Immigration Ain't That Easy

I've got a window full of tabbed articles I will never have the time to write about. So you're going to get them in linked bullet points.

• First, a little bit of classic Mark Steyn. From 2003. His characterization of Democrats resonates and truly today as it did back then.

• This blogger's favorite columnist, Bret Stephens, had a piece in the latest Foreign Affairs magazine about President Obama's Middle East policy. It is fantastic, natch.

• Stephens also wrote a column about the importance of truthful history. As you can imagine, this one resonates with me.

• Public intellectual, Rush Limbaugh, wrote a piece for the WSJ wherein he defended the Tea Party movement against their media antagonists. Given liberal hysteria and hyperbole in response to AZ immigration law, this one is timely. (Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with AZ policy, just pointing out liberal hypocrisy.)

• Daniel Henninger documents the massive shift in public opinion away from Obama's vision of America and towards a more limited vision of the role of government. This shift has occurred in a very short period of time. Like, a year.

• This is the Bret Stephens show. This time he takes aim at the idea of "peace processes" which are, of course, a friggin' joke. Stephens (I think rightly) calls those who derive benefit therefrom "wicked."

• When it comes to immigration, I tend toward the WSJ line rather than the National Review one. Looks like Jonah Goldberg agrees. Also, Byron York does some good political reportage on the Arizona law particulars.

• Thomas Sowell, another favorite, on the misuse and abuse of history to serve political ends--in this instance, race and slavery.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Post-ObamacareApocalypse: The Way Forward Weekend Edition

Taken in a vacuum, the liberal media's response to the right's response to Obamacare's passage might leave you thinking that no one before in American history has ever been so angry about so little.

They just do not get that something that will give government control over 1/6th of the American economy, expand the Nanny State, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, raise taxes, result in fewer doctors, the eventual rationing of care, reduced R&D (resulting in future lives lost), give access to medical records to a huge and whole new cadre of government bureaucrats, generally reduce liberty is something that would actually make people angry. And they say it as though they've never been angry over anything.

Well, fortunately we have Jonah Goldberg to point out their incredible hypocrisy.

On the scale of anger-to-actual-impact-of-legislation, progressives have got us angry conservatives (but I repeat myself, apparently) beat by a wide margin in their out and out hysteria over the passage of the Patriot Act. Yeah, remember that bill? It's the same one the One and the Democrats in Congress renewed this year, again.

Also, lybberty-approved (unless they are caught in some wrongdoing!) Congressmen Mike Pence and Paul Ryan had fantastic Op-Eds in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times respectively, yesterday. Give them both a read.

Stay angry, my conservative friends.

(image of 'angry conservatives' protesting the bill taken from Thinking The Wright Way)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

CPAC 2010 Day 3

Like any good conference, CPAC builds up to the the last day. The first speaker of the morning is Rick Santorum, beloved of social conservatives, hated by the left. After Santorum is Andrew Breitbart, scourge of Hollywood and ACORN. Then comes a panel with Jonah Goldberg and so on from there.

Last year Matt and I commuted from our friend Michele's place every day of the conference. I had pneumonia at the time and waking up early enough to make it to the conference (and keeping the late hours that we did) just about killed me. The combination of no pneumonia and staying on site has made for a much more pleasant experience. Even at that, we're all still tired.

Per usual, I'll update the blog throughout the day, but for the up-to-the-minute, blow-by-blow stuff, follow the various twitter feeds here, here, here, & here.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of The 1st Amendment, Finally

NRO has started doing a number of daily emails, one of which I highlighted yesterday--Jonah Goldberg's The Goldberg File.

NRO's Jim Geraghty, better known for his coverage of elections, has started something called Morning Jolt. Whatever you think of the respective names of these daily email newsletters, the content is pretty good.

For instance, here's Geraghty's survey of reactions to yesterday's SCOTUS ruling which strikes down key parts of McCain-Feingold (good riddance) and strengthens the 1st Amendment.

AP: "The 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies and other outside groups can be prohibited from paying for ads to back or oppose a federal candidate." The guys at Cato are thrilled: "In short, the Citizens United decision has strengthened both the First Amendment and American democracy."

Most conservatives were pretty cheery about the decision; generally on the right folks conclude that you can't restrict political spending without restricting political speech, and if the First Amendment is supposed to mean anything, it's supposed to protect your God-given right to declare as loudly and widely as you want that those who govern you stink to high Heaven. Otherwise, you end up with a First Amendment that somehow protects lap dances but not political advertising close to an election.

Ed Morrissey: "In the first challenges to the BCRA (McCain-Feingold), the earlier court appeared to accept the notion that one has to break a few First Amendment eggs to get a clean-elections omelet. This court has apparently decided that Congress should amend the First Amendment if it has grown tired of it, rather than pass laws that contradict it. The fact that only five of the nine justices could reach that rather obvious conclusion shows how much judicial activism and Congressional overreach have in common -- especially the sense that they can manipulate clear boundaries of power for whatever end they seek."

Michelle Malkin: "Yes, unions will benefit from the ruling and spend more money. But sunlight is the best disinfectant. Full, transparent, accessible disclosure is the ultimate campaign finance reform. As for viewing the decision through the 'political plus' lens: I don't. The Constitution matters more than electoral consequences. Too bad more in Washington don't see it that way."

