Saturday, January 24, 2009

"Be loyal to the party"

Rob Long lands in China and finds the customs' agents code of ethics. "Have the interest of the whole at heart, and do one's utmost to cooperate."

Labels: , ,

What if Bush Said That?

In comments below, Dana points out Obama's comment regarding His Royal Rushiness:
You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders
Let's go to Tom Maguire for some pithy remarks:
Second, although he is long gone and nearly forgotten, for old times' sake let's play the "What if Bush had said that?" game. If Bush had said "You can't just read Paul Krugman..." libs would be leaping from tall buildings and wailing about free speech, a free press and a crackdown on dissent all the way down.
Gasp! I have a new label! This dust-up reminds me of a Bush proxy who once cautioned people to watch what they say during war time, and I do believe that was not met well by the opposition party.

The Fairness Doctrine created Rush Limbaugh; will Obama bring it back?

Labels: ,

Loyal Opposition

Speaking of the opposition: Heartthrob Andy Levy has some advice for the loyal opposition (count me among them, by the way):

DON’T question the motives - question the policy. When you disagree with Obama’s policies, say so, and make it clear why. But remember that President Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country, as President Bush did. Both men love America and want what’s best for her. End of story.

DON’T make it personal. We don’t need another Derangement Syndrome. We don’t need people doing things like emphasizing Obama’s middle name in a derogatory fashion. How anyone would think that’s beneficial to their cause, or to the country as a whole, is beyond me. Also, it’s not even clever. Neither are smushwords like BusHitler, or sillywords like Rethuglicans and Dhimmicrats.

More "Don'ts" at the link. He also says don't use the phrase "speaking truth to power," and my question is, not even for parody?


A Lovers' Quarrel

Ha! Funny:
As a print reporter who covered the Bush White House told me: When a Republican president takes office reporters think they're self-appointed prosecutors. But no one wants to prosecute Nelson Mandela. And Obama is a lot more like Mandela, to a lot of reporters, than he is to some run-of-the-mill liberal like Dick Durbin. Let's just call Obama's little tiff with the press a lovers' quarrel.
Why does Obama remind them of Mandela? Because they both opposed the Iraq war?

Anyway, time to psychoanalyze the president. I'm noticing some control issues in him that I think he might struggle with.

Exhibit A: Obama let his annoyance show when the vice president made sport of Chief Justice Roberts for flubbing the oath.

Exhibit B: He showed annoyance with the press for doing their job. "I can’t come in and shake hands if I’m gonna get grilled every time." (Although, honestly, I don't know the rules for a situation like that.)

Exhibit C: "I won." (Can we really afford four more years of this type of swagger?)

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 23, 2009

Mac is Back!

McCain gets good press because he bucks Republicans. WaPo writer Shailagh Murray glows about him:
The surest sign of McCain's return to his "maverick" ways came when he caught wind of an effort by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) to delay Clinton's confirmation vote by a day, pushing it from Tuesday to Wednesday because he was seeking greater disclosure about foreign donors to former president Bill Clinton's charitable foundation.
Yeah, because why should a silly thing like possible foreign influence on domestic policy slow up Hillary's consolation prize?

*I'm already in a bad mood this morning, if you need an explanation for my terseness.

PS I loved her lecturing the State Department staff on working together (read: no leaks to the press). Yeah? Well, good luck, sista!

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

I'll Second That

The pursuit of individual prosperity is not selfish and the effort to defend it is neither a tired dogma nor a childish thing. (Goldberg.)

PS Happy Belated Peaceful Transfer of Power Day!


Saturday, January 17, 2009

This has been bothering me for a while now


$160 million. (Via DRJ at Patterico's.)


MediaMatters follows the money trail and finds apples and oranges.(Via commenter K.):

Here's why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here's The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.

This explains a lot, but I'm still having trouble figuring out the breakdown of projected, or as MediaMatters puts it, unsubstantiated $160 million.

The federal government has budgeted $49 million for this year’s inauguration, more than triple what taxpayers spent at Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Earlier this year, the District of Columbia, Virginia, Maryland and the Washington transit authority sent a request to federal lawmakers for more than $75 million to cover a variety of inaugural costs ranging from security to transportation.

I don't find anywhere that says, "that $49 million includes security." Now, the $75 million includes some security. So anyone who can break it down for me, please do. (I suspect, however, we won't know the answer until after the festivities--just like my wedding reception. Are the Obamas offering an open bar?)

Labels: , ,

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Two-Day Shipping