- Tingles are out David Brooks has admitted to having sap running down his leg over Obama. It’s taken Brooks over two years to catch up to what most out here have been telling him. How good a columnist does that actually make him? Another Obama propagandist bites the dust.
- CNN does its best to make Texas look like an economic disaster. Also galling a caption under a video: Texans grab their guns as economy stalls. Sure why not go for violent and extremist too. And when did this become a bad thing in America?
Experts chalk up the minimal services and take-up rates to Texas’ anti-welfare attitude. In the Lone Star State, you are expected to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
Noted ‘conservanerd‘ David Brooks has abandoned all pretense of conservatism in his latest New York Times column titled “The Mother of All No-Brainers.” It’s pretty clear that he believes that his readers are the brainless ones – rarely have so many shaky premises, false assertions and heapin’ helpings of pure nonsense been gathered into one NYT opinion column. That’s saying something.
Brooks is Obama and Axelrod’s favorite pseudo-conservative for a reason: his creepily slavish devotion to the idea that we mere drones need to be guided, led and – sadly yes, controlled – by a coterie of Ivy League-indoctrinated betters who will lead us out of the darkness of our sad little lives. These wise leaders may be identified by the crease in their slacks – Obama’s sharp press famously demonstrated to Brooks that The One would be The One. It’s that kind of profound insight that has made David Brooks the most popular conservative pundit among those who hate and despise everything conservatives stand for.
Let’s take a quick look at the cheesy rhetoric and flabby thinking that this servant of the failed status quo put out on the Fourth of July. It’s a wonderful illustration of how liberals argue – and provides a lesson in countering the nonsense.
The Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives. They have put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda … Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators.
First, he sucks up to the conservatives. This is to try and make us think he is one of us, that he speaks as a friend instead of the house servant of his lefty overlords. Feel your defenses crumbling? Then:
[The Democrats] have agreed not to raise tax rates.
Wait, what? Since when have the Democrats agreed not to raise tax rates? Isn’t the President still talking about raising the rates next year, or is that one of those inconvenient truths?
[The Democrats] have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.
Hold on … weren’t they agreeing not to raise rates just a sentence ago? Or are these “revenue increases” – don’t you love euphemisms? – all going to come from wiping out the scourge of corporate jets? Whatever.
And wait a second – exactly who has agreed to this 3-to-1 ratio? It best not be someone on the GOP side unless she or she wants a well-funded primary opponent next year.
Watch out, because these harmless “revenue increases” are “to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures.” The “tax expenditures” language is priceless – as if the government “spends” money by not taking it. And the “loopholes” are the same kind of deductions that every business takes – deductions merely being a recognition of costs since what is taxed is profits. David, if you want to get on board with a low corporate tax rate and wipe out most all deductions, we conservatives might be on board. But you don’t. You want to raise rates without raising marginal rates; the sneaky way to do that is make more income taxable by eliminating deductions. And you think your readers are too stupid to see that.
Jon Huntsman’s presidential announcment was met with resounding approval from those who wish to see four more years of the Obama Administration. Among the rest of America, the reaction ranged from ennui to observations like “It’s good to see the Cryptkeeper getting work again.” Regardless, Huntsman’s candidacy fuels some of the most intense liberal fantasies outside of Anthony Wiener’s hard drive.
For the liberals and the MSM – as if the two were different – Huntsman represents the ultimate in a win-win GOP candidate. They win because head-to-head against Obama, Huntsman would get pummeled like a handicapped Tea Partier at a SEIU anti-violence rally. And, in the off-chance some unlikely event takes place that allows Huntsman to beat Obama – like a surprise unicorn invasion or a sudden onset of accurate and complete reporting by the MSM – the GOP still loses. The only thing worse than Obama implementing neo-socialist economic policies, spending like an alcoholic lottery winner, providing amnesty to every illegal north of the Rio Grande and buying into the global warming scam is having a nominal Republican do those things.
