Conservatives Are from Earth, Liberals Are from Another Galaxy

That's the only explanation I have for the convenient amnesia on display by whackjobs on the Left. Ok, maybe it's only Delaware that's filled with idiots and jackasses who say things like:

Pandora: The 2000 election was a very sore spot, Sharon, but hardly comparable. But allow me to point out that liberals didn’t form cells or promote secession.

I’ll also point out that everyone came together over 9/11.

Really? They weren't calling for secession? Well, I guess this is ok with Pandora:



But did they want President Bush to succeed? Well, not exactly.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Hmm. That certainly sounds like failure. And on the morning of September 11, 2001, too. Of course, Carville is pissed that the story is out now, and has been quick to argue that he retracted his statement...after the airplanes crashed into the WTC.

Now, that was pretty amazing, don't you think? I mean, all it took was a terrorist attack for liberals--yes, Delaware Dem, high profile Democrats--to decide they didn't want President Bush to fail. But don't worry. It didn't take long for liberals to start wanting President Bush to fail again. Old habits die hard.

I was floored that there was a human being stupid enough to claim, as Pandora and the other Dumbaware Liberals claimed, that they were all highly supportive of President Bush when he was selected elected. Given the amazing vitriol slung at GWB for eight years, you would have to be an absolutely pathological liar--or from Delaware, I suppose--to try to argue how much better George Bush was treated than Barack Obama.

The Vast Leftwing Conspiracy

It's real and it's coordinated.

The vast new left-wing conspiracy sets its tone every morning at 8:45 a.m., when officials from more than 20 labor, environmental and other Democratic-leaning groups dial into a private conference call hosted by two left-leaning Washington organizations.

The “8:45 A.M. call,” as it’s referred to by members, began three weeks ago, and it marks a new level in coordination by the White House’s allies at a time when the conservative opposition is struggling for a toe-hold and major agenda items like health care reform appear closer than ever to passage.

The call has helped attempts to link the Republican Party to radio host Rush Limbaugh, and has served as the launching ground for attacks on critics of Obama’s policy proposals. It springs from a recognition of what was lacking in the Clinton years, said Jennifer Palmieri, the senior vice president for communications at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, one of the groups hosting the call.

Wow.

We've heard the Left gritch and moan for 20 years about the vast rightwing conspiracy. Now we have an actual coordinated effort from the Left to ensure their talking points are repeated. And repeated. And repeated.

Of course, this really is unsurprising, given our Teleprompter president, who uses a technological cheatsheet to stay on point and not actually answer legitimate questions. And, quite frankly, it makes sense for a president to employ as many "friends" as possible to reinforce his message. Especially when you're killing more jobs.

Allahpundit has more.

Quote of the Day

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

--James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, 21 January 1792

Someone needs to tell the president and Congress.

I Agree with Patterico

That neither Rush Limbaugh nor David Frum speak for me as a conservative.

I know that must come as a shock to guys like Mike G., who thinks anyone who supports conservative principles must genuflect at the Rush altar. But, believe it or not, I've disagreed with Rush about things and I've agreed with him on others. And David Frum is the same way.

I've actually agreed with Frum that conservatism needs a makeover, complete with new ideas and ways of approaching voters, such as Latinos, who have lots of values in common with us but who see the GOP as anti-Hispanic. But when Frum lobs childish sneers at Rush and downplays the seriousness of Bill Clinton's impeachment, then I have to declare that he doesn't speak for me.

Patterico notes that Frum's Newsweek piece says,

With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party.

Limbaugh's personal life and problems are not the issue. No party that supported Mr. Blow Jobs in the Oval Office and Mr. "I used a little blow" has room to complain about another man being fat, divorced, or having drug addiction problems. But when supposed conservatives elevate these ridiculous taunts to the same level as policy debates, it gives a legitimacy to those sneers that they don't deserve.

What liberals hate about Rush Limbaugh isn't that he's fat, had multiple divorces, or was addicted to Oxycontin. What they hate about Limbaugh is that he is effective. This is why when a conservative makes an argument that Limbaugh has made, that person is called a "dittohead" (as a perjorative), whether that person actually heard Limbaugh say the same thing or not. I listen to Rush on a regular basis, but I also listen to lots of other shows, many of which disagree with Limbaugh on a variety of issues. None of them speaks for me 100%.

But it's hard to back any of Frum's argument when he calls Bill Clinton's impeachment an event that makes him feel "silly" for supporting it. What is silly about supporting impeachment for a man who lied under oath, obstructed justice, abused his power and tried to punish those with whom he disagreed? For the liberals who argue that George W. Bush deserved impeachment, one can at least counter that his behavior was driven by national security. Clinton's were driven by his own ego and libido.

