The secret shame of the conservative base is that they’ve internalized the enemy’s secular cosmopolitan value set and status hierarchy—hence this obsession with the idea that somewhere, someone who went to Harvard might be snickering at them.

And if that wasn’t convincing enough…

Or consider the study Ryan Sager highlighted a while back, showing that many SUV owners don’t merely think their choice of vehicles is harmless or morally neutral, but positively virtuous. Apparently the “moralistic critique of their consumption choices readily inspired Hummer owners to adopt the role of the moral protagonist who defends American national ideals.” Note two things here.  First, this is classic ressentiment: It’s not just that SUVs are great in themselves because they somehow “embody” some set of ideals. They’re goodjust because they symbolize an inversion of the “anti-American” values of critics. Second, think what it reveals that people feel the need to construct these kinds of absurd rationalizations—to make their cars heroic rather than simply denying that they do much harm. It betrays an incredible sensitivity, not to excessive taxes or regulations on the vehicles, but to the feeling of being judged.

Mitch Daniels had a compelling response to the President’s State of the Union address:

“In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt.  And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead.  The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends.  No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours.

“The President’s grand experiment in trickle-down government has held back rather than sped economic recovery.  He seems to sincerely believe we can build a middle class out of government jobs paid for with borrowed dollars.  In fact, it works the other way: a government as big and bossy as this one is maintained on the backs of the middle class, and those who hope to join it.

I wanted to make sure people saw this one… What a hypocrite.

Oh… and maybe Paul Krugman needs to pay attention.

thanks to our brave men and women in uniform, al Qaeda is weaker than it’s ever been, and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth.  That’s what change is.

So… evidently change is doing exactly what any sane president would have done?  Come again?

Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially “apply the law.” If that’s true, Mr. Perez’s job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008′s Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional.

The court’s liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana’s law “is unquestionably relevant to the State’s interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn’t an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state’s interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.

That isn’t good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department’s priority is to “expand the franchise.” But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.
Plaintiffs put up by liberal lawsuit shops routinely claim that ID laws endanger the rights of hundreds of thousands, but lawsuits in Indiana and Georgia were dismissed because they couldn’t produce a single eligible voter who’d been turned away due to the ID requirement. Turnout has risen in states that have passed the voter ID laws, with no adverse impact on minorities.
In his speech, Mr. Holder highlighted historical attempts to keep voters away from the polls to “gain partisan advantage.” But in a case of more recent history, in 2009, Mr. Holder’s department dropped a voter intimidation case against the Black Panther Party, in which members stood outside a polling place brandishing nightsticks and threatening voters. Civil-rights lawyer Bartle Bull saw the Panthers in action and called it “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I’ve ever seen.”

via Review & Outlook: Holder’s Voter ID Fraud – WSJ.com.

Days as of 8 p.m. Eastern today since Politico broke the story - 7
Politico news stories about or mentioning “Herman Cain“: 138
Politico news stories about or mentioning “sexual harassment“: 91
Politico news stories about or mentioning “sexual harassment” not involving Herman Cain: 0
Politico news stories showing what Herman Cain actually did: 0
Politico news stories showing specifically what Herman Cain was accused of: 0
Percentage drop in Herman Cain favorability rating as reported by Politico: 9

Now, compare that to these stats:

Politico news stories about or mentioning “Solyndra“: 9
Politico news stories about or mentioning “Fast and Furious“: 3
Politico news stories about or mentioning “unemployment“: 17
Politico news stories about or mentioning “recession“: 14

Is it just me or is the Politico out to DESTROY Herman Cain?

via » Politico v. Herman Cain in numbers – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion.

The left got what it wanted in 2008: a liberal president with a sweeping agenda and big Democratic majorities capable of enacting it. The result has been a great and failed experiment in progressive politics and governance. In due course, one hopes, the left will absorb some lessons–but for now, they seem to be suffering a nervous breakdown.

That is one way to understand why so much of the liberal establishment is rallying behind Krugman’s Army, as the “Occupy Wall Street” protests are known. Everything they believe in has failed, so they are turning nihilistic.

via The Left’s Nervous Breakdown – WSJ.com.

The highly interventionist liberal experiment of the last two and a half years has been a spectacular failure, with 14 million Americans out of work, sliding consumer confidence, collapsing house prices, and falling stock markets.

 

This is why Barack Obama could well end up being the last big government president of the United States, a nation that simply cannot afford the lavish excesses of an imperious presidency that drains the pay-checks of hard-working Americans with impunity and reckless abandon. The historic loss of faith in the federal government under Obama has combined with growing support across America for a return to the limited government ideals of the Founding Fathers. Nothing is ever certain in politics, but it is hard to see how a future president can shamelessly adopt the same borrow, bailout and spend approach zealously adopted by the current administration, without extremely damaging consequences for the United States.

It has become increasingly clear to any who originally doubted the predictions of many on the right that the trillions in dollars in stimulus spending… loans to ‘green energy’ companies… and wall street bailouts have NOT accomplished what they were purported to… and have added a crushing debt burden that will undoubtedly stifle future growth. Solyndra loans were given without due dilligence… spent to invest in technology the private sector wouldn’t (without wondering WHY the private sector decided not to in the first place)… and now we have a huge mess on our hands.

At what point should we hold Washington Democrats responsible for this failure of judgement?!  2012 cannot come soon enough.

via Why Barack Obama could be America’s last big government president – Telegraph Blogs.

The use of crude and violent language to condemn conservatives as enemies of the state, the gross manipulation of law to make the Constitution say whatever is politically expedient, and indifference to the actual arguments made by their political opponents—these are all-too-familiar progressive vices. They were exercised with abandon in the fury with which progressives responded to the complex questions raised by the Supreme Courts decision in Bush v. Gore, the detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, and the invasion of Iraq. Tea party hatred is the successor of and stems from the same sources as Bush hatred.

Of course, a good bit of progressive vituperation can be chalked up to the ordinary passions of democratic politics, which can be high stakes and is a contact sport. But in the debt-limit crisis, the hypocrisy of progressives reached truly breathtaking proportions.

How often they have haughtily lectured the nation on the vital importance of civility in public discourse, the urgency of constraining executive power under law, and the need for impartial expertise in public affairs to pragmatically weigh competing public-policy options. But in the debt-limit debate the virtues they profess could hardly have been more spectacularly absent.

Ouch.

via Peter Berkowitz: The Debt Deal and the Progressive Crack-Up – WSJ.com.

If your name is John Kerry…. that’s totally logical.

I guess if you want to put this whole thing in axiom form it would be this:  Democrats are never responsible for bad economies.  Republicans, no matter how small a portion of government they control, always are.