described as a "mini-Versailles" on the president's official website?:

Kultaranta, the Finnish president's "mini-Versailles".

"The President of the Republic's summer residence, Kultaranta, stands in beautiful 54-hectare grounds in Naantali on the southwest coast. As well as the granite-built house, the complex includes numerous outbuildings and greenhouses, and a well-tended park

Kultaranta park is a kind of mini-Versailles. In the middle is the 'Medallion', surrounded by a carefully trimmed fir hedge. Inside is Kultaranta's famous rose garden, which has 3,500 bushes. The scent and colour of these roses are at their peak in the middle of the summer, when the President and family and their guests come to Naantali for the holidays. The parkland to the north of Kultaranta is in practically a natural state, though a few sandy pathways have been built there, and the woodland is kept in good condition.
Kultaranta has about 1000 square metres of greenhouses. The garden supplies the President's household with both flowers and vegetables all year round.

Midsummer, the great summer festival, is a special time at Kultaranta: the President is sure to have arrived by then, and the great Midsummer bonfire on a nearby islet is an event enjoyed by the whole Naantali area.
Tourists are denied access to the house at Kultaranta. It is the President's 'summer villa', a place where he/she can be undisturbed."

(images by Wikipedia)

Professor Frank Furedi on how conservatism came to be treated as a mental deficiency

Paul Krugman: "In recent months, the GOP seems to have transitioned from being the stupid party to being the crazy party."

Senator Mark Warner: "Enough is enough. Sequestration is stupid. Shutting down the government is stupidity on steroids."

Ben Bernanke: Stop Being the Stupid Party

Arizone Republic Editorial Board: Why are 'tea-party' Republicans being so stupid?

Foreign Policy: The Walking Dumb

You’re right-wing? You must be stupid. University of Kent sociology professor Frank Furedi on how conservatism came to be treated as a mental deficiency:

It is worth noting that, historically, the manipulation of science to discredit political opponents – from nineteenth-century craniology to twentieth-century Stalinist and Nazi theories – was strongly criticised by the intellectual community. Today, by contrast, it is self-styled intellectuals, especially the ones who refer to themselves as ‘liberal’, who use such pseudo-scientific tactics to pathologise their opponents as a mentally and intellectually inferior political species. And there is barely any dissent from this view.--

Since the 1940s, intelligence has been turned into a cultural weapon that is used by individuals and groups to validate their status and authority. Inevitably, this weapon is most effectively used by those claiming the status of an intellectual. As Mark F Proudman has written: ‘The imputation of intelligence and of its associated characteristics of enlightenment, broad-mindedness, knowledge and sophistication to some ideologies and not to others is itself therefore a powerful tool of ideological advocacy.’ (3)
Making fun of the parochial and folksy ways of right-wing politicians and exposing their grammatical errors to ridicule is one way that intellectuals assume moral superiority these days. Those who have something of a monopoly over modern-day intellectual capital can thus present themselves as the possessors of moral authority, too. --

It is of course quite legitimate to argue that the ideas held by conservatives are stupid. But the tactic of devaluing the mental capacity of conservatives calls into question the validity of open debate and free speech. Why take seriously or discuss the views of those who are intellectually inferior? In the past, such arguments were used by anti-democratic theorists to put the case against popular sovereignty, against mass engagement, against allowing the allegedly ignorant public to get involved in politics. Today, such arguments are used by those who pose as knowledge-rich experts as a way of suggesting that the rest of us – the ignorant – should defer to them.
Genuine intellectuals who are devoted to the pursuit of ideas and who understand the transformative potential of debate should reject the politics of insult. Instead of sneeringly declaring ‘they don’t get it’, a real intellectual should develop ideas in a way that would allow ‘them’ to get it. Indeed, it is the conviction that most human beings have the potential to grasp the issues facing their communities that underpins the ideals of democratic politics and popular sovereignty. The real problem today is not stupid conservatives, but people with multiple university degrees who ‘don’t get’ what it truly means to be an intellectual.