When Rush Limbaugh makes points with which I agree, I can say so. And the same goes for David Frum. But the Democrat tactic of elevating Limbaugh to GOP spokesman offends more than just uninformed moderates and independents. It offends me, as well.

Different President, Different Response

Via Brothers Judd.

Ok, So, There Really Are Worse Presidential Kitch Than the Obama Blanket

The Ronald Reagan Bedroom Slippers.

Somebody Get This Nutjob a Copy of the Constitution

Because she thinks the purpose of Congressional representation is to bring home the bacon.

You’ve heard all about earmarks. They’re Really Bad Things that congresscritters do.

Actually, they’re the reason they get elected and re-elected. Earmarks, or pork, or whatever you want to call it is nothing more than what our elected representatives have done for decades. In fact, it’s pretty much the reason we send ‘em to Washington: to bring back stuff for their districts and states. Go to any Rotary Club meeting, or Chamber of Commerce where the legislators are in attendance and you’ll hear all about what s/he has brought home. That’s how they grade ‘em — by how much federal money they directed to the home boys.

I don't know what goes on at the Rotary Club meetings, but I'm pretty sure that the Constitution doesn't say anything at all about your right to swipe some other taxpayer's money for your pet project. But the real point of this rant post was to complain about those blue dog Democrats who aren't genuflecting before Teh One at every opportunity.

UPDATE: Here is another example of whackjobbery from the same source:

Wanna know what I think? I think that 1) the so-called experts have no fucking idea what they’re talking about and 2) the investors are a buncha kids who are playing high-stakes games of chicken with money.

That’s a pretty ugly thing to do, really. It messes with people’s livelihoods. You and I, and the managers of most of our retirement funds, generally take pretty good care of our money. But when greedy sons of bitches are playing chicken with the money, it screws it up for everybody. You can’t be conservative enough in the stock market to stay ahead of the assholes who are out to make millions at the expense of everybody else.

Ah, the all important "they." The "Other." The greedy people who mess up the system for "the rest of us." Nevermind that most people have 401(k)s and/or mutual funds, making us all some of "they," because we, too, have a stake in the system. That would be too confusing to admit.

The problem? Well, it's capitalism, of course!

That’s the problem with unfettered capitalism. I have no problem with capitalism. Kinda like it, really. I have what I need, and a fair amount of what I want, even a few things I only think I want. Contrary to the depiction of liberals put out by the Supreme Leader of the GOP lately, I am not in favor of socialism, nor am I an unhappy liberal. I’m quite content.

Well, not really content.

The Ayatollah Limbaugh, for example, has god knows how many cars, because “I like nice cars,” along with five houses. He’s not married, he has no children. Just a cat. And a $35 million contract.

Far be it for me to say that he’s a greedy son of a bitch, but come on. Who needs all that?

Ok, so she's not a socialist. She's a communist.

But seriously. Why does Rush Limbaugh's pay depend upon what he needs? Why isn't it based on his abilities (which, actually, it is)? Does the "newswriter" rail against Hollywood actors or basketball players who make millions per year, as well?

Here's a tip for "Newswriter": the reason Rush Limbaugh makes millions while you're stuck answering the phones for 12 bucks an hour is that somebody thinks his talent is worth it. In other words, he brings in advertising rates (makes money!) for those stations that carry his program. And "Newswriter"? Not so much.

It's always amusing when someone wants to argue that Rush--or any other person making over $250k per year--doesn't "need" the money he earns, because these same people would be aghast at someone telling them to take a 50% pay cut because they don't "need" what they earn. The fact that Rush's talent is more valuable just shows that anyone with intelligence and ingenuity can succeed. But those who don't have it just sit back and whine.

It Matters Where You Went to School

Everybody knows that it really does matter where you went to college. If you have an Ivy League education, you will probably have more doors opened to you than if you went to an ag college.

This isn't to say you can't get a fine education at an ag college. But it's not an Ivy League school. Well, unless you're Keith Olbermann slamming Monica Goodling as a graduate of "Religious Lunatic University." Then, you get the Ann Coulter treatment.

And Ann squashes Keith flat. How do we know that? Because Olbermann drags out the whole we have the same degree crap when he's caught being an elitist, pompous jerk.

Well, truth be told, I, too, went to a satellite school of the University of Texas because it was cheaper and I paid for it myself. And here's Dirty Secret Number Two: I even went to a junior college for two years before transferring in to a U.T. school. And guess what, Keith? If I pull out my undergraduate degree (you know, the only one you've got), it says "University of Texas" on it, just like every U.T. alumnus. I don't have a qualifier on mine showing I didn't get it in Austin or anything like that.

But unlike you, Keith, I understand that, yes, there really is a difference in getting your degree from the University of Texas and getting it from UTEP, and so I never misrepresent my degree as being from U.T. Which, I suppose, is a step up from you, who, seemingly, can't differentiate between a degree that cost tens of thousands of dollars and one that cost a few thousand.