The very worst case scenario for the MSM is that ex-Utah governor Huntsman still provides it with a ready, willing and able yardstick of sober rectitude and utter supine submission by which to measure – and find wanting – the Republican candidates with the stones to actually fight for conservative principles. His schoolmarm presidential announcement was really just a lecture directed at the American people – in particular, the ones upset about the destruction of our traditions and our future – instructing them not to get uppity, to be “respectful” to those who disrespect them, and to accept that we are morally obligated to ignore the evidence before our eyes that our opponents intend to fundamentally alter our country for the worst. Pretty presumptuous for a guy who Don Quixote would assess as having no chance in hell.
To Huntsman and his squishy ilk, we’re the problem. Our role is to come out and vote for the pseudo-conservatives, then to sit down, shut up and take what we are spoonfed by our D.C. betters. And the MSM rewards this attitude by bestowing upon these fifth columnists the proverbial “strange new respect” that distinguishes a Republican who has accepted leftist dhimmitude.
On that note, has anyone seen a negative story about Boehner since he started golfing with the One and flailing helplessly before the liberal onslaught? The countdown has begun to a WaPo headline reading “Speaker Boehner Soberly Tries To Balances Duty To America Versus Unreasonable Demands of Hate-Filled GOP Right-Wing Fringe Lunatics.”
Huntsman simply represents the latest in the sorry line of domesticated Republican pushovers embraced by the MSM as long as they acquiesce to certain failure. On the journalism side we have conservanerds David Brooks and David Frum. On the political side, you had Bob Bennett and you have Orrin Hatch – what the hell is it with Utah anyway? Hatch has reinvented himself as Tea Partier and is tapdancing like Gregory Hines on meth to escape accusations of accommodationism that could put him out of his job and on the whining-about-how-the-GOP-left-me express with his pal Bobby.
John McCain found out just how much the love and respect of the MSM is worth during his run – while the vice-presidency may be worth a bucket of warm spit, MSM favor for a Republican is worth that less the bucket. The second he secured the nomination it was open season, and the effort redoubled when he dare blow minds with his one move that was both truly maverick and truly not idiotic – picking Sarah Palin.
So it’s not fair to compare Jon to John – Huntsman doesn’t have it in him to pick a true conservative veep nominee and he doesn’t have the sterling war record that, regardless of our disagreements with his policies and maverick antics, has earned McCain the sincere respect and thanks of conservatives (Hugh Hewitt calls him“a great American, a lousy senator and a terrible Republican”).
On the plus side, there’s no indication that Huntsman has an obnoxious daughter who is as publicly chatty as she is publicly embarrassing.
Huntsman’s role is not to win the nomination – he’s the only person on earth who actually believes he can do that and it’s even doubtful he’s that dumb. Huntsman’s role is to be the boring, ineffective moderate that the MSM can use to unfavorably compare to the real conservatives. Every time he is crushed by GOP primary voters it will be cited as undisputable evidence that the Republican party has veered off into a netherworld of primordial rightwingery that no sane person could possibly want any part of. His eventual defeat will be the final piece of evidence convicting the GOP of crimes against the mainstream. Can you trust a party so unwise as to reject Jon Huntsman? Mark this – I’ve got $5 that says that, stung by his forthcoming rejection, we will see Jon Huntsman sadly inform the MSM that he must reluctantly support President Obama because whoever gets the GOP nomination is “just too extreme” during a time when “we need to be united, not divided.” Of course, by then inflation will make that $5 worth $2.
The promotion of Huntsman is like the condescending whisper of a sanctimonious unionized schoolteacher telling you to “use your inside voice.” But the last thing the GOP needs now is the voice of the party to be muted, quiet and inoffensive. Which is exactly why the MSM wants so very badly for Jon Huntsman to be that voice.
In the end there is no question about Huntsman’s natural constituency among Republicans. It’s the guys who feel that we, as the GOP, are honor-bound to lose at all costs. And the MSM is going to aid and abet them right up until the moment that Huntsman actually – through a miracle of such magnitude it would convince Christopher Hitchens to leap into a confessional and beg forgiveness from the Almighty – appears to be a threat to a second Obama term.
Media figures David Gregory of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” David Brooks of The New York Times, Fareed Zakaria of CNN’s “GPS,” Margaret Warner of PBS’s “Newshour,” and Riz Khan of Al-Jazeera English are among the speakers at the eighth Annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Washington, D.C. this week. The event is “held in partnership” with Qatar, the Middle East dictatorship that funds and sponsors the terror channel Al-Jazeera and has links to al-Qaeda.
