SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (46578)10/27/2010 11:26:19 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
The Day After
Listen to the American people.
Oct 23, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 07 •
By MATTHEW CONTINETTI

Sometime in the late summer of 2005, the United States entered a period of upheaval. Throughout the preceding decade, America had been about evenly divided between two sparring political camps, represented by the blue and red on election maps. After George W. Bush’s reelection, however, those patterns of color began to change. Red and blue began to mix, swirl, and blur.

Perhaps it started when Bush failed to modernize Social Security. Or perhaps it was when Cindy Sheehan showed up on the front porch of the Western White House, signaling popular discontent with Iraq. Whatever the cause, by the time Hurricane Katrina collided with the Gulf coast, the time of troubles had begun.

It isn’t over. A half-decade of calamity followed Katrina, from which the country has not yet emerged. You remember the headlines. Harriet Miers. Dubai Ports. The bombing of the Golden Mosque. Jack Abramoff. Sectarian war in Iraq. Mark Foley. The battle over immigration. The battle over the surge. The collapse of the housing bubble. Bear Stearns. Bernie Madoff. The onset of the Great Recession. $4 gas. Lehman Brothers. TARP. The auto bailout. All of this shook America to its foundations. “The effect,” Irving Kristol wrote in a different but all too familiar context, “is of disengagement and a sense of powerlessness on the part of the majority, of alienation and irresponsible power on the part of every organized minority, and of purposelessness on the part of both.”

As the bad news piled up, Americans began suffering from a lack of confidence. They felt mistrust toward their institutions. They began to doubt the future. They overwhelmingly believed that the country was headed in the wrong direction. Many of them began to refashion their political identities. Conservative Republicans, angry at their party’s leadership, started calling themselves independents and sat out elections. Most independents swung heavily behind the Democrats, by an 18-point margin in 2006 and an 8-point margin in 2008.

The public rejection of the GOP culminated in the election of Barack Obama. Yet, when it came to the challenge of restoring American growth and confidence in authority, the Obama Democrats proved to be just as inept as those they had replaced. The Democrats used a moment of great opportunity, a moment when the normal rules of American politics had been suspended, to pass a partisan and ideological agenda about which they had dreamed for decades. Their stimulus bill emphasized present consumption over long-term growth. They argued that the only way to restore responsibility was for the government to rack up $3 trillion in new debt.

As Americans felt that their country was slipping away, the president started speaking of a “New Foundation” for America. He championed causes that were not high public priorities, like cap and trade and health care. The Democrats lavished attention on politically connected groups—big banks, Detroit, public sector workers—while doing little to quell uncertainty and promote job creation in the private sector. And when the president encountered resistance to his vision, he attributed the disagreement to irrational fear or craven partisanship. Was it surprising that independents turned away from the Democrats so quickly? Is it remarkable that, in the latest Pew survey, likely independent voters favor Republicans by 19 points?

Over the last half decade, neither party has found itself capable of effective governance in line with the broad contours of American public opinion. In both cases, the agenda of the governing party has been out of whack with the public’s concerns and desires. It took the Bush administration more than three years to settle on an effective strategy for the war in Iraq. The congressional Republicans, in their decadent phase, were besotted by corruption and reckless spending. The Obama Democrats have been no better. And so voters have rocked back and forth between the parties as they try to negotiate a safe course in troubled waters.

The lesson for conservatives and Republicans is that they are about to win an election by default. The public still distrusts the GOP. But it cannot stand the Obama agenda. Look over the names of House Democrats likely to fall on November 2, and you see again and again that they voted for at least part of, and in many cases all of, the Obama policy trifecta: stimulus, cap and trade, and health care. Those votes are why the Democrats are about to lose big. It’s not just that unemployment is high. It’s that the public believes the Democratic program has been unnecessary and counterproductive.

Another thing to remember is that America has been here before. And history suggests that the way out is through bold and creative policy. Our colleague Jay Cost notes that in the early 1890s the electorate swung wildly between the parties before William McKinley’s Republicans married a pro-growth economic program to a strong nationalism that kept their party dominant for three decades. Similarly, starting in the 1960s, major public figures were assassinated, cities burned, a sitting president didn’t run for reelection, a vice president resigned for corruption, another president resigned before being impeached, a Democratic wave produced one of the most left-wing congresses in history, Saigon fell, stagflation reigned, and an unknown, one-term governor of Georgia became a particularly ineffective president. Then Ronald Reagan combined pro-growth tax policy, a strong dollar, and a robust defense of American exceptionalism into one of the most successful presidencies in history.

