Unions & The Europeanization of America

In addition to the usual cast of people who want America to turn into Europe--President Obama, unions, leftists--add people whose only familiarity with the continent is time spent on the back row of America's poly sci classes.

This is the group of people who have been persuaded Europe's arguments against "income inequality" and universal everything for everyone. What they don't seem to understand is that Europe's welfare state is both unsustainable and not a true equalizer.

The demographics of Europe are such that the only way to fund at current levels would be massive inflows of new, young immigrants--and tax increases on everyone.

But even then, the Euro-model is about appeasing the underclasses--give them enough free things and hope their riots stay in their part of the city--and not breaking down the structural barriers that prevent American-style movement from one income bracket to the next. If you are poor in Europe (while not nearly as helpless as, say, Africa), the chances of you enjoying a lift-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps success story is very slim.

In America, 1st generation immigrants take what might seem to us to be bad jobs and more importantly, they send their kids to school. Armed with at least a high school diploma (not all, but far more than their parents generation), they get better jobs. Some of them attend college and do even better.

As in education where teachers' unions are students' worst enemies, such is the case with workers. In the WSJ op-ed that inspired this post, the best worst examples of the deleterious effects of unions are the auto & steel industries.

In the last session of Congress, Democrats tried to: Raise the notice period required for certain layoffs at private companies to 90 days, extend health benefits for laid-off workers for up to a decade, and increase penalties for noncompliance (the expanded WARN Act); reclassify certain managers as employees who can be unionized, forcibly in non-right-to-work states (the Respect Act); facilitate class action suits for alleged gender-based pay discrimination (Paycheck Fairness Act); and much more. None passed, but now they might.

In the Obama revolution, unions are the vanguard force. Contrary to promises of moderation, the Administration has so far sided firmly with the union left. On the day after the Inauguration, the Department of Labor stopped the implementation of new union financial disclosure rules that provide greater transparency about union finances. A fortnight on the job, President Obama issued four executive orders, on federal contracting and political spending, demanded by Big Labor. Mr. Obama this month endorsed card check and vowed that it "will pass."

In case you think it can't happen here, well, it can.

Fortunately, I think people are starting to understand this--some got it all along. Branden B. sent me an email that sums up the frustration many have with the current administration.

If you read the top 5-10 opinion pieces on today's WSJ website you will realize that the leadership in our government right now SUCKS. I can't capitalize that word enough. It is unbelievable. Why could we not elect a group of real men to lead this country and not a bunch of slimy, spineless, uneducated losers that seem to occupy every power wielding position within our government? It is just unbelievable. Who were the people that decided that Frank, Pelosi, and Dodd had the capacity to do anything? I would not trust them to clean my house. I am just beside myself with this whole mess. I mean these people seem to be hell-bent on running the most successful economy of all time into the ground. Please tell me. How is it not obvious to EVERYONE right now that all of these people are incompetent and doing the exact opposite of anything that would make sense. It is hard to believe that the Dow is above 4K. How is it not obvious to again EVERYONE that Obama and Co. have not done a single thing that would be beneficial to our economy. I mean if you asked economists what would be the top ten things you could do to ruin the economy Obama has done 1-8 and is actively trying to cross off 9 and 10 (protectionism and strengthen unions).

It's gotten so bad, even the NYT is writing op-eds (I'm loathe to link them, but oh well) urging the President to avoid the protectionist elements of his party. And the Unions are going to keep fighting.

Prepare yourselves, it's going to get ugly.


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

Hollywood Tax-Cutters

This isn't your usual cast of Hollywood conservatives, though I'm sure they'd agree with the urge to cut taxes. No, this is plain old Hollywood liberals who know that the key to making money and turning a profit is keeping costs low--and that includes taxes.

The Wall Street Journal has the op-ed:

We're constantly told that taxes don't matter to business and investors, but listen to that noted supply-side economist, Alec Baldwin. The actor recently rebuked New York Governor David Paterson for threatening to try to help close the state's $7 billion budget deficit by canceling a 35% tax credit for films shot in the Big Apple.

"I'm telling you right now," Mr. Baldwin declared, "if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California." Well, well. Apparently taxes do matter, at least when it comes to filming "30 Rock" in Manhattan.

Believe it or not, Mr. Baldwin's views are shared across the movie industry, which is pleading in state capitals across the country for most-favored-tax status. Hollywood productions are highly mobile and can film just about anywhere. So they have taken to shopping around the country -- and the world -- for the most lucrative tax avoidance deal.

I love 30 Rock and am a fan of Baldwin's character in it. However, I despise most of Baldwin's politics--apart from this strange urge of his to cut taxes during an economic downturn. How very enlightened and progressive of him.

When I talk about government picking the winners and losers, yeah, this is the type of thing I'm talking about.

this is the same Hollywood film industry whose members fund causes and candidates that favor raising taxes on everyone else. The Motion Picture Production and Distribution industry last year gave $14 million in political contributions: 89% went to pro-tax Democrats. A few years ago, director Rob Reiner funded a successful California initiative to raise the state income tax rate to more than 10%. Unlike a film shoot, which can relocate on a moment's notice, your average small businessman in Encino is stuck paying the highest tax rate in the country -- at least until he gives up and moves to Reno.

This is the type of anecdote that turns all those progressive liberal tax enthusiasts on their head--this is the hypocrisy that proves the rule. Like their dearleader, the teleprompter, they see progressive, confiscatory tax rates as social justice.

But they never want to put their money where their mouths are; they want everyone else to pay higher taxes while they carve out deals for themselves with their friends in power. But the WSJ puts it better:

states shouldn't chase smoke stacks or film production crews with specific tax breaks. It makes much more sense for cities, states and the federal government to lower tax rates for everyone. New York City can survive without Alec Baldwin and "30 Rock," but it can't function without the thousands of small businesses that pay taxes without the benefit of lobbyists and loopholes.

Though I'd hate to see 30 Rock go the way of Arrested Development, it would be amusing (cue schadenfreude) if liberal Alec Baldwin lost his job to higher taxes too.

Unfortunately for all the real employees of GE & the Scheinhardt Wig company, they can't hang out in Hollywood while they wait to hook up with a new gig in time for pilot season.


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

Detroit Autoworker to Leno: Take your tickets and Shove 'Em

I was very amused by this story about Jay Leno requesting that people not resell free tickets to his show on eBay.

Mankiw asks all the right questions:

So I wonder: If a person down on his luck prefers the cash to the opportunity to watch Leno live, why would Leno object? Is it altruism that is really motivating Leno here? Is he really sure that the unemployed person in Detroit would be better off with an evening of laughs than $800 in his pocket? Or does Leno want to play to a live audience of unemployed workers so he will seem altruistic to his television audience?

This is exactly the sort of thing that attracted me to economics. Most people who haven't studied econ assume it is all about macroeconomic issues like GDP, unemployment, and tedious things like determining what exactly is the appropriate basket of goods that should constitute Consumer Price Index--after all, that's what you read on the front page of all the dailies.

