After reading over the notes from last night’s debate, I’ve decided that I wouldn’t hire but one or two of those yahoos to mow my lawn, much less run the country.  And even the ones I’d hire for lawn maintenance wouldn’t be left unsupervised.

Palestinian ‘leader’ Mahmoud Abbas is moving closer to asking the United Nations to recognize the territory his faction controls as a member, which would legitimize the Palestinian areas as a sovereign country.  My guess is that any resolution that creates a country of “Palestine” will call on Israel to give up territory in order to give the new country a contiguous hunk of dirt to squat on.

Personally, I hope that he doesn’t get what he wants.  The Palestinians and those who fight in their name have been nothing but brigands for the past 40 years.  I am under no illusions that a new government would degenerate into a Hamas stronghold very quickly.

But for the moment, let’s say that Obama backs down on his implied threat to veto any Security Council motion to grant statehood to something called Palestine.  Let’s assume that he does it as a lame duck president with nothing to lose.

As your vice-president, I would urge the President to  issue a statement re-affirming our nations long standing commitment to Israel.  Israel is a democracy in a sea of demagogues and dictators.  When asked where I stand with Israel, I will say that I stand at their border, with a regiment of Marines behind me.

We would also make it clear to the Palestinians that if they want to sit at the grown-up table, they need to act like grown-ups.  Rockets or artillery launched at Israel would be considered an act of war, and we will support Israel when they decide to stomp a mudhole in a Palestinian backside over it.  The same would go for suicide bombers.   A real country takes responsibility for the criminal acts of its citizens against other countries.  We would also support Israel if she decides to seal her border with Palestine to protect her citizens.

We would also resist any calls to force Israel to give up territory for the new Palestine.  If Palestine wants land, let them either buy or conquer it.  Israel should not give one inch under pressure.

We would cut off all funding to the Palestinians immediately.  If the Arab street wants a Palestinian homeland, let them pay for it.  We would also hold Palestine responsible for the actions of groups that it supports or funds.  If you provide support to terrorist groups that try to kill Americans, don’t be surprised if you wake up dead from an airstrike one morning.

In short, if the Palestinians want to declare statehood, they should do so without our aid and knowing that we favor the democracy of Israel over the despotism of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.  Let them sink or swim, and let them deal with the consequences of continuing to commit terrorism against Israel.

• Wow, you can’t even see George Soros’s hand up his back!

• President Obama shows just how “up to here” he’s had it with Vice Presidential Candidate DaddyBear’s comments about how BooBoo could have done just as good a job in the White House as the President.

Let’s face it, Obama’s approval ratings in almost every nationwide poll, no matter how weighted toward his side of the political spectrum they may be, are in the toilet.  I’m not saying he’s going to be a pushover in the 2012 election, because the man is a born speechifier and campaigner, but it’s not looking good for POTUS.  Any pragmatist in the Democrat leadership has to know that losing the presidency as badly as they might will have huge repercussions for their positions in the House and Senate.  Anyone running for the Congress next year is going to everything they can do to tie their Democrat opponent to Obama any way they can.  And that impact could be even worse for them if a Republican president with a majority in the Senate restocks the current conservative majority in the  Supreme Court with younger Justices and then gets to pick a replacement for a more centrist or liberal Justice in the event that one dies.

So what do you do as a Democrat politician faced with the prospect of losing the Presidency by a wide margin, probably losing your majority in the Senate and getting into a deeper hold in the House, and possibly seeing any hope of getting a better hand in the courts go up in smoke?   I would love to be a fly on the wall during those discussions.  My guess is that at least a few people are talking about someone running in a Democrat primary against Obama.

Doing this might re-energize the Democrat base that swept Obama into the White House in 2008.  It would give the rank and file Democrat Party a way to distance itself from the failures and half-wins that have plagued the President, especially vulnerable members of the House and Senate who are up for re-election.

But who would run against President Obama?  Opposing Caesar and losing has only one outcome.  Would Hillary Clinton resign her position at State in order to take another swing?  She’s already said she’s not interested, but maybe she could be persuaded.  Others that come to mind are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but they could be perceived as being part of the problem and they are probably almost as polarizing in a general election as Obama himself.

One other prominent Democrat that might be able to make a run at it would be Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.  He’s a Marine combat veteran, he’s held a real job, he’s photogenic, and he’s got a pretty good center-left track record.  As to whether or not he’d run if approached, I haven’t a clue.  But Senator Webb would definitely make an interesting candidate.

I’m sure I’m missing several viable candidates.  I’m sure there are Democrat governors and such that would appeal to the Democrat base enough to get the nomination without alienating that big squishy middle of the political spectrum as much as Obama appears to have done.