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," declared President Obama, who was elected with the assistance of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from unions, trial lawyers, Hollywood, academia, Goldman Sachs, and environmentalists. Despite what you might think from that opening sentence, he disapproves of the decision.

At Bench Memos, Bradley Smith makes short work of the legislative responses introduced by Rep. Alan Grayson, the Floridian who represents Daily Kos in Congress: "That these proposals are clearly unconstitutional doesn't matter much to Mr. Grayson, who only has eleven months left in Congress to make his reputation and gain that slot guest hosting for Keith Olbermann. It's highly doubtful they could ever pass, anyway."

Caleb Howe watches Olbermann so we don't have to, and he finds Keith saying that the Supreme Court decision on campaign finance was "worse than slavery."

Anyone else shocked Keith Olbermann still has a job?

Ps. Don't forget: Sign up for Geraghty's Morning Jolt.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

From The Goldberg File

This great graph, from the recently-begun The Goldberg File (click to subscribe), was brought to my attention by my brother Matt, natch:

I kind of see the American electorate the same way. We were promised all of this fancy-pants great stuff from the Democrats. Their agenda wasn't going to be left or right, but smart, and pragmatic, and intellectually elegant. It was going to be French! The progs talked endlessly about how we were finally going to have a European-style welfare state while keeping all of our economic dynamism and job growth. The technocrats could pick just the right policies, the way one might select this delicate canapé or that insouciant amuse-bouche.

As Matt wrote, "[what Jonah wrote] agrees nicely and says snarkily what we’ve been saying for a while now.

And by "we" he means all those of us who prefer liberty to the technocrats' centrally planned dystopia.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Can't Get Enough Obama?

Try printing off this picture and putting it on your wall. Or a t-shirt. Or in the rear window of your Prius--talk about ironic.

via Jonah Goldberg @ NRO:

I think this is some sort of commentary about over-Obamasaturation, but I'm not sure.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Ah, Progressives: Albert Jay Nock On The Cool Kids With Their New & Nifty Ideas For Saving The Planet etc.

Because they really believe in the novelty of their ideas and that they, in all their fervor, are the change they've been waiting for.

“I have been thinking,” Nock wrote in 1932, “of how old some of our brand-new economic nostrums really are. Price-regulation by State authority (through State purchase, like our Farm Board) was tried in China about 350 b.c. It did not work. It was tried again, with State distribution, in the first century a.d., and it did not work. Private trading was suppressed in the second century b.c., and regional planning was tried a little later. They did not work; the costs were too high. In the eleventh century a.d., a plan like the R.F.C. [Reconstruction Finance Corporation] was tried, but again cost too much. State monopolies are very old; there were two in China in the seventh century b.c. I suppose there is not a single item on the modern politician’s agenda that was not tried and found wanting ages ago.” Among virtually all of the political writers of the Left and the Right in the 1920s and 1930s, Nock shines brightest for seeing from the outset that the differences between the various collectivist schemes then circulating amounted to differences in branding. “Communism, the New Deal, Fascism, Nazism,” he wrote in his Memoirs, “are merely so-many trade-names for collectivist Statism, like the trade-names for tooth-pastes which are all exactly alike except for the flavouring.”

Is there a problem in the world? It follows that there is a progressive government "plan" to solve it--a plan that will centralize & ascribe control to your social, intellectual, & educational betters, reduce your liberty, and inevitably fail.

Unfortunately for us, the inevitable failure of these plans--in the case of global warmism & healthcare--may take a number of years and cost society lives, quality of life, and trillions of dollars.

Oh well, what's a few broken eggs on the way to a utopian omelet, right?

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Reasons For Optimism

Jonah Goldberg, happy warrior:

The conventional wisdom holds that conservatism is in trouble because the GOP is in trouble. But the two are not one and the same. Indeed, the GOP’s conservative principles aren’t necessarily the main reason for its unpopularity. Arguably, Republicans’ failure to adhere to their principles when in power hurt them more. The most recent Pew Research Center report on “Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes” finds that 37 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, while only 19 percent describe themselves as liberal. And conservative principles are still competitive, even after eight years of Bush, a staggering recession, and the most popular Democratic president in nearly a half-century. A majority of respondents say the “federal government controls too much of our daily lives” and that “government regulation of business usually does more harm than good.”

Obviously, the GOP is not in an enviable position. But conservatives have been in worse shape countless times before. What they have done each and every time is argue their way forward. Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich each mounted conservative victories by making arguments for their cause.

The cliché is that politics is about “addition,” and the GOP needs to add more Hispanics, or gays, or women to its coalition, as if such descriptors define people more than their individual aspirations. Republicans will never win that fight, nor should they try to out-bean-count the Democrats. Persuasion should trump the pandering of “addition.” Conservatives must argue why they are right, not endlessly apologize for their alleged wrongs.

Yes.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'A Heroic Climb': Goldberg & Steyn On The GOP

Continuing the theme from last week, here are a couple of good articles on the state of the Republican party & conservatism generally. I probably just should have referred you all to these pieces in the first part rather than rambling on myself. Oh well.

First, Jonah Goldberg:

The mainstream perception that conservatives are close-minded and dogmatic while liberals are open-minded and free-thinking has it almost exactly backward. Liberal dogma is settled: The government should do good, where it can, whenever it can. That is President Obama’s idea of pragmatism and bipartisanship: He’s open to all ideas, from either side of the aisle, about how best to expand government and get the state more involved in our lives. Meanwhile, conservatism’s dogma remains forever in flux. We constantly debate the trade-offs between freedom and virtue, the conflicts between liberty and order.

