† The Uniter: Part III: Noting that “President Obama has been going backward with independents for more than a year,” The Washington Post asks top Republican and Democrat strategists why. The Republicans cite the usual causes: the weak economy; government expansion that will increase the deficit; and the enevitable dissonance between the liberal governing class that the center-right electorate. Here’s what White House senior adviser David Axelrod tells the WaPo:

[T]he criticism of Obama as a big-spending liberal grows out of decisions the president felt he had to make to prevent a depression. "We were forced to do things from the start to deal with this economic crisis that helped create a false narrative about spending and deficits that's had some impact on independent voters," Axelrod said. "And that's something we have to work on."

In other words, Obama didn’t spend enough. He didn’t grow the deficit enough.

Third Way spokesperson Matt Bennett isn’t buying any of it:

"Independents used to be mainly moderates, but they are trending increasingly to the right," he said. "They have deep concerns about Democrats being anti-business, anti-growth and fiscally irresponsible."

As Republican media consultant Fred Davis puts it, it’s a case of fool me twice, shame on me:

“[Independents] have come to the conclusion that they were made a fool of, and they ain't happy about it one bit. So, they will be very hard to get back."

† Why Leftie Obama Is Right Handed When He Eats: Almost exactly two years ago to the day, The Stiletto pointed out that Barack Obama (he wasn't using his middle name back then, only "racists" were) was a cultural Muslim. Now that Obama has been in the Oval Office for 18 months Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner explains the implications: 

Mr. Obama is the anti-Bush. He is virulently anti-Israel, championing appeasement toward radical Islam. The reason lies in Mr. Obama's background and worldview - one that makes him uniquely unqualified to prosecute the war on terror.

During his youth, Mr. Obama was raised and educated as a Muslim. His father and stepfather were Muslims. When Mr. Obama attended a Catholic school in Indonesia, he was registered as an Indonesian citizen and "a Muslim." In public school, he was also identified as practicing Islam. Under the name "Barry Soetoro," he was compelled to take daily Islamic religious instruction, recite prayers, study the Koran and learn Arabic. His former classmates and teachers remember him as a devout Muslim. …

Culturally, he is America's first Muslim president. He refuses to admit there is a war against Islamist terrorism. His counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, even denies that jihad is a motive for Muslim extremists. He publicly excoriates Israel for building Jewish apartments in East Jerusalem, but calls for "engagement" and "dialogue" with Iran. He seeks a rapprochement with Syria, downplaying its ties to Tehran and support for Hezbollah. He is prematurely pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. He has imposed crippling rules of engagement that make victory all but impossible in Afghanistan - for fear of killing civilians and "angering" the Muslim street. He demands Gitmo be closed. He calls for terrorists, like Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in civilian court. He has ordered that NASA's "foremost" mission be "outreach" to the Islamic world - not space exploration. And he adamantly embraces Palestinian statehood, even at the mortal risk posed to Israel.

† Obama Is Just About Every U.S. President All Rolled Into One!: Amity Shlaes is a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations, compares President Barack Hussein Obama to FDR in this Washington Post op-ed, but not in a good way:

With unemployment high and the Dow Jones industrial average bumping about, the big debate this summer is how to prevent a double-dip recession resembling that of the late 1930s. Some say Washington should spend more, arguing that government austerity triggered the collapse in 1937 that erased previous gains. Others say that cutting spending now will strengthen the economy generally and preclude dramatic downturns.

President Obama may be about to repeat Franklin D. Roosevelt's mistakes - but not the ones captured in this narrow discussion.

By fixating on the debt and stimulus plans, Obama and Congress are overlooking challenges to the economy from taxes, employment and the entrepreneurial environment. President Roosevelt's great error was to ignore such factors - and the result was that sickening double dip. …

What about the old spend-or-save debate? The evidence suggests that easier money did indeed help end this second slump. But a larger factor was Roosevelt's decision to stop attacking business and turn to foreign policy.

† Updates To Previous Posts (second item, A To Z Approach On Illegal Immigration In AZ): Various polls have suggested that AZ’s new immigration law has broad support nationwide, Republicans and Democrats alike. Since money talks, the Obama administration should be worried that voters are digging into their wallets to help Gov. Jan Brewer’s (R-AZ) defend the law against suits by the ACLU, pro-illegal immigration activists and the federal government. This is a grassroots uprising against Attorney General Eric Holder’s unpopular decision to challenge the law, reports The Associated Press:

Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

The donations, 88 percent of which came through the Arizona defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.

Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including nearly 2,000 from Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100. [Emphasis, The Stiletto]. …

The willingness of thousands of individual Americans to contribute to the Arizona fund illustrates broad concern and frustration over border security and illegal immigration.  …

Donors contacted by the AP said they contributed because the federal government should be helping Arizona, not taking the state to court.

With 40 percent of the states poised to pass their own AZ-like anti-immigration law (third item), the Obama administration is going to tick off a lot of voters if Attorney General Eric Holder keeps suing them, forcing strapped state governments to rattle the tin cup to defend themselves in court. The Stiletto foresees voters in these states diverting money that would otherwise have gone into local politicians’ campaign coffers to legal defense funds as each state finds itself in Holder’s crosshairs. Now that will get the attention of Congress!

† Updates To Previous Posts (seventh item, Putting The “Boo” In Boomer): The AARP is running a new ad campaign featuring Baby Boomers talking about what they will do when they grow up. Well, they've finally grown up and smelled the coffee, and a lot of them are doing the same thing: Trending conservative, reports the Los Angeles Times:

A Pew Research poll released last week found that most voters over 50 say they favor the Republicans in November's congressional election. Voters in their 30's and 40's were evenly split; voters younger than 30 favored the Democrats. That's a big problem for Democrats, in two ways.

