Banner ad

Friday, March 08, 2013

Cruising the Web

Byron York explains how President Obama could easily fix the problems associated with sequestration cuts, but doesn't want to. They just don't want the responsibility to make tough spending decisions. It's easier to evade responsibility and then go grandstand around the country. Such is Obama's sense of what leadership is.

Matthew Continetti suggests the Republicansenjoy Obama's recent setbacks since they'll probably mess things up sooner rather than later.

Of course, it helps when the White House keeps jumping over the sequester shark.

Instead of worrying about size of the soft drink choices of New Yorkers, perhaps Mayor Bloomberg should be concerned about the huge numbers of students who graduate from New York City schools without having mastered basic skills in reading, writing, and math.

Thomas Sowell explains what we should understand about social mobility in the United States.

The Washington Post Fact-checker chides the administration again on departing from the truth in claims about the effects of the sequester on federally funded vaccines.

Peter Berkowitz and Peggy Noonan do a very good job of taking on Sam Tanenhaus's criticisms of conservatives as latent racists.

Finally, a day after Senator Paul's filibuster, Eric Holder has figured out what the administration's policy is on killing Americans who are not enemy combatants. Of course, he released his letter to the press, not to the Senator who asked for it.

Hugo Chavez's body is set to be permanently displayed. Such cult of a leader is so last century.

Justice Kennedy is worried about the Supreme Court usurping the role of elected legislators.
Calling it a "serious problem," Kennedy lamented, "a democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people -- from a fairly narrow background, a legal background -- have to say."
Well, it's about time that the Court realized this.

Explaining why ideological labels are a good thing.

7 comments:

Last, First, MI said...

Though Barack Obama could accept his responsibility for the design and implementation of Sequestration, he is all too eager to run from it. No surprise - he ran like a scalded dog from his responsibility for Benghazi, in fact, he's still hiding under the porch on that one.

As York's article clearly details, the manner in which Sequestration cuts are applied are anything but beyond the control of the President. He simply chooses to let this happen this way. Just like Benghazi - by actions or inaction - this is his responsibility.

How does he get away with this type of negligence? He has an army of lick spittle toadies in the media that, when they aren't fawning over him, are either covering for him or giving him a pass. With that in mind, the Chavez cult of personality article seems apropos in Betsy's selection for the day.

When was the last time you saw a "Question Authority" bumper sticker?

equitus said...

If you want your president or elected representatives held accountable, you owe it yourself and your nation to vote Republican.

Democrats can do whatever they please.

Last, First, MI said...

Equitus,

I won't pin my hopes on the likes of McCain, Graham, McConnell or Boehner. In fact, they are poster children for the only cure: Term limits!

We will not have a government that puts the interests of the electorate ahead of the interests of office holders until those in office are no longer insulated from the damaging laws and suffocating regulations they emit. They must not be allowed to remain their indefinitely as is so often the case with gerrymandering and the power of incumbency. Not until they can be cut off from the endless funds, perks, and power accumulated over time from special interests, "seniority", and party politics, will we see something emerge from the current morass that may actually resemble public service.

How does a simpleton like Harry Reid amass those millions and how does he rise to "lead" the Senate? Is he the best that this country can do? Same for Pelosi. I shake my head when I think about her. She can't shake her own head so someone has to do it. What about McConnell? The second coming of that utter dumbass, Trent Lott. Was Foghorn Leghorn unavailable? Boehner is a nice guy but that doesn't seem to serve him too well and neither does breaking down in tears at the drop of hat. That man is next in line if Obama walks into a Tiger Woods back swing and Biden tries to demonstrate home defense techniques without warning the Secret Service detail.

People like Rubio, Paul (the younger), Cruz, Scott, Lee, and Walker are just a few new names that give me reason the believe that conservatism can compete. We know it can govern - something sadly and dangerously absent in the current crowd of liberal and Progressive flacks now holding the White House and half of the Congress.

If it isn't obvious, those named in the last paragraph have not spent their entire lives in DC. I think that's a defining factor.

Finally, I am happy to look outside of the normal "career" path. Consider a man like Ben Carson. I don't know what his party affiliation is but I'd be happy to have him lead this country.

Last, First, MI said...

Equitus,

I guess your point may have been only to highlight that the media rarely takes the left to task but is more than happy to do its job with regard to the left's opposition. We can agree on that point without a doubt.

equitus said...

Yep. But I enjoyed your rant anyway.

Last, First, MI said...

Thanks - I'm here all week - please tip your waitress.

Last, First, MI said...

Finally got around to reading the Washington Post's Fact Checker, "Truth Behind the Rhetoric" article in which it concludes that the Obama administration is not telling the truth.

It's pretty mild in its treatment, as in this example:

"We remain disturbed at how vague and fuzzy estimates keep getting turned into hard facts by the administration."

Welcome to reality! The DNC Newsletter, also known as the Washington Post, willfully advances Obama's agenda and rarely pulls a punch when an opportunity appears to distort, disparage, or otherwise mislead for "the cause".

No, what is surprising is that they even bothered to fact check this president. They'd better watch it or they well soon go the way of the Washington Post's ombudsman. That last bastion of objectivity was shut down in recent layoffs at the paper. I guess they figured nobody bothered to read them for fair and accurate reporting anyway. Like I said, I was surprised to see the Fact Checker take a chance like that.