Quotulatiousness

May 1, 2010

Press corps afraid to criticize White House for fear of “retaliation”

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 08:10

Ah, the brave and intrepid journalists in the White House beat — are afraid to actually criticize the President for fear of losing access:

Just think about that for a minute. National political reporters are furious over various White House practices involving transparency and information control, but are unwilling to say so for attribution due to fear of “retaliation,” instead insisting on hiding behind a wall of anonymity (which Politico, needless to say, happily provides). Isn’t that a rather serious problem: that the White House press corps is afraid to criticize the President and the White House for fear of losing access and suffering other forms of retribution? What does that say about their “journalism”? It’s the flip side of those White House reporters who need the good graces of Obama aides for their behind-the-scenes books and thus desperately do their bidding: what kind of reporter covering the White House would possibly admit that they’re afraid to say anything with their names attached that might anger the President and his aides? How could you possibly be a minimally credible White House reporter if you have that fear? Doesn’t that unwillingness rather obviously render their reporting worthless?

April 29, 2010

All the spin that’s fit to print: Bigotgate

Filed under: Britain, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:52

After British PM Gordon Brown accidentally threw himself into the political woodchipper with a remark about a “bigoted woman”, the spin doctors are having a time with it:

Matthew Taylor, former chief adviser on political strategy to Tony Blair

“It is clearly disastrous and also a terrible thing to happen before the final leaders’ debate, which Gordon Brown has to win. He’s given Clegg and Cameron ammunition. The only thing is that expectations now will be so low. They won’t be on the floor, they will be in the cellar. Rock bottom. He’ll have to pull off the performance of the century.”

Olly Grender, former director of communications for the Lib Dems:

“This is the second electric moment in the campaign, the first being the first leaders’ debate. It is going to dominate every news bulletin and will be trailed particularly by the rightwing media. It was classic Gordon Brown, speaking to somebody, giving her a list of six things without asking her anything.

[. . .]

Iain Dale, Conservative political commentator and former political lobbyist

“I can’t remember any politician doing anything this crass. We’ve had this sort of thing before. Who would have thought that when Prescott punched someone it would do his reputation good? But he called a 66-year-old woman a bigot. If we call anyone a bigot who mentions immigration, then that covers thousands of people.

[. . .]

Charlie Whelan, former press secretary for Gordon Brown

“It’s all media clatter rubbish. What makes this story exciting is the media are involved. You’ve got human interest, then you fling in the media and, hey bingo: the wonderful moment the media have been looking for. It’s wonderful to talk about it and to Twitter about it, but normal people looking at it don’t see it in the same way.

Actually, Whelan may have the right idea: the whole situation has galvanized the British media, but it’s not yet clear if it will cause anything more than a temporary blip on the radar as far as the actual voting public is concerned.

All the Senate’s a stage, and Goldman Sachs merely a player

Filed under: Economics, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:19

Although in this case, it’s the Senators as walking shadows, poor players that strut and fret their hour upon the stage and then (if we’re lucky) are heard no more. Megan McArdle isn’t impressed:

The statements from the Senators make it clear that they are not holding this hearing in order to find out what happened; that’s the SEC’s job. They’re holding this hearing in order to be televised yelling at investment bankers. Claire McCaskill’s rant was particularly irrelevant to the actual question at hand, but all of them are mostly trying to express outrage, not make any coherent assessment of the strengths of the SEC’s case.

April 26, 2010

Maxime Bernier: Harper’s successor?

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 17:32

Okay, so Andrew Coyne doesn’t quite go so far as to say that Bernier is the next leader of the Conservative party, but he certainly makes a case for Bernier speaking for an under-represented viewpoint in that party — actual conservatives, even (whisper it) “libertarians”:

Let’s just pause for a moment to consider what an extraordinary thing Maxime Bernier is attempting. The former minister in the Harper government is widely said to be preparing the ground for a future leadership bid. How has he been going about it? Since January, Bernier has been methodically laying explosives beneath the government and detonating them at regular intervals, in speeches and writings that, while not overtly criticizing Conservative policy, point in precisely the opposite direction to that on which the government happens to be embarked.

[. . .]

I cannot think of a precedent for this performance. Bernier is careful not to attack the party’s current leadership — just everything they’ve been doing. Yet he could hardly be accused of heresy. He represents, to paraphrase Howard Dean, the Conservative wing of the Conservative party — the party’s soul, its core beliefs, varnished as they may be under layers of expediency, yet still there. Indeed, so contorted has the Conservative party become that many people insist he is merely giving voice to what the leader himself believes.

