Friday, March 27, 2015

The Democratic Party has (almost) lost Wall Street « Hot Air

The Democratic Party has (almost) lost Wall Street « Hot Air: "One of the worst kept secrets of President Barack Obama’ first term in office is how closely aligned that administration and the members of the Democratic Party were with the interests of the financial sector, despite party members’ repeated insistence that they wanted nothing more than to curb Wall Street’s excesses. The well-heeled bankers at Goldman Sachs had little to fear from Democrats who professed their appreciation for the promise of the Occupy Wall Street movement while the institution’s members were filling Democratic pockets with campaign contributions. The financial community could rest easy knowing that Democrats were aware of who truly buttered their bread.

But the Democratic Party has begun to match its anti-Wall Street rhetoric with action since figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have risen to power. According to a Reuters exclusive, the trading sector of the economy has had it with the rhetoric of the Warren Wing of the Democratic Party, and they’re ready to do something about it."



'via Blog this'

Bergdahl: I left my base in order to, uh, walk to another base and report wrongdoing « Hot Air

Bergdahl: I left my base in order to, uh, walk to another base and report wrongdoing « Hot Air: "I assume he chose the defense he chose because it gives him more political traction than a simple insanity defense would. If he says “I snapped,” the retort will be that that’s no excuse to desert. Most soldiers cope with severe mental strain and many, I’m sure, have complaints about various officers up the chain of command, and only rarely do any of them decide to choose their own adventure outside the wire. Also, none of the men from his unit who’ve accused him of desertion have said anything about obvious signs of insanity from Bergdahl before he left. How would he prove that he snapped when there’d be a dozen witnesses claiming they saw no evidence of it at the time? Claiming instead that he was headed to another base to report wrongdoing makes it seem like the Pentagon’s coming after him now to punish him for trying to speak out, which may swing anti-war activists and civil libertarians over to his side. It won’t spare him from a sentence but maybe political pressure will keep that sentence lighter than it otherwise would have been. The Army’s not really going to send a misguided but well meaning “whistleblower” away to prison for life, are they?

Exit question from Aaron MacLean: Why are senior defense officials leaking Bergdahl’s self-serving story to CNN? Is there any explanation apart from them wanting to cover Obama’s ass by making the subject of his disastrous prisoner swap look as good as they can?"



'via Blog this'

Friday, February 27, 2015

Video: Is Jeb Bush inevitable? « Hot Air

Video: Is Jeb Bush inevitable? « Hot Air: "Ted Cruz talked about this at length but obliquely yesterday, warning conservatives of the consultant class that wants to produce a formulaic candidate designed to look only slightly to the right of Democrats in the mistaken belief that Democrats will choose a Republican carbon copy. That wasn’t specific to Bush, and Bush and his team would object to that characterization, but that is the conservative perception of Bush. The ham-handed tactics to force people to choose their allegiance this early in the cycle plays into that perception, as does the emphasis on locking up the very consultants to which Cruz referred."



'via Blog this'

Saturday, February 21, 2015

The double standard which allows Dana Milbank to call Scott Walker “a coward” « Hot Air

The double standard which allows Dana Milbank to call Scott Walker “a coward” « Hot Air: "If you want to take Giuliani to task, fine. Have at it. But since when has it become “necessary” for every member of a given party to respond to or disown what someone else has to say? The answer to that one is simple… since the media decided that it was their job to ensure Democrats get elected rather simply reporting on the events of the election. Since when is it the job of every candidate on the trail to monitor each and every syllable uttered by every person out there and either support, decry or disown it? This is no test of leadership, as Milbank implies, but rather a test of the port side media to see if they can sling enough gotcha questions at the wall that one will eventually stick."



'via Blog this'

Friday, February 20, 2015

Rasmussen: Plurality of Democrats think Obama should be able to ignore court rulings if it’s “important” « Hot Air

Rasmussen: Plurality of Democrats think Obama should be able to ignore court rulings if it’s “important” « Hot Air: "I assume Rasmussen deliberately chose a phrase as open-ended as “important for the country” to nudge respondents about the potential for abuse. Once you tell the president it’s cool to ignore court rulings if it’s “important,” you might as well pass an enabling act and hand him supreme power. Forty-three percent of Democrats, an actual plurality, didn’t flinch, though. And the irony is, Obama’s own defenses of his power grabs aren’t much more sophisticated than that. His rationale for executive amnesty is that Congress is hopelessly gridlocked, the legal limbo that illegals find themselves in is intolerable, and we’ve now reached a point of crisis (a political crisis for the White House, not a policy crisis) that simply demands executive action. It’s crucially important that he act unilaterally and that he act now, even though he can’t quite explain — again, on policy terms — why that is. Just trust him. It’s important. And Democrats do, including and especially the core Democratic constituencies of women, young adults, and minorities.

If you’re looking for a silver lining here, you can find it in the fact that these numbers will move — probably within both parties — once a Republican’s back in the White House. Some GOPers will doubtless become more comfortable with executive action at that point, but I’d bet Republican opposition to the idea of the president defying court rulings doesn’t soften nearly as much as Democratic opposition will harden. That’s the state of the rule of law in the “progressive” party now. Separation of powers and check and balances are wonderful things, but only when they’re being used to restrain the right people."



'via Blog this'

Thursday, February 19, 2015

ISIS and the left's Vulgar Marxism problem

ISIS and the left's Vulgar Marxism problem: "Human beings are human beings — we are not just animals. We do not just want to feed and reproduce. We actually have beliefs and we actually make choices on the basis of those beliefs.

It's kind of crazy to have to point this out. We were made with an orientation toward ultimate truth, goodness, and beauty, and we seek it however we understand it — and how we understand it determines our actions.

The historian N.T. Wright talks about a worldview being like a set of glasses: not something you look at but something you look through; something that you don't think about — until there's a problem with it. Almost no progressive will make an explicit argument for Vulgar Marxism, but it's hovering in the background of much of their writing on almost every issue. And, in the case of ISIS, this mistaken worldview has almost certainly led to more bloodshed than there would have been had the progressives in the Obama White House actually tried to understand what ISIS believed, and why."



'via Blog this'

National Review

National Review: "In the intolerance, I also saw hope. During one particularly memorable day, when radicals started shrieking when I questioned why our professor referred to an unborn child as a mere “clump of cells,” I remember speaking to a small group of students after class. They told me they were questioning some of their pro-choice views. “Why?” I asked. Because, they responded, if the leading pro-choice activists couldn’t debate the issue without shout-downs, then perhaps their positions weren’t as intellectually coherent as they led us to believe. Intolerance and intimidation do not breed affection and loyalty. Reasoned arguments and basic kindness have their own appeal, and often the barrier to greater influence lies more in the inability to speak (or to be heard) than in the perceived inadequacy of the ideas."



'via Blog this'