This article in the New Yorker isn't good enough and too long to read in its entirety. It is basically another pro-bama echo chamber / in-kind campaign contribution. But this paragraph jumped out at me:

Polarization also has affected the two parties differently. The Republican Party has drifted much farther to the right than the Democratic Party has drifted to the left. Jacob Hacker, a professor at Yale, whose 2006 book, “Off Center,” documented this trend, told me, citing Poole and Rosenthal’s data on congressional voting records, that, since 1975, “Senate Republicans moved roughly twice as far to the right as Senate Democrats moved to the left” and “House Republicans moved roughly six times as far to the right as House Democrats moved to the left.” In other words, the story of the past few decades is asymmetric polarization.Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza#ixzz1kPCBTIRH

Of course, where the New Yorker thinks the center is can be roughly guaged by this description:
Two well-known Washington political analysts, Thomas Mann, of the bipartisan Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agree."

Norman Orstein is also a contributor to the NYT, and blogged for the HuffPo, which lists a brief bio: "Norman J. Ornstein is a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He also serves as an election analyst for CBS News. In addition, Ornstein writes for USA Today as a member of its Board of Contributors and writes a weekly column called "Congress Inside Out" for Roll Call newspaper. He has written for the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs and other major publications, and regularly appears on television programs like The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, and Charlie Rose. He serves as senior counselor to the Continuity of Government Commission, working to ensure that our institutions of government can be maintained in the event of a terrorist attack on Washington; his efforts in this area are recounted in a profile of him in the June 2003 Atlantic Monthly. His campaign finance working group of scholars and practitioners helped shape the major law, known as McCain/Feingold, that reformed the campaign financing system. Legal Times referred to him as "a principal drafter of the law" and his role in its design and enactment was profiled in the February 2004 issue of Washington Lawyer."

And if Brookings can be called, "bipartisan" so can AEI for employing Ornstein. Mann's comments are clearly from the Left.

"From September 1st to Election Day, Obama outspent McCain by almost three to one, and, as many Republicans are quick to note, ran more negative ads than any Presidential candidate in modern history. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza#ixzz1kPCBTIRH"

Why are "many Republicans quick to note" something that would be an indelable mark in the MSM were O not a fellow traveller?

Another SOTU never heard

No matter what platitudes, self-congratulatory encomiums and partisan bromides we may hear if we dial in to the State of the Union at all; we certainly won't hear a real review of the The truly dismal state of the union three years into the current administration:

"The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama was elected was 6.8 percent; today it is 8.5 percent — at least that’s the official number. In reality, the Financial Times writes, “if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent.”
In addition, there are now fewer payroll jobs in America than there were in 2000 — 12 years ago — and now, 40 percent of those jobs are considered “low paying,” up 10 percent from when President Reagan took office. The number of self-employed has dropped 2 million to 14.5 million in just six years.
Regular gasoline per gallon cost $1.68 in January 2009. Today, it’s $3.39 — that’s a 102 percent increase in just three years. (By the way, if you’re keeping score at home, gas was $1.40 a gallon when George W. Bush took office in 2001, $1.68 when he left office — a 20 percent increase.)
Electricity bills have also skyrocketed, with households now paying a record $1,420 annually on average, up some $300.
Some 48 percent of all Americans — 146.4 million — are considered by the Census Bureau either as “low-income” or living in poverty, up 4 million from when Mr. Obama took office; 57 percent of all children in America now live in such homes.
Since December 2008, a month before Mr. Obama took office, food-stamp use has increased 46 percent. Total spending has more than doubled in just four years to a record high of $75 billion. In 2011, more than 46 million people — about one in seven Americans — got food stamps. That’s 14 million more than when Mr. Obama took office.
Median household income has dropped nearly 7 percent in the last six years, taking inflation into account. What’s more, nearly 20 percent of males age 25 to 34 now live with their parents.
Low- and middle-income Americans 65 and older now hold more than $10,000 in credit card debt, up 26 percent since 2005. The average age of the American car is 10 years; in 1990, it was 6.5 years old (by the way, in 1985, Americans bought 11 million cars; in 2009, less than half that, 5.4 million).
On the macro side, America’s annual budget has jumped to $3.8 trillion — and yet the United States brings in only about $2.1 trillion in revenue. The U.S. trade deficit for 2011 was $558 billion. America’s total public debt stands at $15.23 trillion; in January 2009, the debt was $10.62 trillion. Mr. Obama is on pace to borrow $6.2 trillion in just one term — more debt than was amassed by all presidents from Washington through Bill Clinton combined. The debt is rising by $4.2 billion every day — $175 million per hour, nearly $3 million per minute.

