Is the administration setting up Tim Geithner as a scapegoat?
Geithner was never an Obama confidant. In fact, he was one of the "cross-over" nominees. He was one of the early choices designed to make us feel more comfortable with the stealth president about whom we knew so little, save for his extreme liberal voting record and his penchant for associating with radicals.
Geithner hailed from the Rubin-Summers wing of the DLC-Bill Clinton centrist Democratic Party. Tapped to lead Treasury while has was the sitting president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Geithner was then a Bush-appointee and already waist-deep in the immensely unpopular (but, nevertheless, essential) plan to rescue the financial sector of our economy.
Does the White House plan to let Geithner twist in the wind and then sack him at the most politically beneficial moment?
The Obama administration has not shown any urgency or even much inclination to concentrate resources on solving the banking crisis; in fact, they have disingenuously conflated the very serious banking problems with the much more familiar economic recession.
The Obama administration has already forced Geithner to the forefront with a half-baked plan, and done essentially nothing to make his life any easier.
As things continue to spiral downward, the Obama administration seems more and more prone to roil the waters with attacks on easy targets: fat cats, Rush Limbaugh, CNBC screaming heads, and the previous administration. In the coming days, at a moment of crisis, will Obama play the Geithner card? Fire the Treasury secretary and frame the move as the final break with the tired and bankrupt solutions of the past. No more Bush appointees. No more Robert Rubin acolytes. We need fresh approaches from the Paul Krugman-Robert Reich wing of the Democratic Party.
One other development worth noting: SNL, where company policy prohibits criticism of anything Obama, offered its first scorching rebuke of an Obama administration figure this weekend, skewering Geithner as lost and incompetent.
Prediction?
Granted, all this is way too conspiratorial--but, just in case, if I were Tim Geithner, I would watch my back.
UPDATE: A big Texas welcome to Instapundit readers.
Geithner was never an Obama confidant. In fact, he was one of the "cross-over" nominees. He was one of the early choices designed to make us feel more comfortable with the stealth president about whom we knew so little, save for his extreme liberal voting record and his penchant for associating with radicals.
Geithner hailed from the Rubin-Summers wing of the DLC-Bill Clinton centrist Democratic Party. Tapped to lead Treasury while has was the sitting president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Geithner was then a Bush-appointee and already waist-deep in the immensely unpopular (but, nevertheless, essential) plan to rescue the financial sector of our economy.
Does the White House plan to let Geithner twist in the wind and then sack him at the most politically beneficial moment?
The Obama administration has not shown any urgency or even much inclination to concentrate resources on solving the banking crisis; in fact, they have disingenuously conflated the very serious banking problems with the much more familiar economic recession.
The Obama administration has already forced Geithner to the forefront with a half-baked plan, and done essentially nothing to make his life any easier.
As things continue to spiral downward, the Obama administration seems more and more prone to roil the waters with attacks on easy targets: fat cats, Rush Limbaugh, CNBC screaming heads, and the previous administration. In the coming days, at a moment of crisis, will Obama play the Geithner card? Fire the Treasury secretary and frame the move as the final break with the tired and bankrupt solutions of the past. No more Bush appointees. No more Robert Rubin acolytes. We need fresh approaches from the Paul Krugman-Robert Reich wing of the Democratic Party.
One other development worth noting: SNL, where company policy prohibits criticism of anything Obama, offered its first scorching rebuke of an Obama administration figure this weekend, skewering Geithner as lost and incompetent.
Prediction?
Granted, all this is way too conspiratorial--but, just in case, if I were Tim Geithner, I would watch my back.
UPDATE: A big Texas welcome to Instapundit readers.
09/03: An Era of Responsibility?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
One of the pundits who understands that the "Party is Over" is Robert Samuelson.
The following paragraph is only one highlight in his must-read op-ed that appears in the Washington Post today.
"A prudent president would have made a 'tough choice' -- concentrated on the economy; deferred his more contentious agenda. Similarly, Obama claims to seek bipartisanship but, in reality, doesn't. His bipartisanship consists of including a few Republicans in his Cabinet and inviting some Republican congressmen to the White House for the Super Bowl. It does not consist of fashioning proposals that would attract bipartisan support on their merits. Instead, he clings to dubious, partisan policies (mortgage cramdown, union card check) that arouse fierce opposition."
Another gem: "If Obama were 'responsible,' he would conduct a candid conversation about the role of government. Who deserves support and why? How big can government grow before higher taxes and deficits harm economic growth? Although Obama claims to be doing this, he hasn't confronted entitlement psychology -- the belief that government benefits once conferred should never be revoked."
Read the whole thing.
The following paragraph is only one highlight in his must-read op-ed that appears in the Washington Post today.
