Our Rascally President

October 23, 2009

When I was a kid I used to love watching The Little Rascals. They were on TV regularly back then, and I always found them hilarious. I learned several things from watching Spanky, Alfalfa, and the assorted boys and girls:

  • The meanest man in the neighborhood is the dog catcher who lives to take dogs off the street and put them to sleep
  • Everything you do, and everywhere you go, will be instantly better if it’s accompanied to the Little Rascals theme music
  • Profit is bad

As an adult, I still find the Rascals hilarious. Some of those child actors, especially the very young Spanky, bordered on comic genius. But I also view them differently now. As a kid, I never really noticed the fact that the Gang was incredibly poor and many of them were living in desperate situations. Now when I watch them I can see the Great Depression looming in the background in almost every frame.

There is also a great deal of the Progressive brand of populism evident in many of the short films. Grandma’s store is going to be bought out by an ominous sounding “chain.” The professionally owned and operated lemonade stand is ruthlessly crushing Scotty’s grandfather’s corner stand. Nightclub owners will force you to sing on the street corner if you break a contract. One of the themes of the Little Rascals is that big businesses are evil and looking to destroy competition in the name of increasing their profits.

Now, big business doesn’t need me to defend them, and I wouldn’t necessarily do that even if the Fortune 500 begged me to take up their cause. Big Business has plenty of sins for which it should atone. But like most of the life lessons I learned from Our Gang, the idea that profit is a terrible thing sought by ruthless corporations has turned out to be simply not true.

Profits are not evil. They are a great good. Profits allow businesses to keep operating. They allow businesses to expand. They allow businesses to hire people. They allow businesses to innovate and take chances. In any sane society, profits are something that that should be intensely desired. More than that, the idea of profits should be promoted as necessary to a healthy, growing economy. The difference between an economic boom and a Great Depression is that during a Depression companies are not making enough profits to sustain prior levels of business. They are scaling back, laying off workers, eliminating risk, shrinking.

Unfortunately, as I watch the news now I see virtually the entire administration, led by the President, blaming many of the ills of society (and especially healthcare) on the thirst for dirty, filthy profit. Remember the talk during the campaign when gas prices were at their highest about “windfall profits?” The implication was that businesses were living high on the hog at the expense of the middle class, and that those profits needed to be taken by the government to put to “good” use. The reality of “supply and demand” never entered into the equation. The simplistic summation of this is that profits are good for companies, but too much profit is bad for America. It’s a ridiculous assertion. The subtext of this is that government will spend the money for good things because only government, a non-profit entity, has the pureness of heart and the clarity of soul to see what people really need.

In just the past few days, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs used the “P Word” as a way of explaining why Fox News is bad, Barack Obama has implied that insurance companies fear health care reform because it will cut into their profits, and now the White House is demonizing the Chamber of Commerce for using their profits to lobby the government. If we don’t act now, Obama is saying, Grandma’s store will be taken over by a chain, kids will be in orphanages, and greedy fat cats with handlebar moustaches and top hats will be in charge. The dogcatchers will be roaming the streets and only Barack Obama can save Petey.

While I don’t think Obama is a true blue Marxist, his philosophy of economics has its roots in Marxism: the people need to be protected by a caring intellectual elite from greedy corporate hustlers. Or maybe he just spent too much time watching the Little Rascals.

2 Comments | Politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam

The Fox In The Hen House

October 19, 2009

Mark Twain famously advised against picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrel. He was referring, of course, to newspapers, but the adage works equally well in these early days of the 21st century. Don’t pick fights with people who can beam themselves into living rooms 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

But then, Mark Twain was not as thin-skinned as Barack Obama.

The White House assault on Fox News, led by White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, is actually pretty mind-blowing. Politicians have long selected whipping boys in the press. Conservative politicians have been quick to point fingers at “the liberal media” even when it’s not particularly appropriate. Liberal politicians have been trying to paint horns on Rush Limbaugh’s head for many years now…when Timothy McVeigh’s bomb went off in Oklahoma City, President Clinton ridiculously tried to blame the terrorism on hate speech as heard on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.

The success or failure of these political games is largely dependent on how true the statement is. Yes, Virginia, there really is a liberal media, so that accusation has resonated with the American people. No, Rush Limbaugh is not a racist, hate-filled, homophobic, sexist, fire-breathing zealot, so that accusation is generally accepted only by those who want to believe it because it reinforces their view of what conservatives think.

But this is the first time in my knowledge that a White House has resorted to an “it’s-my-ball-and-I’m-going-home” mentality when dealing with an entire network. Indeed, the most popular news network in the country.

Since August, not a single White House official has appeared on the Fox News Sunday program because the network fact-checked an interview with the assistant secretary to the administrator of Veterans’ Affairs Tammy Duckworth. You can read the full transcript of Wallace’s conversation with Duckworth here, but the main thing to take away from it is that Duckworth sat there and either was woefully misinformed, in which case she was set up to fail, or she repeatedly lied through her teeth. Wallace, a good journalist, called her on the misstatements and then went back the following week and fact-checked her.

