This ones a gusher, folks. I read this the first time and halfway through thought, “He’s writing this tongue in cheek. . . .isn’t he?” The second time through I realized, “No, Brooks has lost his mind.” I almost tried reading it a third time and thought I’d save myself the pain. I didn’t paste it below, but oddly enough when Brooks writes of conservative legal scholars who see no problems with the Eric Holder nomination for Attorney General, he doesn’t name them. I would submit that there aren’t any or that Brooks’ idea of what a conservative is differs from mine.
Obviously, Brooks is an op-ed writer. This is not reporting per se (not that the “mainstream” media does any of that today). But I got stuck in neutral between flat out laughing and getting angry as I read his column.
From David Brook’s op-ed in the NYT:
“Already the culture of the Obama administration is coming into focus. Its members are twice as smart as the poor reporters who have to cover them, three times if you include the columnists. They typically served in the Clinton administration and then, like Cincinnatus, retreated to the comforts of private life — that is, if Cincinnatus had worked at Goldman Sachs, Williams & Connolly or the Brookings Institution. So many of them send their kids to Georgetown Day School, the posh leftish private school in D.C., that they’ll be able to hold White House staff meetings in the carpool line.

And yet as much as I want to resent these overeducated Achievatrons (not to mention the incursion of a French-style government dominated by highly trained Enarchs), I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition.”

read comments (0)

I always find it interesting when Members of Congress make definitive statements and then turn around and say, “That’s not at all what I meant by that statement.” No wonder the American people do not trust Washington, DC. Yes does not mean yes and no does not mean no inside the Beltway.
Each Member referenced in the Politico blog below has made very definitive statements regarding bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and as for the 113 Democrats in the House, they simply voted for a one year moratorium of the Fairness Doctrine that has now run its course. When presented with permanently banning the Fairness Doctrine under the Broadcasters Freedom Act, not one of them signed the discharge petition to move the bill onto the House floor. Not one. They don’t want to give the bill a fair up or down vote because they don’t want to take the FD off the table.
As for Obama’s statements as to how “he does not support bringing back” the FD, here’s how it will play out. He appoints 3 new commissioners to the FCC and when by a simply majority vote of 3-2 (there are only 5 commissioners) the FCC brings back some iteration of the Fairness Doctrine, he can stand back and say, “You know what, I am not sure I agree with that decision, but I appointed experts and after looking at this issue they have decided we need the Fairness Doctrine. What can I do? The experts have spoken.”
From the Politico:
“November 21, 2008
Categories: Talk Radio

Who wants the fairness doctrine?
Conservative talk-show hosts warned listeners all year that an Obama presidency, coupled with a Democratic Congress, could lead to the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, a now-defunct FCC policy that forced broadcasters to present a balance of political views.

On Wednesday, I was asked about the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine on a radio show and couldn’t think of any leading Democrats that are actually pushing for it. Neither could the New Republic.

Responses from the offices of most of the Democrats who have been pegged as fairness-doctrine proponents–Schumer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and others–have ranged from a firm denial that the issue is a priority at all to disbelief at finding themselves at the center of a manufactured controversy. “Somebody plucked this out of the clear blue sky,” says the press secretary for New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat who was questioned about the issue by a conservative radio-show host a few weeks ago. “This is a completely made- up issue.” Senator Durbin’s press secretary says that Durbin has “no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view”–that the American people were served well under the doctrine–”and it’s all been blown out of proportion.” In fact, as recently as last year, the House voted by an overwhelming three-to-one margin to temporarily prohibit the FCC from imposing the dead policy; 113 Democrats voted to support the move.

Meanwhile, the president-elect himself has said in no uncertain terms that he does “not support reimposing the fairness doctrine on broadcasters.”

read comments (0)

