December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
I missed this from Matt Bai of the New York Times two days ago:
Privately, Mr. Obama has described himself, at times, as essentially a Blue Dog Democrat, referring to the shrinking caucus of fiscally conservative members of the party.
Oh really? Hard to reconcile with this (emphasis mine):
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, the problem with labels is everybody thinks they mean different things. So I would define myself as a strong progressive in the sense that…[some qualifiers follow].
In other words, Obama is comfortable saying just about anything in private. The question is about what he’ll do, and Bai suggests that when it comes to the debt and the deficit commission’s recommendations, there’s no telling what Obama will do. There may be some uncertainty, but one thing for sure is that Obama’s decision-making on the debt won’t be shaped by a “sense of betrayal on the left…so intense that he could conceivably draw a primary challenge over it in 2012.” If Obama’s already committed to triangulation in order to defeat a Republican in 2012, there’s no way he’s going to worry about the threat of a harmless primary from the left.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online