One thing that has to occur to decision makers in the Democrat Party, though, is the damage that a vicious primary fight would do to whoever wins it.  In order to appeal to the quite liberal Democratic base and get the nomination, both President Obama and anyone who runs against him would say and do things that could be used against them in a general election.  Also, if a primary is ugly enough, and I am under no illusions that both the President and any primary challengers would not go ugly early, it runs the risk of keeping a chunk of normally reliable voting block home in November.  If you feel that the guy on the ballot got there by dirty tricks against your primary candidate, you might just stay home on election day rather than hold your nose and vote for him.

One other evil thought is that the Democrats look at the economy bumping along at the bottom for the next few years, and think that it might be better to let Obama go down in flames, blame him for everything, and try again in 2016.  Not sure if someone in the DNC is that Machiavellian, but it might not be a bad strategy for someone cynical enough.

This is probably just navel gazing.   I doubt that anyone will want to run against Obama in a primary enough that they would take the chance.  It would definitely make 2012 more interesting, though.

Yesterday, when the TelePrompTer in Chief was set up in the halls of Congress for the President’s speech, were Democrats required to genuflect towards it as they crossed the middle aisle of the hall?

May 26, 2010:

 September 8, 2011

The first picture is of President Obama telling us how great it was that he was using stimulus money to invest in a company that started laying off workers within months. The second picture is of a young FBI agent raiding Solyndra for some unknown reason.  What a difference 16 months makes, huh?

Maxine Waters, Democratic Congresswoman from California, is calling for a new government jobs program that costs more than one trillion dollars.  She expresses a belief that measures such as cutting taxes for job creators and cutting government spending will harm the economy more than it helps.

Ms. Waters, I must respectfully disagree.  We are worse than broke.  We got this way in part because we distorted what should have been a free market where those with good jobs and a good credit record could afford to buy a home into a market where the only thing produced is bad debt and foreclosures.  We got this way because a good chunk of two generations of American children have been let down by their parents and been raised in one parent households and warehoused in schools that get worse every year.  Throwing even more money down that particular hole will do nothing to put people into sustainable jobs that will be there when the government money stops flowing.

I agree with Congresswoman Waters in that we as a society have failed the poor.  Through programs such as housing projects, food stamps, funding for schools that continually crank out illiterates, and tolerance for rampant criminality, we have discouraged productive lifestyles and encouraged destructive ones.  We have robbed them of the motivation to do better than their forebears and the means to do it.  We have fostered a culture of generational poverty and dependence where there is no shame in living as a beggar to the taxpayer and being a felon is celebrated.

But putting the country another trillion plus dollars in debt is not going to fix that.  I’m not saying that I have the answer to this problem that has taken almost 50 years to create.  But I know that continuing to offer the public teat as a pacifier isn’t it.

If we want to get poor and unemployed people working, especially those who have never held a good, steady job, we need to provide both a carrot and a stick to get into the workforce.  The carrot is already there.  Getting a job gives someone a way to provide for themselves and their families, and the government already provides for job training through programs such as Pell Grants and Americorps.  The stick should be what it has always been, starvation.  I feel compassion for the young and the old, who have every reason to need help.  I feel for those adults who truly cannot provide for themselves.  For the rest, all I want to provide for them is opportunity, which already exists.  Yes, jobs that pay large salaries with generous benefits are thin on the ground in a lot of the country right now, but there are jobs to be had.  If one entry level job is not enough to put food on the table, look for two.  No job is beneath a man or woman who is willing to work for their daily bread, and there is no better motivator than worrying about where your children’s next meal will come from and wanting your children to know that you worked hard to make sure they had a chance in life.  Your constituents need to stop worrying about the respect of their criminal friends and start worrying about the respect of their children.

Ms. Waters, if you feel that more time and money should be spent to get those who do not have nor have looked for a better job and life into the work force, then put your money where your mouth is.  Give up your own outsized income and ask those who donate money to your campaign coffers to instead donate to job training and placement programs.  Quit condemning business and start condemning those who have convinced your constituents that it’s better to live in comfortable poverty and be a felon than it is to work as hard and as long as necessary.

In other words, until you are ready to give up your comfortable position and income, quit looking hungrily at what I and those like me have scraped together with talent, hard work and luck.

That is how the White House has described President Obama’s request to address a joint session of Congress at the exact time that the Republican presidential candidates have scheduled their next debate.

Here’s the money quote:

But Carney downplayed the debate as one of many on the political calendar. He said the White House would “carry forward” with its planned speech regardless of “whatever the competing opportunities on television are, whether it’s the wildlife channel or the cooking channel.” 

Emphasis mine.