Read the entire article here

How right you are, professor!

Die Welt on the real result of the German election: The "social democratization" of the Bundestag

Last Sunday's German election was a victory for Angela Merkel's (formally) conservative CDU/CSU. However, Dorothea Siems, writing in the conservative German Daily Die Welt discloses the real result of the election:  The "social democratization" of the German Bundestag.  The fact that the conservative business friendly wing has virtually disappeared from the CDU means, according to Die Welt, that there will be three social democratic parties and a socialist party in the German parliament.

Die Welt is of course on the spot. Angela Merkel is, and has never been, a real conservative. She and finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble will be more than happy to include the second largest social democratic party, the SDP, in the next cabinet, although it will all be preceded by a performance of political theatre in order to give the impression of difficult negotiations. (Of course there is a certain element of competition between the leaders of the two "social democratic" parties)

PS
There are still a number of  real conservatives in the Bavarian sister party CSU, but their influence on the policies pursued by Merkel's "social democrats" will be minimal.

The real reason why so many German greens prefer Merkel

German Der Spiegel notes that almost half of the country's Green Party voters would like to see Angela Merkel continue as Chancellor:

According to a new survey, some 45 percent of Green Party voters would like to see Angela Merkel remain in the Chancellery following fall elections.

To be sure, 53 percent of those queried by the pollsters at Forsa on behalf of the business daily Handelsblatt said they would like to see a change at the top. But the high share of Merkel supporters shows that the Greens have left their rambunctious beginnings far behind.
On the one hand, that's not terribly surprising. Germany's 1968 generation, out of which the Greens were born, has aged and left radicalism far behind. The Green Party itself has likewise become more staid, and large swaths of the party belong to a similar upper middle class demographic that tends to vote for Merkel's Christian Democrats -- or, in Bavaria, the Christian Social Union, the party to which Stücklen belonged.

Indeed, a study last September found that the Greens have some of the country's richest voters, along with the business-friendly Free Democrats. On average, they earn more than €2,500 per month ($40,000 per year). A majority of Green voters tend to live in big cities and are well educated. In short, they increasingly fall directly into that catchall category of being spiessig, Germany's take on bourgeois.

However, Der Spiegel misses the point. The main reason why so many German greenies prefer Merkel is the fact that the lady - and her formerly conservative CDU/CSU - has adopted most of the policies of the greens, including an absurd energy transition policy (Energiewende), which soon will seriously begin to hurt economic growth in the country.

Margaret Thatcher (1925 - 2013) - The greatest 20th century peacetime Prime Minister in Britain

Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, (1925 - 2013)

"We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain only to see them re-imposed at a European level, with a European superstate exercising a new dominance from Brussels." 
Margaret Thatcher, 1988

Margaret Thatcher, the last member of the trio Reagan, John Paul II and Thatcher, who destroyed Soviet Communism and its Evil Empire, died today. 

This quote from the cover of Thatcher's speechwriter John O'Sullivan's book "The President, the Pope, and the the Prime Minister", says it all:

"Not only did Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Karol Wojtyla (the future John Paul II) rise to the top, but all three of them  also survived assassination attempts, collaborated in the miraculous peaceful liberation of Eastern Europe from Soviet Communism, and reinvigorated their respective countries and the West. They were beacons of optimism cutting through the malaise and despair that afflicted 1970s America, strike-ridden post-imperial Britain, and a Catholic Church rocked by social and  sexual revolutions." 

Thatcher was forced to leave office as a result of a political coup in her own party. Those politicians who contributed to her downfall should be ashamed of what they did. 

The fact of the matter is that Thatcher was right about all the important issues she had to deal with, particularly the question of Britain's relationship with Europe. 

Even David Cameron, who used to take pride in distancing himself from Margaret Thatcher and her policies, has now finally realized that Britain needs the kind of new, looser relationship to Europe that Thatcher espoused. 

The "sequester" hits the White House

Things are beginning to look serious in Washington D.C.: 

In the latest dire warning about the effects of automatic government spending cuts known as the "sequester," an Obama administration official said on Wednesday that not even the White House's own operations will be spared.

