David Brooks has a problem with democracy

May 9, 2010

Really, now. How dare those peasants in Utah refuse to renominate Senator Bob Bennett, just because he didn’t vote the way they liked? Don’t they know their place?

This is a damn outrage, to be honest. This is a guy who was a good Senator and he was a good Senator and a good conservative, but a good conservative who was trying to get things done. The Wyden-Bennett bill, which he co-sponsored — if you took the health care economists in the country, they would probably be for that bill, ideally. It was a substantive, serious bill, a bipartisan bill, with strong conservative and some liberal support. So he did something sort of brave by working with Democrats which more Senators should do and now they’ve been sent a message to him don’t do that.

The second thing is the TARP. Nobody liked the TARP. But we were in a complete economic meltdown and sometimes you have to do terrible things. And we’re in a much better economic place because of the TARP. So he bravely cast a vote that nobody wanted to really cast and now he’s losing his career over that. And it’s just a damn outrage.

Uh, David, old boy? Brooks is a senator from Utah. That means he’s supposed to represent the interests and desires of the people of Utah while tending to national matters. He was also seeking the Republican nomination; to do so generally means you have to convince the party faithful you represent their beliefs and interests. (And in Utah, Republicans and general-election voters largely overlap.) He failed to do the latter, so he was dropped from consideration for the nomination. How is that anti-democratic? How is it a coup? How is it an outrage?

The essence of what you’re saying is “Bennett knows better than you what is good for the nation, you flyover-country bumpkins! So sit down, shut up, and vote as your superiors tell you!

David Brooks is nothing but an effete pseudo-intellectual and cocktail conservative who spends his time getting felt up by senators and contemplating Obama’s pant-crease. And now we know he doesn’t much like democracy, either.

Somehow, I sense an Iowahawk essay by T. Coddington van Voorhees VII coming soon….

(via Allah Pundit)

PS: I would have voted reluctantly for TARP, too, as it was originally presented: a plan to buy the toxic mortgages off the market, because the government helped create them (and the problem) in the first place. But, after passage, the money seemed to be used for anything but. Unlike Brooks, apparently, I would expect the voters to hold me responsible for my vote.

LINKS: More from Hot Air.


Finally, the Obama Administration tells the truth

May 9, 2010

About the Times Square bomber, that is.

The investigation into the Times Square bomb plot has revealed that the Pakistani Taliban were behind the failed attack, top Obama administration officials said Sunday.

Despite conflicting claims over the past week from military and law enforcement officials, as well as Taliban leaders, Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said that authorities now believe suspect Faisal Shahzad acted at the direction of the Taliban in Pakistan and was probably funded by them.

Brennan told “Fox News Sunday” that Shahzad had “extensive interaction” with the group, which he described as virtually “indistinguishable” from Al Qaeda. He said investigators believe the suspect was trained by the militant network.

“It looks as though he was operating on behalf of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan,” he said. “This is a group that is closely aligned with Al Qaeda. It has a murderous agenda similar to Al Qaeda, they train together, they plan together, they plot together. They’re almost indistinguishable.”

I wouldn’t be so miffed if, in the immediate aftermath, they our political “leadership” had issued a straightforward statement that said “no comment while the investigation is under way,” instead of belching up stupid and inane statements to make people believe this was anything, anything but a jihadist plot. We’re not idiots. We can see the world around us, we remember what happened on a rotten day in September, 2001, and we know very well that they are trying to kill more of us.

We know this is a war.

You don’t have to come out of the gate screaming “Oh my God! It’s the Taliban!!”, but don’t treat us like simpleminded children who need a pat on the head, either.

(via Threat Matrix)

UPDATE: Good God. The President’s chief counterterrorism adviser has said, with regard to the Times Square attack, “We’re not lucky. We’re good.” We’ve had three major attacks in six months. One was a success for the other side (Ft. Hood), and the other two, Detroit and Times Square, failed only because of dumb luck and alert civilians. How stupid does John Brennan think we are? Here’s a clue, Johnny: it was luck, and you guys are worse than useless.


California: US Senate race debate

May 9, 2010

Thursday night a debate was held at the Museum of Tolerance among the three candidates for the Republican nomination for US senator: Chuck DeVore, Carly Fiorina, and Tom Campbell. I wasn’t able to attend, but the debate will be broadcast this morning at 11AM on KABC. In the meanwhile, Meredith Turney of Flash Report provides her analysis of the debate:

Unsurprisingly, all three camps have claimed victory for their candidates’ performance. I think each candidate was able to deliver on their respective strengths. However, each performance should be analyzed based on each candidate’s ability to win not only the primary, but the general election.

I would never support Tom Campbell in a Republican primary if I had a choice of someone more conservative, which both DeVore and Fiorina obviously are. This was most clearly elucidated when the candidates were asked whether they support someone listed on the no-fly list being allowed to purchase a firearm. Campbell immediately responded, “No.” While DeVore and Fiornia affirmed their belief in the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the due process of law (those on the no-fly list haven’t been convicted of a crime). Taken aback by his peers’ response, Campbell retorted, “It seems somewhat unusual to take that position, except perhaps in a Republican primary.” Republican primary voters won’t miss this slap at their conservative, Second-Amendment-supporting reputation.

(…)

With the election less than a month away, voters are just now beginning to pay attention to candidates. The senate race has been overshadowed by the far more expensive governor race. Polling numbers show Campbell neck-and-neck with Fiorina, and DeVore trailing both. But there is still a large group of undecided voters. As conservatives begin to examine the positions of each candidate, they will immediately rule out Campbell and begin focusing on the other two candidates. When it comes to conservative positions on major issues, DeVore and Fiorina are both appealing. It then becomes a matter of who can beat Barbara Boxer in November. Based on Democrats’ attacks on Fiorina during the primary season, it looks like Boxer would rather not face Fiorina this November.

Carly may have the edge based on the “Whom does Boxer tell us she fears most?” factor, but it’s not as if she is without weaknesses, such as her un-conservative fondness for representation by gender, her prior lack of interest in that most basic of a citizen’s duties – voting, or her controversial record while head of Hewlett-Packard. I can’t get rid of this nagging feeling that she’s a dilettante running for the nomination because she has nothing else to do, and that as a senator she’ll lack conviction to the principles she’s professed.

She has, however, picked up the endorsement of major conservative groups, as Sarah Palin pointed out in her endorsement.

As I’ve said before, my choice is Mr. DeVore; he has both the positions and the consistent track record. I’ll vote for him in the primary, and I think he has as good a chance as any of beating Senator Boxer (D-Moron). I’ll be interested to see the debate to get a better handle on all three candidates and to gauge my own comfort at voting for any of them in November.

RELATED: Following up on yesterday’s post about the Palin endorsement, I note Erick Erickson of Red State voices thoughts similar to my own: luv ya, guv, but I’m staying with Chuck.

UPDATE: I just noticed this was the 3,000 post on this blog. What a windbag I am. 🙂