The forum is co-sponsored by the liberal Brookings Institution, headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a speaker.
The official program guide for the conference features greetings from President Obama. “I appreciate your efforts to help advance the new beginning I called for between the United States and Muslim communities around the world,” he says.
However, the 9/11 commission demonstrated (page 90) that Qatar has been protecting terrorists, including the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. A recently released cable from WikiLeaks goes further, saying that Qatari nationals were involved in 9/11 and may still be on the loose.
Meantime, Sultan al-Khalaifi, who is a Qatari blogger and the founder of a human rights organization, was apprehended on March 1 by Qatar’s dreaded security forces and has not been heard of since. Human rights organizations fear that he is being tortured for speaking out against the dictatorship in Qatar.
At a Monday press conference, under the auspices of the forum, at the National Press Club, to release poll results supposedly demonstrating support for Islamist and anti-American revolutions in the Middle East, two academics from the University of Maryland admitted they didn’t know anything about the plight of the blogger.
Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, said, “Personally, I’m not aware of this.” He went on to say, however, that the arrest of any reporter by a government in the Middle East is not acceptable.
There is a misconception that the mainstream media hates all conservatives. That’s just not true. The MSM loves some conservatives – the ones who combine a willingness to stick their conservative brothers and sisters in the back with a stereotypical, tweedy doofusism that ensures absolutely no one would ever want to be one of them. Their poster children are David Brooks and David Frum. Call them the Conservanerds.
Conservanerds aren’t hard to identify. You can tell one by listening to him for about 15 seconds, by which time you will be overcome by a desire to either slap him or take his lunch money. You can find them dwelling at the fringes of liberal culture – they are allowed to attend the cocktail parties as the token conservative, tolerated by their masters in return for passive obedience and the occasional swipe at Sarah Palin and her intolerable uppityness.
If they were simply annoying, that would be one thing, but the problem is that the MSM loves to present them as the true face of conservatism, a face that is reasonable and harmless and that always – always – loses out to the liberals. Conservanerds play up to the awful stereotype of the bookish, passive-aggressive “traditional” conservative with a disdain for popular culture and, critically, for the other 95% of modern conservatives out there today.
Tea Party folks? Heaven forbid – those simply are not our kind of people. Those vulgar Tea Partyiers enjoy NASCAR and beer and guns and some actually believe in God. Many of them work with their hands, and most of them didn’t even go to Harvard!
Sure, there’s class at play – it goes without saying the Conservanerds feel more at home with an Ivy League Hillary Clinton than a Middle-American Sarah Palin – but it’s also MSM wish fulfillment. Liberals love the idea of conservatives who pose no threat at all, who are happy to take the scraps from the MSM’s table just as long as they get invited to the dinner party.
This is not a new phenomenon. Starting with Goldwater and up through the Reagan years, a bunch of new folks flooded into the Conservative movement, folks that were less William F. Buckley and more John Wayne – or even Johnny Rotten. The old line conservatives, the tweed-wearing country club types, found it quite a culture shock. During college in the 80’s, half the staff assembling the California Review, UCSD’s right-wing paper, would be trying to appreciate to some Respighi concerto while the rest of us would be cranking the Ramones and swilling Coors.
The real conservative today is aggressive, outspoken and (worst of all for the Conservanerds) cares nothing for the approval of the elite. That makes us anathema. No wonder they are so eager to pounce – we’ve committed the sin of not caring what they think. Whether you’re a tee-totaling Georgia Evangelical, a concerned mama grizzly from Kansas or a beer-swilling LA cavalryman with a four letter vocabulary and the Sex Pistols on his CD player, we’re the new face of conservatism. And it’s driving the Conservanerds bonkers.
In the first (and still best) “Austin Powers” film, a United Nations representative makes a faux pas and calls the film’s villain “Mr. Evil.”
“It’s Dr. Evil,” he huffs. “I didn’t spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called ‘mister,’ thank you very much.”
