Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
From the "Everyone I Know Voted For McGovern" Department...
Pauline Kael, former movie critic for the New Yorker, is famously thought to have wondered aloud how Nixon could have won the 1972 election, when "everyone I know voted for McGovern." As this Wikipedia reference indicates, it's not certain she actually said that--but you get the picture.
Cut to 2010, and former VP Dick Cheney has suffered his fifth heart attack. Joy Behar (who apparently has something to do with television) is interviewing Bill Maher (ditto). "I just find it interesting that he doesn't get any sympathy from people...people around me, anyway."
Cut to 2010, and former VP Dick Cheney has suffered his fifth heart attack. Joy Behar (who apparently has something to do with television) is interviewing Bill Maher (ditto). "I just find it interesting that he doesn't get any sympathy from people...people around me, anyway."
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Why Liberal Arts Professors are Liberal
Jonah Goldberg's got a good post (probably from a few days ago) up on NRO which dissects a fairly honest and defiantly assertive manifesto by a liberal, liberal arts professor on why he and others like him--are liberal.
The basic answer--envy.
The basic answer--envy.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Are You a Knucklehead?
Andrew Klavin from PJTV on Culture vs. Reality. Don't you love the term "a%$hat?"
Monday, January 18, 2010
E.J. Dionne Offers More Ridiculous Analysis
EJ's latest here in the Washington Post is a classic of inanity. Here's a line I loved:
"But the success of the conservative narrative ought to trouble liberals and the Obama administration. The president has had to "own" the economic catastrophe much earlier than he should have. Most Americans understand that the mess we are in started before Obama got to the White House. Yet many, especially political independents, are upset that the government has had to spend so much and that things have not turned around as fast as they had hoped. "
Earlier than he should have? Just when should that have been, EJ? Someone PLEASE let me know when Barack Obama begins to be in charge. When does he own the economy? As for things not turning around as fast--could it be that the $800B stimulus bill was simply a bad bill that stimulated very little? Could there be ANY connection between disillusion with Obama and bad policy?
Is there even a possibility, E.J., that disillusion with Obama might have something to do with his decision to mess with 1/6 of the economy in a way that has left the middle class, the elderly, the young and small business owners wondering how badly they are going to fare?
No, of course not. This is all just ideology at work.
"But the success of the conservative narrative ought to trouble liberals and the Obama administration. The president has had to "own" the economic catastrophe much earlier than he should have. Most Americans understand that the mess we are in started before Obama got to the White House. Yet many, especially political independents, are upset that the government has had to spend so much and that things have not turned around as fast as they had hoped. "
Earlier than he should have? Just when should that have been, EJ? Someone PLEASE let me know when Barack Obama begins to be in charge. When does he own the economy? As for things not turning around as fast--could it be that the $800B stimulus bill was simply a bad bill that stimulated very little? Could there be ANY connection between disillusion with Obama and bad policy?
Is there even a possibility, E.J., that disillusion with Obama might have something to do with his decision to mess with 1/6 of the economy in a way that has left the middle class, the elderly, the young and small business owners wondering how badly they are going to fare?
No, of course not. This is all just ideology at work.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Ezra Klein Finally Gets One Right
Ezra Klein is an insufferably liberal columnist at the Washington Post. He's smart, but I'm not exactly sure what he's ever done, know what I mean? But this column on healthcare costs is just plain good. Really good.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What Passes For News At The Washington Post
Today, we're treated to this story (news? analysis?--it really isn't clear, at least in the online additions) in which our intrepid reporter (under the subheadline "It's a Grand Old Purging...") recounts the inside story of Dede Scozzafava's withdrawl from NY 23.
It really is part of the narrative that Ms. Scozzafava--who "fava's" 1) card check 2) gay marriage 3) the stimulus 4) Obamacare and 5) is married to a union organizer--was a "moderate" Republican. This is hogwash--the woman was a liberal, pure and simple. There is little or nothing but political opportunism in her choice of the Republican Party--as the district had previously been solidly Republican for decades.
It really is part of the narrative that Ms. Scozzafava--who "fava's" 1) card check 2) gay marriage 3) the stimulus 4) Obamacare and 5) is married to a union organizer--was a "moderate" Republican. This is hogwash--the woman was a liberal, pure and simple. There is little or nothing but political opportunism in her choice of the Republican Party--as the district had previously been solidly Republican for decades.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Whatever Obama and Pelosi Do Will Be Good
No, I haven't lost my mind.
