First Hand Account: Dem Dirty Tricks

In related news to the October Surprise post below, let me recount standard operating procedure in illegal campaigning. I taught in public schools in California for ten years. Everyone knows that teachers unions (and most unions in general) vote Democratic and then count on their elected favorites to lavish pay and benefits on them.

So far, nothing shocking, I know.

But in 1992 when George H.W. Bush was running against Bill Clinton for President, the union pulled a blatantly illegal stunt that did shock and surprise me. (Now I wouldn't be at all surprised. It happens all the time.) Against public law and school regulations the district I worked for copied and distributed a fax sent from California Teachers Association headquarters in Sacramento. They used school equipment, school time and school supplies -- not to teach -- to campaign for Clinton.

The fax was in Spanish and was distributed to all Hispanic children at my school. (I have no reason to believe that, having gone this far, the union didn't do this at other sites in the district.) The fax made three simple points:

• Tell your parents to vote for Bill Clinton
  
• If Bush is elected you will be kicked out of school
• If Bush is elected your parents will be deported

Nothing like some good clean campaigning is there? That's what your children are exposed to, whether it's this blatant or not, in the public schools.This is what your tax dollars pay for. This is what the "education establishment" would rather do than teach Johnny to read.

October Surprise

So Hugh Hewitt asked for our best ideas about October Surpises that the Obama administration may attempt, in an effort to affect the election this November. Hugh mentioned this in the coarse of reading a Jim Geraghty post from Obi Wan Kenobi.

Yesterday and today bring articles on the administration floating a payroll tax holiday. That is my pick for a likely October Surprise. I also don't think it will, though it has some advantages and disadvantages for the Obama regime.

ADVANTAGES

• BHO can finally finally do something that isn't radical far left in nature thereby distancing himself from the Harry & Nancy Show on the Hill
• As in item above, he finally does something to help the economy instead of damage it
  
• It could be highly beneficial for the economy, freeing up income that could be spent on things people have been putting off
  
• People who work would realize gain immediately, on their next paycheck
• Politically it frees Barry up to ignore the looming expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, as people would have an immediate "tax cut" in their hand
• It would serve to assuage the horrific changes (higher deductibles, higher employee contributions, higher co-pays) that people will begin hearing about very soon as "open enrollment" season opens
  

DISADVANTAGES

• It will come too late to help Democrats this cycle (but then does BHO really care about them anyway?)
• People may squirrel the savings away, continuing behavior noticed throughout the last 18 months, which would reduce the consumer effect such a move would "normally" result in
• Public reaction might not credit Obama with much, because of the looming medical insurance changes noted under Advantages above
• Public reaction would likely include, "See how reducing taxes helps? Now make the Bush tax cuts permanent, you idiot!"

Of all the scenarios that militate against this tax holiday are the administrations inherent antipathy to any tax cuts. Therefore, the largest danger is in the last bullet point. If people see immediate relief and the economy rebounds, then there will be great public and policy pressure to continue tax relief in some way or another. Thus, sadly, the best hope we have for a payroll tax holiday is if Obama thinks it will not work, or they find a way to do it in such a way as to actually prevent the benefits they nominally claim to be for (i.e. see health care and wall street "reform" packages). For example, they could say that the Bush tax cuts will definitely expire in January when they announce this tax holiday. But who knows?

The fact the idea has been floated on two successive days in two different venues by two different sources may indicate the White House is seriously considering it. I'm all for it, short or long term. The more money in the hands of consumers the better, now matter who benefits politically.

U.S. Ends Private Talks on Web Rules

[excerpted from Wall Street Journal August 6, 2010]

By AMY SCHATZ

WASHINGTON—U.S. officials called off closed-door talks with lobbyists aimed at reaching a compromise on ways to regulate Internet traffic, saying they couldn't reach a solution.

The meetings, which involved Internet and telecommunications giants, sought to give the Federal Communications Commission authority to act as an Internet traffic cop without the need to adopt controversial wholesale changes to the law.

The agency abandoned the talks a day after news reports that two participants, Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc., had reached a separate agreement on Internet traffic rules that would allow the phone giant to carry some broadband traffic at faster speeds.

People familiar with the situation said the talks were cut off abruptly. These people said FCC officials felt the Verizon-Google deal undermined their broader talks. The companies haven't publicly released the agreement.

At stake is how far the government can go to dictate the way Internet providers manage traffic on networks they have spent billions of dollars rolling out. The FCC has proposed s0-called net neutrality rules that would ensure carriers treat all content equally, and not slow or block access to websites.

...

For the past six weeks, a small group of lobbyists for both sides had been meeting privately at the FCC trying to hammer out a compromise. Consumer groups have taken to Twitter and blogs in recent weeks to blast the FCC's chairman, Julius Genachowski, for sponsoring private meetings with industry lobbyists. They argued the meetings violated the spirit of the Obama administration's pledge to open up government to more transparency.

