Banner ad

Monday, June 20, 2011

Cruising the Web

Former Senator Sununu lambastes the recommendations from the President's Jobs and Competitiveness Council, that gruop of three CEO's set up to address unemployment. They've labored and brought forth a mouse with recommendations based on platitudes and ignoring policies that discourage job growth. Their problem is that they're starting from faulty assumption that government creates jobs rather than providing the environment that allows private entrepreneurs to create jobs.

Rowan Scarborough uses the friendly Oval Office meeting that Obama recently gave to a corrupt and revolting African dictators to note all the dictators that Obama has cozied up to and contrast that with how he's treated our allies like Israel, Great Britain, or the Czech Republic.

Don't let the firing of the head of the ATF let Eric Holder skate responsibility for the Gunwalker program.

A 1980s liberal reminds us
of how liberals at the time hated Reagan. They might try to airbrush over their detestation now that Reagan is remembered fondly by the majority of Americans. But that shouldn't disguise the irrational feelings at the time. Or let us forget how rancid political divisions have pre-dated today's era.

Fred Barnes essay
on how Obama has led from the behind in domestic policy since the first days of his presidency is a must-read. On policy after policy, Obama has either provided rhetoric without specific proposals or he's outsourced the crafting of policy to his allies in Congress.
On almost every major issue since he took office in January 2009, Obama has dumped responsibility on someone else, merely paid lip service, or let the issue quietly fade away. Just this year, the issues that have gotten the no-leadership treatment from Obama include: the deficit, the debt, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, energy, corporate taxes, medical liability, immigration, and Libya.
Why lead when he can just demagogue against Republicans when they come up with actual proposals?

Examine this chart tracking the numbers of companies leaving California per week. The numbers have quintupled since 2009. Ah, federalism at work.

Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith examines the main weaknesses in the administration's defenses of why the War Powers Resolution shouldn't apply to our kinetic action in Libya.

Mark Steyn is not impressed
with Lindsay Graham's recommendation that people who disagree with him about our actions in Libya should just "shut up."
Alternatively, here’s a suggestion for Senator Graham: Why don’t you shut up? Not permanently, but just long enough to:

a) reflect whether this apparently reflexive response of yours is really appropriate for a citizen-legislator in a self-governing republic;

b) articulate a rationale for the Libyan mission that would be so persuasive it would save you the trouble of making a fool of yourself by insisting that those who have the temerity to disagree with you are beyond the bounds of public discourse;
Steyn also recommends that, instead of telling opponents to shut up, supporters should work on explaining the basis for our actions.

The NYT sent out an e-mail alert on Saturday evening touting a big story implying that Clarence Thomas had somehow violated judicial ethics by putting developers of a museum preserving the culture of the area of Georgia where Thomas grew up in touch with a multi-millionaire friend of the Justice. I kept reading the story trying to find out what the problem was with a Supreme Court justice giving the backers of a museum in an area designated for preservation by the U.S. Congress the name of a rich friend. I'll turn it over to Ann Althouse to explain what a nothingburger of a story this was.
Imagine this historical preservation project without any connection to conservative politics. What article would appear in the New York Times?

....The constitutional check on a Supreme Court Justice is impeachment. Picture Congress going after Thomas for playing some background role in preserving a valuable black history site.
Instapundit explains the real motivation of this story.
But of course, the New York Times piece isn’t really about ethics. It’s battlespace preparation for the Supreme Court’s healthcare vote. The problem for the Times is that Thomas doesn’t care what the New York Times thinks. Which means this is more about preparing a narrative of failure for ObamaCare — It was struck down by evil corrupt conservative judges. I think they’re going to be kept quite busy constructing failure narratives over the next couple of years.


Pat Patterson said...

Impugn or destroy the legitimacy of those voting and then the same applies to what they voted on.

pumping-irony said...

A nothingburger story from a nothingburger "news" paper. The NYT had the right idea to put up a wall, but they got the direction wrong; instead of keeping non-payers out, they should be striving to keep the garbage they contrive in.