Thomas Frank sounds the liberal refrain that markets aren’t so smart. Aside from ignoring the very real role that government institutions played in the financial mess, he ignores the obvious: government (that would be the place inhabited by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Alan Greenspan) is worse at producing wealth and employment than the collective judgment of markets. If you doubt that, wait until you see government-run car companies.
David Ignatius worries about a “bailout nation”: “If Wall Street investment banks can get away with it, why not auto companies? And if auto companies, why not the guy who bought a house he couldn’t afford, or who maxed out his credit cards without a hope of repaying the debt? What the heck? We’re all living in bailout nation. As a prominent foreign investor observes: ‘In America, loans have gone from ‘something to be repaid’ to ‘something to be refinanced.’” But if he really believes we need to get back to taking our lumps, paying our bills, and living within our means, why favor the Obama stimulus plan?
Plan “B” for Harry Reid on the Illinois senate seat mess: stall. But that doesn’t really solve the problem — Burris has his selection in hand, and that’s his “ticket”–even if the issuer (Blago) expires.
Sen. Mitch McConnell seems rather delighted by the prospect of the Burris-Blago mess.
Tim Rutten doesn’t think much of the “blame the liberal media” defense of Chip Saltsman: “Does Saltsman really believe that Gingrich, current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan and the heads of GOP state committees in places as different as Florida and North Dakota — all of whom have pronounced themselves appalled by his bad judgment — are dupes of the liberal media’s double standards?” Saltsman would no doubt respond that it’s all a grand conspiracy to use the public outrage over his conduct to defeat his candidacy. The fact that there is public outrage, or at the least contempt for Saltsman’s cluelessness, even within conservative circles, doesn’t quite factor into his explanation.
This reminds me that D.C. representation is one of those issues which the Republicans lost a chance (while they still held the White House and could count on a filibuster in the Senate) for a better deal than what they are likely to get in the era of Democratic control. Immigration reform is another.
The Daily News pleads with Governor Paterson to end this thing. (If you are a betting person, you might want to sell short on Caroline on Intrade.)
Helping to spin the Gray Lady’s defense that it didn’t explicitly accuse Vikki Iseman of having an affair with John McCain, this reporter neatly omits mention of the Times’ own mea culpa. Public Editor Clark Hoyt had no problem acknowledging: “The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance. . . I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.” If I were Iseman’s attorney I’d put Hoyt at the top of the deposition list.
Thank you – and to the (in my view very great) extent that the top post is accurate, it will be up to the rest of us to unwind all of the ways in which Obamanomics touches upon other issues – up to and including the competence and integrity of his Untouchable Elegance himself.
Furthermore, if we believe what we claim to believe, perhaps we should give up trying to be popular in the immediate term. We have zero chance of competing with the new teacher for favor while he’s doling out second, third, and fourth helpings of cake and fruit punch to the hungry and thirsty children. We should want every one of the (according to latest Obamanaut-cited polls) 198.87% who approve of Obama to have identified us as the miserly goody-two-shoes types endlessly urging our classmates to restrain themselves, while warning of stomach aches and parental disapproval.
That doesn’t mean we’ll win, but it does mean we’ll have a chance of being in a position to win – and no one knows when the chance will come. The sheer insanity of Obama’s plans, likely to be rendered chaotic as well as spendthrift once Nancy & Harry are done with them, may make the moment come a lot sooner than any of us dared to hope, but I wouldn’t bet on a sudden mass awakening from pleasant hope’n'change dreams.
“A whopping 74% of the respondees identified their most important goal as shrinking the size of government.” — JR
Cool. Run on it. But first, what gives you the credibility to run on it? Name a Republican president who has ever cut the size of government. Reagan and both Bushes generated huge deficits. Forty percent of the earmarks in the pending budget were generated by Republicans in Congress.
And when you start getting specific about what you are going to cut, let’s see how popular you are.
3 questions for voters are starting to take shape now and for 2010:
1. are we safer thus far under obama than we were before obama? considering the announced closing of guantanamo, a deadline date for leaving iraq and a preference to significantly cut defense spending, i’d say LESS safe.
