[1]
Welcome, one and all to the most intense nightly read on the sphere, anywhere…. The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble
This is the “Have one on Me” Edition.
- Tea Parties, Iranian Style: Somewhere in my travels last night, I stumbled across a small blogger somehwere…(Small in terms of following, I mean to say) that suggested a comparison between the Tea Parties here in the States and the reaction of the voters over in Iran, just now. [2] I’m sorry now I didn’t capture it. I didn’t think much about it at the time, but reconsidered it on the way into work this morning and since and now can’t find the link. (Sigh… figures) The point of the article seemed to me to be that the protesters here in the states have it easy by comparison. And that’s correct of course; Obama Militias have yet to open fire, or arrest large numbers of people for their positions. Nobody has been shot and killed for taking part in those protests as yet. Looking at one point of similarly though, gives me pause…the attempt in both cases, at suppression of reports on the protests, and the size of them. It also strikes me that the reason for the deadly nature of the protests there is the tolerance for a higher level of corruption before acting, in Iran. Culturally driven possibly, and equally driven by the fact that the government there is the only ones with the guns. A point for the second amendment types, certainly, but there seems another set of links there, too, that deserves to be explored further.
- Sounds of Silence: Well, look, that’s all we’ve been getting from the White House. Now, of course, they’ll tell us they’re “deeply troubled”. [3] But whereas Jack Kennedy would have said…..
[4]Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.……Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy. [5]Look again at the quote. Strong words, not because of the value of the words themselves but because of the principle behind them… that liberty is worth fighting for. Worth any cost. And Obama is certainly no Reagan, as Ed Morrissey points up at Hot Air, using Reagan’s actions are regards Poland as his example… [5]
[6]Ed Morrissey
Reagan took a stand on freedom, where Obama sounds desperate for engagement with the forces of oppression. Germany’s Angela Merkel took a much tougher stand than Obama did, calling the oppression “totally unacceptable,” while all Obama can say is that it’s “deeply troubling”.
It’s the difference between leadership and management. Reagan led, and he inspired the Poles to continue the struggle that eventually helped free half of Europe from iron-fisted domination by the Soviet Union. Obama wants to manage the crisis to keep from having to lead. Big, big difference.
Indeed. The people of the country, both left and right are way out in front of Obama on this one. Obama is certainly no leader. As Totten notes today [7], the reaction to Iran from both left and right has been universal…
[8]Totten
A refreshing bipartisan consensus is emerging in the liberal and conservative halves of the blogosphere and the media in general. Visceral detestation of the Islamic Republic regime in Iran is all but universal.
But, rather than leap in on the side of liberty, against the oppression there in Iran (Which would not only help the Iranians but the rest of the world.. a point which both ends of the political spectrum seem uncharacteristically to agree on, ) Obama now withholds comment, hoping apparently to win the day with his winning smile and a few shovelfuls of manure. But to what end, I wonder? I was no fan of JFK, but you can easily pick out the differences between the two… on issues of freedom, JFK worked from the basis of principle… as did Reagan… and Obama can’t bring himself to take that principled stand. We needed a leader. We got Obama, instead.
- Cue Steely Dan’s “Changing of the Guard“: Along with James Joyner, [9]I note the changing of the Guard over at NRO [10], with KJL moving down to DC to take on the editor at large duties, and Rich Lowrey taking over Lopez’s job in New York. I rather like Rich, having read a few of his books and reviewed one onlineJoyner The some years ago. James is properly skeptical of some f the left wing reaction to the move.
[11]Joyner
The leftist commentators [12] thus far, in addition to saying some dreadful things about KLo, seem to think this is an indication that NR is tightening its belt and proof that conservative opinion magazines can’t sustain themselves on the free market. Given that we have no information about the new pay structure, I see no reason to think the former. The latter is doubtless true but we can strike the modifier “conservative.” No opinion magazine of any stripe has been profitable in my lifetime; they’re all subsidized in some fashion.
Well, look, we all know every action anywhere is going to be spun as proof of the leftie mantra. I’m inclined to disregard their nonsense as such, therefore. While the rest of James’ comments are true enough I’m not even convinced this is a monetary move. It strikes me as reasonable to assume this to be a personnel decision, based on factors other than money, such as the personal preference of Lowrey and Lopez.