Republicans who want to build on their coming success at the polls might study McKinley and Reagan. Then they might resolve to be humble—and listen to the American people.

—Matthew Continetti

weeklystandard.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (46578)11/5/2012 10:08:53 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Wave goodbye to the Obama media
Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel
2:24 AM 11/05/2012

By tomorrow night we’ll likely know the name of the next president. But we already know the loser in this election cycle: political reporters. They’ve disgraced themselves. Conservatives have long complained about liberal bias in the media, and with some justification. But it has finally reached the tipping point. Not in our lifetimes have so many in the press dropped the pretense of objectivity in order to help a political candidate. The media are rooting for Barack Obama. They’re not hiding it.

Consider Benghazi. An American consulate is destroyed and a US ambassador murdered at a time when the president is boasting at every campaign stop that he has crushed al-Qaida. In an effort not to disrupt this narrative, the White House and the Obama campaign spend weeks claiming the incident was merely a protest over a video, rather than a real terror attack. Then intelligence surfaces showing just the opposite: The killers in Benghazi were no street mob, and Obama knew as much from the beginning.

Imagine if George W. Bush, or even Bill Clinton, had tried something like this during a re-election campaign. The howls from journalists would have been deafening, and unceasing. Instead, Obama has enjoyed every benefit of every doubt from the press every step of the way. Candy Crowley even broke character in the middle of a presidential debate to defend him. From their retirement, former presidents must be looking on in envious bewilderment.

For Obama, treatment like this is standard. Remember his last press conference? On August 20, the president made a rare appearance in the White House briefing room. (Obama has held fewer press conferences even than George W. Bush.) The first question went to Jim Kuhnhenn of the Associated Press. Here’s what Kuhnhenn asked, in full and unedited:

“Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for being here. You’re no doubt aware of the comments that the Missouri Senate candidate, Republican Todd Akin, made on rape and abortion. I wondered if you think those views represent the views of the Republican Party in general. They’ve been denounced by your own rival and other Republicans. Are they an outlier or are they representative?”

In other words: Just how horrible are your opponents? That’s not a question. That’s an assist.

Most telling of all, nobody in the press corps seemed to find Kuhnhenn’s suck-up remarkable, much less objectionable. Reporters who push Obama for actual answers, meanwhile, find themselves scorned by their peers — as we discovered the hard way when our White House reporter dared ask Obama an unapproved question during a presidential statement in the Rose Garden. Months later, longtime Newsweek correspondent Jonathan Alter confronted us on the street and became apoplectic, literally yelling and shaking and drawing a crowd, over the exchange. His complaint: our reporter was “rude” to Obama.

Yep. Good reporters occasionally are impolite, especially to people in power who refuse to answer legitimate questions about their own policies. We don’t hire for table manners. We hire for persistence and toughness and the ability to spot a story among the fluff. We’re traditional that way. It’s the legacy media that have changed.

Earlier this year, we caught the left-wing nonprofit Media Matters coordinating with the White House to attack news organizations, among them Fox and The Daily Caller. We discovered internal Media Matters memos detailing plans to harass reporters, including at their homes. You’d think some in the media would recognize this for what it was — an attempt by politicians to subvert the press — and express outrage. You’d be mistaken.

Last month we found previously unseen video of then-Senator Barack Obama accusing the U.S. government of racism in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Even before our story appeared, liberal reporters tried to minimize and discredit it. Sam Feist, the Washington bureau chief at CNN, even boasted that his network had had possession of the tape for years, apparently unaware that some might wonder why they had never aired it.

We could go on. The point is that many in the press are every bit as corrupt as conservatives have accused them of being. The good news is, it’s almost over. The broadcast networks, the big daily newspapers, the newsweeklies — they’re done. It’s only a matter of time, and everyone who works there knows it. That may be why so many of them seem tapped out, lazy and enervated, unwilling to stray from the same tired story lines. Some days they seem engaged only on Twitter, where they spend hours preening for one another and sneering at outsiders.

By the next presidential cycle most of these people will be gone. They’ll have moved on to academia or think tanks or Democrat senate campaigns, or wherever aging hacks go when their union contracts finally, inevitably get voided. They’ll be replaced by a vibrant digital marketplace filled with hungry young reporters who care more about breaking stories than maintaining access to some politician or regulator.

All of this was probably inevitable, but it came faster than expected. Through their dishonesty the legacy media hastened their own end. Their moral authority has evaporated. So has their business model. Wave them goodbye on the way out.

dailycaller.com