I've always loved what economics reveals about people's true intentions. Economics says to ignore what people say and pay attention to what they do. I don't begrudge Jay his sentiments, but I'm with Mankiw on this one.


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

The Unintended Consequences Of Ethanol

Yesterday's Journal had a great op-ed on the manifold problems emanating from Congress's 2007 Ethanol bill mandating widespread use of the same.

Congress and the ethanol lobby argue that if some outcome would be politically nice, it should be mandated (details to follow). Then a new round of market interventions is necessary to fix the economic harm resulting from the previous requirements, while creating more damage in the process. Ethanol is one of the most shameless energy rackets going, in a field with no shortage of competitors.

The problems associated with this bit of legislation ought to be a cautionary tale for anyone who wants to perform a little market manipulation to achieve their preferred policy goals. The best government intervention, if indeed, any is required, should be, as Dr. Pope always taught, "simple & targeted."

If you can't guarantee that the legislative process end result will be both of those things, it's best that you just leave the market to its own devices.


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

Shelby Steele: The GOP & Minority Outreach

One of the panel discussions I attended at CPAC dealt with creating a conservative Hispanic coalition. Widely discussed were the many commonalities shared by traditional social conservatives and largely Catholic Hispanic minorities. On every issue--life, family, marriage--Hispanic minorities share the values of conservatives everywhere.

In fact, Hispanic Americans are more socially conservative than their white counterparts (that is, when you consider all white Americans together). Partnerships, at a minimum, based on these principles and shared goals seems like an obvious starting point.

But, of course, immigration raised its ugly head. I won't get into it here--it deserves its own series of posts--but I believe there is a workable solution to this problem, I'm just not entirely sure what it is.

The Conservative argument for resisting minority outreach/appeal is that we don't want to get into the grievance tribalism that afflicts the Left. We are not a party that promises a grab bag of goodies & favors if only your group helps us get elected. We are a party of principles--principles which we believe ought to appeal to people regardless of their race, gender, religion, whatever.

For the record, I believe that, 100%. One of conservatism's great promises is that it promises to view every individual the same way--it seeks the freedom of every individual.

However, within that framework, I believe there is ample room, ample opportunity, to form coalitions that seek common goals. If Hispanics are socially conservative, we can appeal to them with the principles of social conservatism. We cannot assume (wrongly, I believe) that these people somehow know that we see the world the same way they do and seek the same things they seek.

We can appeal to some of these groups without becoming tribal or abandoning our principles. We can and ought to reach out to them by using our principles and showing them how they apply in their lives and are shared by them and us.

In todays WSJ, Shelby Steele examines this question--Why the GOP can't win minorities. It is the most lucid discussion of this topic I have read in a long time. Read it all; here is an excerpt:

When redemption became a term of power, "redemptive liberalism" was born -- a new activist liberalism that gave itself a "redemptive" profile by focusing on social engineering rather than liberalism's classic focus on individual freedom. In the '60s there was no time to allow individual freedom to render up the social good. Redemptive liberalism would proactively engineer the good. Name a good like "integration," and then engineer it into being through a draconian regimen of school busing. If the busing did profound damage to public education in America, it gave liberals the right to say, "At least we did something!" In other words, we are activists

against America's old sin of segregation. Activism is moral authority in redemptive liberalism.

But conservatism sees moral authority more in a discipline of principles than in activism. It sees ideas of the good like "diversity" as mere pretext for the social engineering that always leads to unintended and oppressive consequences. Conservatism would enforce the principles that ensure individual freedom, and then allow "the good" to happen by "invisible hand."

And here is conservatism's great problem with minorities. In an era when even failed moral activism is redemptive -- and thus a source of moral authority and power -- conservatism stands flat-footed with only discipline to offer. It has only an invisible hand to compete with the activism of the left. So conservatism has no way to show itself redeemed of America's bigoted past, no way like the Great Society to engineer a grand display of its innocence, and no way to show deference to minorities for the oppression they endured. Thus it seems to be in league with that oppression.

Socially engineering society in order to assuage one's own guilt does not "redeem" the people you are trying to save (indeed, the unintended consequences of your shiny new program often worsen their condition), it is all about making yourself feel better.

Anyway, read the rest. You'll be pleased to find that Steele does not suggest some convoluted hybrid of leftist tribal politics blended with conservative principle.


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

Petraeus For President? [UPDATE: Maybe, but the reported speech in Iowa was a 'joke']

[ed. note: I don't get the joke that Goldfarb asserts in the edit of his original post. But just because I don't get it, doesn't mean that it's not funny.

No, that's not true. If I don't get it, it's not funny. If anyone knows this character, tell him he's an idiot and that this was a dumb joke.

Unless the joke was this: Watch as I lose all credibility. If so, ha ha.

I'm going to leave the original post so you can see what the fuss was all about.]

I've wondered (and wished) about the possibility of General David Petraeus running for President of the United States on the pages of this blog before. Well, my wish may just turn into reality.

Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard reports:

Petraeus will also be addressing the commissioning ceremonies for Harvard and MIT ROTC. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that General Petraeus is planning on delivering the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010. Hmmm.

At the risk of becoming Captain Obvious, Iowa is the start to every Presidential primary and thus, the campaign itself. A successful showing in Iowa gave Mike Huckabee a national audience.

Of course, it could be that there is simply nothing to see here--just another commencement address at another university by one of the most talented leaders of men (& women) in American history. The Spectator addresses that idea here.

Petraeus going to Iowa, a state he doesn’t have previous ties to, is going to create a huge amount of buzz about his presidential ambitions because the Iowa Caucuses kick off the whole presidential nomination process. If he does, deliver the address—and Petraeus must know this—it will be seen as a sign that he is thinking about running in 2012.

Petraeus running against Obama would remind certain members of the military that many, ah, constituencies in the Democrat party do not like them. Remember Petraeus's treatment by certain Democrat Senators & Rahm Emanuel in September 2007 (to say nothing of Moveon's shameful ad)? Anyway, imagine how the revved up Democrat attack machine will treat Petraeus.

The question of a General running against the President who once commanded him is an interesting. The Spectator, again:

Previously, it has been thought that Petraeus would not run against a president who had been his Commander in Chief. But there are reports of tension between Petraeus and Obama over both Iraq and Afghan strategy.

So, General Petraeus thinks that whatever strategy Obama plans to pursue in some combination of Iraq/Afghanistan/(Iran?) is not a good one? What will the Obama apologists say about this?

Any combination of Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin + General David Petraeus would be dynamite leadership for this country--outclassing by far the administration in place now.

(via Ace, per usual)


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

'Pressuring Israel, While Wooing Iran'

To my mind, John Bolton is the smartest, most astute foreign policy commentator. His recent article in the NY Post reminds those who forgot.

All the other regional problems would still exist even if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got his fondest wish and Israel disappeared from the map: Iran's nuclear-weapons program, its role as the world's central banker for terrorism, the Sunni-Shiite conflict within Islam, Sunni terrorist groups like al Qaeda and other regional ethnic, national and political animosities would continue as threats and risks for decades to come.

