Political cartoon of the day

.

The best out there, Michael Ramirez, gives his take on the "Reagan metric":

.




.

What we've been Facebooking

.

One of our many, many liberal friends who is very active on Facebook posted on his wall a link to a piece from liberal-Left sweetheart and MSNBC host, Rachel Maddow with a lede that went as follows:

Where has the real GOP gone? You know...the GOP that independent, progressive, rational thinking people could vote for? Should we now call it the GOTP? The Grand Old Tea Party?

To which we responded:

I'm old enough to remember reading very similar articles back in 1980 when Reagan rose to prominence as the GOP candidate for President. "The once sensible and pragmatic GOP has been taken over by that right-wing wack-job, Ronald Reagan" or so we were told. People of Maddow's ilk absolutely reviled Reagan and for people like her to hold him up as some sort of admired figure is laughable on its face.

Remember, it was Reagan who was the original "tax cuts for the rich" guy when he slashed the top rate from around 70 down to 30-35 percent. And it was Reagan, according to people like Maddow, who was going to get us into a nuclear war with Russia. I remember all this stuff.

With respect to the alleged tea party takeover of the GOP: if that means the GOP is going to initiate some adult conversations with respect to our unsustainable entitlement programs (a' la Paul Ryan) and address the amassing of power at the executive level that started in earnest with Bush and was put into hyper-drive under Obama via executive orders and signing statements, then so much the better.

And with respect to social issues, the tea party-as-social-cons is a largely misleading narrative. Yes, many tea partiers happen to be social-cons but we had this internecine battle after the 2010 midterms and the fiscal hawk/limited government wing of the "party" won out. There is no contradiction in personally believing in socially-conservative values while at the same time believing your government ought not to dictate them. I happen to be one of those types.

As for the notion that Reagan would be considered an apostate by today's tea party, I don't believe that as priorities change: Reagan was charged with getting the economy back on its feet after the malaise of the seventies and with defeating Communism which was the existential threat to freedom and liberty around the world at that time. He succeeded on both counts.

As dead-set against entitlement reform as the vast majority of elected Democrats are (and many Republicans, also) when we really are staring at a fiscal cliff, currently, just think of the non-starter of a discussion of the same would be some 30 years ago when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. You can only pick fights you believe you have a chance at winning.

Again, times and priorities change.

Guess who?

“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Party left me”

- Ronald Reagan

If you follow politics much, you’ve probably read a bit about how over the past few years, one of America’s two major political parties have been taken over by extreme and radical elements that are threatening to relegate said party to rump party status appealing only to like-minded voters in specific pockets of the country.

We happen to agree with this assessment. We'll provide you with one such example of this type of extremism:

.






Exit question(s): if 9% of GDP being invested in infrastructure is good, why stop there? Wouldn't 10, 11... 15% be even better?


That’s right, gang. It’s the patron saint of the #OWS movement, Massachusetts senate hopeful and apparent Sino-file, Elizabeth Warren. And guess what else? She has been granted a prime-time speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention later on this month.

Warren joins other Sino-files like New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman and our own Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, in their love for a one-party, authoritarian state while never cluing into the realities of our relatively far-more advanced/complete infrastructure system as compared to that of China’s and China’s immense pool of cheap labor from which they can draw.

But who cares about all that when you can frame supposed Chinese superiority against old and busted statist rhetoric for repairing... bridges!

Recall it was Warren who was using the "you didn't build that" routine in Massachusetts well before the President road-tested it on the national stage nearly a month ago.

The beating he continues to take for it makes one wonder just who it is that made the decision to grant Warren a coveted spot right ahead of Bill Clinton at the convention. What played in the bluest of blue in the Northeast and made Warren a progressive darling but got hammered out here in the rest of the hustings ought to have been a hint to convention organizers.

But don't let us stop them from playing the class-warrior angle on the national stage because if they can't talk about any of their actual accomplishments, a continual drift to the left as dictated by the hard-edged ideology of their party's leader is all they've got.