Yup. Conservatives are the dogmatic ones. But wait, there's more:

Also, partisans like to believe that whenever their guy wins, it’s because their ideas have been ratified by the American people, and whenever the other guy loses, they pronounce that the American people have resoundingly rejected this or that idea. Sometimes this is obviously true, but not nearly as often as we like to think. Obama, after all, promised over and over that his administration would provide a “net spending cut.” How’s that going?

When you repeatedly state during your campaign that you want to "cut taxes for 95% of Americans," is that really a mandate to govern as an extreme liberal?

Mark Steyn writes about everything that interests me and does so in the exact manner I would do it--if only I were as witty:

the GOP’s tent has many poles: It has social conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, national-security hawks. These groups do not always agree: The so-cons resent the libertarians’ insouciance on gay marriage and abortion. The libertarians don’t get the warhawks’ obsession with thankless nation-building in Islamist hellholes. A lot of the hawks can’t see why the fiscal cons are so hung up on footling matters like bloated government spending at a time of war. It requires a lot of effort to align these various poles sufficiently to hold up the big tent. And by the 2006 electoral cycle, between the money-no-object Congress at home and a war that seemed to have dwindled down to an endless, half-hearted, semi-colonial policing operation, the GOP poles were tilting badly. The Republican coalition is like a permanent loveless marriage: There are bad times and worse times. And, while social conservatism and libertarianism can be principled to a fault, the vagaries of electoral politics mean they often wind up being represented in office by either unprincipled opportunists like Arlen Specter or unprincipled squishes like Lincoln Chafee.

In the Democrat party....

Meanwhile, over in the other tent, they celebrate diversity with ruthless singlemindedness: In the Democrats’ parade, whatever your bugbear, government is the answer. Government is the means, government is the end, government is the whole magilla. That gives them a unity of purpose the GOP can never match.

Once the Democrats are ensconced in government glory, the infinity sided caged deathmatch of lobbying, favor giving, spoils dividing, etc., etc., takes place the & winners--as happens when the Democrat party gets its way--are chosen by the government. We've already seen some of this--ACORN payoffs in the 2010 census, the liberal grab bag that was the spendulous, er, stimulus, the Orwellianly-named "Employee Free Choice Act" (Orwellian because it aims to do exactly the opposite of what the name implies), and will continue with the cap & trade that will no doubt put money in the pockets of "green" people (not martians) who helped get Obama elected. Ditto healthcare.

One last quote from Steyn on Colin Powell:

Consider this cooing profile of Secretary Powell from Todd Purdum in the New York Times back in 2002: “Mr. Powell’s approach to almost all issues — foreign or domestic — is pragmatic and nonideological. He is internationalist, multilateralist and moderate. He has supported abortion rights and affirmative action.”

So supporting “internationalism,” “multilateralism,” abortion, and racial quotas means you’re “moderate” and “nonideological”? And anyone who feels differently is an extreme ideologue? Absolutely. The aim of a large swathe of the Left is not to win the debate but to get it canceled before it starts. You can do that in any number of ways: busting up campus appearances by conservatives, “hate speech” prohibitions, activist judges’ more imaginative court decisions, or merely, as the Times does, by declaring your side of every issue to be the “moderate” and “nonideological” position — even when, in many cases, the “extreme” position is supported by a majority of voters. Likewise, to Colin Powell, it’s Ann Coulter who’s “vicious,” not Michael Moore, who compares the jihadists who blow up Western troops in Iraq to America’s Minutemen and gets rewarded with a seat next to Jimmy Carter in the presidential box at the Democratic convention.

Steyn has got some great recommendations on the way forward..... but you're going to have to click the link & read the article to find out.

I'll give you one hint: He's a Happy Warrior; he's optimistic about our chances.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Fearmongers & Hypocrites

In yesterday's post about DC Opportunity Scholarships, I made an oblique reference to Rahm & Co.'s fear mongering. That they are all a bunch of hypocrites (for accusing President Bush of doing the same thing they openly admit doing now) goes without saying.

I only point it out so that my liberal friends understand that whatever moral high ground they thought they occupied for 8 years, well, they don't occupy that territory anymore.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, right?

Jonah Goldberg, one of my fav. pundits, opined on just this line of thinking (Democrat party fear mongers) in his column yesterday. An excerpt:

Imagine a child falls down a well. Now imagine I offer to lend the parents my ladder to save her, but only if they promise to paint my house. Would you applaud me for not letting a crisis go to waste? Or would you think I’m a jerk, for want of a harsher word not printable in this space?

I ask because I’m trying to come to terms with Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration.

“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times right after the election. “They are opportunities to do big things.” Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an audience at the European Parliament, “Never waste a good crisis.” Then President Obama explained in his Saturday radio and Internet address that there is “great opportunity in the midst of” the “great crisis” befalling America.

Bush & Rove and all the rest never admitted that what they were doing was scaring people in order to enact their agenda. The ardently insisted that such was not the case.

Whether you believe that or not, one thing is certain: Emanuel & Clinton & Obama openly admit that they are taking advantage of the crisis to promote their agenda.

Just because you agree with Obama's agenda and disagreed with Bush's does not make you noble, or what they are doing, good.

