Bush Did It

Here is an excerpt from a Yahoo news story on the Standard and Poor's downgrade of U.S. debt from AAA to AA+.

S&P on Aug. 5 lowered the U.S. one level to AA+ while keeping the outlook at “negative” as it becomes less confident Congress will end Bush-era tax cuts or tackle entitlements.

Reading this, one would surmise that one of S&P's primary concerns, vis-a-vis the U.S. debt rating, was Congress' unwillingness to raise taxes. Here is what the S&P report actually said.

“Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing...The (debt-ceiling increase) plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.”

So, in reality, the agency explained the downgrade solely as a reaction to Congress' failure to address the issue of entitlements, "the key to long-term fiscal sustainability". Regarding ending the "Bush-era" (or any other era) tax cuts ("revenue measures"), S&P "takes no position".
Now, one might argue that S&P was wrong to downgrade U.S. debt, or that its reason for doing so was mistaken, but the fact is the agency specifically pinpointed lack of entitlement reform as that reason. Yet, the Yahoo news report couldn't resist the opportunity to associate the word "Bush" with the downgrade. This misinformation, whether its source is Reuters or AP or some other major organization, has now been widely disseminated.

It's the seeemingly minor, yet frequent and pervasive lies and distortions, like the one above, that makes media bias so damaging.

Our Future?

Stanley Kurtz (NRO) presents a nice synopsis of the origins of the financial meltdown, spotlighting the key roles played by Fannie Mae, ACORN and, yes, President Obama. This is a grossly under-reported story and had the press done its job in 2008, we would have probably been spared the ongoing disaster of this presidency.

As America teeters on the brink of a second financial crisis, I think back to 2008, and the irony of a suprime mortgage fiasco propelling to the presidency a man who’d spent a career abetting the folks who’d caused the crisis to begin with.

Read the whole thing.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273776/obamas-two-financial-crises-stanley-kurtz

Well, we can't undo that first mistake but there's still hope we can prevent a second. I saw Marco Rubio speak for the first time recently and I agree with Bill Kristol that he would make a very impressive national candidate. And I also agree with Kristol when he suggests that (Paul) Ryan-Rubio (or its reverse) is as good a ticket as the GOP (and thus the nation) could come up with. Both are smart, knowledgeable, young and attractive and Rubio has the further benefit of neutralizing, if not reversing, the Dems advantage among Hispanics. Both Ryan (Wisconsin) and Rubio (Florida) are from swing states - another plus. But most important, unlike many Republicans and all Democrats, they have innovative ideas that address our most serious issues - economic growth (and all the good things that go with it - job creation, higher revenues, less poverty), entitlement reform, and tax reform. Crucially, Ryan and Rubio are convincing and forceful advocates. They won't get squishy when challenged.

It seems like every presidential election is declared to be an existential contest, but 2012 certainly appears to be that. So why not go with the best we have. And if, somehow, the electorate still chooses the same radical dunce for its leader, then it deserves the resulting catastrophe.

[Mark Steyn, always the optimist, gives us until mid-decade to turn things around and prevent armageddon - see column link below. And if you think that's an exaggeration, check out these photos of Detroit, (link below) a city that hasn't had a Republican mayor or city council member since the sixties. Not one. (Republican Louis Miriani's mayoral term ended January, 1962 and he may have been the last GOP council member, exiting in 1966. For this he deserves a statue)].

tp://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273876/mad-debt-mark-steyn

http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2011/02/07/captured-the-ruins-of-detroit/2672/#.Tj3sq0Icuks.email

Two Schools Of Thought

NRO on Friday (8/5) featured a surprising column praising two female celebrities of conservative opinion, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. The surprise is that it was written by Conrad Black, a member of the Analytical School of conservative thinkers. For Analysts, a group that includes George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Ramesh Ponnuru, rational argument is paramount. Derisive put-downs are secondary, though in the hands of the sharp-witted Will, Krauthammer, Black and others, very effective.

Coulter and Ingraham belong to the Incendiary School. This group includes the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Incendiary-ists also utilize persuasive logic, (Coulter is particularly good at this, as Black points out), though merely as a vehicle for ad hominem attacks. They live to insult and enrage.