Instead, the US focus should be on Iran and the manifold threats it poses to Israel, to Arab states friendly to Washington and to the United States itself - but that is not to be.

President Obama argues that he will deal comprehensively with the entire region. Rhetoric is certainly his specialty, but in the Middle East rhetoric only lasts so long. Performance is the real measure - and the administration's performance to date points in only one direction: pressuring Israel while wooing Iran.

In this article, Bolton points out the obvious: Obama & Europe pressure Israel because they are the most reasonable party in this debate. I mean, they could try and put the screws to Hamas & Hezbollah, but those guys only respond to one type of pressure--the type of pressure they then artfully manipulate to make themselves appear to be the injured party (read: placing military/missile installations under & near schools & hospitals; wait for Israel to do something about it; cry "civilian massacre" and "humanitarian crisis"; watch as the liberal mainstream media & useful idiots in the US & Europe dutifully repeat this manufactured & farcical reality).

The other point I want to draw out is this: Just because the aggressor repeats their rationale for wanting to exterminate a country lots and lots of times does not make what they say true. Whatever their imagined insult emanating from the existence of Israel, rest assured that this is pure pretext.

That's not to say that the average Arab-on-the-street doesn't believe it to be so--in fact, I know they do--their mind-slave-masters in control of Iran, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., count on it.

So long as these grievance groups (they operate from basically the same public relations play book as Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson--only with violence added to the mix) can keep the focus on Israel, the United States, & (insert latest conspiracy involving Western powers), the oppressed populace will continue to ignore the fact that their "leaders" pocket all the "aid" (see Yasser Arafat) that comes from the West they are supposed to hate so much. Meanwhile, for them, everything remains the same--no peace, no prosperity, no democracy, no nothing.

These conflicts and imagined grievances are not for the benefit of the average Palestinian, they are to keep tyrants in charge and money in their pockets.

Want to know why there's no peace in the Middle East?

Ask yourself: Who has the most to lose were peace to break out between Israel and her neighbors?

Now you know why.


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.

Save The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program

I thought about entitling this something like, "Democrats Love Unions More Than Kids," because honestly, that's what it looks like.

Washington DC's schools are notoriously bad--as in, worst in the country bad. A few years ago, a few brave souls started the Opportunity Scholarship program which allows a few thousand students the chance to escape the downward spiral at their local public school and attend the same private school as President Obama's kids.

Teacher's unions, whose self interest lies with preserving the jobs of its members, rather than teaching kids, adamantly oppose school choice. Whether it's a charter, corporate scholarship, or a voucher, they will do whatever it takes--by hook or crook--to stop it.

Sometimes that means donating huge amounts of money to Democrats who will hide their killing of Opportunity Scholarships in Omnibus spending bills. They just hope you're too stupid or scared to notice--it's all apart of Rahm Emanuel's plan to take advantage of crisis and get crazy liberal stuff done while you're paranoid and not paying attention--you know, the type of fearmongering the Leftists accused President Bush of doing for years.

Well, now their fearmongering is going to kill the DC area Opportunity Scholarships. And President Obama is a willing, if not complicit, participant. How can he and his liberal Democrat friends (and, incidentally, damn Mike Crapo (R) from Idaho. For shame, Crapo, for shame. I expect this kind of thing from Arlent Specter & Olympia Snowe (certifiable idiots), but you? Please resign.) deny poor, mostly minority kids the same education enjoyed by their children?

Ask yourself that question--how can they do this?--as you watch the youtube clip these kids put together for President Obama. These aren't a bunch of rich white kids asking for tax cuts so their parents can afford a new G5 to take them on a class trip (I'll leave that to Nancy Pelosi), these kids either get the scholarship and go to a good school or they attend failing public schools.




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

Don't Forget About Iraq

The Surge bought us success & peace in Iraq which our current President & Congressional Democratic leadership both denied AND actively worked against.

This much is undeniable.

Now that hard-fought peace & security has been won, the worry is that Obama might abandon Iraq and seize defeat from the jaws of victory. As Michael Yon explains, these gains are reversible.

Today Iraq is succeeding, but as Generals Petraeus or Odierno might say, the situation remains fragile and reversible.

Whereas the Bush-war ended in a new if messy democracy, this year we could see an Obama-war begin; the new President has sent a clear signal that we intend to mostly abandon Iraq during this crucial transition period. Today, the progress is obvious. But if Iraq descends back into chaos, the Obama-war, a newborn war, will not be a result of U.S. aggression, but of limp leadership intent on fulfilling campaign promises that were misinformed to begin with.

Ignore me, if you like; Michael Yon has spent more time on the ground in Iraq than any other journalist in the world.

If Iraq regresses, Obama may try to blame generals or his predecessor, but he will have no one to blame but himself and perhaps his advisers and some idiot members of his constituency who made him promise to withdraw, regardless of conditions on the ground.


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

Brits With Backbone

Between time spent at Cambridge & UCL on my MA, I've listened to a lot of liberal elites. They have the same opinions on, well, everything, as the liberal elites in the US.

My flatmates are among what I believe/hope to be a silent majority of Brits in this country who are, you know, sane when it comes to their politics. They love their country & respect the troops who defend their freedom.

I'm not going to repeat the whole story, Ace has got it covered, but there was a Welcome Home parade yesterday for British troops returning from Iraq. The usual, useful idiots--al Qaeda in Iraq & Taliban apologists--were out to embarrass themselves as they tried to shame the troops.

Mission decidedly not accomplished.

Anyway, I wanted to post video footage of the Brits in the street--the ones out to welcome home their heroes--shouting the "protesters" out of the public square. This is the usually silent majority I referred to above.

Note: As with any link to Ace, the usual language warnings apply. Additionally, there may be cursing in the vid, I can't tell; their accents make it hard for me to discern 4-letter words from ones we don't find offensive, but funny. Given the inflamed emotions, I'd imagine a few of the former were thrown around. You've been warned.




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

My Man Mitt

In 2008, I supported John McCain in his campaign for POTUS vs. Barack Obama, but it wasn't without reservation. He has always been unreliable, often discarding conservative principles in favor of currying favor from the press.

On balance, I thought, he was a far better alternative to the inexperienced, very liberal, Barack H. Obama.

And he was.

But there was a better one, and his name was Mitt Romney.

Sure, he had a few missteps, was mistrusted by some religious/social conservatives, but he was right on all the important things--foreign policy (Iraq, War on Terror, NKorea, Iran, etc.), fiscal policy (less government, lower taxes, less regulation, etc.), and the social issues (family, marriage, abortion, stem-cell research etc.).

So he was a "convert" on the last point (abortion), so what? So was Ronald Reagan. Don't we want to persuade everyone to value the rights of the unborn? Anyway, that's an old argument. Hopefully one we've moved past.

At CPAC, Romney gave an excellent speech. I wrote a bit about it in my review of CPAC Day 3.

