There will be blood, I am sure

Obama's Media Army

"We are at the beginning of a contest likely to repeat itself through November: between that part of the press prepared to put hard questions equally, and all the rest, including those who'll mount the barricades when their candidate is threatened with discomfiture. Let the wars begin."

As I have said many times already, the left wing in this country feels that their self-appointed candidate should be in the White House right now - no election, no primaries, no questions asked. Just seeing how annoyed the Times is warms the cockles of my heart. Very monarchist, don't you think?

Well said...

Obama Wasn't Just Insulting Pennsylvannians:

"Obama doesn't understand a great deal of America. He has no experience with it other than as a politician looking for votes, and even that experience outside of Chicago has been accumulated only since he began his run for the U.S. Senate in 2003. His life has made him keenly aware of urban dysfunction and of African-American issues even as it has exposed him to the Third World in a way that very few American officials have been."

But who cares, as long as there is "change" (whatever that means).

Update (via Instapundit) :

THE MOTHER OF ALL GAFFES: "Barack Obama broke the first rule of Democratic presidential politics: never let on that you believe rural American voters are hicks straight out of Deliverance. . . . he could not have picked a worse time to reveal his contempt for average Americans."

Thanks for at least admitting it...

Megan McArdle weighs in on the Dems fiscal policies:

"I don't want to hear any more about how the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility; none of them are planning to close the current deficit, much less deal with the now-seriously-it-really-is-looming entitlement problem. Their tax code changes will claw back only a small fraction of the revenue lost in the Bush tax cut. If you are surprised, it is probably because the Democrats and the Republicans have a different definition of the tax cuts going 'mostly to the rich'. If you mean, 'which individuals got the biggest benefit from the tax cuts?', rich people did, because they pay the most taxes; that is the definition Democrats use. But if you mean 'which class of people got most of the money?', then the answer is 'the middle class'. There just aren't that many rich people; it costs a lot more to hand out a modest amount of cash to 200 million than to hand out a lot of cash to 500,000. So when Democrats repeal only the tax cuts on the top one or two brackets, this may be symbolically rewarding, but it will not actually generate that much revenue for the treasury.

Democrats are, of course, planning to spend every bit of the money from their tax increases on new spending, plus it looks like some more. You may now return to forgetting that you ever thought you cared about the budget deficit.

That's Chilly.....

Steven E. Landsburg's Op-Ed in today's Times takes a slightly different approach than that of the Presidential candidates regarding job losses from free trade:

"All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices. In other words, the winners can more than afford to compensate the losers. Does that mean they ought to? Does it create a moral mandate for the taxpayer-subsidized retraining programs proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney?

Um, no. Even if you’ve just lost your job, there’s something fundamentally churlish about blaming the very phenomenon that’s elevated you above the subsistence level since the day you were born. If the world owes you compensation for enduring the downside of trade, what do you owe the world for enjoying the upside?"

It seems rather heartless; but he's not wrong in the fact that it's really impossible to mitigate all the negative effects of free trade. Would you vote for a candidate who had chutzpah to actually say it? Read the whole thing.....and wonder.

Judge Grants Kucinich Entry to NV Debate

Since nobody has been interested in hearing what the krank Kucinich has to say, he figured that he would test his theory that the government can force everyone to pay attention to him.
Seems that he was right.

Tuesday follow-up: NBC Fights to Keep Kucinich Out of Debate

Yet Another Bit of MSM Irony....

A Great Question:

"A leading Democratic candidate for president attends an “Afrocentric” church that bestows awards on Louis Farrakhan and practically defines itself through race-baiting. Burt Prelutsky asks, why isn’t Barack Obama's faith-based problem making national headlines and the nightly news?"