[. . .]

Indeed, as a libertarian conservative from Quebec, he may find he has more supporters in the West. I don’t suggest he will be leader, or should. His record in cabinet was decidedly mixed: a fine industry minister, he was a disaster at Foreign Affairs. Though the speeches are thoughtful, it remains unclear whether there is a man of substance behind them, not least after the Couillard fiasco. Yet his willingness to state brave truths openly, to call the party back to its authentic self, marks him as one to watch.

I’ve often asked folks what substantive difference there is between the current Conservative government and the previous Liberal government. Other than the colour of the party signs, there’s not much actual “conservative” governing going on.

P.J. O’Rourke definitely wasn’t an “A” student

Filed under: Education, Government, Humour, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:11

At least, based on his apparent contempt for “A” students:

America has made the mistake of letting the A student run things. It was A students who briefly took over the business world during the period of derivatives, credit swaps, and collateralized debt obligations. We’re still reeling from the effects. This is why good businessmen have always adhered to the maxim: “A students work for B students.” Or, as a businessman friend of mine put it, “B students work for C students — A students teach.”

It was a bunch of A students at the Defense Department who planned the syllabus for the Iraq war, and to hell with what happened to the Iraqi Class of ’03 after they’d graduated from Shock and Awe.

The U.S. tax code was written by A students. Every April 15 we have to pay somebody who got an A in accounting to keep ourselves from being sent to jail.

Now there’s health care reform — just the kind of thing that would earn an A on a term paper from that twerp of a grad student who teaches Econ 101.

Why are A students so hateful? I’m sure up at Harvard, over at the New York Times, and inside the White House they think we just envy their smarts. Maybe we are resentful clods gawking with bitter incomprehension at the intellectual magnificence of our betters. If so, why are our betters spending so much time nervously insisting that they’re smarter than Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement? They are. You can look it up (if you have a fancy education the way our betters do and know what the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary is). “Smart” has its root in the Old English word for being a pain. The adjective has eight other principal definitions ranging from “brisk” to “fashionable” to “neat.” Only two definitions indicate cleverness — smart as in “clever in talk” and smart as in “clever in looking after one’s own interests.” Don’t get smart with me.

Whole piece here.

April 22, 2010

British Lib Dem leader on Britain’s “war guilt”

Filed under: Britain, History, Politics, WW2 — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:20

The leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrats may have a lot of apologizing to do after an article he wrote as a member of the European parliament came to light:

A rattled Nick Clegg today sought to defend himself over his claim that the British people have a ‘more insidious cross to bear’ than Germany over World War II.

The Lib Dem leader attempted to laugh off criticism of his astonishing attack on our national pride — in which he said we suffered ‘delusions of grandeur’ and a ‘misplaced sense of superiority’ over having defeated the horrors of Nazism.

Campaigning ahead of tonight’s crucial second live TV showdown with party leaders, Mr Clegg said: ‘I must be the only politician who has gone from being Churchill to being a Nazi in under a week.’

Then again, despite the apparent anti-British taint, it might gain him votes in some crucial swing ridings where anti-British feelings are treasured and welcomed.

Update: Sorry about the original headline . . . must have started a cut-and-paste and then forgotten to fix it. Fixed now.

April 21, 2010

Is the Tea Party movement racist?

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:44

An interesting article at the Wall Street Journal on how a charge of “racism” works, even when there’s no actual racist action involved:

Blogger Conor Friedsdorf notes that there is a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose quality to the Blow approach [. . .]

Or, for that matter, to any nonpolitical institution that aspires to become more inclusive. Imagine Kelly O’Donnell questioning a black man in a largely white company or university or country club or suburb the way she interrogated Darryl Postell. She would come off as clueless and prejudiced — as, come to think of it, she does. (Kudos to NBC for airing this revealing though embarrassing footage.)

The political left claims to love racial diversity, but it bitterly opposes such diversity on the political right. This is an obvious matter of political self-interest: Since 1964, blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. If Republicans were able to attract black votes, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party.

[. . .]