It makes you a hypocrite.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Of Liberalism & Movie Stars

I know, I know, I'm quoting Jonah Goldberg quoting himself. At least I'm not quoting myself. Or quoting myself, quoting myself.

Give me some time. I'll get there.

....So, while "Let them eat cake" has come to symbolize how rich liberals think rich conservatives see the world, it actually signifies how rich liberals screw things up by creating "compassionate" schemes that only make things worse for the poor. It even holds true to the modern tendency of liberals to distort, spin, and most of all blame the heartlessness of conservatives for all of the poor's problems. So what was actually an example of well-intentioned liberal gitchy-gooeyness on the part of Marie-Therese became, in Carvillian fashion, a slander against Marie-Antoinette as a heartless and cruel conservative. Despite the fact that Antoinette was a kind and generous woman, the French Revolutionaries dubbed her the "Austrian Whore" and "Madame Deficit" for all time, because it was good for the cause.

I got to thinking about all of this when I stumbled on an article explaining that Jennifer Lopez won't allow anyone to photograph her elbows.

Stick with me.

I've long been of the opinion that celebrities, specifically movie stars, behave and, more importantly, think like old European royalty. Before I get into that, some tidbits.

The article detailed some of the typical demands that Hollywood "Divas" make on their staffs and producers. The phenomenon was hardly new to me, but this piece offers some nice additions for my file. Mariah Carey has an assistant whose only job is to hand her towels. Also, wherever Mariah goes, her courtesans must first remove posters of rival "divas," lest they offend her delicate sensibilities: Thou shalt have no divas before me!

Incidentally, if you read your supermarket tabloids you'd know that Carey is now in some sort of psychiatric rehab clinic — the modern equivalent of a fainting couch or royal baths, I suppose.

It goes on: Kim Basinger is "allergic" to the sun and requires an assistant to carry an umbrella to protect her on the off chance she might be exposed to dangerous solar radiation. John Travolta has a staff of 12 assistants, including a personal chef. Sylvester Stallone once refused to continue with an interview until his hotel room was painted a more "likable" peach. Mike Myers (whom I like) almost quit the filming of Wayne's World because he didn't have any margarine for his bagel. Sean Penn made an assistant swim the dangerous and polluted currents of New York's East River just to bring him a cigarette.

And then there is the increasingly commonplace demand from numerous stars that no one be allowed to look them in the eye uninvited. For example, only members of Jennifer Lopez's "double-digit entourage" are permitted to gaze into the windows of her soul. Sylvester Stallone, Tom Cruise, and of course Barbra Streisand are just a handful of the folks who think they're on the same plateau as Japanese Emperors, Turkish Pashas, and Medieval Kings.

There's also all the stuff in my files about people like Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, and countless others who require full time aromatherapists, masseuses, acupuncturists, etc., etc. Or people like Alec Baldwin, who demands scripts be written out fö-net-tick-ally bee-kauz hee'z 2 stoopid 2 reed wurds that R speld fun-nee. Okay, I'm making that last one up, but it's a reasonable assumption.

Now, it goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of such people are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. I would also venture to say that many of them are as ill-informed about economics (and politics and history and pretty much anything not on the room service menu) as Marie-Therese was. Oh, let's just say it: Some of them are too dumb to breathe without a cue card.

But, while stupidity rarely gets in the way of anyone being a prominent liberal, it's hardly a requirement. No, what makes these people committed lefties has nothing to do with their needing to be reminded it doesn't matter which end of the straw is "up." I think it goes directly to the fact that they live the lives they do.

I never bought into Bono's Live 8 crap. I tell anyone who asks that I don't care at all for U2. I couldn't care less what most of these boneheaded stars have to say about anything.

The smartest pop cultural observer/comedian/whatever/thinker is Dennis Miller. I said this before he became a 9/11 conservative (just ask my buddy Michael J.), and I stand by it now. I don't normally watch Bill O'Reilly, but Dennis Miller on the O'Reilly Factor is must see TV.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

My Kind Of Bailout

Jonah Goldberg:

The latest number, which includes the Citigroup rescue, is $7.7 trillion. That’s roughly half of America’s GDP.

[...]

[A]ny way you slice it, we are talking about really, really large amounts of money here. Barry Ritholtz, a financial blogger and Wall Street analyst, offers some perspective. Adjusting for inflation, the Marshall Plan cost $115.3 billion. The Louisiana Purchase: $217 billion. The race to the moon: $237 billion. The New Deal: $500 billion (estimated). The Korean War: $454 billion. The Iraq war: $597 billion.

You can add all of these things together and still not come close to what taxpayers are on the hook for already. You could even throw in the Savings and Loan bailout ($256 billion), the Vietnam War ($698 billion) and all of NASA ($851 billion) and still come up short.

[...]

Obama says he doesn’t want spending as usual when it comes to formulating his impending mother of all stimulus packages. (Estimates vary from $500 billion to $700 billion, but who knows how high that number will go?)

So far, all we know for sure is that he wants massive increases in infrastructure “investment.” That’s fine with me, so long as it’s the infrastructure we need (though history shows such expenditures usually come on-line well after a recession is already over).

But rather than blow money on a lavish reenactment of the New Deal, or continue bailing out undeserving corporations, why not really think outside the box? Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas) suggests an across-the-board reprieve on paying 2008 income taxes. This would leave an extra $1.2 trillion in the hands of Americans, who are the best stewards of their own money. Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Mundell proposes a one-year moratorium on corporate income taxes in order to stimulate investment, job creation and the like. That wouldn’t be as popular, for understandable reasons.

