Click on WORD or PDF for full content
David Warren comments on the dynamics of liberal elites seeking to enslave us with taxes and regulations.
…To the mainstream media — to that liberal elite generally — the question has not been whether we should have vast intrusive bureaucracies, but rather, what their policies should be, and how to pay for them. That is their playing field, on which they locate some “middle ground” or scrimmage line — itself shifting constantly to the left, toward some vague, Utopian endzone. It comes as an inconceivable shock to them to discover millions of people who are not merely pushing back against this “progress” — which they could understand — but want no part of the game.
Their lives are centred on family and church and productive labour, not on politics. They are often poorly informed about things they care little about; poorly researched on current rights and entitlements; real boobs when they stray into debates about such things; and thus, hicks to the politically sophisticated. The latter, in turn, know little enough about family and church and productive labour.
The problem arises between these two amorphous groups when the latter take the former to be their milch cows. …
In response to a Peggy Noonan article on her disillusionment with Obama, Ed Morrissey writes about the bad mix of an inexperienced, charismatic candidate and a biased media.
…In other words, the President has been voting “present” for most of the first five weeks of the disaster. It’s not as if it’s the first time Obama tried to avoid responsibility for an issue or refuse to show leadership. Many of us wrote extensively about Obama’s pattern of avoidance during the election — and suggested that Democrats try Obama in a lesser executive position first, such as Governor of Illinois, before nominating him for the top spot, in order to make sure he was up for the job.
Unfortunately, some conservatives such as Noonan rebutted those arguments, choosing instead to see cool competence instead of complete inexperience and a pattern of avoidance. One can do that as a legislator with few ill effects, because in the end others will choose to lead. When that person assumes the top executive job, especially without any experience and seasoning for the job, things fall apart when disaster strikes as they have here. Only those who willingly allowed themselves to be enchanted by charisma and public relations could possibly act surprised when inexperience leads to incompetence. …
…We need strong leadership, especially in times of crisis, not a man who prefers to vote present rather than lead. And we probably wouldn’t have elected Obama or even nominated him this time around if the national media had done half of the job vetting Obama that they did with Sarah Palin, an atrocious failure documented best by John Ziegler in his film Media Malpractice. …
Roger Simon comments on the Sestak allegation and how most of the media hasn’t done their jobs.
…The real issue is our media — the Fourth Estate that we all are supposed to depend on to vet these people. When Nixon was president, they did so with an alacrity hitherto unseen. With Obama, as we all know, it has been completely the reverse. The press’ record on investigating the president — as a candidate and in office — has been nothing short of embarrassing. Even at the recent press conference, the first in months, only Fox News’ Major Garrett and ABC’s Jake Tapper disported themselves as genuine journalists. The rest appeared like Izvestia wannabes at a Moscow presser circa 1962, only slightly better dressed.
So now the time has come. The public has turned against the president. The media has nothing to lose but its sad preconceptions and its laughable elitism. And there are plenty of things to investigate. Sestak is the least of it (although Dick Morris thinks it a felony). So too is the oil spill (an accident). These are not even the big stories. The big ones are about an economy that is in free fall, a foreign policy that allows dictators to flourish around the world and a Justice Department that has gone miles off the reservation. (Pajamas Media will be looking into that last one. Stay tuned.) Will new Woodwards and Bernsteins appear in the mainstream media to investigate any of these subjects? Or are they too much “true believers” to dare? So far, there is no reason to be optimistic.
In Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler fills in some of the blanks in the Sestak story.
…The initial White House response was to deny that Sestak was ever offered a job, yet Sestak stuck to his story. So someone was lying. After a week or so of Administration officials saying nothing more than there nothing “inappropriate” occurred, the President has now promised an “official” response. Oddly, the President insists that “nothing improper” happened, but is unable (or unwilling) to provide the details — details he should have at his command if he is in a position to assure the press that “nothing improper” occurred.
In the meantime, the Washington Post reports Sestak’s brother (and campaign counsel) has recently met with White House folks about the allegations and the planned White House response. What’s the point of this if not to make sure everyone gets their stories straight so the issue will go away. This sort of thing only strengthens Senate Republicans’ demand for a special prosecutor. (Of course, one wonders why Sestak told reporters about his brother’s contacts with the White House. Doesn’t he know when to shut up? Or does he have it in for someone in the White House?) …
In the WaPo, Chris Cillizza explains how White House stonewalling has strengthened the Sestak story.
…”How do you make something out of nothing?,” asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. “By acting guilty when you’re innocent.” …
…Their argument is that the White House could have pushed out an answer to the Sestak job controversy quickly but, in so doing, would have run the risk of not having all the facts of a relatively complex situation straight — making it a real possibility that they would be bludgeoned by the press if there was a mistake or inconsistency in the original statement.
Instead, they chose to conduct an exhaustive review, which led to what we expect to be a detailed document from the White House counsel’s office later today, in order to take the public relations hit and quickly move on. …
More trouble for the Obami. David Harsanyi notes that Sestak was not the only candidate to be offered a job to drop out of a Democrat primary.
…If the Democratic Party’s choice for the Senate in Pennsylvania is a fabulist — as Axelrod is effectively saying — why does Sestak’s story sound so familiar to one in the Democratic Senate primary in Colorado?
In September 2009, an article headlined “D.C. job alleged as attempt to deter Romanoff” by the Denver Post’s Michael Riley reported that Andrew Romanoff, former speaker of the Colorado House who was then still contemplating a run again against the governor-installed, administration-sanctioned foot soldier Michael Bennet, received an “unexpected communication” from a renowned kingmaker in Washington.
“Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop,” wrote Riley at the time, “suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.” …
Jennifer Rubin comments on the bad timing for the Dems.
…And boy, did they pick the wrong election cycle to pull this. The underlying gambit is bad enough, but the roll out of the explanation is potentially worse and will be thrown in Sestak’s face in the election. The stall. The lawyer swooping in with the cover story. The process of getting everyone on the same page. It is precisely what the voters are screaming about: backroom deals, evasive pols, lack of transparency, and dishonesty. …
…Obama has been compared to Jimmy Carter (in his misguided notions about the world), to Richard Nixon (in his sleazy backroom dealing and lack of transparency) and to LBJ (in his infatuation with government). Unfortunately, it appears that he embodies the worst of three unsuccessful presidents. And like all three, he may manage to drag his party down with him.