Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Flotsam and Jetsam

A Tea Party activist runs for U.S. Senate.

Israel tells Hillary Clinton to forget about a settlement freeze: “Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday that Israel could not accept the Obama administration’s demand to ‘completely’ halt activity in West Bank settlements. ‘We have no intention to change the demographic balance in Judea and Samaria,’ Lieberman said during his talks with the secretary of state in Washington. ‘Everywhere people are born, people die, and we cannot accept a vision of stopping completely the settlements. We have to keep the natural growth.'”

The Wall Street Journal editors note how little credit Netanyahu is getting for bucking his party and offering a two-state solution. “As for the Palestinians, for too long they have practiced a kind of fantasy politics, in which all right was on their side, concession was dishonor, and mistakes never had consequences. It hasn’t earned them much. Mr. Netanyahu’s speech now offers them the choice between fantasy and statehood. Judging from early reactions, they’re choosing wrongly again.”

Tom Daschle throws in the towel on the public option plan for healthcare. Daschle, Levin and Kristol – Obama really has brought us all together!

David Shuster apologizes for making up stuff about Joe Lieberman. Hasn’t he set the land record for on-air apologies, even for MSNBC?

The public likes the president but not his policies: “A substantial majority of Americans say President Obama has not developed a strategy to deal with the budget deficit, and support for Mr. Obama’s plans to overhaul health care, rescue the auto industry and close the prison at Guantanamo Bay falls well below his job approval ratings, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.”

The F-22 isn’t dead yet: “A House committee threw a wrench in the Obama administration’s plans to end Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-22 Raptor fighter program, voting instead to add $369 million in extra funding to keep production of the Air Force’s most advanced jet alive.”

Will cap-and-trade become an issue in the Virginia gubernatorial race?

Do we really want the people who gave us the dot com bubble and the housing bubble put in charge of systemic risk? Larry Kudlow thinks not. And the Washington Post editors are skeptical.

Maybe not all the uninsured people out there want health insurance.

Karl Rove describes some of the Republican ideas on healthcare and concludes: “As the debate now shifts from broad generalities to the specifics of how health-care reform would work and how the government will pay for it, the GOP has an opportunity to stop the nationalization of the health-care industry. The more scrutiny it gets, the less appealing Obama-Care will become. And the more Democrats have to talk about creating a new value-added tax or junk food taxes to pay for it, the more Americans will recoil.” And, he argues,  that “if the debate is whether to go with costly, unnecessary reforms or with common-sense changes, then Republicans have a chance to appeal to fiscally conservative independents and Democrats and win this one.”

I know you are shocked, just shocked to find out that Big Labor endorses Jon Corzine. Here, the two candidates mix it up. I suspect as long as both are talking about Corzine’s record Chris Christie is quite pleased.

In Virginia, Obama is helping raise money for Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell is recouping Republican business leaders who previously supported moderate Democratic gubernatorial candidates.

Steven Calabresi needs to stop giving Obama ideas: “We now have Obama Cars, Obama Banks, Obama Windmills, and Obama Bailouts. We have been promised Obama Health Care and, today, Obama Mortgages. My question is when will we get Obama supermarkets, Obama gas stations, Obama schools, and neighborhood Obama lemonade stands? Is there anything that Obama and the government think they cannot do better than the private sector?” The answer is “no,” by the way.

Roger Clegg observes that ” it’s always amusing when liberals try to tell conservatives how to apply our judicial philosophy, and not just because they always get it wrong. As Andy Rooney might put it: Ever notice how liberals are always telling conservatives how to apply their judicial philosophy, but conservatives never tell liberals how to apply theirs? Why is that? Well, Andy, the reason is that liberals have no coherent, objective philosophy, so it’s impossible to accuse them of misapplying it.”



Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.