"A prudent president would have made a 'tough choice' -- concentrated on the economy; deferred his more contentious agenda. Similarly, Obama claims to seek bipartisanship but, in reality, doesn't. His bipartisanship consists of including a few Republicans in his Cabinet and inviting some Republican congressmen to the White House for the Super Bowl. It does not consist of fashioning proposals that would attract bipartisan support on their merits. Instead, he clings to dubious, partisan policies (mortgage cramdown, union card check) that arouse fierce opposition."
Another gem: "If Obama were 'responsible,' he would conduct a candid conversation about the role of government. Who deserves support and why? How big can government grow before higher taxes and deficits harm economic growth? Although Obama claims to be doing this, he hasn't confronted entitlement psychology -- the belief that government benefits once conferred should never be revoked."
Read the whole thing.
Story, link from Drudge.
March 8 (Bloomberg) -- Republican lawmakers said Congress should stop providing General Motors Corp. with federal aid and let the company file for bankruptcy if necessary.
“The best thing that could probably happen to General Motors, in my view, is they go into Chapter 11,” Senator John McCain said on the “Fox News Sunday” program today.
Of course, going into Chapter 11 does not mean ultimate failure. But, in the present political climate, it seems that we are assuming the Federal Government will decide whether or not the automaker fails or succeeds. That is not a good assumption for the long-term health of the economy.
The first family car I remember was the De Soto that my dad had before he married mom. Don't see too many on the road today.
If I remember correctly, the first car I can remember my maternal grandparents driving was a Studebaker. I don't know when I've seen one on the road.
The pastor during my boyhood drove an American Motors Rambler. I did see one the other day.
Until I was a young man, I saw several International Harvestor pick-ups in daily use, and the occasional IH Scout. I am not sure our younger readers even know what a Scout is.
American business has operated in a Darwinian world. In such an environment some species will become extinct. Others will prosper. In a government-controlled economy, the peasants drive Trabants.
March 8 (Bloomberg) -- Republican lawmakers said Congress should stop providing General Motors Corp. with federal aid and let the company file for bankruptcy if necessary.
“The best thing that could probably happen to General Motors, in my view, is they go into Chapter 11,” Senator John McCain said on the “Fox News Sunday” program today.
Of course, going into Chapter 11 does not mean ultimate failure. But, in the present political climate, it seems that we are assuming the Federal Government will decide whether or not the automaker fails or succeeds. That is not a good assumption for the long-term health of the economy.
The first family car I remember was the De Soto that my dad had before he married mom. Don't see too many on the road today.
If I remember correctly, the first car I can remember my maternal grandparents driving was a Studebaker. I don't know when I've seen one on the road.
The pastor during my boyhood drove an American Motors Rambler. I did see one the other day.
Until I was a young man, I saw several International Harvestor pick-ups in daily use, and the occasional IH Scout. I am not sure our younger readers even know what a Scout is.
American business has operated in a Darwinian world. In such an environment some species will become extinct. Others will prosper. In a government-controlled economy, the peasants drive Trabants.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Jazz musicians have been adapt at taking inspiration from various sources, and turning it into jazz. One of the best at expanding horizons was Don Ellis, trumpeter, composer, and bandleader. He was one of the first to bring electronic music, and rock music, and world music, and classical music, and avant-guarde modern music, into the transformative embrace of jazz.
If you've not heard of him, you obviously are not alone. Youtube has little on him. If I had the proper skills, I might try to post some of my old albums online.
Here are the charts that are on there:
Bulgarian Bulge live from 1969.
New Horizons
That's all I can find of Don Ellis playing his own stuff. But the Wurzburg Jazz Orchestra in 2007 had the courage to do an Ellis tribute and play several of his charts.
Final Analysis For those of you trying to count along, the basic meter is 4/4 with just enough 5/4 thrown in to keep you on your toes.
Of course, there are other sources online. Here's Last.FM with some Ellis.
Here's a fan site.
If you've not heard of him, you obviously are not alone. Youtube has little on him. If I had the proper skills, I might try to post some of my old albums online.
Here are the charts that are on there:
Bulgarian Bulge live from 1969.
New Horizons
That's all I can find of Don Ellis playing his own stuff. But the Wurzburg Jazz Orchestra in 2007 had the courage to do an Ellis tribute and play several of his charts.
Final Analysis For those of you trying to count along, the basic meter is 4/4 with just enough 5/4 thrown in to keep you on your toes.
Of course, there are other sources online. Here's Last.FM with some Ellis.
Here's a fan site.
Health care reform is no longer just a moral imperative, it's a fiscal imperative.
He is right, of course. The health care debate has shifted beneath our feet.
Why? The Party is Over.
One day, we will look back wistfully on this moment and recall our privileged status regarding health care in America. How good was it? Almost anyone with a job, or was married to someone with a job, or lived with parents with a job, enjoyed nearly unlimited access to a truly miraculous system of health care. Although we have NOT spent a lot of time appreciating the wonder of the current system, the vast majority of us have been privy to the best-trained physicians, the most advanced medical technologies, and the most comprehensive network of doctors and facilities ever assembled in the annals of medical history.
