Archive for 2009

WILL WILKINSON ON DAVID BROOKS:

What in tarnation is this man talking about? Where is this Republican Party of “untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice”? Did Ron Paul just become House minority leader or take Michael Steele’s job or something? Have the Republicans put up the white flag in the War on Drugs? Are GOP Senators stumping to end the legislation of morality? How did I miss this? It’s like Brooks was kidnapped by a Romulan and is sending us op-eds from an alternative timeline.

One in which Obama has a beard. In this universe, however, a Republican party devoted to “untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice” might have done better than the one devoted to pork and pocket-stuffing did.

AMITY SHLAES: Obama Democrats Accent Bullying Over Governing. “Because the ruling Democrats have tilted too far left, their allies are out on a mission of distraction, trying to prove that everyone else is too far to the right.”

KNIGHT RIDER CANCELED: “And with that, our long national nightmare is over.” As I mentioned a while back, I caught an episode and after watching just a few minutes developed a newfound appreciation for the genius of David Hasselhoff.

JOHN MURTHA UPDATE: Murtha’s Nephew Got Defense Contracts: Millions in Work Came Without Competition. “Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech’s most striking feature is its owner — Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department’s spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.”

VISCLOSKY UPDATE: INDIANAPOLIS STAR: QUESTIONS WORTH PROBING:

Rep. Pete Visclosky has rarely faced more than token opposition in his 13 elections to Indiana’s First District congressional seat. Yet he raises princely sums for his campaigns and often passes money on to fellow Democrats.

Lobbyists likewise reap dividends from the well-positioned congressman whom they’ve helped, thus raising questions about the role of money and special interests even where no legal breach has been shown to have taken place. Those questions, applicable to many in Washington, have taken on new urgency in Visclosky’s case with the federal investigation of the lobbying firm PMA Group and its ties to him and his staff.

Read the whole thing.

“CULTURE OF CORRUPTION:” Meet the new political bosses, worse than the old political bosses.

Democrats took back Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 in no small part because of their ability to bang their spoons on their high chairs about what they called the Republican “culture of corruption.” Their choreographed outrage was coordinated with the precision of a North Korean missile launch pageant. And, to be fair, they had a point. The GOP did have its legitimate embarrassments. California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and lobbyist Jack Abramoff were fair game, and so was Rep. Mark Foley, the twisted Florida congressman who allegedly wanted male congressional pages cleaned and perfumed and brought to his tent, as it were.

Of course, it wasn’t as if Democrats were without sin. Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson was indicted on fraud, bribery and corruption charges in 2007, after an investigation unearthed, among other things, $90,000 in his freezer. Then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was busted in a prostitution scandal.

But that’s all yesterday’s news. Let’s look at the here and now. Barack Obama, who vowed he’d provide a transparent administration staffed with disinterested public servants with the self-restraint of Roman castrati, appointed an admitted tax cheat to run the Treasury Department — and he’s hardly the only one in the administration.

Following is discussion of Murtha, Rangel, Dodd, et al., plus this observation:

If a Republican administration, staffed with cronies from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, was cutting special deals for its political allies, I suspect we’d be hearing fewer FDR analogies and more nouns ending with the suffix “gate.”

Do you think?

THE PRESS GETS ITS VICTORY BASH: “I’d be less concerned over the media standing for Obama but not Bush if they weren’t continuing to lie down on the job just as they did in the campaign.”

HMM: SCARE FORCE ONE PHOTOS WON’T BE RELEASED: “After claiming last week that the flyby of the VC-25 aircraft that is designated Air Force One when the President is on board was meant to upgrade the file photos of the airplane over national landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, the US Air Force now says that they wont make the photos public.”

SLATE’S “DEAR PRUDENCE” addresses an apparently common problem.

I am on the Board of a DC-based non-profit that provides social services to low-income DC residents.

During our Board meetings, there are several Board members who have made comments that are either critical of Republicans, former President Bush, Senator McCain, etc. or that praise President Obama and the new Congress. The first couple of times it happened, I discreetly mentioned to them after the meeting that, while I could understand if they thought that everyone on the Board was of the same political persuasion, I was sure that everyone was not since I am a Republican and actually voted for Senator McCain in the last presidential election. Two of the people took my comments to heart, and have since refrained from making overt political statements that make me (and perhaps others on the Board) uncomfortable. The third Board member, however, not only laughed in my face when I took her aside the first time, but, even though she thereafter apologized for laughing in my face and for making her statements, she nonetheless continues to say things during meetings (and now puts things in emails to the Board) that are politically charged. How should I respond, if at all?

And, again:

I work in a non-profit organization devoted to children (can’t say more than that!) and routinely get barraged by e-mails from the CEO about his political preferences. Editorials, jokes, “don’t forget to vote, and the right way (wink, wink)”, etc. It has definitely been oppressive at times. It offends me, and I actually share most of his persuasions! However, I am in no position to do a pull-aside and say something. It would be the last thing I ever said in this building!

Yoffe says to tell them you’re unhappy. I think that’s a good idea. Hey, maybe go whole hog: Push back, act offended, and threaten litigation. It’s worked for the lefties!

GLOBAL PENSION TENSION: A roundup. “When the full fury of the pension storm strikes, many will be surprised and shocked to find out how weak their retirement plans really are.”