Banner ad

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Cruising the Web

The defendants in the Bell, California corruption case are rejecting plea deals. It may well turn out that voting oneself huge salaries for being on the city council of a very poor city is sleazy and corrupt, but not illegal.

David Cameron joins Angela Merkel in daring to speak the truth about the illusion that is multi-culturalism. Cameron demands that the government be less cautious and tolerant of Islamic extremism. Believing in liberty does not mean that a government must ignore someone like Major Hasan's extremist rhetoric and connections simply because his superiors fear seeming prejudiced against Muslims.

James Taranto points to the New York Times' hypocrisy in its calls for civility.

Liberals want to reduce Ronald Reagan to just an amiable and gifted politician and ignore that he also had bedrock conservative convictions.

Thomas Sowell clarifies
what is meant by "judicial activism."

Don't believe the conflicting statistics: federal employees are paid more than comparable workers in the private sphere.

The DLC is no more.
Had they been doing anything for the past few years? The Blue Dogs will go the same route. Of course, if this were the demise of a comparable moderate Republican group, we'd see long thumb-sucking pieces of how this meant that the Republicans had become too extreme for such a moderate group. Now we just get stories about how Obama is absorbing such moderates into his new-look presidency.

TO judge the truth of how the media loves the story of how Obama has suddenly become a moderate, just read the Politico meta-analysis from John F. Harris and Jim VanderHei about how Obama plays the media "like a fiddle." How ironic that Politico, part of the media swoon, now pulls back the curtain to tell us that the swooning is being manipulated by Obama with empty moves that have nothing to do with actual substance.

Jay Cost notices that the post-election bounce for President Obama has dissipated. Cost recommends ignoring the poll results now because the election will hinge on jobs, the deficit, and health care. True, but it will also hinge on whom the Republicans pick. Once Obama goes beyond being viewed in isolation and is seen in contrast to an opponent, we'll have a more realistic idea of how the 2012 election will shape up. And if the Republicans put up a weak candidate, it won't matter how unpopular Obama is. The GOP can't beat Obama with anybody; they need somebody and that choice is crucial.

One indication of the weakness of the GOP 2012 field is that Republicans are more excited about the possible VP candidates than the names out there for the top of the ticket. Of course, all these exciting possibilities have to actually govern and achieve results. Right now they're mostly blank slates upon which Republicans are writing their hopes -- much like Barack Obama was for the Democrats when he ran.


mark said...

While Reagan may have had "bedrock conservative convictions" he also:

-broke the law with Iran-Contra.
-was an ally to Saddam Hussein
-Cut-and-ran in Beirut
-granted amnesty to illegal aliens.

Spin and justify all you want, but those are facts. Reagan wouldn't have a chance in today's republican party. And if he were a different party or a different race, repubs would be calling him a secret Marxist bent on destroying our country.

Rick Caird said...

I love it. Liberals love to both trash Reagan and simultaneously tell us how much like him they are. As usual, these liberals are schizophrenic.

Mark tells us Reagan would not have a chance in "today's republican party", Au Contraire. Reagan would do just as well and be just as welcomed today as he was in 1980. It is astonishing to have the party of the now defunct DLC giving us advice on conservatism. Actually, it is not astonishing. It is quite amusing.

Next up: Chris Matthews gives conservatives advice on civility.

tfhr said...


I see you've managed to check the usual and requisite angry, frustrated liberal blocks, including the obligatory and unwarranted play of the race card. One of these days you'll finally figure out that accusing others of racism because they don't subscribe to your brand of politics undermines you, in addition to the damage it does by perpetuating racism.

So from your four "points" we can now establish that you, (1) have knowledge and proof that Ronald Reagan was guilty of infractions that the US Congress failed to act on and thus must be regarded to have been in collusion with the President. (2)Though I think you have overplayed the word "ally" here, you would therefore have regarded FDR's support of Stalin against Hitler as wrong. (3)Believe we should have maintained a military presence in Lebanon in perpetuity. (4)Believe allowing illegal aliens to stay in this country is wrong.

Wow, mark. We actually agree on that last one. I guess I'll have to put you back on my Christmas card list.

One more thing - How do you suppose JFK would be regarded by today's Dem party? Given his penchant of cutting taxes and aggressively countering Communism, I'd say he wouldn't be welcome.

pumping-irony said...

Not to mention the Democrat Party of the 1860s would be chasing Barack Obama through the streets with sticks. For the historically-challenged, THEY were the pro-slavery party in those years.

And yeah, let's test that assertion about what would happen if Reagan were a different race or party. Let's see, how can we do that.... how about sex as a proxy? In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro ran as a VP candidate on the Dem ticket and the self-congratulation amongst the Dems and the media knew no end. In 2008, Sarah Palin ran as a VP candidate on the Rep ticket and... gee, the metaphorical equivalent of chasing her thru the streets with sticks. Well, it was the BLACK SC justice Clarence Thomas who coined the phrase "hi-tech lynching". And we wasn't talking about Republicans.

Projection - it's not just for movie theatres anymore.

equitus said...

Thanks, mark. Good for smile. :)