"The Executive Office of the President is subject to the sequester, and we anticipate significant disruption to our operations and mission, which could include furloughs," said the official, who did not provide further details.

There is already some speculation that the "sequester" could e.g. stop Obama from using the White House teleprompter. 
Finally, a chance to meet the real Obama!

Angela Merkel's socialist government

In Germany - as well as in several other European countries - all leading political parties are in reality social democratic, even those which call themselves conservative. It has for years now been evident that e.g. Angela Merkel is no real conservative - her policies with regard to the euro, the environment, climate change and energy are basically socialist, seasoned with some fashionable "green" ingredients.

Merkel's close party and government colleague, environment minister Peter Altmaier, is another de facto socialist, disguised as a conservative. 

A true conservative would e.g. never express this opinion:

"For now I cannot see that fracking is acceptable anywhere in Europe. This also applies to Germany". 
(Peter Altmaier, interviewed by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung this week)

There are some real conservatives in the CDU's Bavarian sister party, the CSU, but they have mostly been relegated to second rank positions, without much influence. 

Beyoncé at the Obama inauguration

The Times reports:
Beyoncé did not sing the national anthem live at President Obama’s inauguration.

Millions of viewers around the world were stunned by the singer’s spectacular rendition of the anthem but The Times has learnt that she was lip-syncing to a pre-recorded backing track.

A spokeswoman for the Marine Corp Band Kristen DuBois said it was standard procedure to record a backing track and Beyoncé decided shortly before her performance to rely on the studio version rather .

A fitting way for a fake environmental "crusader" to honor a teleprompter president. 

Charles C.W. Cook on the re-election of Obama

The British-born associate editor of the National Review, Charles C.W. Cook is despaired after the U.S. presidential election, and it is not difficult to agree with what he writes:

Our president, a Narcissus masquerading as a Demosthenes, makes big speeches packed full of little ideas, and he is applauded wildly for it. His, says Marco Rubio, “are tired and old big-government ideas. Ideas that people come to America to get away from. Ideas that threaten to make America more like the rest of the world, instead of helping the world become more like America.” I will vouch for the verity of these words. I have watched how these sorry ideas play out in the real world, and it is not pretty: They make people’s lives worse, and yet simultaneously convince them that any reform will kill them — a fatal combination. Americans should avoid this path sedulously, for that way lies decline.

Rubio is correct in another assessment. How small Barack Obama’s politics are! How deficient and outmoded are his ideas; how limited his understanding of America’s value; how dull his magniloquence. The president has an ample library of ideas from which to choose, and yet he raids the Old World. Compare Barack Obama’s entire oeuvre to a single line from Thomas Jefferson or Emma Lazarus or Frederick Douglass — or even Ronald Reagan. Does it stand up? Only in a society that has lost touch with the ancient and is reflexively in love with the new could such a man be considered to be an inspiration.

And yet, he has now won twice. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to elect such a man once may be regarded as a misfortune, but to elect him twice looks like carelessness. (Or, rather, criminal negligence.) This year, certainly, was not the perfect storm of 2008. Then, novelty and redemption played a role; this time, an insipid bore ran on an openly statist platform and won the day in a country that is supposed to be “center right.” Maybe it no longer is. In 1980, when faced with a set of policies that demonstrably hadn’t worked and a president who wanted to take America leftward, America chose a different path; in 2012, it doubled down. That says a lot about a people. The central problem, then, is not that Obama will be president for the next few years, but that the American people — knowing him — chose to reelect him. 

Read the entire article here.

The revolution that made it possible for Obama to win a second term

The shale gas revolution helped to re-elect a weak president.

There are of course a great number of reasons for why Barack Obama was able to win a second term despite being an extremely weak and incompetent leader. However, the crucial underlying reason was without doubt the impact of the shale gas and oil on the U.S. economy and job creation. The shale gas revolution - which Obama has played no part in, even if he tried to take credit for it - made it difficult for Romney to bring home his message of an economy in steep decline.