And even beyond this, as Ace points out, just because the other people don't laugh at you to your face doesn't mean they don't snicker about you behind your back.

Olbermann claims he's never heard other Cornell alums differentiate between the different colleges, and that they all believed themselves "equal."

No offense, Keith. You thought that because you were at the weaker, less-selective school. And you didn't hear it because people were just being nice.

Trust me, I heard a lot of this, and I didn't even go to a great school. But yeah, the people at the more-selective college did get annoyed when those from the less-selective colleges would claim to have come from our college. Like deliberately misstating which college they actually attended in the yearbook.

Petty, yes, but people are petty.

Again, I'm sure you, at the state ag school, thought you were all equals. The kids at the pricey, tony, more-selective Ivy private college didn't.

People who went to junior college, then transferred to Cornell would get the same degree, too, Keith, assuming that option is available. But I'm sure you wouldn't want those people telling everyone that their degrees were as good as yours, right? Because it really does matter--to you, at least--where people go to school.

Post of the Day

I love this post on Ace of Spades titled Judge Smacks Down Birther Suit.
There is only so much stupidity that even the law can countenance.

Shorter Josh Marshall

Wah, wah, wah. We liked these tactics when they worked in our favor. Now, not so much.

Did Obama "Regift" DVDs?

I really hate regifting as tacky and rude, but you have to wonder if that's what President Obama did when he gave British Prime Minister Gordon Brown 25 DVDs as a "thoughtful gift" exemplifying the "special relationship" between the United States and Great Britain.

For despite being leader of the world's most bountiful nation, President Obama handed over nothing more thought-provoking than 25 classic American films on DVD.
It was the equivalent of receiving a pair of socks from an unfamiliar aunt at Christmas - and a less-than-glowing affirmation of the UK-US bond.

Despite being a 'special collector's box set', any film buff could have picked up the movies from their local video store for just £250.
It is not clear what the Prime Minister - not believed to a great fan of cinema - thought about receiving the films.

Remember how outraged the Left was at what a clod George W. Bush was? How he lacked manners and was an embarrassment? Remember how the world will respect us because Teh One is so sophisticated?

Well, maybe the Muslim world likes Obama (or not), but the Anglosphere probably isn't impressed. But then, I'm sure Brown is too classy to complain about the uncouth behavior of Teh One.

Ok, I have no reason to believe that Teh One did something as cheap and tacky as regift a set of DVDs to the British Prime Minister, but given that so many on the Left argued about how electing Obama would improve our standing in the world, you have to wonder what possessed them to do something this vulgar.

Obama Going Gray?

Aww.



His policies are making the rest of us gray, too.

Obama-Proofing Your Investments

Happy Sex Workers Rights Day!

No, I'm not making this up. Via Feministe:

Check out SWOP-USA for more information on events taking place today, namely a potluck dinner in NYC.

Because, you know, a potluck dinner is the perfect way to celebrate prostitution.

I can't help but compare this with Echidne's latest complaint about the Quiverfull Movement (the post is titled Today's Unfortunate Thought):

I'm not at all happy with the dogma of the Quiverfull movement. It explicitly denies women's equality and women's rights to their own bodies (which are seen as just on loan from god who wants women to have children) and it also ignores the population pressures on this planet. Why are all fundamentalists always about the total control of women?

Presumably, she'd have no problem whatsoever if the same women were selling their bodies to celebrate their, er, natural abilities. Or something.

The Truth About Modern Health Care

From Victor Davis Hanson's latest column:

The cost of health care is spiraling out of control, and not just because the proverbial evil “they” (fill in the blank: pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, medical corporations, trial lawyers, etc.) charge too much. Such profit-mongering entities may well gouge us, owing to a lack of competition, fear of lawsuits, or government mandates and interference. Yet the larger culprit is, of course, we the people. The cost of our health care is soaring because, to be frank, that health care is usually very good, and it does things routinely that almost no one else in the world contemplates — such as providing 83-year-olds with heart-valve replacements, 78-year-olds with hip and knee replacements, and those who drink, smoke, and are chronically obese with drugs and weekly doctor visits...

If we wish to get health-care costs under control, then we should at least be honest with the American people and admit that we are all paying a collective fortune largely for three reasons: (1) to keep functioning into their 60s those who drank, smoked, and ate too much and in a past era would have passed on at 60; (2) to give us all an extra three to five years of mobility and functionality after we reach 75; (3) to fit us up with IVs, feeding tubes, and respirators so that in our last six months of life we can die in a rest home or among machines and specialists in a hospital rather than in our own home with a few morphine tablets for pain and a bowl of soup with a straw on the nightstand...

Again, health care is expensive because Americans, with some good reason, have decided that the ancient tragic view — we all age and break down, and pay for the sins of our 20s and 30s in our 50s and 60s — can at last be replaced by the therapeutic promise of vigor and health into our 80s.

