Friday, June 03, 2011

Cruising the Web

Newbusters has a great catch of how MSNBC is using natural disasters to explain increased unemployment now versus how they thought that natural disasters explained increased employment back when Bush was president.

Monica Hesse speaks for a lot of women
out there when she advises guys to stop thinking that sending out pictures of their package are a great come-on to women. though I'm not on the same page with the woman who yearns for a picture of a man alphabetizing the books in his library.

Oh, and calling the Capitol Police to get rid of a local TV reporter is never a good media strategy. I guess it shows that there are indeed some infractions that Weiner thinks it's worth spending the taxpayers' money on to call in the police.

The AP does a fact check of how the Democrats are distorting the GOP Medicare proposal and concludes, "Wasserman Schultz and some other Democrats who accuse the GOP of wanting to "end Medicare" have skipped past the complicated crux of that debate, instead attacking provisions that do not exist." AP has problems with the Ryan plan because they're still comparing it to the ideal vision of how Medicare would continue working in the future just as it has worked in the past. That is the real fallacy when the media assesses the GOP plan. But the Democrats don't have anything but lies to put forward.

Peggy Noonan has found the sentence to summarize Obama's presidency: "He made it worse." Hard to disagree with that.

What does it say about the historical ignorance of the middle-schoolers who put Bush and Cheney in their yearbook on a list of the "worst five people of all time?" Not only does that school need a new yearbook supervisor, but an entire new history staff.

Kimberley Strassel focuses
on the same problem that I have with Sarah Palin. Palin had an opportunity after the 2008 election to recast herself as a serious candidate by studying policy and coming out with her own proposals to address the nation's problems. She chose a different path. And while that might make her a fine media personality and make her base happy, she hasn't demonstrated any ability to appeal to voters beyond that base. And that is what the GOP nominee in 2012 will have to do. Republicans want a winner not just someone who can stick it in the eye of the MSM.

Dorothy Rabinowitz has some good advice for whomever that GOP nominee will be.

Obama's Solicitor General makes the argument in favor of the mandate that if someone didn't like being forced to buy insurance that person could just choose to make less money. Now that's a comfort, isn't it?

The Washington Post can't understand
why the NAACP would side with the teachers union over the interests of students. Their naiveté is sweet, but myopic.

Tim Geithner picked the wrong week to praise the administration on the auto bailout.

Jim Geraghty notes that Obama wants to pretend that he's above paying attention to the 2012 race...except for all those fundraisers he's jetting around to.


ic said...

"...if someone didn't like being forced to buy insurance that person could just choose to make less money."

Do not fear, most people are doing exactly that. They either give up looking for works, can't find a job, can't find a good paying job except those in the unions that are waivered, ... Hopefully comes 2012, the solicitor general will join them. On the other hand, he has connections, he will never be one of those who will be "mandated". Seems someone just loves to feel superior, to lord over the masses.

pumping-irony said...

"Obama's Solicitor General makes the argument in favor of the mandate that if someone didn't like being forced to buy insurance that person could just choose to make less money."

In other words, it's "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." If you don't like how much being able is costing you, just become less able, i.e. more needy. When large numbers of people decide to follow this thinking, you will have what exactly? Ask the USSR. It failed. Good thinking.

Joe said...

Both you and Strassel seem to think that Palin needs to study more? It's not like the presidential candidates have to take a qualifying test like a Count Court Clerk, though that might not be a bad idea.

I think her policy is founded in morality and patriotism. Hard to study up on common sense and a belief of right or wrong. She seems to know who America's friends are and that's head and shoulders above Obama and most of the others.

I haven't seen any other candidate express any policy other than to try and impress whatever audience is being addressed.

Besides, a citizenry ignorant enough to elect Obama, wouldn't understand a policy on making tuna salad, much less creating jobs or strengthening an economy.

What pearls of wisdom have the other candidates shared with us?

mark said...

If we are going to discuss distortion of the medicare proposal, how about dealing with Ryan's lie about "premium supports". Just call them what they are: Vouchers. If repubs can't defend the plan without lying, it is not worth defending.

Pat Patterson said...

But Ryan admitted that this was a euphemism for vouchers on April 5th. So what then is the great problem?

ChrisA said...

Peggy Noonan has found the sentence to summarize Obama's presidency: "He made it worse." Hard to disagree with that.

Did she leave the part out where she looks in the mirror and realizes she helped to elect Obama? Peggy may be a great intellect but her credibility is pretty close to zero with me.

Noumenon said...

That's a pretty hacky headline -- Geithner "picked the wrong week" for his editorial because GM stock is down this week? The entire US stock market was down this week. Stocks do that sometimes.

Stan said...


Using your test, Obama has done nothing worth defending as president.

Betsy, Palin is smarter than a lot of Democrats and doesn't make nearly as many gaffes as an idiot like Biden. However, if your point is that a Republican will be treated so unfairly by the news media that he or she must pass the Jackie Robinson test, I think you are probably correct.

If the GOP candidate were politically astute, the Obamacare defense would be front and center as the centerpiece of his campaign.

mark said...