A group of angry representatives of public interest groups were meeting with Mr. Genachowski about the issue in an FCC conference room Thursday afternoon when his chief of staff entered and announced that they'd pulled the plug on the lobbyists' negotiations, according to people familiar with the situation.

FCC officials declined to comment on the Verizon-Google agreement but had signaled their displeasure. On Thursday morning, Mr. Genachowski told reporters that any deal on net neutrality "that does not preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs would be unacceptable."

While Verizon and Google designed their agreement as a model for lawmakers and regulators on net neutrality, it includes several provisions that Web start-ups and Internet activists might find unacceptable, including one that would let companies pay a premium for faster delivery speeds to consumers, according to people briefed on the plan.

The Verizon-Google deal also wouldn't apply to wireless networks, according to these people.

Net neutrality proponents blasted the Verizon-Google agreement, saying reports of its contents point to it undermining the concept of net neutrality.

"The potential deal between two broadband behemoths underscores the need for the FCC to act quickly to protect the free and open Internet," said Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "In the absence of such action, it's increasingly clear that cozy cooperation between communications colossi will reign on the Internet."

Google and Verizon denied a news report that suggested their agreement represented a business deal in which Google would pay Verizon for faster delivery of its online content to Internet users.

The companies didn't deny that they have reached an agreement on net neutrality which they hope could be used as a model for future legislation or FCC rules.

"We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet," said Google spokeswoman Mistique Cano. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic." Google owns the Internet video site YouTube.

In a statement, Verizon didn't provide details but said the agreement aimed to create "an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation."
—Scott Morrison contributed to this article.

Write to Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411632530886558.html?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality#ixzz0wuJQYSWu

Tolerance & Civility

It doesn't get any clearer than this. Remember, Olberman works for Sunday Night Football. For those of you who don't realize, that means NFL games. He seems to have a special kind of hatred for Michelle Malkin.

Ignorance is Blitz

What an awesome week for proud and blustery displays of ignorance! The commissioner of the NFL doesn't know what Rush has said, but he knows he doesn't like it. Columnist Jonathan "I hate Bush" Chait doesn't know what's in the Baucus health care bill but supports it wholeheartedly. We have a president who repeatedly displays his total lack of historical knowledge to the point where one wonders if he is even curious about what actually has transpired in the world prior to his miraculous appearance on the political stage.

This willful blindness to facts infects the fourth estate to the point they are acting with absurdity: Fact-checking Saturday Night Live within days of running fake quotes from Rush Limbaugh. The trend was clear in last years campaign for President when the media en masse took no interest in Obama's past. Only when stories broke through from the Internet (Reverend Wright, for example) did the MSM even acknowledge Obama had a past, and friends that populate it.

When it comes to health care, many in the "mainstream" media love to repeat phrases that say, in essence, that the USA is the only first-world country that doesn't provide universal health care. Well, that must mean the rest of the world is full of examples of exactly how this experiment has played out. Germany has been trying to make it work for well over 100 years. But the networks would rather show you posters with Hitler mustaches on Obama than real-life examples of how government care works in practice. It would be unreal, but it fits a pattern of decay over the last few decades, as journalism gives way to analysis, which gives way to simple propaganda and featherbedding.

We have majorities in Congress proudly admitting they have not and will not read the bills that purport to change almost 20% of our economy and fundamentally alter forever the relationship between the individual and their government. They are proud of their ignorance, and heated in their condemnation of those who cry, "Wait a minute. Think this through." To the point where white SEIU union thugs beat up a black protester and the media turns away: "Nothing to see here. Move along." Unbelievable? Believe it.

Look for yourself upon this mess. Google it. Bing it. But don't rely on the media to tell you the facts. Those days are over.

For years I have noted in my experience, people who are the most vociferous critics of the Bible or Rush Limbaugh are the very ones who 99% of the time have spent time with neither. Ignorance allows them to state with conviction, "Rush is a racist!" Or that, "The Bible supports slavery." And now we have, "Rush supports slavery." So this blitz Rush experienced this week is the latest tsunami of misinformation fed to the public by race hustlers and malcontents, happily beamed into the households of America by "legitimate" news networks. In the meantime, the White House declares war on Fox news -- and sees that cable network's ratings fly through the roof.

NFL Made a Stupid Mistake

This week Roger Goodell showed he doesn't have the sense to run the NFL. He wimped out when he should have been strong. He let sportswriters and hatemongers (and yes I know that those groups overlap quite a bit) inform his opinion instead of using common sense.