.

25 years ago yesterday...

.

... Ronald Reagan made his famous "Tear down this wall" speech at Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin.



The full text of the speech is as follows:

Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the City Hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today I, myself, make my second visit to your city.

We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it's our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom. But I must confess, we're drawn here by other things as well: by the feeling of history in this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer Paul Lincke understood something about American presidents. You see, like so many presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.]

Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]

Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.

President von Weizsacker has said, "The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed." Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.

In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation. Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help. And in 1947 Secretary of State--as you've been told--George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos."

In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. I was struck by the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: "The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world." A strong, free world in the West, that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium--virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded.

In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty--that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.

Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany--busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there's abundance--food, clothing, automobiles--the wonderful goods of the Ku'damm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. The Soviets may have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn't count on--Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.]

In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent-- and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.

Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days--days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city--and the Soviets later walked away from the table.

But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then-- I invite those who protest today--to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table. And because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.

As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons. At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons.

While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative--research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend; on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled, Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe.

In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth. Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place--a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.

In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom. Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete.

Today thus represents a moment of hope. We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safe, freer world. And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start. Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971. Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future. Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement.

And I invite Mr. Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world.

To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical. We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe.

With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin. It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control or other issues that call for international cooperation.

There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East. Our French and British friends, I'm certain, will do the same. And it's my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors.

One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea--South Korea--has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North. International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city. And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West? In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city. You've done so in spite of threats--the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade. Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall. What keeps you here? Certainly there's a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there's something deeper, something that involves Berlin's whole look and feel and way of life--not mere sentiment. No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence that refuses to release human energies or aspirations. Something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says yes to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin is love--love both profound and abiding.

Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower's one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere--that sphere that towers over all Berlin--the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.

As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: "This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality." Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.

And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again.

Thank you and God bless you all.

What real hope and what real change looks and sounds like:






We are fans of hockey in the utmost casual manner but our favorite player has always been Jaromir Jagr who spent the bulk of his career with the Pittsburgh Penguins. Jagr grew up in what was then Czechoslovakia in the 80s and as a lad carried around a folded-up picture of Reagan in his wallet such was his admiration for the man and what he represented.

It can be deduced, then, that Jagr's photo of Reagan would be today's polar opposite of some UC San Diego student's Che' t-shirt.

.

Video clip of the day

.

We're a bit tardy in getting to this but Monday marked the 101st anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth and AFP celebrates it thusly:


.





We know two decades separate their presidencies but hearing them back-to-back in this manner - it's kind of like following Hendrix at Monterey or John Wooden at UCLA - a nigh impossible task especially since the latter does himself no favors by sounding so small-minded, pessimistic and wholly lacking in any imagination and confidence in this country as compared to the former.

.

Quickies

A look at some articles, news items, columns and blog posts that caught our eye this past week.





Kaus on Krugman and Porkulus...

Out: You know, Porkulus just wasn't big enough.

In: You know, it just wasn't the right kind of Porkulus

More Keynesian fail: $22 Billion Housing Tax Credit Program Utterly Failed as Economic Policy

This paper finds that (1) the home buyer tax credits had an insignifi cant effect on the number of homes sold, (2) sellers in markets with low and stable prices captured most of the credit, and (3) The effects of the credits sharply reversed after expiration. ... Rather than igniting 'animal spirits' or pulling housing demand forward from the distant future, the tax incentives were a simple redistribution of wealth.

Gawd, what a bunch of whiners...

A long-running tiff between the White House press corps and the West Wing over presidential access flared anew today when press secretary Jay Carney faced off with reporters over the right to shout questions at the president during debt talks.

Obama chafes at the time-honored practice of answering questions shouted at him during pooled, non-press conference events — and his staff has often opted for “stills sprays,” excluding print reporters or TV cameras who might capture Obama in the less than flattering non-act of snubbing a query.