2. are we on surer footing in the financial markets now or before obama? I’d say, seeing the Dow’s continuing decline since obama took office, a trillion dollar spending package, a budget that will explode the deficit and an attitude that appears to declare war on investors, i’d say we’re on LESS sure footing.
3.are we a morally better nation than we were before or after obama took office? i’d say, considering the dangling of our possible participation in the outrageously anti-semitic durban II conference coupled with our “reaching out” to thug-actors like iran,syria and hamas, i’d say we’re LESS moral.
#2
Maybe you can assume that JR is a Republican, I don’t know. But fiscal responsibility certainly isn’t limited to Republicans. It’s actually astonishing that more Democrats haven’t stepped forward to question a program that endorses profligacy at a level that can’t be accepted at anywhere but the federal level. No individual, family, city, county or state could hope to solve its financial problems with the methodology adopted by this congress and president. The fact that there appears to be such favorable poll numbers and there is so little divergence in opinion amongst the utopians is deeply, deeply disturbing. A budget that even now probably no one has read in its entirety, a budget of humongous proportions, literally dwarfing any previous one, is accepted without examination or criticism solely because it is the product of the opposition to Bush and their substanceless figurehead. It shows something truly pathological in the body politic.
Or, if you don’t like the cake and punch metaphor, it suggests someone who has unwisely rushed into a new relationship while on the rebound from one that ended badly. It’s still a bit early to be looking in the mirror – but there must be 50 ways etc.
I just saw a former Romney advisor agree with the Dem consultant that the R’s can not be the party of NO.
First, I think we have to stop agreeing with the Dems/Left so much. Can we say No to bankrupting our country, to increasing the share of government to 40%, to unemployment of between 8 and 10 percent? I say yes, we can say No to this.
I mean really, how stupid is this person?
And then there’s the Bloomberg piece on the economist Tobin. All conservatives should really read this. This guy grew up in the Depression and wanted a society with 0 percent unemployment and advocated Keynesian ways of achieving this.
But the important thing is to read the article and look at the people he has impacted.
Can R’s actually stand up a say that these people believe in a fairytale from the past?
The US has a choice. High Unemployment, Slow growth, Large re-distributions of money from the monied class to people who will never have a chance to be middle class.
The blue collar people who support cap and trade are trading a future of reduced job prospects for an government check.
Here’s the Bloomberg link
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ajz1hV_afuSQ&refer=home
I have very simple standards. If you run for elective office, especially president, be honest about your policy goals. Last time I checked, Obama didn’t run on the “failed Democratic policies of the past ticket.” He was a moderate, or so we were so often told. They called President Tyler “His Accidency” Maybe we should call Obama “His Fraudulency.”
This is going to get worse before it gets better. We saw the new modus operandi with the stimulus bill. Obama proposes a dramatic bill and describes it in broad outlines, then entrusts Pelosi and Reid to work out the details. Obama is the salesman, the leader, the figurehead, and he tries to give a patina of bipartisanship to the whole process, while Pelosi and Reid are the plumbers. So if you’re mortified by what Obama has proposed, just wait until he entrusts Pelosi and Reid with working out the specifics.
Obama still has relatively high numbers because he’s new, the American people want him to do well, and he’s able to cover what he’s doing in the most dishonest political rhetoric we’ve seen in generations. The more the American people learn about his policies and the more they see their effects, the less support Obama will have. Republicans need to be there, ready and waiting, having foretold that this was a bad idea, and having supplied alternative proposals that would have better served the nation.