These charges of racism are partly based on circular reasoning. Among Blow’s evidence that the tea-party movement is racist is “a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday [that] found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic.” Other polls have put the black proportion as high as 5% (and, as Tom Maguire notes, Blow misreports his own paper’s Hispanic figure, which is actually 3%). But with blacks constituting some 12% of the population, there’s no question that the tea-party movement is whiter than the nation as a whole.

Yet to posit racism as an explanation is to ignore far more obvious and less invidious causes for the disparity.

H/T to LibertyIdeals for the link.

April 16, 2010

Exposing the truth about government-run Ponzi schemes

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:22

Kathy Shaidle is exactly right in her analysis of the key weakness of the Tea Party movement:

The Tea party movement contains the seed of its own failure

It preaches self-reliance and small government, but old people still want their pittance of gubmit cheese, ie Social Security.

If they/we were intellectually honest, we would be calling on the raising of the eligibility age to 90, which is more in line with Bismark’s original plan: a little pension for those who were never expected to live long enough to ever get it.

It was meant to be a “look how generous I am” gesture with no real impact; the original designers never thought we’d live long enough to cash the checks.

Older Tea Partiers (and all of us) should be petitioning the government to write everyone a one time check for the exact amount they were forced to contribute, plus maybe 5% interest if that is do-able.

And then the program should be abolished.

I hope most of my readers are not depending on their “government benefits” to get them through in their retirement years: the economics of the situation almost certainly won’t allow it. There are several problems with government-run retirement schemes, starting with the fact that most of them are not in any sense of the word “funded”. Most governments have been using the contributions as a giant low-interest revolving fund: you contribute, they withdraw and leave a promissary note in the kitty. The promissary note is drawn on you and your children. There is, technically speaking, no money in the kitty.

The people who will be worst hurt by the necessary changes to government pension schemes are the ones who earned too little (or spent too much) during their working lives and didn’t make any private provision for retirement. As Kathy points out, the first government pensions were designed so that most potential recipients would be unable to collect, because the start date of the pension income was set beyond the average lifespan of the population. Looking forward to a pension would be much less realistic today if the official “retirement age” was set to 90!

April 15, 2010

A very disturbing notion

Filed under: Economics, Europe, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:59

The Cato Institute’s Richard W. Rahn speculates about some very disturbing notions:

Politicians in developed countries have found that their citizens often get upset when inflation reaches high levels and then tend to vote out the culprits. You may recall that the less-than-astute Jimmy Carter lost his re-election campaign, in part, because inflation at one point reached 14 percent and the prime interest rate hit 21 percent.

An insightful European banker suggested to me over breakfast a couple of weeks ago that the European political class would use selective expropriation, rather than inflation, to avoid paying back all of the debt. The way this would be done would be that the political leaders would announce they would only pay back those bonds with full interest that were held by labor unions and other “politically correct” interest groups but not the bonds held by “greedy bankers” and rich people. Maturities would be extended and promised interest rates lowered – effectively reducing the value of the bonds.

My initial reaction was that, yes, such a selective expropriation might work in Europe, but not in the United States. As I thought more about it, however, looked at what was happening and heard President Obama’s rhetoric attacking “greedy” bankers and insurance companies, I began to think that not only was my European friend right about Europe, but his scenario was equally valid here.

The Obama administration has already indicated that it’s quite comfortable with protecting unions at the expense of other contracting parties (in the Government Motors case, at the very least), so it’s not much of a stretch to see this as a possibility in larger matters.

April 14, 2010

Poll shows Obama would beat Ron Paul . . . by 1%

Filed under: Liberty, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:18

Rasmussen Reports has an amusing poll of voting intentions for 2012 if Barack Obama faced Ron Paul:

Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is — virtually dead even.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.

But Republican voters also have decidedly mixed feelings about Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the party establishment.

Obama earns 79% support from Democrats, but Paul gets just 66% of GOP votes. Voters not affiliated with either major party give Paul a 47% to 28% edge over the president.

Paul, a anti-big government libertarian who engenders unusually strong feelings among his supporters, was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But he continues to have a solid following, especially in the growing Tea Party movement.

Frank J. on saving Guam

Filed under: Humour, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:57

Frank J. takes a moment to cast an admiring glance towards one of the best and brightest politicians in the world today:

Could Guam capsize? This is not a question a lot of people would think to ask. People just go about their little lives, eating Cheetos, watching Jersey Shore, and never once stopping to think what would happen if a U.S. territory flipped over in the water.

