by on

NewsBusters gives their analysis of The Chris Matthews show’s analysis of why that is. NewsBusters probably thinks it’s because Obama is an idiot, and Chris Matthews’ crew… well, they don’t really know why, but they sure like to speculate randomly about it. They generally feel it’s because he’s uncomfortable because of the time constraints.

Well, each explanation might be correct. But I have an alternate theory: I suspect Obama may be finally starting to figure this charisma thing out. He knows that it’s the best weapon in his–and his party’s–arsenal, and that by using it sparingly it only becomes more effective. Last year, as Helene Cooper rightly says, Obama was basically overexposed. (Of course, she then wanders off onto the idea that the press conference was boring–more on that below.) Not that charisma wears out, of course; but it’s still best to hold your most powerful asset in reserve for when you really need it–which for Obama will be in 2012.

If I were in his shoes, I’d keep a low profile for a while–let everyone forget about him.

Now, as for the Matthews gang, what the hell is this: “It was a lot of econ, it was a lot of just in the weeds stuff. It got really boring. I thought.” It’s only boring if you’re a shallow person, with no interest in policy matters. The President’s job is not to entertain you. Part of the reason charisma is such a big factor in Presidential elections is that people forget this fact.

Also, Chris Matthews, well… I stand by my previous statement regarding Matthews.

by on

Apparently, President Obama gave a 17-minute answer in response to the question: “In the economy (sic) times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care, because it — we are over-taxed as it is?”

First of all, I should point out that it’s sort of a moot point; obviously, Obama does think it’s wise, or else he wouldn’t have done it.

Secondly, Obama did basically answer the question; in that he said what the problems the bill addressed were. In so doing, he essentially laid out for the listeners to decide whether it was wise or not.

Thirdly, it is very difficult to assess what “over-taxed” means. Is it an economically measureable phenomenon? Is it “over-taxed” in the sense that the government gets less revenue with higher tax rates, as Arthur Laffer thought? Or over-taxed in the sense of taxes that make people move to other countries to keep more of their money, hence strangling innovation? Either way, it’s hard to say if we’re over-taxed or not.

On the other hand, if we’re talking about “over-taxed” as a moral issue (because some say it is not only inefficient but immoral for the government to tax at high rates), then the situation is utterly irresolvable, because–and I suspect this is the case–Obama and his questioner have fundamentally different moral outlooks on this issue.

Lastly, I’m pretty sure what Obama was trying to say without actually saying it was: “Taxes will have to be raised to pay for the debt and deficit. This is going to happen no matter what. If you think you’re over-taxed now, well…”

by on

Well, expectations were more-or-less met, but expectations weren’t that good to begin with.

My own opinion is that the job market will start to recover in earnest very soon, and faster than people are expecting. But then, I didn’t expect it to stay this bad for this long, so who knows?

by on

Good news. I love successful covert operations.

UPDATE: For some reason, this reminded me: I remember I once heard somebody say that the “Spy” fiction genre just wasn’t the same after the Soviet Union collapsed, because real-world covert operations stuff was no longer as important.

I’ve always assumed that it was because our spies and secret agents can work better when no one’s writing movies or books about them.

Anyway, it’s good to hear about things like this.

by on

NewsBusters is mad at Sally Quinn for saying:

“This is the Vatican’s Watergate. The Pope is Nixon. I mean, if you look at the signs, and the way they’re behaving, it’s exactly the same way. They’ve done something terrible. They’ve denied it. They’ve accused their accusers.”

Apparently, she took a much kinder attitude towards Jeremiah Wright in 2008, and that annoys NewsBusters. I don’t care about that. What’s really interesting is that it seems to me that what the Pope is accused of doing is far more serious than what Richard Nixon did. Covering up a burglary is bad, but covering up child abuse is a horrible crime.

by on

I found this picture on Wikipedia:

 
From left to right: Donald Rumsfeld, Gerald Ford and Dick Cheney.
Is it my imagination, or does that look like a model of a Death Star between Cheney and Ford? 

  

by on

Palin will be campaigning today to help McCain in his primary battle with J.D. Hayworth.

Let’s go over this again: having a charismatic person campaign for you does not work. Her followers–the Tea Party crowd–will not like McCain better for it. This seems strange, I know, but it is what past experiences tell us.

I think it’s largely because charisma involves projection of one’s own ideas onto the charismatic person. So, even though a lot of the Tea Party crowd likes Palin, they will project their own liking for Hayworth onto her, and rationalize that she was only campaigning for McCain out of gratitude for him. So, the bottom line is that they’ll vote for Hayworth and think no less of Palin.

by on

So, some dude says that high-ranking U.S. officials, potentially including President Obama, could face war crimes charges for using drones to hunt terrorists. He says: “Now, maybe the answer is: This is really terrible and illegal and anybody that does it should go off to the Hague. But if that’s the case, then we should not be having the president saying that this is the greatest thing since whatever.”

This is ridiculous. Using aircraft to eliminate enemy combatants? It’s war. This is how war works. Far worse things have been done by people who walked free.