But I think we all need to start brainstorming some concrete ideas for how to oppose this. So let me throw a few out. (1) We should start a website called Conservative Alternative, or etc., a place where everyone knows they can go and see the *alternative ideas* that conservatives are putting forth. For every single bill or proposal the Democrats put out there, the Republicans need to put their alternative in a single, easy-to-find location. (2) Refuse to give Obama the *appearance* of bipartisanship if he and Pelosi/Reid are not going to give the *substance* of bipartisanship. The next time he invites the Republicans for a kegger at the White House, they should refuse to go unless they’re promised a seat at the negotiating table. This will draw attention to how false and superficial his “bipartanship” has been. (3) Once again I propose a Business Contract with America, where the signatories pledge to fight for pro-business and pro-energy policies that will actually boost employment and the economy generally; this would nationalize the 2010 elections and make possible a major change in the composition of the Senate or House.
And (4), stop talking about what a marvelously talented politician and mesmerizing orator Obama is. In interviews, be completely unimpressed. If pressed on it, shrug your shoulders and say “Yeah, he gives a nice speech. But he’s going to ruin our economy. That’s not impressive. That’s not talent.” To tell the truth, having spent a fair amount of time in African-American churches, I’ve seen dozens of speakers who are better than he. When it comes to intelligence, he can’t hold a candle to George Will or Charles Krauthammer. And when it comes to extemporaneous speaking, he’s certainly not in the same league as a Rush Limbaugh or a Newt Gringrich. And thus far I’m not seeing organizational talent or any real understanding of how his words and policies are going to backfire on him. Everyone seems to think that marveling over his talent is a way to show that you’re balanced or willing to give credit. But it’s building up the myth of Obama the Untouchable. Stop. Please.
There once was a pundit named Greenwald
Not, Abe, but Glenn Roger Greenwald
He’s very prolific at Salondotcom
To me it sounds like Stalindotcom
He’s not very modest
He calls Krauthammer dishonest
He does not like surveillance or Israel’s wars
The people around him are terrible bores
A keen fan of Noam Roger Chomsky
He doesn’t like Natan Sharansky
He thinks Moyers is bright
He’s just picking a fight
That regrettable pundit, Glenn Greenwald
Agree with much of what you have to say, Ahithophel, though the “reject the martinis & Wagyu” option might be one to hold in reserve for a little while longer – unless you’re ready to extend the boycott at the next opportunity to everything that the Congress does as well.
I also seriously wonder if what has quickly become CW among Republican pols – that they must avoid at all costs being branded the “party of ‘no’” – should be accepted. It’s pretty darn wimpy and boring to be the party of “yes, sir – thank you, sir – can I please have a little more, sir.” Even when conservatives present a detailed and thoughtful alternative, it’s going to be dismissed and ignored or distorted and demagogued anyway, not least by the President, who has no difficulty flagrantly mischaracterizing Republicans and their proposals to the small extent he acknowledges their existence.
Second, “Party of No” is easy to remember and, given what’s being proposed, remarkably easy to support and unify around. Maybe we need a party of HELL NO. If anyone wants concrete alternatives, then they can be directed to the web site you propose – a fine idea – but the left didn’t undermine Bush’s Iraq policy in the eyes of the public by advancing a sensible alternative. Obama is proposing to hijack the government for a generation at least and leave bankrupt ruins and piles of $1 Trillion Dollar notes divvied up to the last by liberal mandarins. There’s not much compromising to be done with that, and talking about it as though there is merely extends the period during which the variously euphorized, inattentive, and fear-stricken citizenry can pretend something normal enough to ignore is going on.
Party of No, Party of Hell No – whatever – Republicans with a national soapbox should think about breaking through the haze with acts of political daring recalling the “Drill Baby Drill” revolt that – back in what now seems like another era – they had the Democrats on the run on energy policy. In the meantime, let the Democrats have complete ownership of the program they seem intent on forcing down all our throats. What purpose can Republicans serve when their mere presence legitimizes a 10-year budget plan that, even if you accept its fantastical premises, promises a yearly federal deficit whose low is in the $500 B range before starting to balloon again. To pare – a la Snowe, Collins, and Specter – the $500 B fantasy down fantastically to $450 B? Why play it safe?