Aside from the fact that the term "premium supports" is inaccurate (according to the men who developed that concept), why the need for euphemisms? Call it what is is.
Both sides play this game (unfortunately, repubs are much better at it). Torture becomes "enhanced interrogation", a warning that OBL was going to attack our country with planes becomes a "historical document".
Then again, you apparently think putting on chaps and a hat makes someone a real cowboy. Giddyup.

tfhr said...


And when Bush protects the United States with the Patriot Act it's a violation of the Constitution but when Obama does it, it isn't? OK. No hypocrisy there.

When Obama uses intelligence gained from "torture", to ultimately kill bin Laden, you're offended and protest that it should not have happened. Right?

The fact that you cling to the distorted view that there was ample intelligence to prevent 9-11 tells me all that I need to know about you: You are intellectually dishonest.

Unless you seriously think Bush could have rounded up every Arab or Islamic male between the ages of 18 and 54 living in the United States, prevented any of the same demographic from entering the United States or boarding an aircraft for the United States, or instituted a program as or even more harsh than FDR's treatment of Japanese Americans without a word of protest from the left, then just what was the Bush administration to do with the who, what, when, and where needed to prevent the attacks?

You throw that slop around endlessly but never give us the benefit of your all-knowing wisdom as to how you or anyone else would have instantly resolved the issue before it came to be. Would you have instantly eliminated the walls put in place between law enforcement and national intelligence agencies, courtesy of Jamie Gorelick? I suppose you would have had to recognize the damage Gorelick had caused first. Would you have pushed aside the protection Janet Reno extended to the one hijacker already in custody prior to 9-11?

Great if you had but I doubt it would have made much of a difference. It is sad and sickening that people like you, mark, still see 9-11 as an opportunity to bash George Bush for the same reason you did it initially: to advance your petty partisan politics.

mark said...

Thanks for the rant, tfhr. Glad I get could get your goat. You really are easy.

I have absolutely never claimed that there was ample evidence available to prevent 9/11. But I do believe there was enough evidence to prompt some concern. And no one has provided a shred of evidence that Bush or Cheney addressed did anything about terrorism in the nine months. A lot of golf, clearing brush and tax cuts, but nothing on terrorism. (But please, feel free to enlighten me). Might any action prevented 9/11? Maybe. Maybe not.
That your defense of Bush is simply an attack on Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick is just further evidence that you've got nothing.

BTW: The thread was about medicare. Please try to stay on topic.

Pat Patterson said...

mark-Still 60 days late with your complaint. This kind of word substitution has been going on since the Republic was founded so it is a little ingenuous to suddenly throw one's hands in the air at the horror of it all. Seems to me that often the Democrats raise the cry that the Republicans want to cut some program or the other when the truth of the matter is that it is a cut in the rate of growth not in comparison to the year before.

tfhr said...


The thread is applicable to at least 12 topics linked in Betsy's post but you seem to be the one that started down the 9-11 road with your remark at 0820:

"Torture becomes 'enhanced interrogation', a warning that OBL was going to attack our country with planes becomes a 'historical document'".

I find it both sad and interesting - like watching a car crash - to see you use one invalid example to support another indefensible claim you've made. And so it goes.

Terrye said...

I absolutely agree with you about Palin. Her recent remarks about Paul Revere are a good example. She says the point of her bus tour is to help remind the American people of our foundation..fine, so when someone ask you a question about that foundation or our history have a short and concise and non meandering answer ready for them..instead of we get days and days of people arguing over who knows more about history. We do not need a candidate who requires translation..not if we are going to win.

tfhr said...


I don't disagree with your point but does the incumbent candidate for 2012 ever get the same scrutiny?

From "Cinco de Cuatro" to "...not knowing the term in Austrian.", Barack Obama matches Palin gaff for gaff. I suppose it's some solace that the king of gaffs, Joe Biden, is largely silenced in his current role.

Rather than having a better grasp on history, which would be comforting, I'd like to see our incumbent at least take note of current events! Unfortunately one is just as unlikely as the other.

tfhr said...


Further illustrating the point:

When the media is the judge and jury on a particular matter, we are left with their choice to emphasize, distort, or manipulate. I'd say don't lose sight of the strengths and above all the ideals of a particular candidate when the media chooses to make it their interest to malign them at every opportunity.

PatD said...

One thing Palin has been doing is studying policy and issuing statements based on that study. She has covered Obamacare in depth, the President's budget, Ryans's budget, the decision criteria for when America should commit troops abroad, Libya, energy policy, Iran, Missile Defense and Start, QE2, and more. This all publicly available on Facebook. She has done that alongside two books, a TV series, numerous speaking engagements, trips to Haiti, Israel, India and Honk Kong. You seem to have been suckered in by the GOP elite.

By way of comparison, what has Mitt Romney done over the last two years? Did he lead the charge against Obamacare? Did he go to Wisconsin to support Governor Walker? Where was he when the Obama administration sued Arizona?

PatD said...

TerryE, turns out Palin's remarks on Revere were basically correct. Which is not surprising since she'd just visited the Paul Revere house, and possibly just learned that Revere had been captured and interrogated by the British.