Those days are necessarily coming to a close.
Why? Not merely because the "Radicals have taken over." True, Barack Obama and his brain trust seem intent on finally fulfilling the ancient New Deal promise of national health care, which has always portended a leveling effect on the quality of care--but that fact is merely incidental to this story. This inevitable change is not driven primarily by the "social justice" side of the political ledger--or, as the President characterizes it, "the moral imperative."
For decades, we have been very close to totally deaf to the sad refrain of "forty million uninsured" fellow citizens. Why so unresponsive? Partly because the claim is something of a distorted and transparent political manipulation, but mainly because the vast majority of us were thriving under the status quo. We are not a blindly utilitarian society, but when the great bulk of the citizenry are prospering under a given regime, they are loath to sacrifice their advantage for a disadvantaged minority. In that regard, nothing has changed. Collective compassion will not be the impetus for the massive change in the offing.
What then? Unsustainable costs necessitate our coming transformation. Ironically, we are victims of our own success. The wonders of medical research and development and production have outdistanced our financial resources. Most of us do NOT assume we are inherently deserving of the very best and most-advanced products in our consumer culture. We make choices commensurate with our ability to pay. Most of us do NOT feel entitled to drive top-of-the-line automobiles regardless of our ability to afford one. Most of us understand that we must settle for the computer, television, or stereo that fits within our budget.
But not in regard to health care. If we are sick, by God, we figure we ought to have access to as many PET scans, CAT scans, and MRIs as we can fit into an afternoon visit to the Medical Plaza. That sounds fine, doctor, but let's bring in the specialist for a consultation. Private Room or Semi-Private? Do you even have to ask?
Conservatives bristle when Liberals enumerate health care as one of the recently found bedrock undeniable human rights. In the abstract, if we are compassionate conservatives, we prefer to characterize universal access to medical care as a positive good that falls within the scope of community interest--but not an inalienable right endowed by the Creator. We delude ourselves. We should acknowledge the acute sense of entitlement among the American middle class (regardless of party or ideology) concerning medical care. While we robustly debate the level of care society owes the "poor folks," we have no doubts that we deserve the platinum treatment. We work hard; therefore, we warrant the very best medical care available.
Part of our disconnect rests in our sense that health care appears free to us. Of course, rationally, we understand perfectly well that nothing in this life is free. As Milton Friedman loved to remind us, "there is no free lunch." Somebody always picks up the bill. For most of us, as intimated above, it is our employers--and then gets passed back on to us indirectly and discretely. But the truth is, and here is the rub, the rising costs are fast-approaching a prohibitively burdensome strata. How much longer can companies continue to shoulder this cost of living as part of our compensation packages? Not forever.
But this also begins to obscure a more important point. It is not just that our employers can no longer afford our health care, because, as we say, the money for health insurance comes in the form of compensation and is part of the overall cost of doing business and is passed back into society and absorbed by all us indirectly. Conceivably, we are getting paid less (and, hopefully, taxed less) because our employers are compensating us with benefits rather than salary. In itself, shifting the burden from the private sector to a one-payer system (national health care) will do nothing to solve the problem.
To repeat, the fundamental problem rests in the UNSUSTAINABLE rising costs. As a society, we CANNOT afford to pay for health care through government agency anymore than we can afford our current system of health care as an employee benefit.
The obvious solution is cost control, which means rationing care, which means the Golden Age of carte blanche health care is concluding.
How we get there remains undetermined, but the ultimate destination is certain.
The Party is Over, and the time has arrived to pay the piper. We are not going to like it, but we better get ready for it nevertheless.
President Barack Obama
He is right, of course. The health care debate has shifted beneath our feet.
Why? The Party is Over.
One day, we will look back wistfully on this moment and recall our privileged status regarding health care in America. How good was it? Almost anyone with a job, or was married to someone with a job, or lived with parents with a job, enjoyed nearly unlimited access to a truly miraculous system of health care. Although we have NOT spent a lot of time appreciating the wonder of the current system, the vast majority of us have been privy to the best-trained physicians, the most advanced medical technologies, and the most comprehensive network of doctors and facilities ever assembled in the annals of medical history.
Those days are necessarily coming to a close.
Why? Not merely because the "Radicals have taken over." True, Barack Obama and his brain trust seem intent on finally fulfilling the ancient New Deal promise of national health care, which has always portended a leveling effect on the quality of care--but that fact is merely incidental to this story. This inevitable change is not driven primarily by the "social justice" side of the political ledger--or, as the President characterizes it, "the moral imperative."
For decades, we have been very close to totally deaf to the sad refrain of "forty million uninsured" fellow citizens. Why so unresponsive? Partly because the claim is something of a distorted and transparent political manipulation, but mainly because the vast majority of us were thriving under the status quo. We are not a blindly utilitarian society, but when the great bulk of the citizenry are prospering under a given regime, they are loath to sacrifice their advantage for a disadvantaged minority. In that regard, nothing has changed. Collective compassion will not be the impetus for the massive change in the offing.