This is how I feel when I’m referred to as a “blogger,” sometimes with a political qualifier like “liberal” or “conservative” attached. I’m a reporter. I’ve been a reporter since high school. Like a lot of other people, I lucked into some reporting jobs that took advantage of the speed of the web — thus, I blogged. And I left the Washington Post because I was intoxicated by this medium and the privileges of reporting. The leak of my private e-mails wouldn’t have been possible 10 years ago; but then, neither would have my career been possible.
Let’s go back to the start. I started in journalism in a fairly typical manner, by discovering how much I liked writing articles and doing interviews at my high school paper. I chose to go to Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. It was there that I became editor of the campus’s weekly conservative paper, and became plugged into the campus conservative journalism network.
David Brooks is a thoughtful writer and, by all appearances, a nice fellow.
But on his February 9 appearance on Charlie Rose, Brooks painfully revealed the limits of his understanding and the poverty of his vision. These failings are not exclusive to Brooks — rather, they are typical of the class with which Brooks self-identifies, the hyper-educated coastal elite.
Of the Tea Party, for example, Brooks told Rose, “It’s not conservative, it’s not pro-Republican, it’s just a recoil from what’s happening [in Washington].” Has Brooks actually convinced himself of this tripe? The tea partiers recoil from Washington precisely because of their commitment to small-government conservatism; because Washington now represents the antithesis of their deeply held conservative principles. Brooks would know this if he actually talked to some Tea Party members instead of viewing them with horror and barely concealed disgust from his Beltway offices. (more…)
Bo here, the conservative dog in the White House. I’m in the Oval Office with Barry and the boys while they decide on a strategy for the State of the Union speech. They can’t make up their minds. Big surprise, huh?
It’s been quite a week here since the Massachusetts senate race, all of them whining and moaning like a litter of pitbulls finding out they’ve just been sold to Michael Vick. Barry, of course, has been hardest hit. A retiree in Pompano Beach, Florida, gets bit by a sand flea, and Barry is hardest hit.
Still, the Scott Brown victory was a genuine blow to the faithful. Barry thrives on self-delusion, so the team here firehoses him with flattery non-stop. The One. The Lightbringer. Captain Smooth. Except for Rahm, the only guy who can tell Barry the truth. The only one who actually enjoys telling Barry the truth. Teleprompter Jesus. President Fist Bump. Harry Reid’s Immaculate Negro. Barry doesn’t appreciate it, but Rahm doesn’t care. Anyway, Scott Brown’s election really shook the place up. I was there. I smelt the fear…
“Now what?” Barry kept saying as he flipped through the channels looking for good news. “Now what?”
On CNBC, Norah O’Donnell woodenly read the latest vote tallies, mascara running down her cheeks like Chuckie the killer klown. Keith Olbermann was in the background, loudly vomiting into a waste basket. (more…)
Bow-wow. You can call me Bo. I’m President Shoutout’s family mutt, a Portuguese water dog with curly black hair. My real name isn’t Bo, but I’m not telling you my real one. Bo is fine. It’ll do anyway. Took the White House brain trust four months to come up with it — you wouldn’t believe the names they actually considered. Let’s just say that “Alinsky” was a contender until Axelrod said “why don’t you just name it ‘Arafat’ and kiss off flyover country for 2012?” Yeah, he called me “it.” Axelrod’s a real sweetheart. Barry’s chief political advisor, which means he spent the whole presidential campaign sending candygrams to the press corps so they wouldn’t do their job. He could have accomplished the same thing with a Hershey bar stolen from an orphan’s Halloween bag. I got his number. Axelrod smells like cabbage and tries to kick me when Barry’s not looking.
Right now, I’m sitting in the Oval Office with Barry, Axelrod and Chief of Staff and resident kneecapper, Rahm Emanuel, while the three chumps cool their heels in the waiting room. Barry’s staring out the window, going JFK on us, trying to figure out which precise upward angle of the chin registers that weary-but-resolute toughness that the press corps laps up. If he sticks that jaw up any higher he’s going to drown in a drizzle if you ask me, but the pose does seem to bring a flush to the freshly sculpted cheeks of Andrea Mitchell. (more…)
On my Twitter account, I follow a few hundred mainstream media-types (keep the enemy closer, right?), and unless I've missed it (and I hope I have), not a single one has spoken out in defense of Roland Martin. Not one. How scary is that. The politically correct Groupthink...
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?