The real Obama

Under pressure, Obama shows that's he's just another Chicago politician. In an interview with Univision, the Spanish-language network, President Obama urged Latinos to look at the election this way: "We're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends."
Sounds like he's channeling Mayor Daley.

After hearing this, House Republican leader John Boehner replied fittingly:

“Ladies and gentlemen, we have a president in the White House who referred to Americans who disagree with him as ‘our enemies.’ Think about that. He actually used that word. When Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush used the word ‘enemy,’ they reserved it for global terrorists and foreign dictators — enemies of the United States. Enemies of freedom. Enemies of our country.
“Today, sadly, we have president who uses the word ‘enemy’ for fellow Americans — fellow citizens. He uses it for people who disagree with his agenda of bigger government — people speaking out for a smaller, more accountable government that respects freedom and allows small businesses to create jobs. Mr. President, there's a word for people who have the audacity to speak up in defense of freedom, the Constitution, and the values of limited government that made our country great. We don't call them ‘enemies.’ We call them ‘patriots.’”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44476.html?#ixzz145Xxa3gq

Drug thoughts

No, I don't mean blogging while stoned. I mean I've seen some interesting stories about drugs and drug policy.

First, my quick analysis of America's "war on drugs."  I consider these facts to be irrefutable:

1. For the better part of a century, America has made enormous investments in money and effort and has given up liberties in an effort to stop drug use.
2. Unless we are willing to execute people, the law cannot get much harsher.
3. Drugs are now cheap and inexpensive which means supply is plentiful.
4. The "war on drugs" is an utter failure.

 
Second, Consider a few more facts about the "war on drugs:"

1. All drugs were legal for most of American history and the country did just fine.
2. Anti-drug laws were, in part, motivated by the same impulses as Alcohol Prohibition.
3. Alcohol Prohibition was a spectacular failure that benefited organized (and unorganized) crime while simultaneously damaging the nation's moral fabric.
4. Anti-drug laws were, in part, motivated by racial and ethnic prejudice.
5. The trade in illegal drugs has grown despite, or perhaps because of, the "war on drugs." 
6. The growth in the trade shows that the consumers are willing to accept the risks to obtain drugs and providing those drugs is profitable for the producers and distributors. 
7. Our last three presidents all used marijuana and cocaine at one point in their lives. They got lucky and didn't get caught. Their example helps erode the moral base of not just our drug laws but of all our laws. 

Now consider a recent study by scientists where "Drug experts say alcohol worse than crack or heroin." 

Others point to Switzerland as a model for dealing with some drug problems.  The Swiss strategy is based on "harm reduction" that protects both users and communities rather than on punishment. Several other countries are following the Swiss example.  Does anyone really think that such efforts in the United States would lead to more drug use or more crime? Or that it would cost more?  I don't see how.


While individuals and society as a whole suffer from the "war on drugs," certain groups do benefit:
Law enforcement agencies soak up many millions of dollars specifically for use in enforcing drug laws. The police units with the coolest toys (best equipment) are usually the ones involved in drug investigation. (I am referring to the police administration who receive, manage, and distribute funding. I am NOT referring to the officer on the street. The field officer faces greater risks because of the "drug war" and, unless he's in a drug unit, receives little benefit.)
Politicians like to pose as "tough on crime" by putting harsher laws on paper. This is good publicity and no one ever seems to ask, "Why do we need more of the same drug laws if the old ones aren't working?" Politicians are notorious for taking a short-term, i.e. next election, perspective while ignoring the long-term effects.
Local governments receive money from the proceeds of drug forfeitures.
Pharmaceutical companies sell their legal drugs and certainly wouldn't welcome competition. Many illegal drug users are "self-medicating" and the legalization of drugs could cut into corporate profits.  Of course, I'm sure no corporation would ever advocate a policy against the good of society just to insure its profits. Right?

The list is not all  inclusive. And I am not saying there is a conspiracy merely a confluence of interests. 


If what we're doing isn't working, shouldn't we be considering trying something else?

How about these ideas:
Legalize and tax. Use tax money to fund education and treatment as well as to pay police officers better and to put more patrolling officers on the street.
Punish crime that hurts other people. Put people in jail for violating the rights of others not for what they do to themselves.
Treat adults as grown ups. Distribution to juveniles should be punished harshly, not a slap on the wrist like with our current alcohol and tobacco laws. But let adults decided how to live their lives even if it's to do something stupid, just like we do with alcohol and tobacco and sugar now. Have treatment available for those willing to make the effort. Right now, the only "treatment" available to most addicts is jail. Few are covered by insurance and very few can afford it on their own.
Think about it. Wouldn't this be a fairer, a more humane, a more American approach?

And with legalization, Phillip Morris would do what the DEA and all the other police organizations cannot -- put the drug gangs out of business. 

President Obama has given up on this election and is planning his re-election campaign

     An interesting look at the overall election picture from Reuters.  The most likely election results are a Republican House and a Senate with a reduced Democratic majority.  Nate Silver with the New York Times gives 5 Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected. Meanwhile, at Reuters, James Pethokoukis goes so far as to list 20 reasons Democrats are the walking dead.
Toby Harnden lists actual Democratic quotes at It's the (fill in blank), stupid! Top 10 Democratic excuses for losing the mid-terms

     This looks to me like a recipe for two years of political trench warfare. (Or as ABC News puts it, Gridlock with a Chance of Shutdown.)  President Obama won't be able to advance his agenda but neither will the Republicans be able to roll back most of what he's already passed.  And get used to hearing the words "Senate" and "filibuster" together. Republicans will slow up every extreme nominee Obama throws forward. And seeing as most of his nominees are extreme ... I want a concession to set a windmill up by DC to generate electricity from all the wind that will be blowing.

     Two years of political attrition will lead to ferocious Presidential campaign in 2012.  If you're tired of political ads now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.  Obama has already written off this year's campaigns and is working on his re-election.  That's why he's not out campaigning on the day before and the day of the election:

After a weekend of campaigning in four states President Obama will spend Election eve behind-closed-doors at the White House today.
In the morning, the President will receive the Presidential Daily Briefing and meet with senior advisors in the Oval Office, his regular daily briefings.
Mr. Obama will spend the rest of the day in private meetings at the White House. [emphasis added]

The President is staying home to review polls and to plan how to use the Democratic disaster to his personal advantage.  And with poll results like these and these, he's should be worried.


One issue of paramount importance to political survival  Is Obama's Legacy Blacks Joining GOP?   If these candidates signal the end of the monolithic black voting bloc, it will make Barack Obama a one-term president and realign American politics. 

Hillary Clinton, too, seems to have given up on these elections. She will be several thousand miles away from American shores on election day in a move some are interpreting as a deliberate way of literally distancing herself from the result. Many see former President Bill Clinton's campaigning as a 'retribution tour' against Barack Obama.  Byron York even questions whether the Clinton's aren't hoping for a Democratic disaster. Bill Clinton has campaigned for those who supported Hillary against Obama in 2008. So, his action fit into a plan to preserve Hillary's base while the Democrats in general panic.  This makes set her up to step forward as a savior for the party in 2012.