I love the NFL and am a big fan of talk radio. I've listened to Rush for years, but have a wide range of other radio personalities to compare his performance to as well, like Jim Rome, Tom Lykis, Hugh Hewitt, Tammy Bruce, Art Bell, Michael Medved, Dennis Miller and lots of others. None of those guys or gals has displayed the consistent passion for the game of football and for the good sportsmanship the best of the players show than Rush Limbaugh. Not even Jim Rome. Rush is an enthusiastic fan, has demonstrated knowledge of the game and would have been the biggest booster the League has ever had.

Instead, Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League, torpedoed that opportunity by saying Rush wasn't welcome in their little club, because he made divisive statements.

That's a load of crap. It's a phrase made up of weasel words and devoid of substance. To paraphrase a famous saying, "Divisive is in the ear of the hearer." The commissioner didn't cite anything specific or say Rush was racist, so we really don't know Roger the Most Sensitive's definition of divisive. But in 40 years of enjoying NFL games, news conferences, and commentary I can state with 100% certainty I have heard some pretty "divisive" things. It is a league that thrives on controversy and where there is controversy you can bet there is "divisiveness" of some sort. At least I think so.

The main problem then id the fact that Rush was being smeared as a racist for things he did not ever say, and then for things people interpreted as racist. Both are wrong, in my opinion. It is heinous if Goodell based his "unwelcome" statement on the lies that unscrupulous journalists spread about Limbaugh. I don't fault players who spoke out, because like many young people they don't actually watch the news, they hear about it on Twitter or from their friends. I'm sure there's a lot of urban mythology about Rush being racist. But Goodell should have checked with NFL players, current and former, who actually know Rush Limbaugh. Or at the very least checked the record.

Rush has been broadcasting for over 20 years, more than 15,000 hours of commentary, and most of the last few years is on record in transcript and podcast form. He sometimes says outrageous things, but he is clearly an equal-opportunity jester, puncturing the egos of liberals of every color and calling out good and bad behavior of athletes of all races. I can't believe anyone could listen to him for any length of time and truly hold the informed opinion that Rush is a racist. How could a racist introduce Americans to Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell as guest hosts? Why would a racist want any part of a team likely to be 70% African American?

Take the example of calling Obama a "halfricanAmerican" for example. I can't think of any way the contraction of "half African American" could be offensive. Obama is half African American. I know. He said so a million times during last years campaign. But that's one of the prime example cited by Hillary Clinton's media lapdog website.

Finally, on Donovan McNabb there was so little offensive in Rush's statements on ESPN that people had to interpret it, and embellish it to mean what they wanted it to. People have argued about the value of quarterbacks since before Sammy Baugh, so I can't believe it was Limbaugh questioning McNabb's contribution to the "eggles" as he calls them. So it boils down to the opinion Rush expressed that the media was invested in and eager for a black quarterback to succeed. Watch ESPN from the Doug Williams days on. Try and make the argument that counter's Limbaugh's based on their cheerleading for African Americans. You can't do it. They are constantly highlighting the success of black coaches couched in the "NFL trying to change its image" storyline. Why?

Because it is the NFL that has had the real problem on race, not Rush. Rush refuses to give anyone a pass because of their race, and that is what bugs Roger Goodell. It reminds him that there is a colorblind majority out there. Maybe it shames him. Maybe it should, but it shouldn't cause him to react in a knee-jerk fashion and throw a black flag on Rush.

The NFL made a stupid mistake this week. And it looks like they made a stupid mistake when the elevated Goodell to commissioner.

The President has a Math Problem

One thing Obama said in his ginormous health care reform speech stuck in my mind. Without getting into who is lying, or misrepresenting, or generally not playing nice on health care, I can say for certain that the President is WAY off on his math.

At one point he said -- and I know it's accurate because I bipped back the TiVo twice to make sure and asked my wife if he really said it and Jake Tapper heard it too -- that if we can "slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."

Wow, he must be thinking REALLY long-term! Let's solve for X shall we?

One-tenth of one per cent of X equals $4 trillion or

.01 * X = $4,000,000,000,000

X = $400,000,000,000,000

Therefore the amount of growth in healthcare costs is $400 trillion, although we don't know the rate because he provided no time component (how much of what by when). But just accepting his number, it takes a whole lot of per cent of anything to equal a trillion...or four. The growth of healthcare costs is about 8% per year now, so saving $4T might help the deficit, if it were possible.

Somehow, I think those numbers just don't add up. And the fact that no news story on his speech evinced skepticism about his numbers is astounding. But finally, remember when Newt Gingrich said we wanted to "slow the rate of growth for medicare" in the mid-1990s? Dude was hung out to dry. Called a dirtbag and a hater of old folks. Now, of course, as in many other things, when Obama says it the press just nods and says "Great!"

Times change, Baby!