When asked today why TV crews and print reporters were barred from the pool covering the White House meeting with congressional leaders on the deficit, Carney responded by pointing out that the administration has held two press conferences in the past two weeks and allowed TV cameras into the spray earlier this week.

"People shouted questions at him," Carney said. He then added, "The purpose of the meeting is not to create a circus, but to negotiate, so today we're doing stills only."

Is there anything more annoying than an administration that has received the benefit of continual tongue-bathing by the press now complaining about that very same press and the long-standing nature of press conferences? Pathetic.





Confirmed: Economists clueless about the economy and jobs numbers.

If you’re confused over high unemployment, you’re not alone. The people who are best supposed to understand this issue don’t have much of a clue either.

That became readily apparent following the government’s release Friday of the June jobs report, a dismal data set with virtually no redeeming factors.

More than that, though, the report blindsided Wall Street and Washington economists, who expected about 100,000 jobs created last month, not the 18,000 that showed up in the Bureau of Labor Statistics compilation.

That’s an enormous miss.

Well, this admission was rather, uh, unexpected.





Hey, here's some of that "new civility" we've been hearing so much about:

Fresh off of his claim that voting for Republicans is akin to voting “not guilty” in the Casey Anthony trial, Bill Maher appeared on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” on Monday, where he slammed and denigrated both Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

The comedian used derogatory and sexist language, stating that he hopes Palin jumps into the presidential race so that she and Bachmann can “…split the MILF vote.”

We guess the upside here is that with Bachmann in the mix, both Palin and Bachmann can split the misogynist vote of the deranged liberal-Left.

Folks, let's call it like it is: Bill Maher is a sad, little one-trick pony. No one really pays any attention to the Ralph Nader-voting, self-described libertarian (yeah, credibility right out the window with that impossible political contortion) unless he's venting his bile.

Side note and returning to a previous thought: What sort of world do we live in where people get away with talking about women in this manner? What sort of world do we live in where the husbands of Palin and Bachmann haven't kicked someone's ass yet?




Here's even more of that "new civility" we've been hearing about:

A new exhibit at a Michigan city art gallery features a provocative piece that depicts four Republican governors beneath the Nazi party symbol. Despite complaints, the work will remain on display.

Titled “The Faces of American Fascism,” the poster has pictures of Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Wis. Gov. Scott Walker, Mich. Gov. Rick Snyder and Fla. Gov. Rick Scott under the national insignia of Nazi Germany. The symbol of the Republican Party is encircled in the wreath under the eagle instead of a swastika.

Nazis? That's the best these clowns could come up with? Nazis? Nazis are so 2004. If there is a more tired and played-out pejorative brand than Hitler/Nazis, then we've yet to see it.

And looking on the bright side, to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, Conservatives/Republicans shouldn't get too upset by this as no one has ever had sexual fantasies involving liberals.




And speaking of... the obligatory Hitler rants on Carmageddon and the weekend shut down of the 405 up in L.A.



Adolf Hitler: not a big fan of public transportation.

Side note: we've always been puzzled as to why the 405 is called the San Diego Freeway when it's southern terminus is a good 70-80 miles north of the city of San Diego. How about the Southbay Freeway? Makes much more sense, don't you think?




The legacy media desparately doing whatever it can to provide cover for Team O in the Gunrunner/Fast and Furious debacle.




And finally, B-Daddy on the President, his temperament and the debt ceiling debate:

So despite the President's rhetoric that he will sacrifice his presidency over this, one can only hope, the real issue is that he doesn't want this as a campaign issue in 2012, so he won't go for any deal that doesn't push the next debt ceiling debate beyond November, 2012, with cushion to spare. It has been widely reported that Obama said that "Ronald Reagan wouldn't sit here and take this." How true; in the 1980s, Reagan reached out to Dan Rostenkowski to cut deals on tax code simplification and rate reductions that led to real growth in the economy. He didn't sit back and wait to the eleventh hour to jump into the fray with politically charged rhetoric designed to deflect criticism. William Daley, an old Chicago pol, who probably knew Rosty, should get Obama to refrain from comparing himself to Reagan, its too easy a target.

