Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (69843)	2/24/2009 5:58:38 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

The Wages of Bias [Victor Davis Hanson] I don't understand why, after Obama's brilliant campaign, some are surprised about his conduct in office. From the Wall Street panic instilled by Obama's gloom and doom rhetoric and Europeanization proposals, to the sloppy nominations of serial tax dodgers, to the surprise that the Bush 'shred the Constitution' protocols — hope and change rhetoric aside — were mostly adopted by Obama, it is as if the professional on the campaign trail is mysteriously stumbling after assuming office. Two observations: It is a lot easier to serially blame Bush than to conduct governance (raising taxes to new highs in recent memory while serially nominating to high office tax dodgers isn't wise); and, more importantly, the media simply were advocates rather than disinterested journalists. They did us all a disservice by not collating Obama's soaring rhetoric and metamorphoses against his actual record and past statements, giving a pass to a gaffe-prone Biden in a way not true of Palin, and thinking that trashing Bush was synonymous with offering a practical antithesis. Even if such overt bias did not, in itself, affect the outcome of the election (and I think it did), it proved to be a terrible thing for both us and the future President, since we never really vetted our President. The media gave him the impression that in times of controversy that he can simply go back into campaign mode, do the town meeting thing, and once more hope-and-change his way out of answering tough questions and explaining ideas to those who are deeply skeptical of their utility. Unfortunately, the world's thugs abroad, markets, Wall Street, etc. don't care much for what the American media says, only what they think Obama is really trying to do or not to do. I think we are going to see a gradual hangover among the journalists from their 2008 binge, followed by a sort of anger on the part of Team Obama that for the first time in its history their in-house media is not so mesmerized as in the past. (Many well-paid elite journalists, after all, have lost another 10-20% of their portfolios since January 20, and in high-state-tax places like California and New York, along with federal tax rates returning to 39-40%, and FICA caps coming off higher incomes, will soon be looking at ca. 70% of their incomes going to new bites from federal, state, FICA, and Medicare taxes. Journalists can't go the Daschle/Geithner/Rangel route, but perhaps may not be content with the "patriotic" pats from the White House.) This Obama/press break-up, like all infatuations gone bad, won't be pretty on either side. In the meantime the recepient dêmos seems as happy with Obama's new deal as markets are skittish. corner.nationalreview.com

To: mph who wrote (69843)	2/24/2009 7:17:10 PM
From: MrLucky	1 Recommendation Respond to of 90947

Sending back the Churchill bust was not well received by the Brits. A classic "bone head" decision.