You can read the full text of his speech here.

NRO's editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez, wrote an excellent article about the state of conservatism and some of the dustups between Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, and others. But most of the article is about Mitt and the possibility that he runs for President in 2012.

It's tough to look 4 years into the future; if we face the same problems we are today--that is to say, if we have yet to fully overcome them--Mitt could be part of the solution. I like Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. But how about Romney-Petraeus?

Does that sound like a ticket you'd be interested in?

I don't think anyone else could put forward two more qualified people to deal with all the many problems this country faces right now. Seriously, does anyone have any confidence that Obama can lead us out of this economic quagmire?

The markets sure don't seem to think so. Their daily tracking poll (a constant downward spiral) leaves little doubt. Mitt Romney made a career of this sort of thing. Balancing budgets, restoring profitability, rooting out waste and inefficiency--that's his niche.

And though the model has been derided, how confident would you feel if Petraeus, in the Dick Cheney mould of VP, helped to shape our long- & short-term foreign policy goals? Instead of a complete idiot--Joe Biden (God love 'im)--you would have the guy who literally wrote the counter-insurgent book and has spearheaded our warfighting effort in Iraq and now, Iraq & Afghanistan. Do you think anyone knows how to defend America better than General Petraeus?

Most of this is just rambling speculation and wishful thinking, clearly. Right now I'm focused on 2009--hoping for a Republican win in New Jersey--and 2010--House, Senate & nationwide gubernatorial races.

With any luck, 2010 will look a little like 1994, and 2012 will resemble 1980. Remember, Ronald Reagan lost in the 1976 Republican primary before finally winning it all in 1980.

Romney could do a lot worse than following Reagan's example.


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

Words Of Wisdom From Margaret Thatcher

President Obama & the Obamabots at State may not think much of the UK or our Special Relationship, but I sure do. In honor of that relationship I present, for your consideration, Stuart Taylor quoting Lady Thatcher:

If this president fails, who will revive our economy? And when? And what kind of America will our children inherit? But with the nation already plunging deep into probably necessary debt to rescue the crippled financial system and stimulate the economy, Obama's proposals for many hundreds of billions in additional spending on universal health care, universal postsecondary education, a massive overhaul of the energy economy, and other liberal programs seem grandiose and unaffordable. . . . I hope that the president ponders well Margaret Thatcher's wise warning against some collectivist conceits: 'The illusion that government can be a universal provider, and yet society still stay free and prosperous.... The illusion that every loss can be covered by a subsidy. The illusion that we can break the link between reward and effort, and still get the effort.

Remember, The Road to Serfdom is paved with trillions of dollars worth of liberal good intentions.


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

Cramer, Obama, Liberals, &c.

Ever since I first noticed the phenomenon, I've looked for the right opportunity to put it into practice. What might it be, you ask? Why, quoting myself, of course.

It was prompted by an email I received from Matt P. Given that I hadn't heard from him in awhile, I jumped at the chance.

Matt wrote:

So low taxes are good in bad economic times so people can get rich, but when the economy is good we can soak the rich and damn the poor? I can't understand how he can't see the fault in his logic. Even when he's right, he's still wrong.

From his post yesterday:

"To be totally out of the closet, I actually embrace every part of Obama's agenda, right down to the increase on personal taxes and the mortgage deduction. I am a fierce environmentalist who has donated multiple acres to the state of New Jersey to keep forever wild. I believe in cap and trade. I favor playing hardball with drug companies that hold up the U.S. government with me-too products.

"... I believe his agenda is crushing nest eggs around the nation in loud ways, like the decline in the averages, and in soft but dangerous ways, like in the annuities that can't be paid and the insurance benefits that will be challenging to deliver on.

"So I will fight the fight against that agenda. I will stand up for what I believe and for what I have always believed: Every person has a right to be rich in this country and I want to help them get there. And when they get there, if times are good, we can have them give back or pay higher taxes. Until they get there, I don't want them shackled or scared or paralyzed. That's what I see now."

I'm all for "giving back," but shouldn't that be my choice?

To which I responded as follows:

Cramer is a liberal Democrat & an idiot [ed. note: but I repeated myself]. I guess, from him, we should be glad when he criticizes Obama at all, as he has done recently.

Obviously, I am in wholehearted agreement with what you say.

To liberals, your money is not really your money. It's the money you got by exploiting people, probably, and you don't deserve it. Plus, they know how to use it better than you do. It's all about power & control--that's the conservative vs. liberal argument at it's core:

Conservatives want everyone to have as much control over their lives as possible. They understand that some people are going to screw up, and that sucks, but that most people will do best whatever makes them happy.

Liberals want to control everyone's lives in every possible way because they think they know how to make everyone equally happy, or, as happens to be the case back in a little place I like to call reality, they know how to make everyone's life suck equally (except, of course, for the American version of the Politburo and their friends who get the green dacha's* in the countryside.)

This is the new reality: In a country where market forces aren't left to themselves to pick winners and losers; in a country where trillion dollar budgets and spenduli are used to shower billions of dollars on campaign supporters (read: ACORN, Unions, etc.); in a country where government picks the winners and the losers, you better hope that, at the very least, you aren't on Obama's naughty list.


*In Soviet Russia, supposedly everyone had access to homes in the countryside surrounding Moscow & other Russian cities. In reality, the only ones who stayed there, ate black market food, owned cars that ran, took hot showers, etc., etc. were the leading Communist party members & their friends.


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

Reject Obama-conomics

In Thursday's Journal, Daniel Henninger recommended we all "reread the apostles and evangelists of private economic growth -- Ronald Reagan's "A Life in Letters," Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose," Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson."

By happy coincidence, I received via mass email, one of Milton Friedman's great TV moments.

It's short; please watch.



As one of my economic heroes was fond of repeating, government is at its best (historically AND its best is not saying much) when its efforts are both simple & targeted.

There is nothing about TARP, Obama's stimulus, Obama's budget, Obama's cap-and-trade, or Obama's proposed TARP-2 that fits either of those criteria. These are all proposals from men (& a few women) who think they can manage the economy from above better than individuals can on their own.

We've been down that road before. A bunch of times. Let's not go there again.


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

Semper Fi

Is it just me, or do the Marines seem to like one President more than the other?

See for yourself, at Blackfive, a military blog.

I'm told there are more Democrats in the military now than ever. But Blackfive doesn't think the party is relevant:

I don't think the fact that the party of the President really matters in discussions on whether the troops like him or not. That said. The current president has a lot of deeds to make happen in order to overcome his words:

[ed. note: click link and see video of Obama accusing US military of haphazardly bombing villages & killing civilians. Damned by his own words.]

I mean, come on, would YOU want to work for a boss that has that kind of appreciation for you and your brothers blood?

(h/t DrewM @ Ace)


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

Words of Wisdom from the World's Luckiest Investor

This is my inaugural post, one which will hopefully be the first of many.