Harsh words from Maureen Dowd

"Despite what his rivals say, the president and the first lady do believe in American exceptionalism — their own, and they feel overassaulted and underappreciated.
We disappointed them. "
But her readers will have none of it:
"President Obama is in fact fundamentally different, fortunately, than the majority of politicians who are truly abysmal"
"Mr. Obama would be the president who brought back all the blessings God once poured down upon America."
"Ms. Dowd doesn't mention the racism facing our first black president; any discussion of how the Obama presidency is faring simply must include that dynamic. "
"It is significant that the whole world shook' when he was elected and despite all the 'sound bite buffoonery' of the right wind media, we continue to be mesmerized by the persona of this man and his family.His 'Apollo moment' was memorable because...wait for it...he could actually sing and had rhythm and was willing to 'have fun'.Oh, what an America you could all create if Obama's plea for unity was received and acted upon. ...'Apollo has been variously recognized as a god of light and the sun, truth and prophecy, healing, music, poetry, and more'. Seems The Apollo was the right place for your 8 seconds, Maureen."
"He is introspective and deliberate in addition to being exceptionally outgoing. I think Ms. Dowd would do well to reassess her evaluations in this regard and see Obama as the extremely complex person he is, not easily read, not easily pigeonholed."

I expect I won't take the time to watch the POTUS SOTU speech, when ever it is. Perhaps I will, and give it the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment. That might be fun with some beers and similarly minded friends.


The WashTimes correctly points out that the speech is merely a campaign event with the taxpayer providing an impressive-looking venue: "Anyone wondering whether President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday will focus more on policy or the politics of his re-election should consider the trip he has planned immediately afterward: visits to five battleground states in three days."


There is zero chance of candidate Obama doing other than pandering to his base and head-faking to Independents. But, in case some naive soul or alien from another planet doesn't believe me, he gave us a preview in the form of a (paid for by taxpayers) ad: "In a video preview of his State of the Union speech emailed to 10 million supporters Saturday, Mr. Obama said he would call for “a return to American values of fairness for all and responsibility from all.”

Anyone doubt that the pre-view included a plea for contributions to 'help the president win the future we can't wait to fundamentally transform hope and change to dispair and decline blah blah blah..." But we don't have to conjecture. "fairness for all" and "responsibility from all" - well, not exactly ALL "all". We want fairness FOR all the people who support the concerns expressed by OWS blah blah blah. We want responsibility from the Koch brothers and the 1% that don't attend $36,000/plate Democratic fund raisers.

"“We can go in two directions,” the president said. “One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.”

This is less than a weak echo of President Reagan's A Time For Choosing speech. In fact, it is more of a tawdry parody.

"This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

But of course the administration can't admit that it is taking its cues from an iconic Republican president. So, they pretend they are channelling Slick Willie:

"Americans of all political persuasions are going to want their elected representatives here in Washington to work together, whether it’s an even year or an odd year or a year in the presidential cycle,” Mr. Carney said. “I think there are historic examples that actually contradict the assumption that you can’t get anything done in a presidential election year — 1996 comes to mind.”
"In 1996, President Clinton delivered his election-year State of the Union address to a Republican Congress that voters had put into power in a midterm election as a check on Mr. Clinton.
"It was in this speech that Mr. Clinton famously declared, “The era of big government is over.” During the address, he added that it was time to “finish the job and balance the budget.” He had to wait just one year to sign legislation requiring a balanced budget by 2002."

Of course, a president is far more likely to get what he proposes through Congress when he proposes what Congress wants in the first place. Unfortunately for the current president, Congress is not interested in "fundamentally transforming America" into a Democratic Socialist Progressive distopia.