New research from the American Clean Skies Foundation shows the impact of the shale gas revolution:

Shale gas and advances in oil and natural gas extraction technologies over the last five years have provided a large economic stimulus for the United States. That is the conclusion of new research from the American Clean Skies Foundation, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to advancing America's energy independence and a cleaner, low-carbon environment through the expanded use of natural gas, renewables and efficiency.

The research is based on data and analysis by ICF International and estimates that technology-driven changes in oil and gas production since 2007 will lead to 835,000 to 1.6 million new U.S. jobs by 2017 and increase the country's gross domestic product by $167 billion to $245 billion on a net basis.

For example, the report estimates that for every billion cubic feet of additional gas demand per day, there are 13,000 additional direct drilling and pipeline jobs, plus thousands more related to new chemical plants and other gas-using facilities. In turn, these jobs generate a further 10,000 to 30,000 induced indirect jobs in the manufacturing, retail and service sectors.

In January I made this "prediction", which I think turned out to be correct:

In the United States the shale gas/oil revolution has through its own force already changed the country´s economic outlook. This development is taking place, not because of some positive action of the present US administration, but despite of its policies. Ironically, it is quite possible that the energy centered economic turnaround, in which Obama has had no role, will in the end help to get him re-elected. 

A portrait of Obama: " His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp."

" His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp."

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan deservedly praises Bob Woodward's portrait of Barack Obama: 

Which gets us to Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics," published last month. The portrait it contains of Mr. Obama—of a president who is at once over his head, out of his depth and wholly unaware of the fact—hasn't received the attention it deserves. Throughout the book, which is a journalistic history of the president's key economic negotiations with Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama is portrayed as having the appearance and presentation of an academic or intellectual while being strangely clueless in his reading of political situations and dynamics. He is bad at negotiating—in fact doesn't know how. His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp.

He misread his Republican opponents from day one. If he had been large-spirited and conciliatory he would have effectively undercut them, and kept them from uniting. (If he'd been large-spirited with Mr. Romney, he would have undercut him, too.) Instead he was toughly partisan, he shut them out, and positions hardened. In time Republicans came to think he doesn't really listen, doesn't really hear. So did some Democrats. Business leaders and mighty CEOs felt patronized: After inviting them to meet with him, the president read from a teleprompter and included the press. They felt like "window dressing." One spoke of Obama's surface polish and essential remoteness. In negotiation he did not cajole, seduce, muscle or win sympathy. He instructed. He claimed deep understanding of his adversaries and their motives but was often incorrect. He told staffers that John Boehner, one of 11 children of a small-town bar owner, was a "country club Republican." He was often patronizing, which in the old and accomplished is irritating but in the young and inexperienced is infuriating. "Boehner said he hated going down to the White House to listen to what amounted to presidential lectures," Mr. Woodward writes.

Mr. Obama's was a White House that had—and showed—no respect for Republicans trying to negotiate with Republicans. Through it all he was confident—"Eric, don't call my bluff"—because he believed, as did his staff, that his talents would save the day.

They saved nothing. Washington became immobilized.

Mr. Woodward's portrait of the president is not precisely new—it has been drawn in other ways in other accounts, and has been a staple of D.C. gossip for three years now—but it is vivid and believable. And there's probably a direct line between that portrait and the Obama seen in the first debate. Maybe that's what made it so indelible, and such an arc-changer.

People saw for the first time an Obama they may have heard about on radio or in a newspaper but had never seen.

They didn't see some odd version of the president. They saw the president

Read the entire article here

A failed presidency

Historian Niall Ferguson on Obama:

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

Read the entire article here

Clint Eastwood endorses Romney

Clint Eastwood and Ronald Reagan in 1987 (image by wikipedia)

My favorite film director and actor does not disappoint:

"Now more than ever do we need Gov. Romney. I’m going to be voting for him, " Eastwood told Romney supporters Friday night.

"He just made my day," Romney said. "What a guy."