Had occasion to spend some time with some more liberal friends this past Sunday. Both are urbane, worldly, graduate school educated folks who have, in the past, exhibited an intellectual curiosity about life that has weighed heavily in my calculus to maintain friendships with them. Yesterday, they demonstrated a complete abdication of civic responsibility that strained credulity and those bonds of friendship. Despite having previously given health care reform as a major reason for supporting President Obama's candidacy, both were surprised to see that the House had passed "something" on health care. Not it had passed, but that there had a been a big debate about it until midnight. "Was it any good?" Naturally, I responded that from where I sat, "no." Then I asked the logical question, "But if health care reform was one of the main reasons for your support, shouldn't you at least be interested in the details?" No answer. They, of course, were dismayed to hear about the Stupak amendment. I said a quick serenity now under my breath and changed the topic so as not to ruin my Sunday.
Had occasion to spend some time with some more liberal friends this past Sunday. Both are urbane, worldly, graduate school educated folks who have, in the past, exhibited an intellectual curiosity about life that has weighed heavily in my calculus to maintain friendships with them. Yesterday, they demonstrated a complete abdication of civic responsibility that strained credulity and those bonds of friendship. Despite having previously given health care reform as a major reason for supporting President Obama's candidacy, both were surprised to see that the House had passed "something" on health care. Not it had passed, but that there had a been a big debate about it until midnight. "Was it any good?" Naturally, I responded that from where I sat, "no." Then I asked the logical question, "But if health care reform was one of the main reasons for your support, shouldn't you at least be interested in the details?" No answer. They, of course, were dismayed to hear about the Stupak amendment. I said a quick serenity now under my breath and changed the topic so as not to ruin my Sunday.
I have no illusions about the useful idiots*, but this exchange got me to wondering how many of the supposedly informed liberal voters have essentially handed over the reins to their folks and assume that everything is going to work out for the better. Trust, but verify. Maybe because Reagan said it, they've categorically dismissed it as bad advice.
*used by both sides
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Liberals Whine About Sotomayor
Here's a story about hyperventilating liberals who feel as though last week's confirmation hearing featuring President Obama's "wise Latina" nominee Judge Sotomayor represented a "missed opportunity" for liberalism. Here's one statement:
"Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal think tank, called them "a totally missed opportunity. . . . The progressive legal project hit rock bottom [last] week."
I can't figure out whether such drama represents 1) legitimate concern as to the liberal credentials/nature of the nominee or 2) just part of the vast left-wing conspiracy playbook to continue to try and convince Senators of Judge Sotomayor's centrist, non-liberal judicial demeanor. Because if it is #1, then they are showing startling political naivete.
Barack Obama was elected President by publicly suppressing his liberal record and his liberal views. To the extent that he advocated policies that could be viewed as liberal, he couched them in moderate language and extolled them with moderate rhetoric. In office, he is veering the country dramatically to the left, all the while seeming like a moderate, common-sense kind of guy. I think that Americans are beginning to realize this, but we may be too far along for us to do much about it right now.
Sotomayor's public "moderate-ness" is the result of the coaching job she got from the White House, based on its polling data and its knowledge that liberal ideas are not very popular with voters--especially when exposed to scrutiny. Yes, I know--a liberal won the presidency....but he did so by convincing voters he WASN'T a liberal. Sotomayor's path to the Supreme Court--virtually assured from the beginning--would be smoother and play more nicely in the Obama narrative if she too came off as a common-sense moderate.
Anyone who believes the over-heated rhetoric of the liberal intelligentsia is getting snookered...they are all ecstatic over the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, and their only disappointment is that she isn't replacing Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Roberts.
"Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal think tank, called them "a totally missed opportunity. . . . The progressive legal project hit rock bottom [last] week."
I can't figure out whether such drama represents 1) legitimate concern as to the liberal credentials/nature of the nominee or 2) just part of the vast left-wing conspiracy playbook to continue to try and convince Senators of Judge Sotomayor's centrist, non-liberal judicial demeanor. Because if it is #1, then they are showing startling political naivete.
Barack Obama was elected President by publicly suppressing his liberal record and his liberal views. To the extent that he advocated policies that could be viewed as liberal, he couched them in moderate language and extolled them with moderate rhetoric. In office, he is veering the country dramatically to the left, all the while seeming like a moderate, common-sense kind of guy. I think that Americans are beginning to realize this, but we may be too far along for us to do much about it right now.
Sotomayor's public "moderate-ness" is the result of the coaching job she got from the White House, based on its polling data and its knowledge that liberal ideas are not very popular with voters--especially when exposed to scrutiny. Yes, I know--a liberal won the presidency....but he did so by convincing voters he WASN'T a liberal. Sotomayor's path to the Supreme Court--virtually assured from the beginning--would be smoother and play more nicely in the Obama narrative if she too came off as a common-sense moderate.
Anyone who believes the over-heated rhetoric of the liberal intelligentsia is getting snookered...they are all ecstatic over the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, and their only disappointment is that she isn't replacing Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Roberts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