- Arrgh!!! (not all updates are good) This new WordPress update (2.8) did something to the editor that really fouls me up in the weird formatics I’ve been using in the Nightly Ramble for the last year or so.. Took me about 15 minutes to get that NRO thing above, correctly; it kept dropping the block quote and misplacing the picture of James. Of course the reason is that it’s not handing it well is someone’s attempt to shove W3 web standards down our throats, one of which is block quotes aren’t supposed to work inside line items, as we use them here. Dumb, since all the various browsers work with them. I’m getting to the point where I’m considering an older HTML editor so I can get my posts done without having to fart around trying to get past someone’s “better” idea of W3 implementation. Annoying.
- The Polls are in: Gallup reports: ?
[13]Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.
[14]Graphic By BitsBlog based on Gallup Polling data
Do you even begin to understand what an earthshaking majority this is for Conservatives? Most ‘moderates’ will swing to the right if they see a principled conservative over there. So why aren’t the GOP in power? Simple… it’s because they’re not principled offering conservatives to the voters. These numbers bear out what I’ve been saying for a long time, now. Since Reagan, in fact. The situation is that Conservatives re the majority, and they have been for decades, now. That’s not changed since 1979, and before. Hey, GOP: Want to win? The path to victory is frighteningly clear… frightening because you still haven’t figured it out. The degree of success of GOP candidates is directly tied to how close to conservative principles they stand. Offer us real conservatives to vote for, and the result will be a GOP landslide. McCainish types do not qualify. Another Bush like centrist doesn’t qualify either, nor is bending over forward for ‘the center’ required. Never has been. Come back to the right, GOP. It’s the only way out of exile.
- BOOOO!!!! Obama pushed his idea of medical reform at the AMA yesterday, and got himself booed off the stage [15]. Well, this whole thing seems to be going swimmingly, for Obama. Support for his government healthcare plan is universal, except for the the voters, the insurance companies and now, the doctors.
- Yeah, that’ll happen: John Thune has put a bill up [16]to force government to divest itself of any private companies by 2010 and prevents it from ever doing anything of the like again. We both know it won’t pass given the big government types running the place nowdays, but it’s a statement of principle, at least… and Thune has our support, here.
- No kidding, Glenn: It’s why I’ve never had much in the way for respect for Yglesias [17]. It’s one others, including some on the right, fawning over him as some kind of intellectual, and never quite understood the attraction. To me, he’s invariably been a partisan hack… and a poor one, at that. Example: (Daniel Halper at Commentary:)
Writing on the website of the American Prospect magazine [18], Matthew Yglesias writes:
Ahmadinejad is in most ways a classic right-winger, a demagogic nationalist and cultural conservative. In a manner somewhat reminiscent of a Sarah Palin, however, he clothes this right-wing politics in a language of class resentment, painting his more pragmatic and reformist opponents as decadent elites out of touch with ordinary people. Unlike the populists of the American right, however, he merges this rhetoric with something resembling an actual populist economic agenda. The main element has been the use of oil revenue to expand the state sector of the economy in an attempt to distribute wealth more broadly throughout the country. This approach has gained Ahmadinejad a loyal following among the rural poor and public employees, but Iran’s objective economic performance has been disappointing, even during the great oil boom years.
Yes, Yglesias is referring to the same Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, who denies the existence of the Holocaust, who calls Jews (whoops, Zionists) the “true manifestation of Satan,” and so on. But the main distinction between Ahmadinejad from Palin? The former is in favor of redistributing the wealth, which automatically makes him better than Palin in Yglesias’s mind.
Halper of course has it correct. This is exactly the kind of contemptible hackery I’ve come to expect from Yglesias. It fascinates me anyone (other than the far left who seems to me desperate enough to latch onto such nonsense) takes him at all seriously anymore.
- Cover-up? Byron York wonders if the Democrats will try to cover up the Americorps firing scandal [19]. As if this was ever in doubt, Byron? Remember, a Republican lost the presidency over actions of the like.
- Bye Bye, Letterman: Even assuming the “apology” [20]is a genuine one, and I doubt it is, it doesn’t make the offence go away, particularly given your record. You’re a hack, bub… You used to be a passable comic, and host, 20 years ago. But you let yourself slip down to pushing a vicious political agenda, and in the doing, you got vicious yourself… falling down to the level of Dice Clay or Michael Richards. I have no sympathy for you at all. You’ve made your millions…. Perhaps it’s time you went away, like they did, and for the same reasons.