Warren Buffet, Investor Extraordinaire, is constantly used as a tool of the left. All they have to do is point at the Oracle of Omaha and say "he's on our side," and candidates are instantly lent market cred. However, Mr. Buffet's liberal political views are mostly guided by social issues, and he tends to support Democrat presidential candidates in spite of--not because of--their economic policies.

If you've never read his annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter, you should. Its conversational tone makes it readable for even the most inept student of business and finance. with so much doom and gloom from the Alarmist in Chief, Buffet's perspective is refreshing.

Amid this bad news, however, never forget that our country has faced far worse travails in the past. In the 20th Century alone, we dealt with two great wars (one of which we initially appeared to be losing); a dozen or so panics and recessions; virulent inflation that led to a 21 1 ⁄ 2% prime rate in 1980; and the Great Depression of the 1930s, when unemployment ranged between 15% and 25% for many years. America has had no shortage of challenges.

Without fail, however, we’ve overcome them. In the face of those obstacles – and many others – the real standard of living for Americans improved nearly seven-fold during the 1900s, while the Dow Jones Industrials rose from 66 to 11,497. Compare the record of this period with the dozens of centuries during which humans secured only tiny gains, if any, in how they lived. Though the path has not been smooth, our economic system has worked extraordinarily well over time. It has unleashed human potential as no other system has, and it will continue to do so. America’s best days lie ahead.

'Nuff said. Read the rest here.


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

Absent Bush, Dems Make Straw Man Of Rush (UPDATED)

I should have said, "Democrats & the media (but I repeat myself) make a straw man out of Rush Limbaugh."

That joke doesn't get old.

My man at NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard, wrote up a good piece about recent revelations from the left that they want to make Limbaugh the new Republican bogeyman--used to scare the public into submitting to their nefarious plans.

Well, new revelations suggest that Democrats began a smear campaign against the conservative talk radio host last October, and now it's really caught steam.

Apparently, the Left feared its message would be muted without having George W. Bush to blame for all the world's problems, and Limbaugh made a nice substitute as the object of their disaffection to distract the public from real issues.

Given White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's connections to key media figures such as ABC's George Stephanopoulos as well as CNN's Paul Begala and James Carville, disseminating the hate was a piece of cake.

It almost goes w/o saying that I think their plan will fail--most importantly, because Rush is a far better communicator than George W. Bush. And because Rush already has 20 million regular listeners.

I don't want to say Emanuel & Begala & Carville & Co. are dumb, but this strategy strikes me as pretty stupid. Seriously, folks, when you are the establishment, it doesn't help you to elevate the competition.

I don't think there is a smarter, more persuasive communicator of conservative ideals that Rush Limbaugh. If these people are persuadable, they will be persuaded by Rush.

Note that I'm not talking about the leftist progressives who already hate all things conservative. These people are dead to reason until they realize how much their feel-good policy preferences suck in the real world.

Independents--the same ones who were persuaded about offshore drilling. The same ones who have begun to turn against the spendulus. The same ones who are skeptical about bigger government & higher taxes--these people will turn to Rush and large numbers of them will be persuaded by him.

UPDATE 6:17pm BST: Jonah Goldberg weighs in on El Rushbo's controversial statement that he hopes Obama "fails":

Here we go again. Rush Limbaugh is public enemy No. 1. Liberal bloggers and media chin-strokers are aghast at Limbaugh's statement that he hopes Barack Obama fails. Well, given what Obama wants to do, I hope he fails too. Of course I want the financial crisis to end -- who doesn't? But Obama's agenda is much more audacious. Pretty much every major news outlet in the country has said as a matter of objective analysis that Obama wants to repeal the legacy of Ronald Reagan and remake the country as a European welfare state. And yet people are shocked that conservatives, Limbaugh included, want Obama to fail in this effort? What movie have they been watching? Because I could swear that conservatives opposing the expansion of big government is what conservatives do.

European elites and visiting liberal American backpackers love Europe. All they ever see are the tourist traps. They don't see the vast numbers of welfare state lower class--many immigrants--who live, for instance, in the banlieues of Paris.

These people--and their equivalents in Germany, et al--firebomb the cars of the wealthy every night. And the liberal elites of these countries just don't get it. They think, 'we gave these people welfare and universal healthcare and public housing, what the hell more do they want!?!!'

I don't want to go off on a rant here, because what I have to say on the subject could occupy at least a fortnight's worth of my intermittent posts, but is this what you all want America to look like?

In Europe, the lib elites keep throwing more money at the masses because unlike America, there is no chance in hell of the elites ever allowing the hoi polloi to move up to the next income bracket.

This is why these types of socialist policies should never translate to America: Here, the poor don't stay poor forever. There is a lot of movement from one bracket to the next. That just doesn't happen anywhere else.

If Obama gets his way, it might not happen in America either.


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

CPAC Day 3

Matt & I agree, Saturday was the best of the three days of CPAC. And that's how it should be: Good conferences ought to build, day to day, with the final day and the final speech being the best of all. Given that Rush Limbaugh gave a great final address, I'd say mission accomplished. For the text of that speech, click here.

For most of the day, we sat dead-center, about 20 rows back from the front.

The first speech we heard was Bill Bennett's. He was President Reagan's Secretary of Education and is the author of the Book of Virtues. He was reasonable and insistent on not calling Obama's policies socialist. He said they are from the extreme liberal left wing and that they were bad, but that they weren't socialist. Fair enough.

On education, he said it is important that we teach children American history--that we teach them to be patriotic. Of course, I agree with all of this.

Ann Coulter is the funniest woman I have ever heard. She could be a straight stand-up comedian. She is all the more enjoyable because she skewers liberals. Sure, lots of what she says is inflammatory. But it's no worse, indeed, much less offensive, than what many on the left do to those on the right. She doesn't, for instance, use four letter words. Ace has got preliminary video of Coulter's speech.

Incidentally, it is one of my disappointments that I did not get to meet Mr. Ace O'Spades. There's always next CPAC.

The afternoon had panels on education reform (read: more choice--also a pet interest of ours), energy policy, and culture/Hollywood. Robert Davi, of Goonies & James Bond fame, participated in the latter panel and was fantastic. We also enjoyed an Irish couple who presented on their film which decries the human cost of global warming hysteria.

Before Rush, we got the results of the CPAC straw poll. For the 3rd year in a row, my guy, Mitt Romney, won the day. CPAC loves Mitt.

So, yeah, we came away optimistic, enthusiastic, having made a few more friends & contacts, have learned a little more about a few more issues, and with an improved vision of what we can and ought to do as conservatives in America.


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

CPAC Day 2

So I guess this is going to be more end-of-the-day review than RNC periodic update. Blame it on the fact that I have few NewsBusters duties and the limited internet access. You'd think they would have wireless access in every conference room so that anyone could sort of liveblog whatever was happening at the moment. To my mind, that would improve the connectedness between the conservative community at large and whatever is going on at CPAC.

I passed my opinion along to people who have marginally more clout than me. Which is to say that they have "no" clout rather than "negative" clout.