"Former U.S. Comptroller General David A. Walker, CEO of the nonprofit Comeback America Initiative, noted that presidents “love” to begin State of the Union speeches with declarations that “The state of our union is strong.”
“This year, that statement would be false,” Mr. Walker said. “And it is more false now than ever before, because of our calamitous financial situation.”"

Being "Fair and Balanced" is unfair according to unbalanced academics

US News and World Report headline: Study: Is Fox Too Balanced?

Yes, when the pinheads writing the study are unbalanced.

Paul Bedard reports, "It's not easy being Fox News in today's highly politicized media environment. When it says it's "fair and balanced," the mainstream media sneer disbelief. When the cable news ratings leader reveals figures proving its coverage is balanced on a specific hot-button issue, it gets slapped for pandering to conservative dogma.

That's a conclusion one might reach from a first-of-its-kind study in the authoritative International Journal of Press/Politics of how Fox, CNN, and MSNBC cover the issue of global warming. The bottom line: Being balanced and providing supportive and critical views of global warming is actually biased because it gives critics a louder voice. Worse: Fox covers global warming about twice as much as CNN and MSNBC combined, meaning those critics get much more airtime, another sign of bias."

Yup. According to the Great Minds that did the study, being fair is unfair and providing balance among points of view is biased. Once again, Life Imitates The Onion.

Bedard quotes: "Although Fox discussed climate change most often, the tone of its coverage was disproportionately dismissive," says the study by four professors, two from George Mason University, the others from Yale and American University. They wrote, "Fox broadcasts were more likely to include statements that challenged the scientific agreement on climate change, undermined the reality of climate change, and questioned its human causes."

It would be a lot easier to take them seriously if 'the scientific agreement were not liable to challenge, if human causes were truly unquestioned causes of real climate change. But it just isn't so. "A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday.... Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."

Now, I would expect this sort of silliness from employees of Yale and American, but heretofore I had a better opinion of the level of scholarship practiced at GMU.

Bedard closes: "The study acknowledges that Fox was the most balanced from the numbers perspective, but the network still gets an F. The reason, it says, is because viewers are influenced by what they see, and seeing more critics of global warming makes more viewers critics. "The more often people watched Fox News, the less accepting they were of global warming. Conversely, frequent CNN and MSNBC viewing was associated with greater acceptance of global warming," the study concludes."

So, there you have it. Being fair and balanced is unfair to the unbalanced dogma of ideologically bent professors whose faith in man made climate change is stronger than their allegiance to truth - or hold on reality for that matter.

What's the Difference Between a Constitutional Conservative and a Classical Liberal?

Question: What's the Difference Between a Constitutional Conservative and a Classical Liberal?

Answer: Somewhere between 35 and 235 years...

Far more intelligent people than me have gotten tied in knots due to differences in meaning of the words, "liberal" and "conservative" over time and between America and Great Britain.

Wikipedia comes down squarely on both sides, calling Edmund Burke both "the philosophical founder of modern Conservatism" and "a representative of classical liberalism."

Edmund Burke PC (12 January [NS] 1729^[1]– 9 July 1797) was an Irish^[2][3] statesman, author, orator, political theorist and philosopher who, after moving to England, served for many years in the House of Commons of Great Britain as a member of the Whig party.

He is mainly remembered for his support of the cause of the American Revolutionaries, and for his later opposition to the French Revolution. The latter led to his becoming the leading figure within the conservative faction of the Whig party, which he dubbed the "Old Whigs", in opposition to the pro–French Revolution "New Whigs", led by Charles James Fox.^[4]

Burke was praised by both conservatives and liberals in the 19th century. Since the 20th century, he has generally been viewed as the philosophical founder of modern Conservatism,^[5][6]as well as a representative of classical liberalism.^[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

Many on-line sources call him a conservative; but as the terms were used in 18th Century England, he was not a Conservative.

Freidrich Hayek makes a convincing case for Classical Liberalism in "Why I'm Not a Conservative."

While Yuval Levin, writing in National Review, defends Constitutional Conservatism.

You say Toe-May-to, I say Toe-mah-to. The principles, I think, are the same. Russell Kirk who is authoritative on things Burkian, calls them Conservative Principles.

I'm going to continue to ponder whether I prefer to call myself a conservative, classical liberal or something else. Who knows what else?