What then? Unsustainable costs necessitate our coming transformation. Ironically, we are victims of our own success. The wonders of medical research and development and production have outdistanced our financial resources. Most of us do NOT assume we are inherently deserving of the very best and most-advanced products in our consumer culture. We make choices commensurate with our ability to pay. Most of us do NOT feel entitled to drive top-of-the-line automobiles regardless of our ability to afford one. Most of us understand that we must settle for the computer, television, or stereo that fits within our budget.
But not in regard to health care. If we are sick, by God, we figure we ought to have access to as many PET scans, CAT scans, and MRIs as we can fit into an afternoon visit to the Medical Plaza. That sounds fine, doctor, but let's bring in the specialist for a consultation. Private Room or Semi-Private? Do you even have to ask?
Conservatives bristle when Liberals enumerate health care as one of the recently found bedrock undeniable human rights. In the abstract, if we are compassionate conservatives, we prefer to characterize universal access to medical care as a positive good that falls within the scope of community interest--but not an inalienable right endowed by the Creator. We delude ourselves. We should acknowledge the acute sense of entitlement among the American middle class (regardless of party or ideology) concerning medical care. While we robustly debate the level of care society owes the "poor folks," we have no doubts that we deserve the platinum treatment. We work hard; therefore, we warrant the very best medical care available.
Part of our disconnect rests in our sense that health care appears free to us. Of course, rationally, we understand perfectly well that nothing in this life is free. As Milton Friedman loved to remind us, "there is no free lunch." Somebody always picks up the bill. For most of us, as intimated above, it is our employers--and then gets passed back on to us indirectly and discretely. But the truth is, and here is the rub, the rising costs are fast-approaching a prohibitively burdensome strata. How much longer can companies continue to shoulder this cost of living as part of our compensation packages? Not forever.
But this also begins to obscure a more important point. It is not just that our employers can no longer afford our health care, because, as we say, the money for health insurance comes in the form of compensation and is part of the overall cost of doing business and is passed back into society and absorbed by all us indirectly. Conceivably, we are getting paid less (and, hopefully, taxed less) because our employers are compensating us with benefits rather than salary. In itself, shifting the burden from the private sector to a one-payer system (national health care) will do nothing to solve the problem.
To repeat, the fundamental problem rests in the UNSUSTAINABLE rising costs. As a society, we CANNOT afford to pay for health care through government agency anymore than we can afford our current system of health care as an employee benefit.
The obvious solution is cost control, which means rationing care, which means the Golden Age of carte blanche health care is concluding.
How we get there remains undetermined, but the ultimate destination is certain.
The Party is Over, and the time has arrived to pay the piper. We are not going to like it, but we better get ready for it nevertheless.
I like Barack Obama. I have a picture of him prominently displayed on my office wall. I respect him as the forty-fourth president of the United States. I appreciate his style and bearing, and I am at times utterly enthralled with his eloquence. I wish him good health and happiness. I hope he succeeds grandly as a father, husband, and a child of God.
But that does NOT mean I support his recently revealed ambition to transform American government into a post-Reagan liberal leviathan. Moreover, my admiration for the President does not keep me from noticing that he indulges in some intellectual sloppiness: misleading rhetoric, a propensity for false choices, and he never met a straw man he didn't like.
However, in addition to those quibbles, I am starting to wonder if our President does not have a fatal flaw. I am not sure if he is just thin-skinned or egregiously egotistical, but he possesses a destructive inclination to pick fights with right-wing talkers?
Exhibit A: have you ever heard the opening of the Sean Hannity show? It includes a montage of our President criticizing the host by name (audio here via YouTube). I cringe (for Obama) every time I hear it. I ask myself: what was he thinking? Why did Obama allow himself to go on-record lashing out at Sean Hannity?
Exhibit B: inconceivably, the President and his White House advisers have NOW concocted a strategy to "call out" Rush Limbaugh.
The President of the United States versus Rush Limbaugh? Really?
Why would the President lower himself to the level of a talk-show host? Once again, what is he thinking?
An Aside: I don't remember George Bush ever mentioning Dan Rather or Chris Mathews or Keith Olberman. Ironically, Bush-43 was either too smart or too well-raised for that kind of self-indulgent and destructive political behavior.
From the recent reportage available from Politico and other reliable sources, this appears to be a "Clintonista" operation led by Rahm Emanuel, the President's White House chief of staff, and partly executed by his old Clinton-era compatriots Paul Begala and James Carville (although they deny it--sort of). According to Jonathan Martin's reporting, an attack on Rush polls well for the President, and the old Clinton hands are just the crew to take the fight to the venerable but perhaps now vulnerable King of Conservative Talk. The Clinton connection is significant, for we have seen an earlier version of this tawdry drama once before--back when the Clinton administration went to war with Rush during the mid-1990s (back then a few cards had Rush slightly ahead on points, but I would call it a draw in retrospect).
