conservatism

Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online:

Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.

Sharp observation by Goldberg. I’m sure the media will criticize Biden for his hateful and violent rhetoric, right? Goldberg continues:

No one cares. I hate the “if this were Bush” game so we’re in luck. Instead imagine if this was Dick Cheney calling the Progressive Caucus (or whatever they’re called) a “bunch of terrorists” on the day Giffords returned to the Congress. Would the mainstream media notice or care? Would Meet the Press debate whether this raises “troubling questions” about the White House’s sensitivity? Would Andrea Mitchell find some way to blame Sarah Palin for Dick Cheney’s viciousness? Would Keith Olbermann explode like a mouse subjected to the Ramone’s music in Rock and Roll High School? Something inside me hidden away shouts, “Hell yes they would!”

Ok, no dice, but surely the media doesn’t perpetuate violent rhetoric on its own. That would be incredibly hypocritical. The Biden comment is just a permissible mis-speak. After all, one could make a fortune betting he’ll say something stupid. I’m sure the NY Times will quickly redact this article by Joe Nocera:

For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They’ll have them on again soon enough. After all, they’ve gotten so much encouragement.

On second thought, that sounds pretty nonviolent to me. Islam is a religion of peace.

UPDATE: A reader emailed me to stupidly accuse me of inserting racism into the discussion because a suicide vest doesn’t implicate a particular race. Two points: 1) Islam isn’t a race of people, and neither is Muslim. They refer to a religion and one who adheres to a religion, respectively. 2) If you click on the link I provided, you’ll see that Nocera’s first sentence accuses the Tea Party of waging Jihad on the American people. Inserting religion into the discussion was Nocera’s doing, not mine.

Foxnews.com:

The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Alabama’s new controversial immigration law, essentially fighting Alabama on grounds similar to its legal battle with Arizona over that state’s controversial law.

This is getting ridiculous. I’d love to see a state sue the Federal Government for failure to enforce current Federal immigration law.

The Federal government telling the states they can’t enact their own immigration policies because “that’s our job” has some legitimate constitutional merit. However, the states are being forced into this situation because the Federal government is—in my opinion—criminally negligent and complacent when it comes to enforcing existing immigration law, and clearly criminal aliens¹ are becoming a big problem for many states.

Michael Lind at Salon.com:

The debt ceiling crisis is the latest case in which the radical right in the South has held America hostage until its demands are met. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln refused to appease the Southern fanatics. Unfortunately, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress chose not to follow their example and instead gave in. In doing so, they have encouraged the neo-Confederate minority in Congress to find yet another opportunity in the near future to extort concessions from America’s majority by sabotaging America’s government.

I don’t really recommend reading this piece by Lind, unless you have a fetish for poorly conceived arguments. I just wanted to point out two aspects of his argument that you’re bound to see repeated by the media-at-large in the coming weeks:

1. Lind does not refute a single argument made by the Tea Party. Instead he simply makes the case that they are white, from the south, racist, and dumb. When you can’t compete in the arena of ideas, just vilify your opponent and hope people don’t notice the fact that you’re leaving every point unchallenged. Classic Liberal tactic.

2. Lind proposes that the Tea Party somehow won the debt debate¹. This is absurd. This bill will increase our debt by a minimum of $7 trillion over the next 10 years and increases the debt limit by $2.4 trillion today. There is literally not a dime of spending cuts to be found in the bill. If the Tea Party won, I don’t know what all the Democrats are so upset about. They are getting a huge spending increase and a huge debt limit increase. That’s not a victory for the Tea Party that I identify with.

Rand Paul:

Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. The deal purports to “cut” $2.1 trillion, but the “cut” is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt. This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate – results in a BEST case scenario of still adding more than $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening.

If you read nothing else today, read this short open letter from Rand Paul. If you have a moment, send him a quick note to show your support. You can contact him right from the link below the press release.

Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News:

In fact, according to records published by the Congressional Research Service, if the current bill is passed and the debt limit is increased by $2.4 trillion, the two largest debt-limit increases in U.S. history would come in back-to-back years, both during the presidency of Barack Obama.

I guess this is what Obama meant when he said we are going to fundamentally transform America.