First, older voters are a bloc the party doesn't want to lose. They turn out on Election Day more consistently than younger voters - especially in a nonpresidential election, like this year's. About two-thirds of November's voters will be 50 or older.

Second, the defections may reflect a deeper, longer-term trend: The baby boom generation appears to be growing more conservative as it ages.

Democrats already knew they had trouble with voters over the age of 65. Those voters - the true senior citizens - were the only age group that John McCain carried in the presidential election of 2008.

But the baby boomers - the cohort from 50 to 64 - had been in the Democrats' grasp. Boomers voted for Obama in 2008. They voted strongly for Democrats in the congressional election of 2006. (They voted for George W. Bush in 2004, but only by a narrow margin - unlike the more conservative 65+ voters.)

Now, though, many of the boomers who voted for Obama are moving into the Republican column - and behaving (or at least answering survey questions) just like the older cohort.

"There's evidence that those two generations, the early boomers and the seniors, may be converging," said Andrew Kohut, Pew's director. "If it holds up - and we'll see in November - that could be a significant change."

† Updates To Previous Posts (Praise The Lord, And Pass The Ammunition): Like Pastor Ken Pagano of New Bethel Church in Louisville, KY, Rev. Jonathan Wilkins of the Baptist Tabernacle in Thomaston, GA, sees nothing wrong with bringing guns to church, and is suing to overturn a state ban that he says violates his Second Amendment rights, reports The Associated Press: 

Wilkins' attorney John Monroe said Friday that the minister wants to carry a gun to church for protection considering church shootings over the years. …

The lawsuit is being filed on his behalf as well as a handful of gun rights advocates.

The lawsuit was widely expected following the Supreme Court's decision.

† Updates To Previous Posts (fourth item, Today’s Letter Is “I.” As In Ingrate.): Though Gen. David Petraeus promised to "look very hard" at the rules of engagement in Afghanistan during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, The Washington Post reports that he might look, but not touch, restrictions on how and when to engage the enemy:

The controversy pits the desire of top military officers to limit civilian casualties, something they regard as an essential part of the overall counterinsurgency campaign, against a widespread feeling among rank-and-file troops that restrictions on air and mortar strikes are placing them at unnecessary risk and allowing Taliban fighters to operate with impunity. …

At issue is a tactical directive issued last July by Petraeus's predecessor, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, that limits the use of air and mortar strikes against houses unless personnel are in imminent danger. The directive requires troops to take extensive measures, including a 48-hour "pattern of life" analysis with on-the-ground or aerial surveillance, to ensure that civilians are not in a housing compound before ordering an airstrike.

Senior U.S. military officials in Afghanistan and Washington said Petraeus almost certainly will not rescind the directive but instead will issue revised guidance in the coming days in an attempt to streamline procedures and ensure uniformity in how the rules are implemented. …

If troops are in imminent danger, there is no restriction on the use of airstrikes or mortars. "The rules of engagement provide an absolute right of self-defense," the official said. …

The principal problem, senior officials say, is that U.S. and allied units across Afghanistan have carried out the directive in ways that are more restrictive than McChrystal intended. Fearful of career-ending sanctions if they violate the order, commanders at every subordinate level down the chain have tightened the rules themselves, often adding their own stipulations to the use of air and mortar strikes. [Emphasis, The Stiletto.]

Families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan are adamant that their loved ones died in vain (seventh item), but according to one of The WaPo’s sources, “We have not found a single situation where a soldier has lost his life because he was not allowed to protect himself.”

Yeah, and military officials found no reason to be alarmed by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's glaringly obvious radicalization (seventh item).

† Updates To Previous Posts  (seventh item Mortgage Loan Modification Less Than Advertised): The latest fad amongst the “ruthless” rich? Strategic defaults, reports The New York Times: 

More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars is seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.

By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.

Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.

“The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” said Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist. …

Lenders are fearful that many of the 11 million or so homeowners who owe more than their house is worth will walk away from them, especially if the real estate market begins to weaken again. The so-called strategic defaults have become a matter of intense debate in recent months. …

“Those with high net worth have other resources to lean on if they get in trouble,” said Mr. Khater, the analyst. “If they’re going delinquent faster than anyone else, that tells me they are doing so willingly.” …

The rich and successful often come naturally to this sort of attitude, said Brent T. White, a law professor at the University of Arizona who has studied strategic defaults.

“They may be less susceptible to the shame and fear-mongering used by the government and the mortgage banking industry to keep underwater homeowners from acting in their financial best interest,” Mr. White said.

† Updates To Previous Posts (seventh item, Nationalized Healthcare Always Leads To Rationing): This Associated Press article knocks down one of the myths Dems fed the public while trying to sell Obamacare - that the uninsured crowd into ERs because they don’t have the healthcare coverage allowing them to see a regular doctor:

Emergency rooms, the only choice for patients who can't find care elsewhere, may grow even more crowded with longer wait times under the nation's new health law.

That might come as a surprise to those who thought getting 32 million more people covered by health insurance would ease ER crowding. It would seem these patients would be able to get routine health care by visiting a doctor's office, as most of the insured do.

But it's not that simple. Consider:

‡ There's already a shortage of front-line family physicians in some places and experts think that will get worse.

‡ People without insurance aren't the ones filling up the nation's emergency rooms. Far from it. The uninsured are no more likely to use ERs than people with private insurance, perhaps because they're wary of huge bills.

‡ The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients. And the new health insurance law will increase their ranks by about 16 million. Medicaid is the state and federal program for low-income families and the disabled. And many family doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they take because of low government reimbursements.

Rand Corp. researcher Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann tells AP that in MA, which enacted Romneycare (AKA “Obamacare Lite”) in 2006, ER visits continued to rise since the law passed.