Health care costs will be controlled under socialized medicine because that's the only way care can be provided for everyone. More money is spent on prenatal care, babies and children than on adults, because it is more cost-effective.

To put it another way, my father had a double bypass at 75, a move which gave him an extra six years of life. Under socialized medicine, it is unlikely he would have been given this life-saving procedure because he was "too old." Like my grandfather in England, he probably would have been told to go home and play with his grandchildren until he keeled over because he had lived long enough.

I don't think Americans will accept limitations on their care based on costs. Americans expect that if a medication or procedure is available, they can (and should be able to) get it. This sense of entitlement will leave Americans sorely disappointed when they are given a cane instead of a knee replacement at 60.

Those Selfish Rich People

Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

How dare they cut back their productivity!

What Is It With Democrats and Taxes? Part 5

Trade nominee Ron Kirk agrees to pay back taxes.

Ron Kirk, nominated as U.S. Trade Representative in the Obama administration, owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to make his payments, the Senate Finance Committee said Monday.

Democrats don't worry about raising taxes since they don't pay them.

DOJ Nominee Shocked by Her Own Words?

Thanks to Chuck Serio, we learn that Indiana law professor Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, is "shocked" at her own words: that "involuntary pregnancy" is slavery.

During questioning by Sen. Arlen Specter, the professor professed to be “shocked” by my contention that she had once analogized pregnancy to involuntary servitude, a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of slavery. I made this contention in a profile of Johnsen for the current (March 9) issue of National Review, which was posted on NRO on Monday.

I think the shock is on the other foot, for two reasons. First, Johnsen did make this jaw-dropping argument to the Supreme Court. And second, in her hearing testimony, she nevertheless flatly denied making a Thirteenth Amendment argument: “This is a brief that I filed arguing that the right to privacy protects, um, the right of women and their families to make these choices and that Roe v. Wade should be upheld, which is in 1989. I made no Thirteenth Amendment argument.”

But, as is usual for Democrats, Johnsen lied. She did, in fact, make a Thirteenth Amendment argument that actually giving birth to one's children constitutes slavery if one did not want to be pregnant but couldn't kill the baby before birth.

We've seen this argument all over the blogosphere (most notably, this nutjob, who makes exactly this argument longly and loudly wherever it goes). What's new here, of course, is that we haven't seen someone nominated for a high position make it.

Before getting to that, though, let’s set the stage. Here is what Johnsen argued in footnote 23 of the amicus brief she filed (as the head of the National Abortion Rights Action League) in the Supreme Court’s 1989 case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989) (No. 88-605):

Statutes that curtail [a woman’s] abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.

This line of argument was not an aberration. It is consistent with a major theme of the brief, to wit, that abortion restrictions result in “forced pregnancy” and government “conscription” of the woman’s body for its own purposes. Thus, for example, Johnsen wrote elsewhere in the brief: “[The woman] is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends.” Consequently, she concluded, abortion restrictions “reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.

Needless to say, this line of horse hockey has been difficult for Johnsen to defend, thus her assertion that she didn't make this argument. Unfortunately for her, no amount of "um"-ing makes up for the fact that she has, in fact, argued that constraints on abortion--any constraints, mind you--are comparable with slavery. And liberals wonder why we think they are extremists?

Olbermann Watch

Gotta love this post.

Obamanomics

Here's a chart I stole from Flopping Aces:



The markets have lost nearly 400 points just this week, for a total of 2,124.37 since Election Day. Of course, liberals are still blaming George W. Bush, but it's pretty hard to blame the former president when the markets dip dramatically every time Teh One opens his mouth.

Why are the markets so unhappy with Obama's proposals for "fixing" the recession? It's basic economics.

Back in high school, we learned that governments tax behaviors they want less of and give credits for behaviors they want to encourage. That's why there are rather heavy taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable giving and business research and development. That doesn't mean that there won't be people who smoke, drink, or speed (speeding tickets are municipal penalties for bad behavior), but these are voluntary taxes, easily avoided.

But now, Obama wants to eliminate home mortgage deductions for high-end earners and charitable deductions, moves that will punish not merely "the rich," but nonprofits (specifically churches) who depend on charitable giving.

It's no accident that Obama wants to cap the tax deductions for charitable giving. The only way to grow government is to increase dependence upon it. If he can starve churches and religious charities, dependence on government can grow. More importantly, limiting deductions will have unexpected results, just as Bill Clinton's luxury tax on yachts did, which actually hurt yacht builders.

Capping or eliminating upper income deductions are sure to harm not "the rich," but those who make their living selling to the rich. And capping charitable deductions will affect more than churches--although they would be hardest hit--but arts organizations and other nonprofits liberals love and think are worth government help.