The details can be negotiated, but this sort of approach would certainly create more jobs and spur more consumer demand than paying for a lot of asphalt. It would buy a lot more prosperity than any corporate bailout. Politically, it could buy Obama and Congress a year to formulate a serious tax-reform proposal. And — here’s the amazing part — it would be much cheaper than what we’ve spent already.

Really? You think everything they've done so far is just hunky dory?

How about we follow the advice of both Mundell & Ghomert and not collect corporate or personal income taxes?

Is that something you might be interested in?


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Goldberg On Social/Religious Conservatives

The Republican party needs them. And, as evidenced by Prop 8's passage in California, being socially conservative does not lose elections.

Goldberg:

It turns out that people who buy into the logic of social liberalism, not just on abortion but racial and other issues as well, usually find themselves ill-equipped ideologically to say no to additional spending on causes they care about. They even find it difficult to stay Republicans, as we can see from recent example Colin Powell, who endorsed Barack Obama for president for largely ethereal reasons.

It should be noted that it’s also difficult to be fiscally conservative and socially conservative if you’ve jettisoned the conservative dogma of limited government. We saw this in spades as President Bush embraced “activist government” and ended up wildly increasing government spending over the last eight years.

And that should serve as a warning to those, on the right and left, who would like to see the GOP defenestrate millions of actual, living, breathing members of the party — e.g., social conservatives — in order to woo millions of largely nonexistent jackalopes. The GOP would simply cease to exist as a viable party without the support of social and religious conservatives.

Keep the social cons.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Jonah Goldberg On Chris Buckley's Betrayal

For the most part, I consider myself to be a Buckley conservative (William F. Buckley Jr.). I am socially conservative, fiscally libertarian, and hawkish on foreign policy. I'm probably more interventionist and thus (by some people's definition), neoconservative in my foreign policy outlook.

I subscribe to National Review and have read Christopher Buckley's stuff (WFB's son) for years. I particularly enjoyed Thank You For Smoking, and recommend it to anyone.

However, I do not agree with his outlook on the current state of the Republican party, John McCain's candidacy, or his ticket's inclusion of Sarah Palin. You can read Chris's endorsement of Barack Obama here, if you like.

Here on the pages of OL&L, I prefer to post Jonah Goldberg's response:

I am a great fan of Christopher's. I am proud to call him my friend and I am grateful for his many kindnesses. None of that changes because of his decision to endorse Barack Obama. But I think he’s wrong.

I would very much like to leave it at that.

But since I don't need a kazillion emails complaining that I punted, I'll pick up the ball and carry it a few yards downfield without any attempt to make it to the end zone, never mind do some sort of dance at his expense.

I think Mark's reader has it basically right. Christopher knows that McCain once had great character. We know he knows this because he says so at some length. He thinks McCain has lost it. I think that is unfair and untrue. His only real evidence stems from McCain’s recent political performance. But even if you think McCain has run a less than honorable campaign (I do not – which is not to say that I think he’s run a particularly good campaign), it's hard for me to take the complaint all that seriously from someone who worked for — and greatly admires — George HW Bush. Campaigns often require a certain tackiness, as was conspicuously the case with poppa Bush. But Bush pere was not a tacky president and I see nothing in Christopher’s argument that persuades me to think it would be otherwise with McCain.

Meanwhile, Christopher invokes Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous line that FDR had a “first-class temperament” and so too Obama. Indeed, he suggests that Obama is a man of great character because he's a man of great temperament. Conceding for the sake of argument that Obama's temperament is first rate, are the two really the same thing? I don't think so (indeed, that would be a hard case to make about FDR himself, who could be deceitful, vindictive, petty — even to his own son — and adulterous. And let us note that Holmes himself was not a man many of us should be invoking as an authority on political virtue or general decency).

The story Christopher tells of McCain's great character has no real analogue in Obama. He may be in private a deeply honorable man, but his public record is one of accommodation, shortcuts, dishonest equivocations, serious leftwing sympathies and fellow-traveling with some awful people. Obama, let us recall, threw his own grandmother under the rhetorical bus in order to defend his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. That he sounded dignified doing it does not confer dignity on the act itself or the man behind it. That is surely not all there is to say about Obama, many of his friends and fans speak very well of him. But the scales Christopher uses to weigh one man against the other seem awfully rigged to me.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Joe Biden, BS Artist

Jonah Goldberg on Joe Biden:

What struck me the most about the debate – and it probably helped having quintessential Obamaphiles in the room – was how Biden’s “gravitas” is derived almost entirely from the fact that he can lie with absolute passion and conviction. He just plain made stuff up tonight. I read a long list tonight in my debate with Beinart here at Wash U, we can visit the details tomorrow.

Just a few: Flatly asserting that Obama never said he’d meet with Achmenijad; that absolute nonsense about spending more in a month in Iraq than we’ve spent in Afghanistan (“let me say it again,” he said as if he was hammering home a real fact); the bit about McCain voting with Obama on raising taxes; his vote in favor of the war etc.

It’s amazing how the impulse to see Biden as the more qualified and serious guy stems almost entirely from his ability to be a convincing b.s. artist. I’m not saying Palin was always honest or unrehearsed, but when she offers up a catchphrase or a talking point, you can tell. When Biden spews up a warm fog of deceitful gassbaggery the response seems to be “what a great grasp of the issues he has!”