Rarely does either group have much to do with the other. Indeed, National Review, generally an Analytical publication, banished Coulter from its pages when, shortly after 9/11, she recommended converting all Muslims to Christianity.

Black understands that Coulter's outrageousness is carefully calculated to disturb all the right people.

The mindless reflexiveness with which the soft Left responds to Coulter, especially, is premeditated by her and is a vastly entertaining send-up of the boring, high-minded liberals that she can turn on like a spigot at will, to her own amusement and profit.

Black, in summarizing Coulter's and Ingraham's philosophy, provides a concise manifesto of American conservatism.

Most conservative commentators attack high taxes, meddlesome government, deficit spending, and foreign adventurism, and leave it at that. They are essentially Coolidgeists: laissez-faire, individualistic, agnostic isolationists. Ingraham and Coulter share most of that ambition to roll back the state and the depredations of taxes, but they are not unrealistic about the great world largely full of countries and people that do not wish America well. And they know that the backbone of this civilization is composed of the Judeo-Christian ethos and belief, the spirit of enterprise, the notion of service to the nation, the pursuit of literacy in all things, a carefully directed martial capability and spirit, and the rule of law (which they do not confuse with the racketeering of gonzo prosecutors, and the national addiction to frivolous and vexatious litigation).

Coulter's characterization of FDR as a socialist draws criticism from Black who is a rare conservative admirer of the New Deal and its author. Otherwise, he is unabashedly enthusiastic about her and Ingraham.

There is nothing like them in other countries, nor much like them in this one...They are outstanding bearers of that timeless message that has reprehensibly few public champions, certainly not including the incumbent president.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273625/coulter-ingraham-show-conrad-black

Speaking of FDR, here's a quote by Henry Morgenthau, his Secretary of the Treasury.

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot."

At least one current Democrat agrees. This from former Clinton and Obama economic team member, Larry Summers.

"...if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15 percent and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed.”

Jonah's Angry

A rare occurrence - at least in public.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273444/hell-you-people-jonah-goldberg

Funny, Mark

From Mark Steyn's latest column on NRO.

...the Lockerbie bomber has been appearing at delirious pro-Qaddafi rallies. Remember the Lockerbie bomber? He was returned to Libya because he was terminally ill and only had three months to live. That was two years ago. It’s amazing what getting out of the care of the Scottish National Health Service can do for your life expectancy.

The Democrats' Two-Minute Hate

Jay Nordlinger posted the following on NRO.

I realize I’m a partisan, and getting worse, I’m afraid. I’ve long wanted to be a nice, above-the-fray neutralist. But life has not allowed that.
Anyway, I’m going to make a point about the Democratic party. Nancy Pelosi said the following about Republicans: “They don’t just want to make cuts. They want to destroy. They want to destroy food safety, clean air, clean water, the Department of Education. They want to destroy your rights.”
I want to ask you: How do you do business with someone like that? How do you do business with a party like that? “They want to destroy”? (I’ll grant that we think the Department of Education a total boondoggle.) “They want to destroy your rights”?
I’m reminded of why I revolted against the Democratic party long ago: They all talked like this. They all regarded their opponents as monstrous or subhuman. And I knew it was bunk.
One more thing: Nancy Pelosi is not some street-corner lunatic. She’s not yet another columnist, or “commenter,” at the Huffington Post. She is the leader of the Democratic party in the House! If that’s not representative — what is?

A couple of other points about Pelosi's rant. It's funny how - and Nordlinger touches on this - she equates worthy, fundamental goals like clean air and water with worthless, bureaucratic extravagances like the Department of Education. (Pelosi writing the Declaration of Independence - "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Public Television and High Speed Rail.")

Also - What is Pelosi's intended audience?
Her base, who curse and scream, as in an Orwellian two-minute hate, as she basks in the glory of their approval?,
Or - does she think she's actually making a persuasive argument to enlist the support of independents and undecideds.
Either way, it's quite pathetic.

Two Of A Kind

Humberto Fontova, forceful advocate for the liberation of Cuba, juxtaposes the philosophies and methods of Anders Breivik and Che Guevara.

http://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2011/07/26/anders_breivik_t-shirts,_anyone/page/full/