Let's see, what was interesting about today? We started off with a blogger meeting with Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Nothing earth shattering emerged from that meeting. The Leader, as he is known, pointed out the obvious--that it is hard to oppose the Democrats and maintain the filibuster with just 41 Senators.

We (Matt & I) attended a luncheon with Tony Blankley. I interviewed Tony at the RNC and he was as gracious today as he was then. He encouraged Republicans to quit being so earnest & make fun of the opposition. His point was that we sometimes get so caught up in the principle and winning the point, that we lose the debate and are unpersuasive. If we can poke fun at the other side--especially if it is genuinely humorous--then that can be an effective tool. I think he's right, I am sometimes guilty of being too earnest in my advocacy.

In the afternoon we listened to Ron Paul (why do so many people love this guy?) and Mitt Romney. Dear readers, the CPAC folks love Mitt Romney. We missed Newt because of the luncheon (free food), so I can't say without absolute authority, but Mitt received louder & more sustained applause & more standing ovations (several, throughout his speech) than any other person at the conference. And in line, while we waited to get into and out of the various convention rooms, everyone was talking about Romney.

Patrick, a friend of mine and a non-Mormon fan of Romney's believes that if the election were this year, Romney would, without a doubt, have been the Republican nominee and he probably would have beaten Obama. Given the current economic climate and Romney's perfectly suited skills, I find it hard to disagree.

I still have my doubts re: whether or not a Mormon can be elected President in this country, but if one is ever to be elected, Romney seems to me to have the best shot. He is a talent.

After Romney, I went to a reception with Ward Connerly (anti-Affirmative Action initiative guy) and Evil Genius Karl Rove. Connerly is one of that rare species of political being--the conservative African-American. Not only is he that, he is a leading opponent of Affirmative Action. Very impressive guy.

And of course I loved listening to Rove. He talked about his experience, sort of "growing up" in conservative politics and how much fun it had been. He gave lots of anecdotes and said that one of the best parts of the whole experience was the development of good relationships and friendships.

He said that he used to read the WaPo and NYT op-ed pages first thing every morning and then go in to talk about them with the President. He said he was the "hot head" of the White House and that the President used to get a kick out of how upset those editorials would make him. Everytime Rove would start to tell the President about how one of those papers got something wrong, Bush would say something to the effect of "in 50 years, the history books will get it right and we'll be vindicated and in 50 years we'll also be dead, so don't worry about it."

Yes, I asked Karl about the ongoing book challenge he had with the President and told him that we had taken it up. He said that they (he & the President) were giving it a rest this year because they were both busy writing their own books but that he was glad to see it was inspiring fellow challenges. My parting shot to him was that BYU would be Utah in the bball game Saturday. He just laughed.

More tomorrow.


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

CPAC Day 1

6:04pm: Just got done with a lengthy panel about 'building a conservative Hispanic coalition. This is a tough one--lots of ad hom attacks going on on both sides. Generally, we need secure borders, but everyone who wants to come here, live & abide by the law, ought to be able to come. I think part of the solution here is coming up with an easier legal way to immigrate.

And honestly, we're not going to deport or force people to deport themselves. Even if it were possible (which I doubt) we would lose a valuable ally--especially on moral & family issues--life, marriage, etc.

2:44pm: Word is that CPAC attendance is up 40% over last year--9000 vs. 7000. This affirms my earlier, superficial observation that people seemed to have recovered from the bad news of November 2008.

And they love Huck. From where I'm seated on blogger row, I can see the line stretched around the exhibition hall of people waiting, book in hand, to get it signed by the honorable former governor of Arkansas.

It will be interesting to see what sort of reception Mitt gets. IIRC, he won the straw poll here last year.

2:36pm EST: Just got done listening to Mike Huckabee & Mike Pence. Gotta get all the Mikes out of the way.

Huck knows how to work a crowd. He made a pretty compelling argument against those who have argued that fiscal, social, & foreign policy--what he called, "fiscal, family, & freedom conservatives"--can and should remain together because collectively, they hold great appeal to a majority of Americans--that it was enough for a governing majority.

Pointed out that even in states Obama won, affirmation of marriage carried the day--Florida & California being the obvious ones.

After a bit of a late start, I'm on the ground at CPAC. This place is packed with conservatives of all ages. It seems as though most people have gotten over the 2008 Presidential election hangover as enthusiasm is high. I know I say this all the time, but we are happy warriors, after all. Sorry, Barry, conservatives have always been the party of optimism.

The first speaker I had a chance to hear was Michael Barone. Like everyone else, he thinks there's a good chance Republicans pick up some seats in 2010. He also believes that Republicans have a chance a knocking off New Jersey Governor, Jon Corzine, in 2009.

Matt arrives late tonight. I'm going to see if I can get him to add his own updates tomorrow & Saturday.

Per my RNC model, check back for regular updates throughout the day.


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

Militant Atheism

Sorry for the dearth of posts over the last week. I've been traveling (NYC) and will be traveling some more this week. I'll be in DC for a little research and a whole lotta CPAC.

For those who don't know, CPAC is the big, yearly, conservative get-together. I'm going to try and blog it the way I did the RNC, as there will be lots and lots of good conservative speakers. If you're in the area and plan to attend, shoot me an email and we'll meet-up. I'm hoping for a little face-time with Mitt and my blogger-hero, Mr. Ace O'Spades.

In the meantime, here's a fantastic quote from Dinesh D'Souza about "evangelical atheists." These are the people who claim to not believe, but actively try to persuade people to not believe the way they do.

Atheists spend a lot of time thinking about the motives for belief. Why do religious people believe these ridiculous things? When you turn the tables on atheists and ask them why they don't believe, they will answer, "Because we don't have enough evidence. We don't believe because there's no proof." But if you think about it, this is an inadequate explanation, because if you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you're not going to bother with the matter. You're just going to live your life as if God isn't there.

I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.

If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you'll find that they don't even really reject Christian theology. It's not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex. The atheist looks at all of Christianity's "thou shalt nots"—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, "If these things are really bad, then I'm a bad guy. But I'm not a bad guy; I'm a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light."

Ace's commentary is also right on.

I would say more that Evangelical Atheists' zeal for fresh converts is due to their reductivist and juvenile thinking, wishing to reduce most of human evil to one underlying cause, religion. Take away religion and we live in a utopia.

I rather doubt that. I think the fault lies with us and not in the stars, or the god beyond the stars. People do all sorts of bad things and they hardly need religion as their motivation for doing so.

My experience with atheists in the academy (not as many as you might think) pretty well reflects D'Souza & Ace's.

That, and they always hate when you point out that the "great" atheist movements of the 20th century--Soviet Russia (specifically Stalin), Hitler's Germany, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge (really, I could go on)--have killed millions more than the reductivist-ly-argued, religion-motivated deaths of any or all centuries.

Take away religion--specifically, Christianity/Judaism--and the morality taught by these religions and the world becomes a pretty sucky place--do unto others, before they do unto you.