His ability, nay his eagerness, to fake not only the “facts” but his sincerity is so shameless many pundits seem either mesmerized by it or scared to call him on it. I’d call his fakery passive aggressive except it’s actually just aggressive aggressive. Beyond being a tool of trial lawyers, I never saw much similarity between Biden and John Edwards, but tonight I was really struck by how alike the two are. Edwards fakes being an everyman, and Biden does too. But his real fraud is intellectual seriousness. He talks like an intellectually mature person, but that’s all it is – talk

(emphasis added)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Jonah Goldberg, Defender Of American Principles

Wednesday night I attended a debate between Jonah Goldberg and Peter Beinart at Salt Lake Community College. It was a great debate from which I came away thinking: I wish John McCain would shrug off his native populism and be a strong advocate of conservatism like Jonah Goldberg.

Probably the most impactful thing I heard from Goldberg was a point he made regarding "rights." The Bill of Rights is a negative guarantor of rights--as in, it limits what government can do to the individual. Liberals have turned rights into "positive" things. The right to health care, a job, etc.

As Goldberg pointed out, anything the government gives, it can take away. And rights that are native to the individual--inalienable, God-given--cannot be given or taken away by government.

This is classic liberalism at its best.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Jonah Goldberg On Experience

I wrote about meeting Goldberg at the RNC last week.

Goldberg reiterates a point I've been hammering since Palin was announced as McCain's runningmate:

The more Obama has to explain why being a community organizer -- or a state legislator, or a one-term senator with few accomplishments under his belt -- is better preparation for the presidency than being a mayor or governor, the more he volunteers his own shortcomings when compared with McCain. Besides, on paper, Obama doesn't stand up very well against Palin. All of the mythic themes of Obama's political narrative -- the ethics reformer, the bipartisan, the new kind of politician -- all look like press-release material next to Palin's accomplishments. Obama voted the Democratic Party line more often (97%) than McCain voted in accord with President Bush (90%). In Washington, Obama's supposedly 'sweeping' ethics reform -- which forces congressmen to eat lobbyist-provided meals standing up instead of sitting down -- and his feckless reforms in Illinois make him look the Bambi to Palin's Godzilla.

Does anyone even care to talk about (what's his name again? oh, yeah) "common" Joe Biden? I don't.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Dateline: Xcel Center, RNC Day 2

UPDATE 2:43am CDT: Last update before I sign off for the night. I watched this exchange--between Gingrich & an MSNBC reporter--from the concourse and thought, I wonder what they're talking about. My colleague at NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard found the video and it's fantastic. Click here, to see Noel's post. I repeat something I've written before. We are more than happy to have a dialogue about Palin and debate the relative merits of her experience versus Obama's.

It's important to understand that debating our #2 vs. their #1 concedes that Obama isn't even in McCain's orbit.

UPDATE 2:41am CDT: One other point I forgot to mention regarding our interview with Jon Voight. We asked him about other conservatives in Hollywood and if he had any advice to give to them or young conservatives. The long and short of his answer was similar to what I have observed in academia. If you want work, keep your mouth shut about your conservative politics. At this point in his career (though it has been known about Voight for some time), he can say what he wants because he doesn't really need the work and he is a big enough name that he can get work despite his politics. For younger actors/writers/directors, this is not the case.

UPDATE: 2:31am CDT: My days are divided by sleep periods rather than by calendar days. While waiting to interview Jon Voight, we joked around with Kevin Farley, the younger brother of one of my favorite comedians, the late Chris Farley. Seeing Kevin was, to use an overused word, surreal--not because I or anyone else was particularly impressed to meet Kevin (though he is a nice guy), but because he looks just like his brother. At first glance, I had to do a double take because I was sure I had seen a ghost.

UPDATE: 10:56pm CDT: The posts below now contain links to the video of our interviews with Mort Kondracke and Laura Ingraham.

UPDATE: 10:45pm CDT: We just finished interviewing Jon Voight regarding his role in An American Carol, the right's response to endless parade of conservative-lampooning films. If you judge a person by the company or celebrities he keeps, John McCain comes out looking great. Compare and contrast Jon Voight with Kanye West. West's songs, though catchy, are full of hateful, racist lyrics. And Jon Voight is just awesome. Ditto Five for Fighting's Jon Ondrasik, who was with Jon Voight. (making them the h-less Jon's)

UPDATE: 8:48pm CDT: Just got back from interviewing Mort Kondracke of Fox's "Beltway Boys," Gary Bauer, former POTUS candidate, and Laura Ingraham. Mort is shorter than his fellow "Boy" Fred Barnes, but is just as congenial. Like just about everyone else, they took the time, even though they were in a hurry, to speak with us.

Laura Ingraham said "the media hates Sarah Palin because she's pro-life. End of story." I think there's a lot of truth to that.

Mort Kondracke played the role of media apologist at first, saying that it was important that they go hard after Palin because of the short period of time to "vet" her. After being asked, pointedly, if the media were treating Palin the way they had treated Obama--especially as it relates to Rezko, Ayers, Wright, etc.--Kondracke admitted that it was not equal treatment.

Gary Bauer's comments were on point and in touch with the religious wing of the Republican party. He pointed out the hypocrisy of the left in criticizing Palin for her daughter becoming a pregnant--something they usually treat as a non-issue. He noted the many christian-crisis centers across the centers designed to help young women in a similar situation. As he said, social conservatives embrace and aid those who make mistakes and need help.

