Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Cruising the Web

Tevi Troy has a nice retrospective on Mayor Ed Koch, "The Last Sane Liberal." It's a refreshing reminder in these days of Bloombergery.

Jonathan Tobin writes persuasively that the federal government shouldn't be involved in prosecuting athletes for steroid use.

Explaining how the federal government screwed up the stimulus package: Part of a recurring series, I'm sure. Clip and save for arguing with your liberal friends this year.

Yuval Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru put forth an argument
that Mitt Romney can use if he is the nominee when Obama tries to argue that Obamacare was modeled on Romneycare. It's a subtle argument that I haven't seen Romney or anyone else make. The Romney campaign should pay attention.

Michael Walsh takes apart the disgusting attempt
by Frank Rich to use Romney's Mormonism against him. Expect to see more of these sorts of "analyses" from the media. They'll do Obama's dirty work for him. Yes, there are ugly parts of Mormonism's history. That is true of every religion. Should a practitioner be brought to account for excusing his religion? That's a slippery slope we should not want to go sliding down. For cases like these, just ask yourself what the response would be if Rich were writing about a Muslim politician and trying to hang that religion's history around the candidate.

Just who exactly is the aggressor in the culture wars?

Analysts are thinking that the administration may find some way out of the mess it bought for itself with its decision forcing Catholic institutions to insure methods they oppose on religious grounds. They might well find a way out, but that won't erase the original decision and the week they've spent defending it. Anyone who cares about the issue will know what the inclinations of this administration are and what they'd be if they didn't have the constraint of a tight looming election.

Newt Gingrich's communications director is getting in trouble
with Wikipedia for his efforts to edit pages connected to Gingrich and his marriages.

Barack Obama says that he's getting better "as time goes on." Yeah, that's a reason to reelect him. And his defense for not getting more done is that, darn it, the Founders designed a system that makes it difficult for him to push things through Congress. That's why he's had to get around the system in any way he possibly can even if he has to strain the Constitution in so doing. So if you want more of the policies that were unpopular the first time around, vote for him and he'll try to bulldoze them through again. It's enough to scare us about what Obama might do if he got "better."

Stephen Moore has a fairness quiz for the President. Some questions:
Is it fair that thousands of workers won't have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama's largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?

Is it fair that federal employees receive benefits that are nearly 50% higher than those of private-sector workers whose taxes pay their salaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office?

Is it fair that soon almost half the federal budget will take income from young working people and redistribute it to old non-working people, even though those over age 65 are already among the wealthiest Americans?
Read the rest. It would make a good script of a RNC campaign ad.

What a surprise: legislators put in earmarks for projects that are close to where they own property. Often the government projects improved land near property that they were developing for commercial development. It's all legal and representatives of both parties do it. I guess that is another of those things that we choose to do together.

5 comments:

ic said...

"It's a subtle argument that I haven't seen Romney or anyone else make."

Subtle to some, weaselly to others. If the Dems and Newt could cut up Romney's that he didn't care about the poorest comment, what will they do with a "subtle" argument?

I think the only argument Romney could made is health care is a state's not the fed's concern.

Frankly, the general is not about Romney, is about how much more the electorate could stomach Obama.

Bad news: My hairdresser complained about how long her sister has to wait in Chicago's Cook County Hospital, and Obamacare was free health care for everyone, meaning the poor souls could use other hospitals and lessen the wait. She never heard of Solyndra or Fast and Furious. Last time she preferred the "oh so good looking" John Edwards. I hope she sits this one out.

John A said...

"What a surprise: legislators put in earmarks for projects that are close to where they own property."

And that is why I objevted to the infamous Alaska "BRidge to Nowhere." Noy becse it was a nad idea, or because sucj a project might not need some Federal halp, but because before puyying it in from of Congress the politician responsible had nought property [near] where the bridge would have to be.

While too many earmarks are not something I can support (Cowboy Poetry?) not all are actually terrible. Thet are an admittedy a somewhat sneaky way of acoiding a direct vote, on the idea that perhaps Massachusetts would not vote money to help New Mexico but would not object too strongly if it came as an "earmark" within a bill appropriating money for deep-water ports.

John A said...

Oh my, so MANY typos. Sorry.

tfhr said...

John A,

There are days when typing with your forehead is the only way to go. Don't feel bad.

ic,

This year the hairdresser vote is not yet wrapped up and despite the choices there will still be a few that can't resist Edward's pate.

Oxmyx said...

"Bloombergery" -- what a perfect word you've coined!