Now, evidently, the old gang in the new White House is taking another pass at settling an unfinished score. There was a frenzied bloodlust in the air over the weekend and earlier this week. With their quarry in the open and on the run, the President's men seemed positively giddy as they breathlessly stalked this biggest of all big game trophies. But, I cannot help but believe that this great quest can only end in tragedy--and possibly for the hunters. "Call me Emanuel." Let me tell of the pursuit of the great white obsession, Maha Rushie. I fear that Captain Obama "has that that's bloody on his mind."
Once again, the nagging question: why elevate Rush Limbaugh to the status of heroic antagonist? Suddenly, this imbroglio has the quality of an epic Thomas Jefferson- John Marshall clash of the titans, or, perhaps more analogous, the FDR versus Charles Lindbergh death-match. Moreover, regardless of the polling that assures the White House that Rush is wildly unpopular with the people who count most, bullying rarely plays well in the long run. Make no mistake: this is David and Goliath. Every time the President of the United States picks up a rock to sling at somebody--he is Goliath, and the intended recipient is David. The Obama White House runs the risk of making the not especially lovable Limbaugh into a much more sympathetic character.
And here is the crazy thing: it is a terribly odd and unnecessarily risky gambit on the part of the President, who had this historic opportunity to truly unite some disparate constituencies. A few weeks ago Hannity and Rush were seemingly on the ropes. One could tune in and almost hear the approaching obsolescence in their voices. They were swinging wildly and not connecting, growing increasingly frustrated and embarrassingly out of touch. For a fleeting instant, Rush looked like he might soon be down to leading only a small band of dead-enders.
Obama had stumbled onto this wonderful moment in American history in which the vast majority of us really did want him to succeed and hoped for a political revolution of pre-partisan statesmanship on a scale envisioned by the founders but never executed. Obama had me and Judd Gregg and David Brooks and a lot of others including my friend and colleague, Paul Holder. We were willing to give this new Democrat the benefit of the doubt. He wanted to be our president, and we were almost persuaded.
Then, the stimulus of abominations came to fruition--surprising us like a Southern California tremor in the late afternoon. We all looked around a bit stunned and said, "what was that?" Then the early morning 8.0 earthquake hit soon after--and we suddenly understood that Obama meant revolution, but not the kind for which we had foolishly hoped.
If you turned on the radio during all this, you could feel Rush and Hannity getting well and gaining strength. By the time Obama rolled out his 3.6 trillion-dollar "New Deal 3.0" budget, they were on fire. Once again relevant, reinvigorated, and vindicated.
"Bamp, baump, baump, the Radicals have taken over..."
Sometimes our president makes some curious choices. Joe Biden as veep was one that still has me scratching my head (and keeps me up at night). Perhaps worse, picking Nancy Pelosi over my optimistic band of well-intentioned conservatives strikes me as a decision with tragic consequences. But the decision to go to war with Rush seems just plain silly. It demeans the presidency--and it elevates Rush Limbaugh.
I don't own a picture of Rush. I would not enumerate him in my pantheon of personal heroes. Nor is he an intellectual wellspring for conservative thought. But he is a bright, self-educated, entertaining, and articulate "popularizer" of the faith. I respect him as a modern Horatio-Alger story and an exceptionally gifted polemicist. Moreover, give him his due; he was conservative media when conservative media wasn't cool. We all owe him a debt for his courage and implacable tenacity in the face of twenty years of vicious enemy fire. He deserves our protection.
For those reasons, as well as the sheer unseemly character of this presidential assault on a political enemy, I support Rush and his right to speak truth to power.
But that does NOT mean I support his recently revealed ambition to transform American government into a post-Reagan liberal leviathan. Moreover, my admiration for the President does not keep me from noticing that he indulges in some intellectual sloppiness: misleading rhetoric, a propensity for false choices, and he never met a straw man he didn't like.
However, in addition to those quibbles, I am starting to wonder if our President does not have a fatal flaw. I am not sure if he is just thin-skinned or egregiously egotistical, but he possesses a destructive inclination to pick fights with right-wing talkers?
Exhibit A: have you ever heard the opening of the Sean Hannity show? It includes a montage of our President criticizing the host by name (audio here via YouTube). I cringe (for Obama) every time I hear it. I ask myself: what was he thinking? Why did Obama allow himself to go on-record lashing out at Sean Hannity?
Exhibit B: inconceivably, the President and his White House advisers have NOW concocted a strategy to "call out" Rush Limbaugh.
The President of the United States versus Rush Limbaugh? Really?
Why would the President lower himself to the level of a talk-show host? Once again, what is he thinking?
An Aside: I don't remember George Bush ever mentioning Dan Rather or Chris Mathews or Keith Olberman. Ironically, Bush-43 was either too smart or too well-raised for that kind of self-indulgent and destructive political behavior.