Yes, but the pundit class is missing all this, as well as the fact that Obama seems to be laying the seeds for the rapid destruction of his party’s majority through completely irresponsible economic planning. The pundits keep wagging their fingers at Republicans, remonstrating that the GOP “may pay a price” for not supporting Obama’s programs. The fact that Arlen Specter now looks virtually assured of losing his Senate seat, either in the primary or the general, should be an antidote to this idea, as should the fact that for all the Gergen-esque hyperventilating over Obama’s brilliance, people are generally worse off than they were two months ago.
I think what sunk the Rs is the promise of the Laffer curve, viz. the way to grow government revenues is to grow the economy and the way to do that is cut taxes. This opened the Rs to idea that fiscal discipline is unnecessary. More importantly, it left the “Great Society” vision untouched. Before Reagan it used to be said of the Rs that they wanted the “Great Society” only less. Is that where the Rs are headed now? Yet some might say that under Bush the Rs wanted the “Great Society” only more. Now we are getting the more, way more more. To push the Ds back, way back, an entirely different vision needs to be advanced. How about saying that as the economy grows, through low taxes, more and more “government” functions, like education, or potential “government” functions, like health care can and will be and SHOULD be provided for in the normal economy. And while we are at it, why not try reverting the the idea that to the extent that government has a role in the normal functions of civil society, like education, transportation, commerce, etc. the states rather than the federal government should retain the lion’s share of these responsibilities and claw back those functions that have been usurped by the Feds. Time to put Education, Commerce and Transportation on the chopping block. We ought to consider the FDA, SEC, EPA, and, of course, the Federal Reserve too. And many more.
The most stunning thing about the President’s speech and the proposed budget is the absence of any recognition that America is in a war to the death with militant Islam. Does he really think that not mentioning Islamic terror, not using the term ‘jihad’ or ‘war’ will make it all go away? I suppose that’s to be expected of someone who embodies the therapeutic culture of post-modernism. All disputes can be ‘reframed’ to make them into mere words to be debated and negotiated. Meanwhile, Iran will soon have nukes and the Obama supporters will scream that it’s all W.’s fault for not making nice with the mullahs.
#1: “the (according to latest Obamanaut-cited polls) 198.87% who approve of Obama ”
Polls can be cited dishonestly; but they are not,
all of them, meaningless.
Naturally, a president’s approval rates during the honeymoon
are high; the real story is in the trends.
Today’s Rasmussen “Obama Approval Andex” is 8 – the lowest since inaugiration.
The peak was at 30, on Jan 22.
I don’t believe that blaming Bush can suffice to sustain
Obama’s popularity for long; or that small gifts to various
groups can outweigh the massive growing misery; or that
hearing a new speech of his every day will become an addiction
to most people.
So what will he do when his ratings fall?
Just go on? Issue new promises? Modify his policies?
Change his message, or his image, or his team? Triangulate?
Burn a Reichstag? Start a war?
#14: typo in the word “inauguration”
It would depend on a) how far and fast , b) when, and c) why they fall, and, I suppose, d) whether the O-team can fruitfully personalize the conflict as His Eloquent Elegance vs. the evil divisive ones, whoever they may be.
Your presumption seems to be that impatience with economic conditions will be key. So the first thing he’d be likely to do would be to plead for patience. Second would be to attack, or pretend to attack, the most acute suffering. Third would be to find and highlight any evidence that conditions were improving or about to improve. Fourth would be to isolate the leader of the opposition and confront him or her on some major issue that seizes public attention (see, e.g., Clinton vs Gingrich on the government shutdown or Reagan vs the Air Traffic Controllers).
As for wars and civil disturbances, real or artificial, I don’t see those as particularly likely or fruitful avenues for him and his coalition, unless the US or major ally or interest is attacked first, in which case he’d have no choice but to respond. I do think it’s quite possible that, if the aroma of incompetence and incoherence around his foreign policy continues to spread, and adversaries begin to test and probe, he may even be compelled to over-react in order to prove himself. That was always one of the great dangers in letting someone like him take the office.