Obama was elected in no small part because of his supposed bipartisan tone suggested a willingness to independents that he would work in good faith with Republicans on pressing issues in trying times. He has certainly lost whatever good will he may have had by his consistently nasty tone, whether towards the opposition or the "fat cats with corporate jets."

If class warfare is all this guy has ever known, why are people surprised when he lashes out in such a petulant non-post-partisan manner. And comparing himself to Reagan? Please...


OK, gang, that's a wrap. We'll see everybody bright and early on Monday.

Rejoice...

... because it's America here, every day of the year.

And the winner is....

A recent poll by Gallup put Ronald Reagan at the top of the heap of greatest American presidents. Here's the top 10:

Ronald Reagan -- 19%

Abraham Lincoln -- 14%

Bill Clinton -- 13%

John F. Kennedy -- 11%

George Washington -- 10%

Franklin Roosevelt -- 8%

Barack Obama -- 5%

Theodore Roosevelt -- 3%

Harry Truman -- 3%

George W. Bush -- 2%


As shameless Reagan acolytes, even we were more than a little embarrassed by the fact that our boy bested both Washington and Lincoln.

Sarah Palin took some very undeserved grief for naming Washington as the greatest/most important President as she was entirely correct. "Pedestrian" was the general charge levied at her if we remember correctly. Because, you know, we all get enough Washington in grade school, right? As if an emphasis on the foundations of this nation and the men responsible for it in the 5th grade is evidence of a lack of intellectual rigor. As if cherry trees and crossing the Delaware are but part of an American mythology... if kids these days are even learning about cherry trees and crossing the Delaware.

Without Washington, the President and
the general, none of this happens. None of it. With respect to who is your own greatest president, you are entitled to think otherwise but you would be wrong*.

Recall perhaps the most important thing Washington ever did for this country and indeed for the advancement of democracy was what he did not do: he did not seek a third term, stepping down after his second thus ensuring that Western civilization's grand experiment would not start off with a third world-like President-for-life.



* Needlessly confrontational but confrontational just the same.

To the polls!

Over at The Liberator Today, B-Daddy has a poll up on whether or not to re-name the Coronado Bay Bridge here in San Diego after Ronald Reagan as has been proposed. After thinking it a rather swell idea, B-Daddy is having some second thoughts.

I’m fairly conservative.”So what do you think? At first, I was pretty miffed and it seemed like a typical leftist reaction to the greatness of Reagan. But I also thought, in 1987, San Diego voters voted to restore Market Street to its original name after a short spell as Martin Luther King Way. I'm also still miffed about the Murph being renamed after a local firm beginning with the letter Q. Is this issue so different?

Contrariwise, its only a bridge, not a piece of San Diego history, the way Market Street was. And supposedly serious coin, to the tune of $18 million, changed hands to get the name of Jack Murphy Stadium changed.

A little background on the Market Street/MLK deal: A few years ago there was a push to get Market changed back to MLK Blvd. The merchants revolted as the unspoken truth of the matter is that in our big cities, "MLK Blvd." tends to run through the crappiest parts of town. Amid cries of racism, the Market Street business owners were simply acknowledging a business fact and won the day.

Also, we believe the Coronado Bay Bridge is more than just a bridge and is indeed a San Diego landmark much as the Mt. Soledad War Memorial is.



Go on over and let your voice be heard.