From the recent reportage available from Politico and other reliable sources, this appears to be a "Clintonista" operation led by Rahm Emanuel, the President's White House chief of staff, and partly executed by his old Clinton-era compatriots Paul Begala and James Carville (although they deny it--sort of). According to Jonathan Martin's reporting, an attack on Rush polls well for the President, and the old Clinton hands are just the crew to take the fight to the venerable but perhaps now vulnerable King of Conservative Talk. The Clinton connection is significant, for we have seen an earlier version of this tawdry drama once before--back when the Clinton administration went to war with Rush during the mid-1990s (back then a few cards had Rush slightly ahead on points, but I would call it a draw in retrospect).
Now, evidently, the old gang in the new White House is taking another pass at settling an unfinished score. There was a frenzied bloodlust in the air over the weekend and earlier this week. With their quarry in the open and on the run, the President's men seemed positively giddy as they breathlessly stalked this biggest of all big game trophies. But, I cannot help but believe that this great quest can only end in tragedy--and possibly for the hunters. "Call me Emanuel." Let me tell of the pursuit of the great white obsession, Maha Rushie. I fear that Captain Obama "has that that's bloody on his mind."
Once again, the nagging question: why elevate Rush Limbaugh to the status of heroic antagonist? Suddenly, this imbroglio has the quality of an epic Thomas Jefferson- John Marshall clash of the titans, or, perhaps more analogous, the FDR versus Charles Lindbergh death-match. Moreover, regardless of the polling that assures the White House that Rush is wildly unpopular with the people who count most, bullying rarely plays well in the long run. Make no mistake: this is David and Goliath. Every time the President of the United States picks up a rock to sling at somebody--he is Goliath, and the intended recipient is David. The Obama White House runs the risk of making the not especially lovable Limbaugh into a much more sympathetic character.
And here is the crazy thing: it is a terribly odd and unnecessarily risky gambit on the part of the President, who had this historic opportunity to truly unite some disparate constituencies. A few weeks ago Hannity and Rush were seemingly on the ropes. One could tune in and almost hear the approaching obsolescence in their voices. They were swinging wildly and not connecting, growing increasingly frustrated and embarrassingly out of touch. For a fleeting instant, Rush looked like he might soon be down to leading only a small band of dead-enders.
Obama had stumbled onto this wonderful moment in American history in which the vast majority of us really did want him to succeed and hoped for a political revolution of pre-partisan statesmanship on a scale envisioned by the founders but never executed. Obama had me and Judd Gregg and David Brooks and a lot of others including my friend and colleague, Paul Holder. We were willing to give this new Democrat the benefit of the doubt. He wanted to be our president, and we were almost persuaded.
Then, the stimulus of abominations came to fruition--surprising us like a Southern California tremor in the late afternoon. We all looked around a bit stunned and said, "what was that?" Then the early morning 8.0 earthquake hit soon after--and we suddenly understood that Obama meant revolution, but not the kind for which we had foolishly hoped.
If you turned on the radio during all this, you could feel Rush and Hannity getting well and gaining strength. By the time Obama rolled out his 3.6 trillion-dollar "New Deal 3.0" budget, they were on fire. Once again relevant, reinvigorated, and vindicated.
"Bamp, baump, baump, the Radicals have taken over..."
Sometimes our president makes some curious choices. Joe Biden as veep was one that still has me scratching my head (and keeps me up at night). Perhaps worse, picking Nancy Pelosi over my optimistic band of well-intentioned conservatives strikes me as a decision with tragic consequences. But the decision to go to war with Rush seems just plain silly. It demeans the presidency--and it elevates Rush Limbaugh.
I don't own a picture of Rush. I would not enumerate him in my pantheon of personal heroes. Nor is he an intellectual wellspring for conservative thought. But he is a bright, self-educated, entertaining, and articulate "popularizer" of the faith. I respect him as a modern Horatio-Alger story and an exceptionally gifted polemicist. Moreover, give him his due; he was conservative media when conservative media wasn't cool. We all owe him a debt for his courage and implacable tenacity in the face of twenty years of vicious enemy fire. He deserves our protection.
For those reasons, as well as the sheer unseemly character of this presidential assault on a political enemy, I support Rush and his right to speak truth to power.
03/03: Will We Make Them Pay?
Yesterday's word in my "Calendar of Forgotten English" was Houstonize, defined in an older dictionary as To beat up a Congressman. In allusion to a beating administered by Sam Houston to Representative William Stanberry April 13, 1832. Ahhh, the good old days.
I am not advocating physical violence on members of Congress, but I do think many of them need to take an electoral beating. We need to put the fear of the people into them. And nothing scares a politician more than the thought that he or she might be forced to make an honest living in the private sector.
Standing sqare in the middle of the current financial mess, and responsible in large part for it, are Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd. If your retirement account has been going down and down and down, they are in large part responsible. They helped create the mortage mess by pressuring lenders to extend loans to folks who did not qualify, and, they blocked efforts to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The founders assumed that the House of Representatives would be responsive to the judgment of the voters, having to face them every two years. While senators were originally selected by the states, the Founders assumed that the States would not return to office those who had hurt the state interests. What the writers of the Constitution did not foresee was the power of incumbancy as it would develop.
