The idea the president is pivoting to inequality is too rich. Redistribution is the organizing principle of his presidency. Taking from the Americans he calls “the haves,” the “fat cats” and giving to those he calls “the poor” and “have nots” has been his constant goal.
Obama has debased and coarsened his presidency--and national politics--to match the Chicago street fighting of the community organizer he was.
When it comes to Brooks representing conservative views at the New York Times and on the News Hour, I propose we trade David for Arthur.
Brooks argues the executive could forge solutions on things like immigration reform (and presumably the rest of his litany of tragically unpassed bills) that Congress is just too polarized to tackle.
It’s critical we keep lobbing the softball set-ups so our guy can blame everything bad in the world on Republicans. But still, to look honest, we probably have to throw the occasional fast ball, don’t you think?
Real reporters confront ambitious. They call bigwigs out for inconsistencies and contradictions. They might even venture to ask a question or two based on premises different from the assumptions of The Man they are questioning.
In recent days, organized labor turned harshly and vocally against the so called “Affordable Care Act.” Three leaders of America’s largest unions, including Jimmy Hoffa, wrote a jaw-dropping letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Excerpts of their arguments sound like a Republican opposition brief:
In the harsh light of the IRS scandal, and news other agencies targeted conservatives, it’s impossible to doubt the administration saw an even more useful tool in FEC prosecutions aimed to silence inconvenient groups.
Outrage over offensive statements is a one-way racket meant only to harm conservatives. If anyone right of center crosses a line, then call in America's head-hacking Taliban. But anyone left of center crosses lines equal or worse, then, what? Did you hear that tree in the forest? No, did you?
Evidence of the administration’s incompetence, policy fails, and dirty deeds is piling up as fast as the worthless national media can be dragged and shamed into grudgingly reporting it. But don’t fool yourself that liberals will be reflective, conciliatory, or interested in fence-mending.
It’s not just their mortality in the balance, but all of ours. We were young when we discovered the song. They were young when they created and performed it.
Liberals offer permanent excuses for abuses: Everyone does it. Yet when you examine the record, not everyone does do it.
How, exactly, does a free people overthrow an abusive bureaucracy that, as David Axelrod asserts, is too vast for even the president to be aware of, let alone control?
Not too long ago, trashing George Bush was a Hillary-approved form of patriotic dissent. Back in the day, progressives and Move On types competed proudly and exuberantly to vocalize their Bush hate, all to the national media’s approving, saturation coverage.
What difference does it make that Secretary of State Clinton ran the kind of shop where pleas from an ambassador in the hottest of global hot spots could be either denied by SOS or ignored by staff?
The aggressive impulse stems from my own political drama, which, though I’d guess isn’t rare, has nothing to do with the film or the maker’s intended message.
Perhaps in 30 years the murderer will be invited to teach at our elite universities, to explain his/her ideas for the betterment of humanity, like the chic radicals now laundered and ensconced in academia.
The Philadelphia infanticide story is like Benghazi: Big Media is violently allergic to anything that diminishes its heroes or its heroic causes.
This is the face of progressive gun restrictors: ignorant, unyielding in error, and coldly arrogant.
Google’s action also presents the challenging social question how beliefs, creeds, and the groups that embrace them can remain vibrant in a culture that suppresses all public recognition.