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

'The Decline & Fall Of America'

In the spirit of my earlier Anglo-American post, here's Mark Steyn on a very disturbing & possible repetition of history.

America has a choice: It can reacquaint itself with socioeconomic reality, or it can buckle its mandatory seatbelt for the same decline most of the rest of the West embraced a couple of generations back. In 1897, troops from the greatest empire the world had ever seen marched down London’s mall for Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee. Seventy years later, Britain had government health care, a government-owned car industry, massive government housing, and it was a shriveled high-unemployment socialist basket-case living off the dwindling cultural capital of its glorious past. In 1945, America emerged from the Second World War as the preeminent power on earth. Seventy years later . . .

Let’s not go there.

The Brits were fortunate enough to partner with a strong friend (the US).

With whom will we partner to guarantee our future security and prosperity?


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

Barack Obama: No Fan Of Winston Churchill

The Brits said he could keep the Churchill bust for another 4 years (or 16, once he amended the Constitution), but President Obama said, "thanks, but no thanks."

Churchill was the subject of my masters thesis--specifically, his early wartime speeches and their reception. I've admired the man since I first became aware of WWII. He is one of the greatest wartime leaders in the history of the world. Historians who know better than me, say that without Churchill at the helm during a few key moments of the war, Hitler wins.

So, yeah, I think it's dumb that Obama is getting rid of the Churchill bust. Apparently British diplomats are worried it's about more than just a piece of art. According to the article, they are concerned about the state of the "special relationship."

The rejection of the bust has left some British officials nervously reading the runes to see how much influence the UK can wield with the new regime in Washington.

Historically, the Anglo-American relationship is without peer. To my knowledge, there has been no more successful alliance in the history of the world.

Before the election, I would have said that I thought Obama was smart enough to recognize the importance of this relationship. Of course, that's what I thought about economic issues and especially free trade. Given his willingness to bow to protectionist forces despite surrounding himself with free trade economists, I'm less willing to give him the "he's too smart to do something dumb like that" benefit of the doubt.

And speaking of those economists. Who would have thought they would so quickly abandon their principles and kowtow to the President's protectionist advisors? I guess that's a reminder for all of you who thought selection of an advisor with a given set of policy preferences/academic background does not = preferred policy for the administration.

Exhibit A? The Spendulous.

(h/t Uncle Jimbo @ Ace)


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

Happy Valentine's Day, From Barry

Send a sweet V-Day card to the delusional Democrat in your life (or, really, anyone who loves politics). My brother, Matt L. (who sent me the link) and I agree, the best one is Tom Daschle's.

Our suggestion didn't even make it out of the RNC brainstorming session. I'm not quite sure why. Judge for yourself.

Have you ever had a thrill go up your leg? Would you like to?

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

'Count It Off'

Longtime friend & partner in crime, Michael J. Mouncer, emailed me the happy news last night that he had produced another music video.

The song is called, as the title of this blog post suggests, "Count It Off." According to MJ, it was made an official selection in the Music Video category at South by Southwest 2009. Congrats, Mike.


"Count It Off" - The Saturday Knights from Lincoln Leopard Films on Vimeo.

Check out MJ's write up in Seattle Weekly & Direct Link.

One year ago this week, Michael's video for The Blakes played on MTV's Subterranean. You can see his new website and the link to that video by clicking here.

My policy here at OL&L is always to support friends and readers of the blog. If you have something worthwhile and want me to call attention to it, just email me and I'll see what I can do.


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

I Am Pro-Life

If Sarah Palin doesn't become the first female President of the United States, it might be this little girl.

She's now 12 years old, the Constitution requires that she be 35, so, watch for her in 2032.



(h/t The Other McCain)


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

Bi-Partisanship Is Overrated

Early Monday morning I finished Dickens' Great Expectations. I was interested to see that he used the term "overrated."

Apparently it's a term that's been percolating for longer than Barack Obama's political career.

My bad.

Today I received an email from Matt P. I hadn't heard from Matt P. for a long time so I was glad to read what he had to say about the Spendulous bill currently being considered in House/Senate conference.

Here's Matt P.:

Your most recent blog post mentioning our new "post-partisan" era made me think of an email I received from my quite liber... err... very liberal uncle recently. He asked "Why... is the majority party permitting the bankrupt policies of the elephant party to dominate so much of the discussion surrounding the stimulus package? They don't seem to value bipartisanship, why should the Democrats?"

To me the answer is quite clear, even when accepting the premise that Democrats are not partisan and that the minority party had a huge say in anything that happened with this stymie-ulus bill. My answer, in part:

"From a purely political standpoint, if this can be portrayed as a bipartisan effort, it can be claimed as such, which would drastically reduce the overall risks of such a bill failing while maintaining the positive political upside if it were to succeed. "If we hadn't reached out the Republicans, this wouldn't have failed." Or, "If we had reached out [to] the Republicans more, this stimulus would not have been as effective."

From an ideological standpoint, I don't think that either party should place such high value [on] bipartisanship as it's much over-hyped in its importance. If you truly believe in something, you should make every reasonable effort to bring it about, especially on something as important as this. It's about making sure that the application of principle does not pull you away from that core belief. If you believe that this is our economic armageddon and the only way to avoid that is to either borrow the money or make nearly a trillion dollars out of thin air, then bipartisanship is a non-issue."

That being said, I can't stand this thing for a host of reasons, but I don't have the time to go into that.

The Spendulous was always going to pass. Regardless of its particular impact if/when it comes to pass, the economy will, eventually, recover. Democrats can then claim (in a partisan, rather than post-partisan or bi-partisan way) to have effected the recovery by passing out free condoms and building dog parks and whatnot.

They just have to hope that things are looking better in 2010. Sure, they will still be able to blame Bush, but they will be less able to. Additionally, you should not conflate Obama's popularity (now off its historic high) with the Democratic Congress'. Throughout this process, Obama has cleverly positioned himself to be able to cast off the Democratic detritas (read: Reid & Pelosi).

If something bad happens, it's because they didn't pass the bill he wanted. He'll say, 'I signed it because it was the best I could expect from those idiots.'

Incidentally, I wouldn't disagree with his characterization of Pelosi & Reid.

2012 will roll around and by then all the money he will have paid out to unions and ACORN will have filled their ranks with the real-employment-averse, but Obama-politically active, recent college graduates. This modern-day force of Obama brown-shirts will then, by hook or crook, get their man elected, again. Folks, his election team is working in the off-season.

The Spendulous is about fulfilling every liberal's spending dream of utopia and of creating a perpetual Obama machine.

It's like the water cycle we learned about back in elementary school: Vote Democrat, Democrats pass trillion dollar bill with billions of dollars for unions and "community re-organizing" groups who then contribute money and manpower to re-elect their Democratic patrons.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the problem with this cycle is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.