UPDATE: 6:52pm CDT: ABC News and Politico separately reported that 'while the hurricane raged, Republicans partied.' This is an unfair and untrue characterization. It's true, the previously planned parties were still held, for the most part. But the partisan celebrations have been replaced by American fundraisers for those in the path of Hurricane Gustav. This has been my experience and after interviewing a number of delegates, it seems to be everyone's experience.

- Seated next to me in the Press Filing Center are a couple of leftist new media types. They are so smug and self satisfied. In hushed tones that aren't so hushed (you know, so everyone around them can hear but they "maintain decorum."), they talk about how things seem "dead" or "like an undertakers conference, " (har, har, har). Compare that take with the critique above, that holds that Republicans are partying too hard in light of the hurricane.

If you're a conservative in this country, you cannot win.

UPDATE: 5:19pm CDT: In early 2007, Jonah Goldberg participated in a debate at the Oxford Union about the following topic: "This House regrets the founding of The United States of America." It was a ridiculous proposition and fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. Today, I spoke with Goldberg about that debate, telling him that it was a source of some pride for us Americans who spent time in Oxbridge circles and frequently encountered just the sort of anti-American spirit reflected by that debate topic.

He was, like his colleagues, gracious, and said that were it not for the extreme left of the opposition, they might have lost, owing to the fact that the crowd was decidedly anti-American. Irony of ironies, the Communist was a no show. As Goldberg said, "this is a guy who has spent his life defending lost causes (Stalin, among others) you'd have thought he show up to the debate."

(audio here)

First, links to my latest NewsBusters posts:

How to Cover Pregnancy Controversies, MSM-Style
Hot Air TV: 'Instant Classic'
Another Fake 'Lifelong Republican' Exposed
Celebs for McCain: Yes, Virginia, There Are a Few
Pollster.com Finds 'House Effects,' Not Bias, to Blame for Volatile Polls

- Yesterday was a long day that seemed longer because of a late arrival the night before. Official RNC stuff was limited with the First Lady & Cindy McCain making a brief appearance and appealing for support of the Gulf Coast states--specifically Louisiana--as they deal with Gustav and the latest round of hurricanes.

- Interesting note: the 5 gulf coast state governor are all Republicans. And anyone who followed Katrina can't help but notice the stark contrast between the leadership provided by Bobby Jindal and his predecessor, the spectacularly incompetent Kathleen Blanco. Why didn't Kanye accuse Blanco of hating black people?

- At the National Review reception I spoke with Byron York, Rich Lowry, & Kathryn Jean Lopez. I didn't quite have time to talk to Jonah Goldberg or Mickey Kaus. To the man (and woman) they were all gracious and took the time to chat about politics and education. Special thanks to Ms. Lopez for the invitation. I am only sorry that my first NR party came after Bill Buckley's passing. I would like to have made his acquaintance.
(click the name for a link to their latest stuff)

- At the Lifetime women's party, I tried to get myself cast as the villainous male in the next Lifetime feature film. No dice.

- This morning I attended a blogger brunch hosted by RedState and Google. Fred Thompson was the featured speaker and like Michael Steele yesterday, he railed on the media coverage of this campaign in general, and the shameful Bristol Palin attacks in particular. Fred's a good one.

One interesting point about the co-hosting by RedState and Google: Google is notoriously liberal--they endorse the sort of web-censorship conservatives hate because it is always conservative stuff that gets lifted. So, for months leading up to the convention, no one wanted to partner with Google. This was money for the taking--to put on a party for conservatives, but no one wanted their money.

Just two weeks ahead of the convention, RedState decided they wanted to do a blogger brunch and reached out to the RNC. The RNC mentioned Google. Initially RedState said no, but after speaking with Google, concluded their (Google's) intentions to become more neutral, were honest. So there we were this morning and there we will be tomorrow. Hopefully Google follows through on stopping their censorship of conservatives.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Weekend Update

With just over 36 days until the start of the official On Life and Lybberty Fantasy Baseball League, there's not much time for you to join. If you love statistics, baseball, or just plain old competition, join up! The rosters are set small and only require once-a-week maintenance.

Fox Sports Fantasy Baseball

League ID: 32043
League Password: lybberty

Join and tell your friends.

***

Your weekend reading assignment:

- The Democrats are playing politics with our national security. Here's the nuts and bolts about what this means for our intelligence: When the Clock Strikes Midnight, We Will Be Significantly Less Safe.

- Know how many terrorists have actually been waterboarded since 9/11? Three. That's it, just three. And each one gave us valuable intelligence. If Democrats were serious about stopping waterboarding, they would have made it illegal. But they didn't. Know why? Because they didn't want to be blamed if we missed getting key intel by using waterboarding--a very effective interrogation technique. Read Jonah Goldberg's Five Minutes Well Spent.

- The Senate passed the Protect America Act, but for some reason (moveon.org) Nancy Pelosi refused to even permit a vote in the House (it would have passed with a large bipartisan majority). But this shouldn't surprise anyone. Read Dems' Dangerous FISA Game.

- We've had our issues with John McCain--McCain/Feingold, McCain/Lieberman, McCain/Kennedy, class warfare rhetoric opposing Bush tax cuts, Gitmo, etc.--and these things haven't gone away. But we are pragmatic about our politics and we recognize that the alternative to McCain is much, much worse. We were already resigned to this mindset. But after reading Larry Kudlow's The Case For McCain we're fired up about a McCain presidency.