I laughed out loud when I read this one. One, the vast majority of conservatives have more pure American decency than the Angry Left. Two, legitimate, intellectual criticism of Obama and the drivel the Left (with an amazing amount of help from the “mainstream” media) are two different things. Vastly different. If you read between the lines as to what Kirchick is recommending, he is saying, “Hey, so the Angry Left said whatever it wanted to about Bush and got away with it. You conservatives, however, should be held to a different standard.” Again, my response is this: we actually set standards for ourselves, big guy. We have these little things called moral compasses.
From the sage pen of James Kirchick (funny how he trots out some really odd ball “examples” of what conservatives are saying about Obama):
“Obama isn’t even president yet, and it seems that some conservatives would rather imitate the worst excesses of the Angry Left rather than heed McCain’s advice. In the weeks before the election, every cockamamie theory about Obama was trotted out. One prominent conservative blogger speculated that Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father” was ghostwritten by former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Another, less prominent one wrote a several-thousand-word post purporting to prove that Obama was not the son of the man he claimed as his father but, rather, the illegitimate child of Malcolm X. Less than 36 hours after Obama delivered his acceptance speech, I received an invitation to join a Facebook group titled “Impeach Barack Obama.”

Every four years, pundits and politicians call for a return to civility and an end to the “divisiveness in Washington.” These pleas have been as successful as Ralph Nader’s perennial presidential campaigns. But just because it is customary for partisanship to take over immediately after a new president takes the oath of office doesn’t mean we should forgo the effort of recommitting ourselves to a more respectful and productive political discourse. The motto of McCain’s campaign was “country first.” As conservatives enter the political wilderness, they can demonstrate their commitment to that principle by not behaving the way so many of their adversaries did during the Bush era.”

read comments (0)

If you haven’t read it yet, check out his op-ed in the NYT today. He is right on. Congress should not bailout the auto industry but rather let the Big Three go into structured bankruptcy. From his op-ed:
“But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”

read comments (0)

So much for change. Just like Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder is a partisan hack. Look no further back than his comments this summer saying that the free world has not had any real leadership for the past six years (ie, Bush has not been a “real” President). Add to that his involvement in the pardons of Marc Rich, international trader wanted for tax evasion to the tune of $48 million, FALN terrorists (over a dozen of them) and two former members of the Weather Underground. This morning, Holder’s defendants are saying, “The pardons were the President’s doing.” That is simply not true-these people were pardoned because Holder brought them to Clinton’s attention and probably lobbied for them to be pardoned. For those of you unfamiliar with FALN, they are responsible for over 100 bombings inside the United States from the mid-70s into the 1980s. In other words, just like the hard core Marxists that were part of the Weather Underground, the FALN terrorists were committed enemies of the United States.
And while I am on the subject of Obama’s appointments, Valerie Jarrett as senior advisor?! The disgraced slum lord who had years of business dealings with Tony Rezko? She will now have an office in the West Wing of the White House. It is as if Barack Obama is dredging up the worst elements of Chicago politics and bringing them to DC with him.

read comments (0)

Keep an eye on this auto industry “bailout” that Congress is thinking of taking up next week. This is not a bailout. This is a buyout. This is a move by the hard Left to take over the auto industry and force it into its own mold. Think about this: if the government, now run by the Left, takes ownership stakes in the Big 3 (as they’re being called), all the regulations that the radical environmentalists have been dying to force upon the auto industry will be accomplished by fiat, not legislation. And the stranglehold that the unions have on American auto makers? An already strong grip becomes Herculean as the life is squeezed out of the auto industry.
From the AP:
“(Minority Leader) McConnell has not taken a public position on the plan. He has called instead for a measure that would speed release of a separate $25 billion loan package for the carmakers, which was approved in September to help them develop fuel-efficient vehicles.
The White House backs that idea.
“We’re seeing if they would be willing to accelerate loans for viable companies,” Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said of congressional Democrats.
In fact, Democrats are reluctant to do that, because it would mean removing restrictions on the money backed by environmental and consumer groups. Environmental groups, a key Democratic constituency, insist that any aid for the auto industry be tied to stricter clean-air rules and better fuel economy for their products.
Removing those limits from the $25 billion loan package approved in September “would be a huge bait and switch,” said Ann Mesnikoff, director of the clean cars campaign at the Sierra Club.
The Democrats’ new carmaker aid plan would carve out part of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout for loans to the three major U.S. auto companies. The measure would provide for the government to hold some kind of ownership stake in the companies for the duration of the loan to ensure that taxpayers shared in any gain and would ultimately be reimbursed.”

read comments (0)

It is a great question posed by Peter Kirsanow at NRO’s The Corner. Having just read Atlas Shrug, the symbolism in Kirsanow’s question is striking.

At What Point Does Atlas Shrug? [Peter Kirsanow]
During the presidential election campaign many were dumbfounded upon hearing for the first time that at least a third of Americans pay no income taxes whatsoever. The Tax Foundation notes that in 2006, 45.6 million filers (33%) paid no income tax whatsoever. Under current law, in 2009 47 million filers—representing approximately 96 million individuals— will pay no income tax.

The Foundation maintains that under Obama’s tax plan 63 million filers— representing 44% of all returns— will pay no income tax. In contrast, in 1985, just 16.5% of filers paid no income tax.

It appears Obama wasn’t kidding about redistributing the wealth, although he appears to be somewhat late to the game.

At the other end of the spectrum, IRS data show that in 2006 the top 10% of all filers ( $109,000 and above in taxable income) paid 71% of all income taxes. The top 25% ( $65,000 and above) paid 86% of all income taxes.

Exempting huge swaths of the populace from the income tax burden while piling that burden on a shrinking cohort is a prescription for economic, political and social dysfunction.

Eventually, even fans of steeply progressive taxation might be compelled to ask, “Do the top 25% of filers really access/consume 86% of all government services?” Obviously, the relationship between government and citizen isn’t a retail one, but we shouldn’t be surprised if the imbalance displayed by the above figures begins to prompt such unvarnished questions around kitchen tables across the country.

Sure, many of those who don’t pay income taxes still pay excise, payroll, etc. taxes. But income taxes represent the biggest tax bite by far. The anger and resentment at bailing out Wall Street, Detroit, etc. isn’t going to be dampened by the belief that nearly half of Americans won’t be doing much bailing at all.
11/13 10:04 AM

read comments (0)

There has been a lot of talk as to what percentage of Evangelical Christians voted for Obama. As noted in a previous blog today, Barna does a great job in breaking all of this down.
One of the ringleaders of the “Evangelicals in Name Only” movement is Jim Wallis.
In his blog today, Wallis writes:
“Dear President-elect Obama,

I am sending you some wonderful memos, letters, and reflections on what your election means, and what people’s hopes and prayers are for you—from an amazing array of moral and religious leaders from America and around the world. Some of my favorite pieces of their advice include: looking after your soul, loving your family as an example to the rest of us, keeping your intellect connected to your instincts (from Bono), and reading the 25th chapter of Matthew once a week as a reminder of the impact of your decisions on those who Jesus called “the least of these.”

I would add to Wallis’ advice, since he had a few glaring omissions. One would be, “Remember that all life is precious, even unborn life.”

read comments (0)

This is too good. I was actually watching when the nimrod, David Shuster, got duped live on air.
From today’s NYT.

“It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.”

read comments (0)

More good work from George Barna.
“A survey by The Barna Group provides details of how people of faith voted in last week’s presidential election.

According to the survey, 88 percent of Evangelicals voted for Senator John McCain, compared to just 11 percent for Senator Barack Obama. However, in general, the survey found that “born-again” Christians chose their candidate based on different criteria than did Evangelicals. Fifty-seven percent of born-again Christians voted for McCain, while 42 percent voted for Obama.

George Barna, founder of the marketing research firm, says among non-white voters, racial identity played a larger role than did religious beliefs and affiliations.

“More than 90 percent of African Americans in this country voted for Senator Obama,” he notes. “The thing that surprised us the most was that more than three-quarters of all Hispanics voted for Senator Obama. You compare those huge margins for Senator Obama to the fact that he won only 41 percent of the white vote.”

The survey also found that those who were worried about the economy, or those who had been negatively impacted by the economic situation, tended to vote for Obama. “One of the things that we looked at were people who said they had lost 20 percent or more of the value of their retirement funds or 401K funds,” Barna explains, “and we found that Senator Obama won that group by a 54-percent to 45-percent margin.

Also, among voters who had a favorable view of Wicca, Senator Obama beat McCain by a 64 percent to 35 percent margin.

Barna defines “born-again Christians” as individuals who have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today, and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Christ as their Savior.

“Evangelicals,” by Barna’s definition, meet all the “born-again” criteria plus seven other conditions — among them belief that they have a personal responsibility to share their in Christ with non-Christians; belief that Satan exists; and belief that salvation is possible only through grace, not works.”

read comments (0)