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

Copying George W. Bush

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

From today's Political Diary, Congressional Quarterly's Carl (Craig?) Crawford:

President Barack Obama's first prime-time press conference was most remarkable for how he borrowed a page from his predecessor, refusing to accept follow-up questions. . . . Until Bush, presidents since Calvin Coolidge had allowed reporters to ask another question based upon the answer to the first question. Often that first answer is a dodge, an attempt to stick to a talking point or a scripted answer. Bush was obsessed with avoiding follow-up questions, knowing that it is an effective tool for getting him off script. In last night's press conference, Obama cut off any attempt by reporters to follow up his answers to their questions. If he intends to maintain this Bush policy, reporters must work together and agree to ask the obvious follow-up to the previous question as they take their turns. Otherwise, these press conferences are nothing but one-sided speeches.

This is a new brand of politics.

And speaking of "post-partisan" politics, the reason they call themselves post-partisans is because they want to be able to label anyone who disagrees with them as partisans. As though partisan were a derogatory term.

Liberals have been playing this game for a long time. They were liberals (completely turning the meaning of the classical liberal on its head--turning it, in fact, so completely on its head that we now have to add the "classical" to liberal) who quit wanting to be liberals because liberal was turned into a bad word.

Now, some of them want to be called "progressives," suggesting, obviously, that anyone who opposes them must be regressive or, at a minimum, merely running in place.

The rest call themselves post-partisans, after their messianic leader.

I'm happy with conservative or partisan or, if you prefer, regressive.

(h/t Scott L.)


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

Just Another Liberal Journalist

In yesterday's post at NewsBusters, I examined the stereotypical life of a liberal journalist: privileged upbringing, radicalized in college in the 1960's (If they're of that generation. Otherwise, they just wish they'd been alive during the '60's. Ah, the good ol' days.), becomes journalism student, and so on and so forth.

You could pretty much fill in any liberal member of the mainstream media and you'd be spot on.

For the sake of accuracy in reporting, let's say that this week's typical liberal journalist is Jennifer Siebens--CBS VP and London Bureau Chief. I'm not sure why I capitalized all of her titles, though I'm sure she'd appreciate it.

CBS VP & London Bureau Chief: 'Just Another Typical Liberal Reporter'

Mothers, don't let your children grow up to be liberal journalists.


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

What A Difference Eight Years Makes

Just in case this email wasn't forwarded to you & you still think the media treats both parties & ideologies in an even-handed, fair manner:

January 21st
1. Outgoing President George W. Bush quietly boards his helicopter and leaves for Texas, commenting only: "Today is not about me. Today is a historical day for our nation and people."

Eight years ago:
1. Outgoing President Bill Clinton schedules two separate radio addresses to the nation, and organizes a public farewell speech/ rally in downtown Washington D.C. scheduled to directly conflict with incoming President Bush's inauguration ceremony.

January 21st:
2. President Bush leaves office without issuing a single Presidential pardon, only granting a commutation of sentence to two former border patrol agents convicted of shooting a convicted drug smuggler.

He does not grant any type of clemency to Scooter Libby or any other former political aide, ally, or business partner.

Eight years ago:
2. President Clinton issues 140 pardons and several commutations of sentence on his final day in office. Included in these are: billionaire financier, convicted tax evader, and leading Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich; Whitwater scandal figure Susan McDougal; Congressional Post Office Scandal figure and former Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski; convicted bank fraud, sexual assault and child porn perpetrator and former Democratic Congressman Melvin Reynolds; and convicted drug felon Roger Clinton, the President's half-brother.

January 21st:
3. The Bush daughters leave gift baskets in the White House bedrooms for the Obama daughters, containing flowers, candy, stuffed animals, DVD's and CD's, and heartfelt notes of encouragement and advice for the young girls on how to prepare for their new lives in the White House.

Eight years ago:
3. Clinton and Gore staffers rip computer wires and electrical outlets from the White House walls, stuff piles of notebook papers into the White House toilets, systematically remove the letter "W" from every computer key-pad in the entire White House, and damage several thousand dollars worth of furniture in the White House master bedroom.

Headlines 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines January 21st:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $170 million"
"Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration.

[ed. note: per an earlier correction to an earlier blog post, the $170 million spent on Obama's inauguration included security costs, etc., not included in the $42 million total spent on Bush's]

(h/t Valerie V.)


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

Thomas Sowell On RNC Chairman Michael Steele

Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite thinker-writers. An economist by trade, he has applied his many skills and ability to explain things in simple terms to the problems that afflict America.

Also, he's African-American and conservative, so liberals hate him.

Either one of those reasons (wicked smart or enemy of my enemy) would be enough for me to read him regularly, it's nice that he has both of them on lock-down.

His recent praise and appraisal of Michael Steele, the newly elected RNC chair, is dead on.

Too many Republicans don't even seem to understand the need to talk. They seem to think it is something you have to go through the motions of doing but, really, they would rather be somewhere else doing something else. . . . Michael Steele not only knows how to talk, but also seems to understand the need to talk. In his appearances on TV over the years, he has been assertive rather than apologetic. When attacked, he has counterattacked, not whined defensively, like too many other Republicans. When criticizing the current administration, Steele won't have to pull his punches when going after Barack Obama, for fear of being called a racist.

I pulled for Steele to win the Maryland Senate seat back in 2006. It was a tough year for Republicans and Steele (obviously) lost.

2+ years later, he's making lemonade and I'm glad to have him as RNC chair.

(from WSJ Political Diary, h/t Scott L.)


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

Global Warming Hits London (UPDATED)

The Daily Telegraph headline reads: Britain Paralyzed By Worst Snowfall in 20 Years.

Up to 1ft of snow fell in parts of the south east and the Pennines while most of the country was blanketed in at least four inches of it.

Forecasters are warning of worse to come and the Arctic blizzards are being treated as an "extreme weather event".

The Met Office said that it was the most widespread snowfall in Britain for 18 years.

With bus and train services out of action and drivers urged to stay off the roads, a handful of commuters took to skiing through the streets of London.

If only I had my "street" skis (as opposed to early-season, rock skis).

UPDATE 2:49pm BST: Do check out the snow-covered pictures of London posted by my flatmate, Seb.

Ice Age: Part 1
Ice Age: Part 2
Ice Age: Part 3
Ice Age: Part 4
Picasa Album

Last year, my brother, Matt, and I lived in a snowbound cabin the entire winter. From the time snow first fell in November, it persisted--w/o major melt--until April. One could climb, from the snow piles on either side of the entry, with very little difficulty, right onto the roof. The wild turkeys took shelter underneath our deck.

All of this is to say: I've seen snow, but I've never seen Londoners in snow, and let me tell you, it's great.

From our deck, overlooking the local cemetery (image courtesy Seb's Picasa album)

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.

Gen. Petraeus, American Hero, To Be Honored At Super Bowl (Bumped)

It's worth watching just for this.

I agree with Ace: if only we could get Petraeus to run for elected office in, oh, I don't know, 2012. Mind you, I'm not saying he won't, just that it's unlikely.

Petraeus/Jindal 2012.

Can you say President Eisenhower, Part II?

And for the curious, I'm supporting the Arizona Cardinals. The West is best, folks.


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