Better late than never

OK. We're totally late to the party on this so we just might make this some sort of after-the-fact tribute week to make up for it. Yesterday marked the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth - a man who possessed an undying love for his country and an unwavering faith in the capabilities and potential of the American people. Here's B-Daddy on the subject:

I would like to acknowledge what would have been the 100th birthday of that great American, Ronald Wilson Reagan today. For my part, his legacy consists of two important strands. First, he refused to accept the inevitably of communist triumph. People forget that up to that time, communism had greatly expanded the portion of the globe it controlled, and many of our ruling elite felt that its triumph was foreordained. Reagan recognized that communism was very fragile and would come apart eventually if challenged. His push for "star wars" and the manner in which he challenged the Soviet Union contributed to its eventual demise. The world is a vastly better place for it. We should never forget the hundreds of millions who have died due to the scourge of communism.

Read the rest, here.

We should not ever forget what is represented in that last sentence as communism has been soft-pedaled by everyone from Pulitzer prize-winning journalists from the NY Times in the 20s and 30s to useless wanna-be college commies hosting punk shows on the tax-payer dime.


In other related news...

Check out Andrea Mitchell on Meet the Press here chiding Republicans for "...trying to appropriate Ronald Reagan for their own political purposes..." before being smacked down by Peggy Noonan who responds in essence: You clueless twit, he can't be appropriated as he was a Republican and he was a conservative.

Like no politicians ever try to evoke politicians from the past to advance their own narrative, right Andrea? Mitchell's logic is made even more ridiculous in light of the recent Obama (hearts) Reagan meme being pushed by Big Media...

... the logic of which makes about as much sense as Reagan (hearts) FDR circa 1983.

Video clip of the day

Kathleen Parker likes this:







Fred Davis of Strategic Perceptions and who also graced us with the bizarro Demon Sheep ad serves up this play on Reagan's "Morning in America" ad from 1984.

Our Frank Luntz tingle-meter maxes out at "the government is taking away choices we used to make" but then nose-dives towards the end with the whole "caring" government thing. Thought we had discarded compassionate conservatism to the sorry, sorry ash heap of history. Guess Davis felt compelled to offer up at least one thing soft and cuddly in this otherwise grim ad.

All in all, though - we're with Parker on this one.

For ye have the poor always with you*

Today the Federal Government has 59 major welfare programs and spends more than $100 billion a year on them. What has all this money done? Well, too often it has only made poverty harder to escape. Federal welfare programs have created a massive social problem. With the best of intentions, government created a poverty trap that wreaks havoc on the very support system the poor need most to lift themselves out of poverty: the family. Dependency has become the one enduring heirloom, passed from one generation to the next, of too many fragmented families.

That from President Reagan and his January 1988 state of the union speech.

From 1964 to 2006, it is estimated that between $8-10 billion dollars have been spent on those poverty programs mentioned above by Reagan where we, no doubt, have tacked on two or three more in the two decades since that speech.

Just think of 10 massive Porkulus spending bills spread out the last 45 years or so and spent on the poor alone.

And yet, the Associated Press is freaked out that despite this war on poverty, the President and his party are going to take a beating in November, in part, because the poverty numbers are at near-record highs.

The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

Census figures for 2009 - the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat's presidency - are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings.

It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase - from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent - would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.

"The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there," Obama said Friday at a White House news conference. He stressed his commitment to helping the poor achieve middle-class status and said, "If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle."

(italics, ours)

There's nothing unfortunate about it whatsoever. Is the AP really that dense that they cannot detect a causal relationship between Obama's economic policies and the high unemployment rates and these new poverty numbers? To ask it another way: Precisely what has it been about Team O's economic policies that would lead you to believe that they would actually lower the poverty numbers?

Experts say a jump in the poverty rate could mean that the liberal viewpoint - social constraints prevent the poor from working - will gain steam over the conservative position that the poor have opportunities to work but choose not to because they get too much help.

"The Great Recession will surely push the poverty rate for working-age people to a nearly 50-year peak," said Elise Gould, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. She said that means "it's time for a renewed attack on poverty."

Terrific. Another war. Or more accurately, merely an extension of the 46 year slog in which we are currently.