Apparently Anita Dunn does not dispute that what Duckworth said was untrue. She is simply appalled by the idea that a Sunday morning show would dare to fact check someone from the administration. A while back, I referred to Barack Obama as the “crybaby-in-chief” and this latest offensive against Fox News is further proof that Barack Obama has lived an incredibly sheltered political life. For his entire political career he has been wrapped in swaddling clothes by a Chicago political machine that pinned its hopes on the bright kid with a gift for golden oratory. As a state senator, he voted “Present” over 100 times; as a U.S. Senator, he spent his time running for President and smiling for the cameras. As President, he has allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to do the heavy lifting, while he does the photo op and the stacked town halls. Barack Obama’s greatest fear is that someone will see past the smile and recognize that behind the speeches lies a vast emptiness.

This is evident in how he handles dissent. He mocks those he disagrees with because he can not compete on the battleground of ideas. He sends out attack dogs (Anita Dunn is only the latest) to marginalize and ostracize his perceived enemies who are really no more than critics. He uses the media that refuses to look behind the smile to get out his message. Anita Dunn recently spoke of the Presidential campaign at a conference to the Dominican government at which she bragged about the White House “control” over the media:

“Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

There are two stories here: one is of a President who is, frankly, such a wuss that he cannot tolerate anybody out there with a differing opinion and a public megaphone with which to voice it. The other is the story of a press that is so partisan that they willingly neglect the very things that they are supposed to do: fact check the Administration, make sure quotes are sourced, investigate the people who have been elected to do our bidding. It’s no surprise that news outlets are willing to help the Administration in their goals: Fox News is competition, and if the President of the United States wants to say through his spokespeople that Fox is “not a news organization,” why should CNN get in their way?

Is Fox a conservative news network? Yes, in the sense that the news shows give conservatives equal time, which is something MSNBC or CNN or the networks won’t do. It is true the opinion shows on Fox tilt conservative. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Greg Gutfield are all conservative. Bill O’Reilly leans Republican but take it from this card-carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: Bill O’Reilly is no conservative; he’s a populist. But there are liberal shows on Fox News as well. Shepard Smith is, according to things I’ve read, fairly liberal. Greta van Sustern is liberal. O’Reilly and Hannity routinely feature liberal guests. The news shows with Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and the shows throughout the day all feature liberal guests and conservative guests. The political affiliations of Baier, Bill Hemmer, Martha McCallum, Julie Banderas are completely unknown to me, and that’s as it should be. I assume Chris Wallace is a liberal because his father is the poster boy for the “liberal media.” Megyn Kelly’s conservative leanings are known to me only because she has appeared as a guest on O’Reilly and spoke her mind about the issues of the moment. The Fox and Friends show tends to be conservative, but they have liberal guest on all the time.

The point of this is that a news network that features an even mix of conservatives and liberals in its news shows is apparently way too hostile for the thin-skin of Barack Obama to handle. Nobody is surprised that Obama doesn’t want to engage directly with Glenn Beck, but Chris Wallace? Because Wallace called out an official administration spokeswoman on her blatant untruths?

I’m not worried about Fox News in this fight. They’re the big boys on the block and can take care of themselves. I worry that we’re seeing a Presidency that after only 9 months in office is already degenerating into Nixonian listings of media enemies and paranoia. This is the same Administration that wanted you to email them with rumors you had heard about the downside of health care reform, after all. In the meantime, if you want to know about Green Jobs czar Van Jones’s radical beliefs, or Anita Dunn’s philosophical love for Chairman Mao…well, you’ll find those stories only on Fox.

The truth of it all is that the vast majority of news outlets and their reporters are ready, willing, and able to give Barack Obama a free ride, and that’s just the way the administration likes it. And if that means they have to demonize and make enemies of a news organization they feel isn’t a good team player…well, that’s just the Chicago way.

Michelle Malkin has more. Allahpundit has videos on Hot Air.

1 Comment | Politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam

The Crybaby-In Chief

June 17, 2009

Have we ever had a President with thinner skin than Barack Obama? Like him or hate him, George W. Bush had skin like leather. But here’s Barack Obama on CNBC whining about how Fox News is devoted to attacking him all day long:

Fortunately for the Crybaby-in-Chief, he has CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today and countless other media outlets willing to strap on their knee pads and fellate him at the drop of hat. And as for Fox, their liberal commentators like Kirsten Powers, Juan Williams, and Bob Beckel do a much better job of defending Obama than the fawning sycophants like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Obama should be grateful to Fox News…it’s the one place where you can hear reasonable defenses of the Administration without all the drool.

No President has ever had so many palm fronds laid at his feet by the media. For him to complain about any criticism just shows what a thin-skinned amateur he really is.

5 Comments | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam