The Bosque Boys

From the AP today (compressed):

Consumer Spending Surges in November by Largest Amount in 3 1/2 Years

"The Commerce Department reported Friday that consumer spending...nearly triple[d] the October gain...the biggest one-month jump since a 1.2 percent rise in May 2004 and was significantly above the 0.7 percent analysts had expected. Incomes were also up last month, rising by 0.4 percent, double the October increase but slightly below the advance that had been expected."

"Many economists believe that overall economic growth will be at a barely discernible rate of 1 percent in the current quarter, as the country struggles with the fallout from the housing downturn and a spreading credit crisis that has made bank loans harder to get for individuals and businesses."

"After-tax incomes were up 0.3 percent in November, but after adjusting for inflation, incomes actually fell by 0.3 percent after a 0.2 percent drop in October. Democratic presidential candidates, hoping to make the economy an issue in next year's contest, have been stressing the weak gains in incomes as an example of failed Republican policies."

"With spending rising at a faster rate than savings, the nation's savings rate dipped into negative territory in November at 0.5 percent. That meant that households spent all of their incomes and either dipped into savings or borrowed to finance the higher level of spending last month."

This report is fairly typical of approximately one million similar stories filed in major newspapers across America since January 21, 2001.

They often follow the same formula:

1. Good news (in this case wildly incredibly positive news).

2. Deeper analysis of why the news, on second thought, is not really that good.

3. Prediction of Impending Doom.

GDP up 4 percent. Larry Summers pens a powerful essay explaining the coming crisis.

Employment is nearly full and steady--but these are all bad jobs. Recession looms...

Wall Street up--but...

Growth is high; personal income is high--but only for rich Republicans...

The long slow upward-sloping decline began with the presidency of George Bush, and it accelerated during the election year of 2004. The long slow upward-sloping decline seems ready to explode once again.

Granted there is an oppressive sense of dread palpable in the nation today. We are all expecting something bad to happen. In part, this is merely the human condition exacerbated by modernity--we have been waiting for the world to come apart at the seems for several generations now. But I too sense something wicked coming our way.

No matter, for all those experts who prophesy that we are approaching a significant downturn to this economy, undoubtedly, they are absolutely correct. Rather, like Chance Gardener (from Being There) who predicted "growth in the spring," they will be correct eventually. What goes up (and we are riding high) must come down. Economics 101. But am I paranoid to believe that this constant drumbeat in the mainstream media might be different during a more favored administration?

Frequent commentator and occasional poster Tocq sends this link to an article from The American Thinker on Hillary and Truth-Telling.

This article points to my fear/anxiety regarding a Hillary presidency, she has become Ambition, a drive to power supported by Hate and Pride: a woman with a badly shriveled soul.

Six more Democratic County chairs have endorsed Barack Obama for president. The list includes Sioux County Democratic chair Carl Vander Meulen. In all, 20 county chairs in Iowa have endorsed Obama. Story here.

Iowa has 99 counties.

I see this as a serious setback for Hillary, who has spent years insinuating herself into the Democratic Party organization.

Barak Obama is now under pressure from LGBT groups because he is reaching out to traditional evangelicals and other conservative Christians. We'll see if Obama will be able to withstand the pressure and include Christians of different views within his campaign. If he can win the Democratic primary, he certainly will need to have broad support to win the general election. LGBT "leaders" seem not to realize that.

Obama's own faith journey certainly resonates with evangelical experience, even if some of his views differ from their own.

. . . And this restlessness – this search for meaning – is familiar to me. I was not raised in a particularly religious household. My father, who I didn't know, returned to Kenya when I was just two. He was nominally a Muslim since there were a number of Muslims in the village where he was born. But by the time he was a young adult, he was an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was one of the most spiritual souls I ever knew. She had this enormous capacity for wonder, and lived by the Golden Rule. But she had a healthy skepticism of religion as an institution. And as a consequence, so did I.
. . .
And it's around this time that some pastors I was working with came up to me and asked if I was a member of a church. "If you're organizing churches," they said, "it might be helpful if you went to church once in a while." And I thought, "Well, I guess that makes sense."

So one Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called "The Audacity of Hope." And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany.

Story from the Biblical Witness website, a group within the United Church of Christ pushing for traditional Christian belief. Obama is a member of a United Church of Christ congregation in Chicago. The UCC officially supports marriage and ordination of those who practice same-sex sex. Earlier post on Obama's religion and the UCC.

Mitt Romney is to give a speech addressing his Morminism tomorrow. We'll see how it is received. I have been warning him that such a speech is not a good idea. For Republican candidates support from the evangelical base is crucial; or, at a minimum a lack of hostility from evangelicals. But, according to Pew research white evangelical Protestants who attend church weekly are 45% less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate. Conservative and evangelical churches view Mormonism as a non-Christian religion, even terming it a "cult." Voting for a non-Christian is not an option if a person holds a "Christian America" view, common among white evangelicals. Romney is not going to get much support from this group whatever he does. But, by avoiding direct mention of his Mormonism, Romney has escaped actual antagonism.

And, I am not sure that the general voting population will be impressed by a direct address of Mormonism by Romney. According to the same Pew research cited above, only 53% of the voting population has a favorable view of Mormons.

So why is Romney making the speech, against the advice of some of his advisors? He is not a sure bet in Iowa anymore, and he needs that early victory to build momentum. We'll see if this speech helps or hurts him. My money is on hurting him.

"And the irony is, Rudy Guiliani, probably the most under-qualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency ...is here talking about any of the people here...Rudy Guiliani...I mean, think about it...Rudy Guiliani, there's only three things he mentions in a sentence, a noun, a verb, and 9-11..I mean, there's nothing else, there's nothing else...and I mean this sincerely, he is genuinely not qualified to be president."


Is Rudy qualified to be president? This has become a recurring theme (you might even say "talking point") for Democrats and pundits on the Campaign 2008 trail. In truth, this is a misleading and irrelevant conversation.

Qualifications are not paramount to the making of a president. Traditionally, the question of qualifications has always presented a fairly low threshold to overcome for presidential aspirants. Biden's incessant raving about qualifications is mostly wishful thinking and strategy in an attempt to frame the debate in a way he fancies better disposed to his candidacy. And, for the record, by "qualified," Senator Biden simply means which candidate has served the longest in the United States Senate.

Of course, even operating under a more reasonable definition, we have had plenty of "under-qualified" presidents--some of whom have done just fine. More importantly, the public doesn't care much who is the most qualified. No one voted for JFK in 1960 because they thought he was more qualified to be president than Richard Nixon. Or Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in 1992. Or George Bush over Al Gore in 2000. This is not the element upon which most elections pivot.

True, without 9-11, it would be impossible to imagine Rudy running for president in 2008. But so what? Ike was viable in 1952 as a result of WWII—but, as in the case of Rudy, his heroic role was merely a starting point. Douglas MacArthur was a non-starter as a presidential candidate in the post-war climate—as was George Pataki in the post 9-11 world.

Ironically, Barack Obama has questioned Mrs. Clinton's credentials: Hillary is only viable because she is the wife of a former president. Is he right? Yes and No.

First No: If it were that easy, why didn't the GOP run Barbara Bush in 1996? Nancy Reagan in 2000? Laura Bush for 2012? Obviously, Mrs. Clinton is uniquely gifted and experienced among first ladies--and her uniqueness is the reason she is where she is today (forgive the circular reasoning--but, hopefully, you take my point). Having said that, is she there as a result of her connection to her former-president husband? Obviously, yes. But, again, so what? That is only a starting point.

Every presidential candidate needs a “hook.” If aspirants don't have a hook, they end up Duncan Hunter or Dennis Kucinich.

Hillary is a restoration candidate. Barack Obama's viability, at its heart, is the product of a well-timed speech. Rudy is Rudy because of 9-11. Mitt Romney is viable because he wanted to be president, and he had enough money, guts, and brains to get him this close (very much like John F. Kennedy). Fred Thompson is viable because of a TV show. Mike Huckabee did it the "old-fashioned way"—but he is the exception that proves the rule.

Bottom Line: Creating an atmosphere of viability is qualification in itself. The public requires no more than that. Of course, qualifications, viability, and positioning do not speak to the much more important element, at least in the long term, of capacity and aptitude.

Who will actually be a good president? On that score, your guess is as good as mine. God save the President!

Pay no attention to the pollsters on the Iowa Caucuses. What counts is who shows up on a January night in a northern state to caucus. What counts is good organization that gets out the caucus goers (favoring Romney and Clinton) and passion (?perhaps Huckabee, Obama, and Edwards?), but, the passionate must be motivated enough to brave ice, snow, and below-zero weather if that is the situation.

I lived in Iowa 8 years, 1986-94.

Here is a brief rundown from "The Campaign Spot" on NRO, but by now everybody knows that the fix was in at the CNN/YouTube debate.

1. CNN should be mortified. Say it aint so, Ted; say it aint so. It is more than fair to ask what sort of reaction a similar incident involving FOX News and Democratic candidates (if Democratic candidates had consented to appear on FOX News) would have elicited. The answer: major coverage--and of the "final proof" variety: "there you have it....case closed."

On the other hand:

2. So what? We have proved once again that the mainstream media leans left and has absolutely no clue as to what makes conservatives tick. Yes. It was dishonest. Yes. These were cheap shots. Now what?

3. There was nothing wrong with those questions. Why shouldn't our candidates answer hostile questions from the other side? Do we think we can avoid those questions between now and November 2008? Let's get over ourselves. Let's stop whining about the biased media and play ball. We've got a smaller strike zone than the other team. The ump is the opposing pitcher's cousin. So what? Let's get out there and out play them.

4. In case you didn't notice, for the most part, our guys hammered those spit balls over the left-field fence.

By now you've probably seen the stories concerning a possible lesbian affair between Hillary and her constant companion and aide Huma Abedin. The speculation concerning Hillary Clinton's sexual orientation is old news (as well as a downer for males given to lesbian fantasies). But the questions that focus on the sex, or lack of it, in this relationship miss the important point.

Jihadwatch wants to know how Huma's opinions on jihad and militant Islam affect Hillary's views. Now this is the right question. From the JihadWatch post,

An Indian Muslim scholar [Huma's father] who relocates to Saudi Arabia [where Huma grew up] and founded an institute there is most likely a Wahhabi. The article also says that Huma Abedin herself is "a Muslim” and “very conservative” -- and that she rarely leaves the Senator's side.

How can Huma possibly qualify for the Security Clearance I hope is needed to be a U.S. Senator's aide? And can she qualify for the clearance needed in the White House?

Very briefly:

The storyline today concerning background for the Annapolis summit has been the Bush administration's complete lack of interest in the Middle East peace process for the last seven years.

Much of the "expert" analysis has come from former Clinton administration officials (often not identified as such), who portray their boss as an engaged and talented diplomat in contrast to the current president, whom they paint as clueless and lazy.

Two things wrong with that commentary:

1. If Bush accomplishes absolutely nothing regarding the Middle East in eight years, that makes him even with nearly all of his predecessors (Clinton included). No points for heartbreakingly close calls. No points for kidding yourself that almost succeeding has anything in common with actual success.

2. Bush has not sat idly by for seven years. The mainstream media chorus today had it absolutely wrong in that mindless oversimplification. Bush met with the current leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and the then-PM of Israel, Ariel Sharon, back in 2003. He was the first president of the United States to call for a two-state solution (a Palestinian state), which is a big deal. He was the first president to take an active role in sidelining Yasser Arafat, which he accomplished for the most part. He was instrumental in bringing democratic reforms to Palestine (which, granted, has not worked out all that well). And, most importantly, for good or for ill, Bush committed United States blood and treasure to "remaking" the Middle East into a less hostile more modern place. The decision is still very much in doubt whether he will have one bit of success on the bigger plan--but it is pretty facile to begin every news story today with the premise that President Bush is not/has not been deeply involved in the Middle East peace process.