One way or another, it’s in the lap of the gods. He has the advantages of the office and the strength of his coalition on one side, and on the other he has a potentially very uncooperative world, some profoundly counterproductive policies, and the potentially immense difficulties that anyone attempting to re-arrange our political, economic, and social order would face. (My suspicion is that part of the reason he’s put out such a ridiculous budget plan is to shock, frighten, and awe the opposition and the public.)
I think the reason he put out the budget is that he thinks he can. That is is a good starting point. If he gets everything, great…if he gets 90 percent, that’s ok too, because it is just a downpayment.
Unfortunately R’s are a little late to the party on the two biggies.
Cap and trade, R’s have already gone there done that, so they can only now quibble (and be the party of No). Lately they’ve started whining about nuclear. Well, sorry guys…the education of the American people should have started a long time ago.
Even Sec. Chu sounded a reasonable note a couple of weeks ago, but the R’s have so far failed to pick up on it.
Universal Health Care. Mostly me-too-ism from the R’s. (expect, maybe they say they’ll try to keep it small only to later have the costs balloon out of control later)
Think of it this way….the Dems/Left are seen as being on the high ground…ground that was ceded by the R’s over the course of the last 15 years.
The R’s have been more interested in their offices and golf games and media appearances. They bring their golf clubs to the knife fight thinking that they’re gonig for a round of golf. Any knowledgeable person should have been reading CAP and Campaign for America’s Future and started early.
The R’s would rather wait until the Dems overreach. Very stupid strategy if you ask me.
As usual, Ahithopel and CKM have good things to say. (Ahithopel, I occasionally lurk at Swampland, and it was hilarious the time you showed up there and tried to engage the libs in serious, respectful discussion. They jumped you with screams of “troll” (which is telling, since I thought Time wasn’t supposed to be a boutiquey website where only one point of dominates), and engaged in the worst ad hominem attacks. I found it interesting since here we generally treat leftie guests with respect.)
I am concerned about the “Party of No” label, but CKM suggests the way to fight it: Republicans should snappily respond that they are not the party of no, but instead are simply refusing to be the “Party of Yes” – a party that says yes to all Obama’s bad ideas just to please commentators who lust for bipartisanship. Then, yes, there should be a clearinghouse for what the actual conservative alternatives are. Politicians are incapable of really doing that when they’re in the minority because they’re too busy fighting with other members of the minority so as to position themselves for future leadership. The grassroots will have to lead, just as Kos and Josh Marshall very successfully formed the leading edge of opposition to Bush from 2001 to 2006.
So where is our grassroots thinktank website?
Obama has been great for gun and ammo sales. Now he is great for sales of ” Atlas Shrugged” , capitalism and the cause of fiscal conservatism. What gifts will he give us next?
RAH – the next thing he’ll be great for is sales of Spam and generic Cheerios, because that’s all we’ll be able to afford to buy.
Ted Turner, yeah, that was interesting at Swampland. I more or less committed to visiting there periodically and trying to present an articulate defense of conservative positions. But I have to drag myself over there, out of a sense of duty. I don’t really enjoy it.
I generally thank serious lefties who come here and defend their points of view. It enriches the discussion, and prevents us from falling into echo chambers. But it was interesting. I was not being harshly critical, but I think the fact that I disagreed with Joe Klein inflamed the partisans over there.
Anyway, I think you may be right about the need for grassroots leadership to rise up and press the Republican party toward more conservative principles and more effective policies. Having a website like “ConservativeAlternative,” a single place where people can go to see the conservative alternatives to every piece of Obama’s legislative agenda, would seem like an obvious thing to do. Where are the exciting ideas coming out of the Republican National Committee? The battle lines are more clearly drawn than they have been in a long time. This is a time for fidelity to core principles but creativity and passion on shaping the message.
Fiscal responsibility is fine and well, but Republicans need to stand up and counter Democrat lies. They need to explain how Dems are lying to the public and why their policies are so destructive. They also need to point out the rank deception perpetrated by the detested Media elites who shill for the Dems 24/7.
Alas, they won’t even point out that the Dems started the economic crisis when they took control of Congress. The Republican party is hopelessly incompetent.