And what are these social constraints Gould speaks of? As much as the statist fantasy mindset wants to believe, blacks and minorities are no longer facing Bull Connor's fire hoses nor are they denied access to equal public education as they were back in the 50s and 60s. That tired argument no longer holds water and the fact that we currently have a black man in the Oval Office should be the nail in the coffin for "social constraints" as an institutional issue here in America and specific regions of this country.

And from the files of Never let a crisis go to waste:

Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty.

Recall late 2007/early 2008 when an accomplishment-wanting junior senator from Illinois was panicked to get something, anything passed through Congress with his name on it, he latched onto a $845 billion dollar Global Poverty Act which thankfully never became an act.

Given the statist mindset for wanting to "do something" with respect to any and all of society's ills, the release of these new poverty numbers and Obama being rebuffed the first time around, well... you do the math.

As for Us? When we were back in high school in the mid-80s, a Russian film crew came over to do a documentary about poverty in America and particularly in the American inner cities to demonstrate just what capitalist "social constraints" do to blacks and minorities.

The film makers, of course, wanted to show American poverty in the most soul-crushing and bleakest of terms. What the Russian citizens saw instead was... Nike basketball sneakers and color TVs in most of the homes and apartments of the American poor. Russian citizens were more than ready for some capitalist-borne discrimination and poverty.

Folks, time to pull out and declare victory in the war on poverty.


* Matthew 26:11

Memorial Day 2010

Memorial Day is an occasion of special importance to all Americans, because it is a day sacred to the memory of all those Americans who made the supreme sacrifice for the liberties we enjoy. We will never forget or fail to honor these heroes to whom we owe so much. We honor them best when we resolve to cherish and defend the liberties for which they gave their lives. Let us resolve to do all in our power to assure the survival and the success of liberty so that our children and their children for generations to come can live in an America in which freedom’s light continues to shine.
.
.
.
The defense of peace, like the defense of liberty, requires more than lip service. It requires vigilance, military strength, and the willingness to take risks and to make sacrifices. The surest guarantor of both peace and liberty is our unflinching resolve to defend that which has been purchased for us by our fallen heroes.
On Memorial Day, let us pray for peace — not only for ourselves, but for all those who seek freedom and justice.

- Ronald Reagan, 1986

Freedom

… like we’re supposed to get over this guy?

From Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech in support of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential bid.



45 yrs. on. The man has passed but the message remains the same.



We’re out of here for a few days but let your hearts not be troubled as we’ve cooked up plenty of stuff in the meantime to take you through the weekend.

Quote of (Yester)day

And then, within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Now, make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.

That from President Obama in his speech to economic students in Moscow yesterday.

We’re sure Vietnam War veterans and especially the souls of the 50,000 plus who gave their lives in a War (like it or not) that was ostensibly about containing/stopping the imperialist intentions of communism would love to hear their efforts denigrated in this fashion. And this goes as well for this country’s Cold Warriors, like our older brothers, who served in this country’s submarine force and in the 82nd Airborne Division and who stood in opposition, primarily to the threat of the Soviets.

Yes, we did have allies, some stalwart, some feckless and we realize we weren't "alone" per se but Soviet domination of the rest of Europe would have been fait accompli without this country’s resolute stand against communism whether a Democrat or Republican was in the Oval office



Then again, and before we work ourselves into too much of a lather, these words should really come as no surprise as they are uttered by the same man who effectively legitimized the mullah-cracy of Iran with his non-response to the situation there. And it is this same man who also ignores the Honduran constitution’s 2x4 upside his head and decides instead to side with the International Bad Actors Club (Western Hemisphere Chapter) with respect to that country’s struggle to maintain its democratic ideals and legitimacy.

Time to come home, sir.



P.S. It's instances like this that render completely illogical and baseless the notion that Republicans and the conservative movement as a whole needs to just "move on" from and "get over" Reagan.

28 years ago today?

(..... ) won the White House by campaigning against an unpopular incumbent in a time of economic anxiety and lingering foreign policy concerns. He offered voters an upbeat message, praised the nation as a land of opportunity, promised tax cuts to just about everyone, and overcame doubts about his experience with a strong performance in the presidential debates.

If we’re playing fill-in the blank here you get credit for entering either Barack Obama's or Ronald Reagan’s name. And this again, bolsters our contention that the gleeful dirt-shoveling of many in Big Media on the graves of Reagan ideology and conservatism is not only premature but bordering on intellectual dishonesty as there is scant evidence this country wants to make any sharp veer to the left.

Indeed, the most liberal member of the Senate made a middle-class tax cut his closing argument and as Williiam Kristol points out in his article here, that though the nation gave a big victory to the Democrats, polling indicated no real perceptible shift in conservative/liberal/moderate ideological identification. (Recall, also, Bill Clinton campaigned on a (undelivered) tax cutting platform in ’92)

In fact, as this article from Scott Rasmussen points out and from which the opening paragraph was pulled, the Reagan “brand” remains very much a popular one with the voting electorate which polling also suggests is not keen on the bailout plans.

So what does all this mean? It means that the G.O.P. will be getting its just desserts here for a while for abandoning many core conservative principles. It also means the voting public will be watching the new administration very carefully with respect to policy and legislation, especially regarding the bailouts and this much-ballyhooed tax cut.

Bucketfulls of Bush-era policies like the executive ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research is going out the window as soon as Obama takes office but that is the price Republicans will pay for their backsliding.

It would appear that the silver-lining of this economy is that it may prove to be an effective “containment” for any big government shenanigans in which Obama may want to engage. The ‘Kos kiddies will take extreme umbrage with that development but…. that will be the President's problem, not ours.

H/T: Blue Crab Blvd.

Legacy

There is a large measure of legitimacy to the popular image of conservatives wandering around in the wilderness searching for the “next Reagan” and it need not be that way. Its like folkies searching for the “next Dylan” after he went electric. It’s over, it’s done with, it was a moment in time – time to move on, folks (what were conservatives looking for before Reagan? Well, they were looking to Barry Goldwater not a divorced, B-movie Hollywood actor. The Lord works in mysterious ways, doesn’t He?). Besides, it’s a glass-half-empty view of things when you look at one particular aspect of his legacy.

The Reagan Revolution lives on in the judges Reagan appointed to the appellate benches. Of the 83 judges he appointed, 66 still hear cases today and they are at the height of their power as they have become heavyweights whose opinions are highly sought-after in legal circles. They have also been directly responsible for the Supreme Court weighing in on the 2nd Amendment as it applies to the D.C. hand gun ban as well as having a hand in restrictions on partial-birth abortion and affirmative action.

According to USA Today article, Bill Clinton did not want to risk political capital on judgeship appointments so the Reagan legacy which was continued to a degree under the current Administration was not countered.

For their parts, McCain has promised to appoint conservative judges in the vein of John Roberts while both Obama and Hillary Clinton have promised more liberal judges.

The lesson here is clear: the appointments made at the time have ramifications both legal and societal many years after and this next election will similarly shape the national landscape for many years to come.

The Great Communicator 2.0?

So after having some time to digest the Obama race speech and reading all the various reactions to it, we’re still far less inclined to parse the speech to point out any inconsistencies or questionable lines of reasoning but rather left to ponder how it is this man who sounds so very post-racial could hold close to his bosom a man of the cloth that sounds so bigoted and hateful?

B-Daddy opined in the comment section, here, that its just politics. Obama, the son of a white woman and a black man not descendant of slaves needed some street cred so he hooked up with one of the most “respected” civil rights leaders in Chicago. Fair enough but now 20 years on its come home to roost and now he has to answer for it. And answer he did in a nice little equivocating speech that got him back on the “friends” panel of the Face Book set.

OK…. can we all just move on, now? Sure. That is, if you are ready for “change”…. a “change” from the way we view and treat the question of race in this country? If Obama’s past associations are any indication, it sounds like more of the same to us. And if Obama stood to gain from his association with the Reverend early in his political career then he stands to be punished, deservedly so, for it now.

Now Obama, who has referenced Ronald Reagan a number of times, fancies himself as the Reagan of the Democrat Party… that one person who through his words and magnanimous personality can unite the factions on the liberal-Left as well as draw off moderates and Republicans who have grown disgusted with the very un-Republican behavior of Republicans in Congress and the Oval Office. Unfortunately for Obama, though, he’s got the lyrics down, but the tune is off.

“Unfair”, you say? Hey, its just politics.

Acta non Verba, baby... Acta non Verba

Reaganesque....? Believe It.

Because we spent approx. 18 hours in airports and planes the past couple of days, we were unable to see the Obama race speech and all the accompanying commentary surrounding it which is a good thing because after watching it in its entirety on YouTube this evening, we did have a few unfiltered thoughts:

Overall, we thought it was good but it fell short of the mark and certainly did not have the broad sweeping impact that Romney’s religion in America speech did (but guess which one will always be referred to more often down the line?).

Why did it fall short of the mark? Well, for one thing it was too long. He starts off well keeping to the arching themes of race in this country’s history and giving what we felt was a very strong repudiation of Wright’s words and rhetoric. However, Obama starts drifting half-way through his speech, using his call for racial reconciliation as a jumping-off point for better healthcare, education, ending the war in Iraq, etc., etc.… campaign stumping that should have been placed on hold for this occasion.

He then goes on to rationalize the bigotry exhibited by some blacks on real injustices visited upon them in the past and at times, in the present. Fair enough (don’t necessarily agree but…O.K). But then, mystifyingly, he turns around and rationalizes white bigotry on affirmative action and welfare which, in his opinion, formed the foundation of the Reagan coalition. This is pure hooey, of course, and does not even dignify a response.

While listening to all this rationalization for plain old bad behavior without a straight-up unqualified condemnation of the same, a quote came to mind made by Rosalind Carter when speaking of (speaking of…) Reagan that we will apply to the subject at hand: “Obama make us comfortable with our prejudices”. He does. Because he didn’t just come out and say bigotry and racism was inexcusable, he made us feel a little more comfortable with some that we may harbor… its not really our fault, after all….just look at history.
.
We will commend him, though, for recognizing part of the greatness of this country is that it is not “static” with respect to progress whether its race, gender or religion. This is a theme pro-Western Civ types like us have been making for years especially with respect to Islam: “yeah, some of our history is not pretty… freely admitted… but we always reserve the right to be smarter and better than we used to be”.

We may have more later but that was what made the strongest initial impressions. Good but not great. Certainly, with all the hoopla surrounding this dust-up the opportunity for greatness was there so we’ll just call this a long single rather than a home-run.

P.S. The nagging suspicion remains…. He wants to use the "crazy uncle” argument but how can you break bread with that same crazy uncle for over 20 years without cracking him upside the skull? Obama says that we all have people in our lives that we love yet have disagreements with but, my g#d, those types of disagreements. And, worse, he never gives any evidence that he challenged Wright on any of his rhetoric over those 20 years. Nice speech but actions do speak louder than words so we don’t believe he is quite off the hook on this one.

Now that was a Life Lived

William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the National Review, passed away today in the study of his home at the age of 82.

The man nearly single-handedly coalesced and synthesized the various factions of the post-WW II conservative movement while simultaneously marginalizing some of its less-savory elements. Elevating the discourse above the imagery of mere flag-waving and gun racks, Buckley provided the language and intellectual heft to the conservative movement it lacked before his arrival.

The architect of fusionism that made possible the Reagan presidency also provided the cafeteria conservatism at which the BwD staff slops.

We’ll be raising a glass of 1921 later on this evening in honor of his life and his accomplishments.

R.I.P.

Joe Lieberman's thoughts on the man here as well as the Godfather's here.