Today, incumbants have huge advantages which keep them from being punished at the polls, which insulate them from the consequences of their actions. Not least of the advantages of incumbancy is the ability to pull Federal dollars into the district or state representated. Then, when election time rolls around, an incumbant can point to the pork delivered, and argue that his or her seniority would allow them to pull in more in the years ahead than a novice replacement. This fact is why the so-called Stimulus Bill should more properly be known as the Congressional Rescue Action Program (or CRAP for short). I think Mike Huckabee was the first to coin this acronymn.
And voters allow them to get away with it. If Frank and Dodd, and others now in Congress such as Rangel, are not Houstonized the next time they are up for reelection, then American voters will deserve what they get.
I am not advocating physical violence on members of Congress, but I do think many of them need to take an electoral beating. We need to put the fear of the people into them. And nothing scares a politician more than the thought that he or she might be forced to make an honest living in the private sector.
Standing sqare in the middle of the current financial mess, and responsible in large part for it, are Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd. If your retirement account has been going down and down and down, they are in large part responsible. They helped create the mortage mess by pressuring lenders to extend loans to folks who did not qualify, and, they blocked efforts to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The founders assumed that the House of Representatives would be responsive to the judgment of the voters, having to face them every two years. While senators were originally selected by the states, the Founders assumed that the States would not return to office those who had hurt the state interests. What the writers of the Constitution did not foresee was the power of incumbancy as it would develop.
Today, incumbants have huge advantages which keep them from being punished at the polls, which insulate them from the consequences of their actions. Not least of the advantages of incumbancy is the ability to pull Federal dollars into the district or state representated. Then, when election time rolls around, an incumbant can point to the pork delivered, and argue that his or her seniority would allow them to pull in more in the years ahead than a novice replacement. This fact is why the so-called Stimulus Bill should more properly be known as the Congressional Rescue Action Program (or CRAP for short). I think Mike Huckabee was the first to coin this acronymn.
And voters allow them to get away with it. If Frank and Dodd, and others now in Congress such as Rangel, are not Houstonized the next time they are up for reelection, then American voters will deserve what they get.
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
Brits at their Best has the story of Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Carew, who recently died at age 89. Excerpts:
On August 26 1944 Carew was one of a three-man Jedburgh team, code-named "Basil", which was dropped into France south of Besançon, near the Swiss frontier. His companions were Captain Robert Rivière, of France, and Technical Sergeant John L Stoyka of the US Army.
The team became separated, and their canisters – which should have contained vital equipment and a wireless set – were full of cocoa and propaganda leaflets. They had only their pistols and the clothes they stood up in, Carew said later.
He hid in the house of a schoolmaster, where he heard a BBC message on the local radio which told him where he could contact the Resistance. Their leader later recalled the anxious wait at their HQ. They had received a large arms drop, their map was marked up with promising targets – but they were in a foul mood because their special agent was missing.
Suddenly, there was a knock on the door, and everyone in the room scrambled for a weapon. The door slowly opened to reveal a blond young man in a Harris tweed jacket and corduroy trousers, smoking a pipe. "Excuse me, gentlemen," he said. "My name's Carew. I dropped in this evening, you know. Got lost somehow." When the laughter had died down, he gave them the plan.
After successfully leading Resistance fighters against the Germans, he was parachuted into Burma where he had similar success against the Japanese.
On August 26 1944 Carew was one of a three-man Jedburgh team, code-named "Basil", which was dropped into France south of Besançon, near the Swiss frontier. His companions were Captain Robert Rivière, of France, and Technical Sergeant John L Stoyka of the US Army.
The team became separated, and their canisters – which should have contained vital equipment and a wireless set – were full of cocoa and propaganda leaflets. They had only their pistols and the clothes they stood up in, Carew said later.
He hid in the house of a schoolmaster, where he heard a BBC message on the local radio which told him where he could contact the Resistance. Their leader later recalled the anxious wait at their HQ. They had received a large arms drop, their map was marked up with promising targets – but they were in a foul mood because their special agent was missing.
Suddenly, there was a knock on the door, and everyone in the room scrambled for a weapon. The door slowly opened to reveal a blond young man in a Harris tweed jacket and corduroy trousers, smoking a pipe. "Excuse me, gentlemen," he said. "My name's Carew. I dropped in this evening, you know. Got lost somehow." When the laughter had died down, he gave them the plan.
After successfully leading Resistance fighters against the Germans, he was parachuted into Burma where he had similar success against the Japanese.
