I take a try at being Instapundit
I don’t usually offer a list of links, but there is so much interesting stuff out there that I thought I’d do just that today:
Obama gets away with what would have once been called a scandal.
Megan Mcardle takes a long look at federal government deficits over time. And remember, she supported Obama.
Robin of Berkeley is at it again.
This rabbi doesn’t pull his punches.
Obama’s actions have been troubling enough. But here’s a troubling one you may not have heard about yet.
Please note what an apologist for anti-Semitism David Squires of the Daily Press is. He was so very happy to score an interview with the kind and gentle Reverend Wright that he isn’t able to judge anything he said; that would be “taking sides” (and, what’s more, it would be standing in the way of future interviews).
Insty has been following Obama’s lack of followthrough on Gay issues (marriage, don’t ask don’t tell). I think that if you combine this with his muslim outreach (and dissing of Israel) and stiffing the British, it seems to be a big issue with his father.
He will not go against the conventional black positions (US blacks) such as gay marriage, will not support israel (angering muslims) and is angry with the Brits for inprisoning his Mau Mau father.
It seems his need to recreate and defend what he perceived as his fathers main characteristics (blackness, muslim, african revolutionary) are still dominant features in his life.
Good job instapundit-ing, neo. Should have added a couple of “heh’s” though.
OlderandWheezier:
Heh.
Oh, and another thing: heh.
Heh, indeed!
On another note, I really enjoyed Robin’s post. Especially the line, “But maybe that’s not the point of this one short, precious life.”
Short, sweet & so true.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqLNecbH0dcg
600 Billion in tax increases on the health care bill. … . . .
Heh
Heh…Whats 600 billion? Taxing cows $1 per fart will should fix that.
With someone like Rev Wright, the most damage you can do to them is get them to open up and talk. Seriously, I wouldn’t argue with the man. I’d just encourage him to talk (and talk and talk) on the record…. I might even say things about ‘not taking sides’ in order to get him to talk again…
He was so very happy to score an interview with the kind and gentle Reverend Wright that he isn’t able to judge anything he said
So you’re a fan of the press taking sides? That’s not the usual consevative complaint about the press.
Logern:
I’m not advocating taking sides during the interview. But for this reporter not to be able to bring himself to make a statement later that “judges” a remark like Wright’s as wrong or bigoted is preposterous and in fact amoral.
In addition, Squires goes out of his way to defend Wright by saying a great many nice things about him in the Van Susteren interview and virtually nothing negative. That’s a judgment in and of itself; it’s not like Squires refused to say anything or offer any judgments about Wright at all:
Well, Jeremiah Wright is a very outspoken person. He’s not a shy individual. He’s a very smart man. He actually is a very kind and gentle man, very friendly person, and a very proud man.
Squires repeats the “kind and gentle” business later on in the interview with Van Susteren, as well.
What’s more, most journalists manage to let their feelings be known quite often, and slant their supposedly “objective” reporting accordingly in cases where the remarks of the subject are far less outrageous than Wright’s—as long as the person being criticized is on the Right (for example, Bush or Rove) rather than the Left.
I have discussed somewhat related issues previously, about reporter “objectivity”—albeit in much more dangerous circumstances—here and here.
Neo, how could you post a link to Morty Pomerantz and suggest that he is telling the bare knuckle truth.
I would say that he’s a liar except that he’s certainly eating his own dog food.
Anyone with a brain knows that Obama wasn’t saying that the Holocaust and the suffering of the Palestinians are exactly equivalent.
And then Mort tries to blame the shooting at the Holocaust centre – indirectly – on Obama? Please, you shouldn’t be fraternizing with the likes of him.
Recruiting Animal: Notice that I wrote “This rabbi doesn’t pull his punches.”
That’s all I wrote about his article. What makes you think I agree with everything he says?
I do agree with some of his points, though—particularly that Obama distorted the history of Islam and its relationship to Jews and Christians in his speech. In addition, the “on the other hand” construction in Obama’s speech was a way of allowing his listeners who are so disposed to make an assumption of equivalence, while allowing him plausible deniability. Sneaky and dishonest.
When I first returned to southeast VA from NE TN, I got a subscription to the Daily Press. I canceled it within a couple months.
Obama says everything, and therefore nothing. I’m personally amazed at grown people who see substance in any of it.
Indeed a good job of instying — scared me just as much as insty does of a morning these days. Not your fault — eh — just the persistent feeling the world has gone mad.
Recently, while watching TV in public, I heard a stranger behind me say “I like Obama. He’s suave.”
Suave! Now, why didn’t it occur to me that’s what we needed in a president?
P.
portia: As I wrote back in June of last year:
Maybe it’s come down to this: choosing a President is now mostly about style rather than substance.
Obama is cool. That’s the real link with Kennedy, who was exceptionally cool but in a very sophisticated way.
Bill Clinton was sort of cool, with the shades and the sax and the Elvis and all that. Sort of like a white black man.
But now we have a bona fide black black man, and a very cool one at that….
President Bush is manifestly uncool. He almost thrives on it and celebrates it.
And it has all come to pass. In fact, I am convinced that coolness is not only a factor for many in evaluating a president, it’s the most important factor or perhaps the only factor (other than liberal rhetoric). This seems to be true especially for the young voters, who supported Obama overwhelmingly.
“This seems to be true especially for the young voters, who supported Obama overwhelmingly.”
I realize when the country was first set up, only the House of Representatives was directly chosen by the voters. Not the Senate and not the President. And 18 year olds did not vote.
If we could hit the reset button I probably would not want to reset it all the way to that, rather I would want the President to be chosen by 18 years olds and up, since he is CINC and therefore potentially the 18 year olds military boss.
The Senators I would want to be given back to the State Legislatures so they could have more influence on the congress, perhaps limiting Federal interference in state matters.
I would want at least one body to be chosen by older voters only. At this point that leaves only the House. I would say 30 years old and up to vote for Representatives. Maybe 40 or even 50. ( I am 39 currently.)
One more thing. Congressional pay raises would have to be approved by a majority of State Governors.
jon baker:
New slogan for the Boomers: “Never trust anyone under thirty.”
that would be irony.