Guam is home to an estimated 178,000 people, and if they and all their homes were thrown into the ocean, it would be one of the greatest disasters in history. There would be loss of life, destruction of property, and permanent damage to the ocean’s ecology. This is a potentially huge problem, but most people are too busy with their new iPads to give it even simple consideration.

[. . .]

The average citizen probably wouldn’t have even studied the issue, other than maybe looking Guam up on Wikipedia, seeing its president has the odd name of “Barack Obama,” and dismissing it as an enemy Muslim nation. But Representative Hank Johnson, who we can only assume is the smartest person out of the more than 600,000 people in his district in Georgia, was focused enough to have concerns about Guam capsizing and has potentially saved thousands of lives. They might name a street after him.

You can almost hear the “Real Men of Genius” theme music playing, can’t you?

April 13, 2010

It’s not quite “None of the above”, but it’s close

Filed under: Britain, Europe, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:26

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) says Sod the lot:

The UK Independence party said “sod the lot” today as it launched its manifesto, telling voters it was time to ditch the three main parties in favour of an alternative proposing no cuts at all.

The party’s new poster features the faces of Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg alongside the slogan “sod the lot”.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Ukip’s leader, said it was time for a new politics and argued that leaving the EU would save up to £120bn a year — with no jobs or trade lost from Britain.

Pearson also revealed that his party would put up billboards urging voters to back Labour and Conservative candidates who were “committed” Eurosceptics as part of its strategy to mobilise support for a referendum on Britain’s role in Europe.

The choice on offer to British voters is Gordon Brown, Gordon Brown Lite, and Gordon Brown Extra Lite: that is, there’s very little to choose amongst ’em except for party colours.

Come the next election, it’d be tempting to steal the notion and put Harper, Ignatieff, and Layton on the poster . . . but we don’t have a viable Canadian Independence Party at the moment.

March 31, 2010

More on the growth in public sector employment

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Education, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 09:11

More on this topic here, here, here, here, and here.

March 24, 2010

QotD: The rules of Canadian politics

Filed under: Cancon, Humour, Media, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 13:39

We now introduce Wells’s Rules of Politics. I have been working on them for years. So far I have only come up with two. If your goal is to understand Canadian politics, there is no obvious need for more than two rules. Here they are:

Rule 1: For any given situation, Canadian politics will tend toward the least exciting possible outcome.

Rule 2: If everyone in Ottawa knows something, it’s not true.

The rules are closely related. Usually when Everyone Knows what’s about to happen, they’re really only hoping it will happen so their boring lives (see Rule 1) will become more interesting.

Paul Wells, “My Rules of Politics”, Macleans, 2003-07-28

March 23, 2010

Comparing congress to prostitutes is unfair to prostitutes

Filed under: Government, Humour, Politics, USA — Tags: — Nicholas @ 17:12

Scott Stein upbraids Glenn Reynolds (aka the Instapundit) for his sloppy and insulting comparison:

[P]rostitutes sell themselves for money — the most intimate part of themselves, even their souls, some opponents of legalized prostitution might say. So looked at this way, Congress is full of prostitutes. Members of Congress sell their souls (if any in Congress have such things). Principles, values, the interests of the nation, the Constitution — all of it — are up for sale to the highest bidder, and that bidder need not be offering money directly. Votes or influence in a political party will often do just fine. Of course, these lead to money and power, which is what the whores in Congress want.

But in many ways Congress is nothing like a prostitute. A prostitute only wants cash that customers actually have, and usually tells them the real price of the services being purchased. A prostitute doesn’t impose hidden fees through inflation (we don’t generally give prostitutes the power to print money, but somehow we let Congress approve stimulus packages and spend money that doesn’t exist). A prostitute doesn’t increase the national debt (in fact, it is government, by keeping prostitution illegal, that increases the deficit in yet another way, by making income from prostitution outside of the system and not taxable).

[. . .]

Yet I’ve never heard of a prostitute that had to convince constituents that they wanted to get laid. I don’t recall prostitutes having to give speeches to persuade their constituents that the sex would be good for them and worth the price. Prostitutes have willing and eager constituents. Prostitutes might proposition men, advertise their wares, but they don’t have to force themselves on johns. Prostitutes don’t have to rape anyone.

Can the same be said of Congress?

Glenn, comparing prostitutes to Congress is insulting — to the prostitutes. Perhaps you owe them an apology.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress