Free Markets, Free People

Quote Of The Day

Peter Beinart is pretty sure Barack Obama is on his way to political superstardom and therefore liberals ought to quit whining about his lack of accomplishment:

If he gets health-care reform, Obama will have done more to rebuild the American welfare state in one year than his two Democratic predecessors, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, did in a combined twelve.

That has got to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.  Because rebuilding the “American welfare state” is what government is all about.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

28 Responses to Quote Of The Day

  • What’s with the reoccuring reference to somehow we’re returning to a past glory state?

    Is it that there’s no endstate that can satisfy them? Is their desired state to continually expand government indefinitely? I mean you can’t go past 100%. They should be able to define an end state. I’ll bet you they can’t.

    • I know they ended Welfare technically, but some of that found its way through other programs that just aren’t called welfare. And subsidizing illegal immigrants found a home for many of those dollars.

      So perhaps he was being specific. I guess I was using the term generically.

      But still, is there no end?

  • This quote is hilarious….sometimes the mask slips and they don’t notice.

    I’d have thought “Our bad” would’ve been the quote of the day, as that now seems to be CNN’s new journalistic standard.

  • From the blog post:

    “our do-nothing president did something that Democratic presidents have been trying to do for most of the last century: He celebrated a universal health care bill’s passage through Senate Committee.”

    This is what passes for “accomplishment” these days?

    I guess he really did earn that Nobel Prize.

  • Obama,as I noted in the campaign, is the Democrats’ Reagan. Despite rough going early, Reagan passed major reforms that transformed American politics. Obama is doing the same. I also find it interesting someone thought that the comment meant ‘the mask has slipped.’ I think more likely, the negatives associated with ‘welfare state’ are slipping. The country as a whole is embracing a more activist government at home. (I find it interesting how the right made such a big deal about the ‘tea party’ march on DC, while ignoring a gay rights march with the same number of protesters and pictures showing just as impressive a crowd.)

    • Obama is not the “Democrat’s Reagan,” Scott. FDR was the Democrat’s Reagan, and Reagan barely put a dent in the revolting edifice that silly nasty man built in the 1930s.

      Obama is the Democrat’s Mao.

      And he has a spokeswoman model who was off her medication long enough to let that cat out of the bag:

      Your formula that Obama is the “Democrat’s Reagan” is like saying that the man who tightens the straps of the God state is the moral equivalent of the man who loosens those straps.

      It’s moral equivalence on the order of that described by Bill Buckley in his famous quip that pushing an old lady out of the way of an onrushing bus and pushing an old lady in front of an onrushing bus could not be reduced to pushing old ladies around.

    • It’s pretty simple, really. A gay rights march is not exactly news. An anti-tax, anti-government march is.

      • That’s what I mean by bias — when the “other” side does it, it’s not news. When your side does, it is. But consider: the anti-tax rally was a media creation. Beck, Hannity and others at Fox drummed up support and propagandized for it. The other was independently organized. Fox gave massive support for its own created rally, while the media ignored the other one. In short, it appears that Fox is constructing news for its own propaganda purposes.

        • How many gay rights marches have there been in the last ten years? How many ‘tea party’ marches?

    • 150,000 is not about the same as 500,000 to a million. The gay rights march got more coverage from Fox than the much larger, and more unique, anti-tax march did from the MSM.

      • LOL! The tax march was 50,000 – 75,000. To try to claim it was 500,000 when all reputable sources claim otherwise…well, I can only shake my head and roll my eyes.

        • You’re a f0cking idiot, Scott.

          • *chuckle* It’s funny when people feel the need to post meaningless vulgarities. Of course, when I’m right and that bothers you, that’s really all you can do.

          • Every once in a while, Scott, you might be right about something, but it’s almost always by accident.

            You’re lazy, you just talk without checking anything, let alone applying careful evaluation. You make baseless claims for which you never have real cites because there aren’t any. You sometimes offer flimsy cites on about the level of the cites offered for the quotes of things that Limbaugh never said.

            Going back to Usenet days you teamed up with the most revolting liars imaginable and cultivated them.

            You’re barely worthy of a vulgarity.

    • Actually Erb, it seems that you (and the media) ignored the tea party march.

      FAIL (as usual)

    • “I find it interesting how the right made such a big deal about the ‘tea party’ march on DC, while ignoring a gay rights march with the same number of protesters and pictures showing just as impressive a crowd.”

      First – For someone who was in DC for both events, the one thing I noticed above all was how the MSM tilted the vision of the events. Media shots of the Tea Party was purposely set up to diminish the size of the crowd. No one who was there would ever have stated the crowd size was less than 100,000 – in fact you would be hard pressed to find someone who was there who would estimate the crowd at anywhere near that low a figure. While my own estimates of the crowd size for the Gay march was more like the estimates for the Tea Party – 65-75,000. Not to be sneezed at but again not the “impressive” showing you purport it to be. It was not nearly the event of the one early in the Clinton Administration, in 1993. (Note: And the point is not the attention the right paid to the gay march. The point was the Media virtually ignoring the Tea Party!)

      Second – for someone who purports himself to be a professor, you should know better than to equate Obama with Reagan. The only equivilence between the two is they both have 2 “A’s” in their last name. Beyond that, there is no equivilence. How can I say that – easy. While Obama claims to be a uniter – Reagan was. For the majority of his administration Reagan was faced with an adversarial legislature. In fact only for a very short time (2 years if memory serves) did he have a small majority in the senate. And yet he knew how to cross party lines to get bi-partisan support for his political goals. And his major efforts passed with huge majorities in both houses – with almost as much support from the Democrats as from the Republicans. As far as Obama being a uniter, he will have to prove it within his own party before he can even begin to make any inroads with the Republicans. And one or two Maine RINOs do not bi-partisanship make. I will bet money – and even give odds – Obama will not be able to gain more than a handful of Republican votes for any part of his legislative agenda – for 4 years or even 8.

      Third – “The country as a whole is embracing a more activist government at home.” You seem to think the far left’s embrace is indicative of the entire country. Get your head out of your tuchus and take a look at the rest of the country, outside of the ivory halls of liberal academia. The country remains solidly Center-Right even though there was an Anti-Bush hiccup in the last election. The 2010 Midterms and the 2012 Main Event will show you just how embrasive the country is of your government du jour.

      • I’ll dismiss your silly efforts to pretend the Fox media created tax rally was bigger than it was — no one is buying that except the true believers.

        But the similarities between Obama and Reagan are striking on many levels. The left in 1981 and 1982 really thought the country had turned on Reagan, and the attacks were vicious, as Reagan’s approval ratings slipped below 45%. But he recovered, as Obama probably will. Also, Reagan had working majorities in the House for most of the time because of southern Democrats who really thought like he did and ultimately switched to the GOP. He had Senate majorities until 1986.

        • He’ll dismiss all evidence just like he did with comments on global warming, health care, civilian casualties in Iraq and Ross Perot in the last few weeks.

          Obama is the Democrat’s Reagan, just like Hitler was the Nazi’s George Washington. Both were responsible for huge changes in the way the upper levels of a government are organized, and both made a number of mistakes in their military tactics that hurt their own causes (thankfully the British were too tied up elsewhere to mount a full-scale invasion).

          The main problem with these comparisons is that Hitler had better intentions for his own country than Obama does.

          • I’m dismissing evidence? Wow, talk about gall! All of the major sources and official estimates say the tea party crowd was 50,000 to 75,000, and some people “well there are a lot of people in this picture so I think it’s a half a million.” Yeah, right. *eyes rolling.*

            I worked in the Senate, as an aide to a Republican Senator, from 1983 to 1985. I know that Reagan had a majority in the House, the conservative Democrats were on his side, and they shifted over to the GOP within the next decade. And, of course, in the Senate the GOP had control from 1981 to 1987, with Howard Baker and then Bob Dole as Senate Majority leader. SShiell says Reagan had only a “small majority” in the Senate for two years. Also, the feeling on the left for Reagan was as intense and certain that Reagan was a dangerous idiot that the right now has for Obama.

            But OK, in your evidence-denial fantasy world, pretend that there is a grand conspiracy involving all sorts of people to lop 450,000 off a crowd number, and retell the past to make Reagan seem other than he was. Perhaps in some alternate probable universe all that is true. But not in this one.

          • Back to your orinal completely ignorant comment, even using your numbers, Fox gave proportionally more covergage to the gay rights march than the MSM did to the Tea Party.

            “I’m dismissing evidence?”
            Yes, and as I pointed out, you’ve done it six times in the last month.

            The closest thing to an official estimate says 100,000 on the DC Metro alone, even though it was maxed out because they didn’t add anything above their normal weekend capacity.
            The photos are reliable evidence for people that know what they’re looking at. Comparing the overhead photos of the DC march to photos of known crowds can give decent estimates. Anyone that’s been part of a major road race knows what a large crowd looks like, and unlike political rallies, instead of being just estimted they get counted electronically. In addition, a division ceremony will contain 15-20,000 troops, once again accurately counted. Several times I’ve been part of a crowd of over 20,000 awaiting the start of a race in those same streets, so I know for a fact that the crowds in the traffic camera photos are larger than 70,000.

            No grand conspiracy is needed, just a few people willing to ignore evidence, which you’ve proven people are more than capable of.

            Back to your orinal completely ignorant comment, even using your obviously false numbers, Fox gave proportionally more covergage to the gay rights march than the MSM did to the Tea Party.

  • If he gets health-care reform, Obama will have done more to rebuild the American welfare state in one year than his two Democratic predecessors, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, did in a combined twelve.

    Let’s forget Beinart for a moment and consider why he thinks that this is a worthy, laudable accomplishment.

    Why do liberals find a “welfare state” desirable in the first place?

    Charity and helping out the less-fortunate among us is a commendable thing. However, that’s not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is using the police power of the government to take money from one person and give it to another person. How is this commendable at all? Is it not institutionalized, legalized theft?

    And how is it good for our country to institutionalize dependency on government handouts?

    Is it that liberals can only feel virtuous by spending other people’s money? “YEAH! I took money from that rich guy and gave it to that poor guy! What a wonderful human being I am!”

    Or is it that they are just a pack of control freaks who aren’t happy with letting people live their own lives?


    • Why can’t it be both? Actually, to be precise, it is both. They have to be controlling of you in some aspect to compel the transfer of your money to the bloated apparatus of government. It’s all a path to power, which is where this all leads. Power over you, your neighbor, everything.

  • The longer this health care reform proposal(s) sits out in the sun the more it stinks, which is why the Democrats are so busy moving it into the back room and throwing conceptual gimmicks at the CBO to get back numbers that sound sane. There is nothing sane about this project. It is a catastrophe in the making with decrepitude, bankruptcy, and death written in grotesque hieroglyphs all over it.

  • McQ – it is the democratic platform in a nutshell, or in Erb’s case, minus the shell, so the author’s pride is quite understandable.

  • -Sorry for the poor spelling and repeated statements. I really need to double-check comments when trying to post and take care of the kids on a Saturday morning.

  • I do not believe that Fox gave more coverage to the gay rights march than the media gave to the September 12th march. Can you prove that claim, Ted?

  • If you think Obama will get his health care passed….then you need to read A Time To Stand by Oliver, and see what is in store for us the nxt 3 years.

    It’s time we all took a stand against federal tyranny before it is too late (almost is now). The book is compelling cause it’s a modern version of AMericans compared to colonists standing up to King George III. I think it’s insightful & superb. Just read it & see if it can be your home town. If so, then you need to worry since the book is based, in part, on real people/events.

  • Since it’s a little late to review the video of the news programs where Fox clearly covered the gay rights march, we’ll have to go the the internet.
    Just the words ‘gay dc’ in Fox reveal that march as the top news result:

    Now, since Metro ridership only increased by 8,000 people for the day of that march (less than ten percent of the increase on 9/12), it should be just as easy to find ten 9/12 stories on CNN:

    The ‘web results’ section of the search mention severeal tea party stories from other news stories, so clearly the terms ‘tea party sep 12’ and ‘september 12 protest’ weren’t too confusing for the search engine. And yet no results at all.