Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty
April 8, 2010
In This Issue . . .
1. I Await the Twelve-Part Ken Burns Miniseries on McDonnell's Governorship
2. I Can Think of Too Many Off-Color Headlines That Use the Word 'Spitzer'
3. I'm Not in That 47 Percent
4. Addenda
Today's edition of the Jolt arrives later than usual, not because of Chaka's negligence but because of my writing ability's near-obliteration by an eleven-hour car ride. North Carolina flew by, but I had to be more careful in my home commonwealth, since other drivers tell me Gov. Bob McDonnell is closing the state's budget gap, one speeding ticket at a time . . .
Jim
1. I Await the Twelve-Part Ken Burns Miniseries on McDonnell's Governorship
Speaking of Bob McDonnell, how many governors have stepped in it as needlessly as he has in the past week? At least he's apologized. Rich offers a useful quote for further discussions of the subject.
When it comes to the problems facing Virginia, I'd rank insufficient commemoration of Confederate History Month somewhere between 1,861st and 1,865th on the list. Beyond that, I think Ed Morrissey puts it well: "As a history buff myself, I agree that it's important to study history, but that doesn't require a Confederacy Appreciation Month, which is what this sounds like. McDonnell could have broadened the perspective to a Civil War History Month, which would have allowed for all of the issues in the nation's only armed rebellion to be studied. This approach seems needlessly provocative and almost guaranteed to create problems for Republicans in Virginia and across the country. It might have a short term effect of strengthening McDonnell's attachment to his base, which didn't appear to be threatened at all in the first place."
However, McDonnell has been defended, rather heartily, by . . . David Frum? Yup; didn't see that one coming, did you? Frum looks at the proclamation and concludes, "It's hard to imagine a more anodyne remembrance of the Confederacy than this issued by McDonnell. It does contain the eyebrow-raising language that the Confederates 'fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth.' None of those things were in danger in 1861. Beyond that, however, it's a bland invocation of the importance of studying history. There are no adjectives of praise for any Confederate leader, and the proclamation fully endorses the outcome of the war: the return to allegiance to the United States." Then he looks at Jim Gilmore's proclamation on the subject and notes, "Gilmore has more to say denouncing slavery. He also offers more praise for those who waged war on behalf of the Confederacy -- and more acknowledgement of their cause as they perceived it. It's certainly a more interesting document than McDonnell's. And yes, there was always the alternative of saying nothing, the alternative adopted by Virginia's two most recent Democratic governors. But isn't that objectionable too? McDonnell's proclamation looks like the work of an administration eager to cut short this ritual of recrimination and say nothing that would offend anyone. Maybe that decision was not a good answer. Maybe there is no way to avoid offending someone on this subject. But a declaration of culture war and Confederate nostalgia, this proclamation isn't."
Over at The American Spectator, John Guardino sees this as horrific race-baiting by the Left: "In fact, anyone who knows anything about American history knows that for most Southerners, and for most Confederate soldiers, the Civil War (or War Between the States) was absolutely not about slavery. It was about resisting Yankee aggression, and defending their liberty, their honor and their homeland. The Confederate soldiers, moreover, were quite courageous and valiant in battle. And it is their courage and valor, and their implacable commitment to family and community, that we honor and celebrate."
As Ed notes, Southerners often accuse those outside the South of not "getting" the attachment of Southerners to the Confederacy. He's right; we don't get it. Confederaphilia strikes me as being like getting wildly enthusiastic and nostalgic about the Whiskey Rebellion as more than an excuse for drinking. Outside the South, perhaps instruction on that era is oversimplified into a story of the Union being good and the Confederacy being bad. But when a guy says he's really proud of his heritage and then seems to focus relentlessly on the four years of his heritage that constituted violent insurrection against our government and a conflict that ultimately stemmed from whether a man is actually a man or whether he could be chattel based on his race . . . well, he begins to perform amputory surgery on the benefit of the doubt in a lot of non-Southerners' minds. What's more, once you start loudly touting the little-known facts of how the Confederacy was underrated, a lot of folks tune out anything else you might say.
2. I Can Think of Too Many Off-Color Headlines That Use the Word 'Spitzer'
Oh, good. If former New York governor Eliot Spitzer -- you know, the one who paid women to have sex with him -- can make a comeback, then we might be blessed with the apocalyptic shamelessness of a John Edwards 2016 bid.
The New York Post crows a bit: "For the first time, Eliot Spitzer is acknowledging in an interview with Fortune what The Post first reported last year -- that he is itching for a way back into politics and, even at this late date, hasn't totally closed the door on a race this year."
Jammie Wearing Fool is hearing the words, but can't quite process them: "Even more surreal, he's considering a run for office this year. Good thing the Democrat primary for dog catcher is still a couple months away."
At Hot Air, Allahpundit sees a revival of what reminds me of what Michael Kinsley once called "Lewinsky Liberalism": "The time is right, my friends. We've got a porn star running for Senate (as a Republican!), we've got a formerly wholesome sports icon nailing everything within a hundred-foot radius -- heck, we've even got Spitz's own hookers writing for major metropolitan newspapers. And of course we've got a new governor in New York who's somehow made himself seem even scummier than Spitzer is. America 2008 was an innocent place. America 2010 is ready to party. . . . Speaking of hubristic cheaters, here's Tiger making his sad face in a new ad from Nike. No foolin'. This is an honest to goodness official Nike spot, designed to boost sales by making you sympathize with a guy with a zipper problem who's worth a billion dollars. Enjoy the pity party. Oh, did I mention that the voiceover is audio from his dead father? Stay classy, Nike."
Oh, the slogans for Spitzer: "Let's get the women of New York working again."
3. I'm Not in That 47 Percent
The AP informs us: "Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem. About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization." Of course, those 47 percent only think they're not paying taxes. Many of them are actually paying them in payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and so on.
Stephan Tawney, writing at the American Pundit, sees the collapse coming our way: "Unless something changes to even out the financial load, we're witnessing the beginning of the end of the republic. You simply can't maintain this country with a majority able to vote for the minority to pay for everything. You can't have a majority with no financial interest in the federal government and who runs it. Imagine a future where a minority of Americans have to pay all of the taxes but don't have enough political power to determine who runs the nation. The majority, with no financial interest in maintaining limited government or smaller budgets, would keep electing leaders who promise to take even more money from the minority to give to the majority. The tax-free majority would, effectively, keep voting itself free services and in general more money from the minority. The minority would be locked into funding everything the majority wants, unable to overcome the political power of the majority moocher class."
At Right Angles, Jon Ham -- not the one from Mad Men -- thinks the process will be interrupted before the worst-case scenario: "This is America, not Canada or Britain. Producers here won't stand for supporting leeches and parasites who are content to be pulled along by those who work. There will be a tax revolution before that happens. Count on it."
Tigerhawk tries to find some silver lining: "If the Democrats (and, to be sure, the big government Republicans, who are, sadly, legion) manage to excuse another 4 percent of households from the federal income tax, non-taxpayers will be in the majority and, presumably, able to vote themselves even larger benefits. At least until the taxed minority works it out to earn less money. Fortunately, people who have not figured out how to earn enough money to pay income tax often do not choose to vote. At least we've got that going for us."
Doug Ross concludes that the Galt-Meter has reached the red zone.
4. Addenda
CNN correspondent Christine Roman tweets: "Same store sales jump pre-Easter. Bullish. Jobless claims jump to 460,000. Bearish. Welcome to the New Normal." Hey, can we at least call it the New Abnormal? |