03/03: The Buck Stops with Obama
Newsweek writes this week that President Obama has a Pelosi problem. That is, although the stout-yet-tender-hearted Mr. Obama really does pine for an era of bipartisan statesmanship, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a "sharp-elbowed San Francisco multimillionaire" intent on stuffing her agenda down the throats of the minority, intent on avenging myriad slights suffered over time as a political minority and a grizzled veteran of the gender wars, "who battled her way to the top of a club still dominated by men."
Wow! Can you say "good cop; bad cop." Shameless. Although I actually penned a post a month ago myself detailing the battle between the entrenched Speaker and the fresh-faced modern-day Jeff Smith goes to Washington ("Obama & Pelosi: the real contest to watch"), in truth, the train has left the station on that hopeful Hollywood narrative. No more of the fantasy for me.
After last week, the President has chosen his path. To blame his obviously deep-seated bent for traditional liberal politics on San Fran Nan borders on cowardly--as well as the ridiculous. The President is the president--and he occupies the desk on which the buck stops. No more excuses for him from me. From here on out, I will address my complaints to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where they belong.
Wow! Can you say "good cop; bad cop." Shameless. Although I actually penned a post a month ago myself detailing the battle between the entrenched Speaker and the fresh-faced modern-day Jeff Smith goes to Washington ("Obama & Pelosi: the real contest to watch"), in truth, the train has left the station on that hopeful Hollywood narrative. No more of the fantasy for me.
After last week, the President has chosen his path. To blame his obviously deep-seated bent for traditional liberal politics on San Fran Nan borders on cowardly--as well as the ridiculous. The President is the president--and he occupies the desk on which the buck stops. No more excuses for him from me. From here on out, I will address my complaints to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where they belong.
The Democrats have found their "do you support the troops" question.
I always cringed when Republicans tormented anti-war Democrats with that interrogatory. Do you support our troops who are in harm's way? It was a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" kind of question. If you did NOT support the troops you were the worst kind of freeloading ingrate, running down the way of life our fighting men have fought and died to keep. If you supposedly did support our troops, then how could you say such ugly things about our president and his war while our troops were in the field fighting for your freedom?
It was always an ugly spectacle.
Unfortunately, what goes around comes around.
Fast forward: the Democrats have found their cudgel.
"Do you hope the President fails?"
Of course not! His success will be our success. Right? I have written and articulated that line myself many times since November 4th.
The first time Rush Limbaugh said he hoped this president would fail I winced. I knew immediately that it was a horrible public relationships misstep. Worse than that, it struck me as the perfect example of partisanship run amok. Limbaugh obviously hated Democrats more than he loved America.
Why? We are in an exceedingly precarious position. Wishing for the failure of this president is tantamount to hoping for a national economic cataclysm. If this president does not meet the exigencies that threaten our union, the next president may be too late.
But that was before this president showed his true colors and proposed New Deal 3.0. Now that it is clear that this president is determined to turn back the clock on the Reagan Revolution and lead us into the promised land of a European-style welfare state, it is not so easy to say I hope he succeeds. In my heart of hearts, I am convinced his program of unabashed liberal restoration would be disastrous for our nation at any juncture--but especially so in our currently compromised state of economic weakness and indebtedness.
Therefore, I guess I am with Limbaugh for now. I hope the guy fails in his current push for radical transformation of American society.
Do You Hope the President Fails?
Get ready to be beat about the head with this malicious question as a basic measure of your patriotism and good will.
I always cringed when Republicans tormented anti-war Democrats with that interrogatory. Do you support our troops who are in harm's way? It was a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" kind of question. If you did NOT support the troops you were the worst kind of freeloading ingrate, running down the way of life our fighting men have fought and died to keep. If you supposedly did support our troops, then how could you say such ugly things about our president and his war while our troops were in the field fighting for your freedom?
It was always an ugly spectacle.
Unfortunately, what goes around comes around.
Fast forward: the Democrats have found their cudgel.
"Do you hope the President fails?"
Of course not! His success will be our success. Right? I have written and articulated that line myself many times since November 4th.
The first time Rush Limbaugh said he hoped this president would fail I winced. I knew immediately that it was a horrible public relationships misstep. Worse than that, it struck me as the perfect example of partisanship run amok. Limbaugh obviously hated Democrats more than he loved America.
Why? We are in an exceedingly precarious position. Wishing for the failure of this president is tantamount to hoping for a national economic cataclysm. If this president does not meet the exigencies that threaten our union, the next president may be too late.
But that was before this president showed his true colors and proposed New Deal 3.0. Now that it is clear that this president is determined to turn back the clock on the Reagan Revolution and lead us into the promised land of a European-style welfare state, it is not so easy to say I hope he succeeds. In my heart of hearts, I am convinced his program of unabashed liberal restoration would be disastrous for our nation at any juncture--but especially so in our currently compromised state of economic weakness and indebtedness.
Therefore, I guess I am with Limbaugh for now. I hope the guy fails in his current push for radical transformation of American society.
Do You Hope the President Fails?
Get ready to be beat about the head with this malicious question as a basic measure of your patriotism and good will.
