Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Karl Rove discourses on Obama’s straw man techniques.
President Barack Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln. But among the glaring differences between the two men is that Lincoln offered careful, rigorous, sustained arguments to advance his aims and, when disagreeing with political opponents, rarely relied on the lazy rhetorical device of “straw men.” Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don’t espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates.
On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, “I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.” Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.
Mr. Obama also said that America’s economic difficulties resulted when “regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.” Who gutted which regulations?
Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry? …
Barack has Tony Blankley missing Clinton.
I hate to admit it, but I miss Bill Clinton. At least that lecherous old charmer was more amusing than his successor as a Democratic president, our new mortician in chief, Barack “End of the World” Obama.
Although, our new president’s spokesman did deliver the funniest line of this so-far-not-too-funny millennium. Last week, Robert Gibbs called the president — who, in the previous couple of weeks, had talked about our economy being a catastrophe from which we might never recover — “an eternal optimist.”
I appreciate that presidential spokesmen are not always known for their candor. And putting a positive gloss on his boss’s image is barely an infraction, given the howlers that often have come from that podium. But really, one prefers one’s perfidy to be at least plausible. If our economy in a death spiral is Obama’s upbeat version of events, one can only tremble at what he would sound like if he turned a little glum. …
Abe Greenwald and Jennifer Rubin have Contentions’ posts on the budget.
Ann Coulter is getting tired of all the “African-American president” milestones.
… But as long as the nation is obsessed with historic milestones, is no one going to remark on what a great country it is where a mentally retarded woman can become speaker of the house?
Obama spent more than twice as much time in his historic speech genuflecting to the teachers’ unions than talking about terrorism, Iraq or Afghanistan. So it was historic only in the sense that Obama is the first African-American president, but was the same old Democratic claptrap in every other respect.
After claiming that the disastrous stimulus bill would create or save 3.5 million jobs — “more than 90 percent” in the private sector — Obama then enumerated a long list of exclusively government jobs that would be “saved.”
He was suspiciously verbose about saving the jobs of public schoolteachers. Because nothing says “economic stimulus” better than saving the jobs of lethargic incompetents who kick off at 2 p.m. every day and get summers off. Actually, that’s not fair: Some teachers spend long hours after school having sex with their students.
As with the Clintons, Obama so earnestly believes in public school education that he sends his girls to … an expensive private school. He demands that taxpayers support the very public schoolteachers he won’t trust with his own children.
It is one thing to tell voters that school choice is wrong, because, you know, the public schools won’t get better unless Americans sacrifice their children to the teachers’ union’s maw. But it is quite another for Democrats to feed their own kids to the union incinerator.
Consequently, no Democrat since Jimmy Carter has been stupid enough to send his own children to a public school.
And yet the stimulus bill expressly prohibits money earmarked for “education” to be spent on financial aid at private or parochial schools. Private schools might use it for some nefarious purpose like actually teaching their students, rather than indoctrinating them in anti-American propaganda.
The stimulus bill includes about $100 billion to education. By “education,” Democrats don’t mean anything a normal person would think of as education, such as learning how to talk good. “Education” means creating lots of useless bureaucratic jobs, mostly in Washington, having nothing to do with teaching. …
David Bernstein in Volokh Conspiracy has this quaint idea campaign promises were going to mean something.
Obama, in the third debate, within the first minute: “what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut…. What I want to emphasize … is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.”
Also, I wonder how Obama’s high-income supporters in high-tax, high-cost areas like NYC, California, and DC are feeling right now? According to an article I read today, the top 7% of taxpaying families make over 250K a year, while the top 1% make over 380K. So the vast majority of those affected by Obama’s tax plans are in the 250-380K range. …
The Heritage Foundation has produced a video of DC voucher kids asking the president to save their scholarships.