*UPDATE 3:01am MST: Our friend, Benjamin Treasure, penned a fantastic piece about the ridiculous protest going on down at Berkeley. The California Patriot has also blogged about it regularly. Like Ben, we support the Semper Fi Act. And you should too.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Nordlinger, Goldberg, and the Loony Left

Since our London bedtime is quite a bit earlier than the start time for last night's debate, we've spent the morning reading up on last night's debate.

First we surfed on over to the Daily Kos. The angry wing of the democratic party never ceases to prove just how angry they are by their constant use of expletives. They're like the Red Sox fanbase before winning the World Series--you know, smug, sarcastic, bitter/jaded, frequent use of four-letter words. The whole bit. We'd provide a link, but this is a family friendly blog, after all.

Looking for less emotion and more reason, we turned our sights to National Review. Lot's of interesting stuff, but two things stood out.

First, Jonah Goldberg on why the Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Democratic party isn't just angry, but also loony:

I offer you data. Rasmussen Reports, the public opinion outfit, recently asked voters whether President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The findings? Well, here’s how the research firm put it: “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39 percent say he did not know and 26 percent are not sure.”

So, one in three Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can’t quite make up their minds.

The problem with rebutting this sort of allegation is that there are too many reasons why it’s so stupid. It’s like trying to explain to a four-year-old why Superman isn’t real. You can spend all day talking about how kryptonite just wouldn’t work that way. Or you can just say, “It’s make-believe.”

Similarly, why try to explain that it’s implausible that Bush was evil enough to let this happen — and clever enough to get away with it — yet incapable either morally or intellectually of doing it again? After all, if he’s such a villainous super-genius to have paved the way for 9/11 without getting caught, why stop there? Democrats constantly insinuate that Bush plays politics with terror warnings on the assumption that the higher the terror level, the more support Bush has. Well, a couple of more 9/11s and Dick Cheney will finally be able to get that shiny Bill of Rights shredder he always wanted.

And, if Bush — whom Democrats insist is a moron — is clever enough to green-light one 9/11, why is Iraq such a blunder? Surely a James Bond villain like Bush would just plant some WMDs?

Not that any of this really comes as a surprise. Though it has diminished, we still field emails from our friends who insist that two planes full of jet fuel couldn't have caused the WTC to come crashing down. And before you ask, yes, we've seen the conspiracy docudrama. And Fahrenheit 9/11, and An Inconvenient Truth. What does all of this prove? You know, besides the fact that the loony left has the corner on the "documentary" market?

What's really entertaining is the constant state of ticked-offedness of the loony left brought on by Fox News. The loony left just cannot stand Fox's "Fair and balanced," Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity (they probably don't like Neil Cavuto either). Consider this for a minute. Now that the shoe, apparently, is on the other foot. For years the Big Three of mainstream media, plus most newspapers, plus the supposedly "non-partisan" NPR have been echoing the liberal establishment line. Now, Fox News appears on the scene, with its appealing populist politics and absolutely obliterates all other news channels. "Jealousy and envy..." how does that 2Pac line go, Morgan?

But Fox News isn't conservative, that's just the way the world is.

Gosh, you have no idea how long we've wanted to repeat that oft-repeated liberal line about the liberal media.

Then there's this, from Jay Nordlinger:

The Democratic presidential candidates refused to participate in a debate sponsored by Fox News. (It was scheduled for Nevada, as you recall.) But the Republican presidential candidates had their first debate on MSNBC — moderated by Chris Matthews. (If a word that contains “moderate” can be used about Chris!) That tells us a lot about our political and media culture. We conservatives and Republicans can’t afford to have a pariah; but the Democrats certainly can — they write off one TV network, they got scads of others.

Of course, Democrats would say, “But Fox News is a partisan network, and MSNBC is nonpartisan, neutral, and objective.” Uh-huh.

The above matter reminded me of something: I was talking to a Muslim friend once. I said, “Saudi Arabia outlaws all churches. Yet there’s a mosque on every street corner in America. Saudi Arabia outlaws the Bible. The penalty for possessing it is expulsion from the country — if you’re a foreigner. If you’re a Saudi, the penalty is death by beheading. Yet, in America, Korans are as plentiful as comic books.

“Aren’t Saudis, particularly those in the United States — such as students — ever embarrassed by this imbalance, this disparity? Don’t they ever think, ‘Hmm, how odd: They let us do our thing, but we don’t let them do theirs’?”

And my friend answered, “No: They regard this situation as perfectly normal and proper.” I will never forget the definiteness of his answer.

As I said, I couldn’t help thinking about this, when pondering Fox News, MSNBC, and presidential debates: The Republicans are happy to go on liberal networks, knowing that this is life; the Democrats, as I have stated, can afford to have a pariah. Networks are simply supposed to be liberal, or at least liberal-leaning; everything else is a freakish, hateful blight.

Hey libs, how's Air America doing?

*Update: The distinguished Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Senator Joe Lieberman, speaks on Iraq: Time for Choosing.

**Update: Fred Thompson calls out Michael Moore.

***Update: More from the Church of the Holy Environment: an ark. You can't make this stuff up.

****Update: Global warming "consensus" fractures like the Greenland ice shelf.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.