Just another reminder about brunch this Saturday, September 5, in Denver, most likely downtown. E-mail me for details as I expect to fix a location by tomorrow (Thursday morning).
Archives for September 2, 2009
While a supermajority of Republican voters still may think the GOP is out of touch, the Pew Research Center finds that independent voters are increasingly inclined to opt for Republican congressional candidates:
. . . independent voters who express an unfavorable view of Congress, say they would back the GOP candidate over the Democrat by a whopping 51% to 31% margin, while the smaller proportion of independent voters who have a positive view of Congress say they intend to vote for the Democrat, by 55% to 29%.
Now, that may seem to favor the Democrats; a higher percentage of those having a favorable image of Congress prefer the Democrats than of those having an unfavorable view of Congress preferring the GOP. Only problem is that “smaller proportion” is shrinking rapidly: only 37% have a favorable opinion of Congress, down “13 points since April . . one of their lowest points in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys.”
If Republicans can show that they have solutions to today’s problems, they should be able to tap into the growing discontent with a spendthrift Congress and make some real gains next fall.
Unfortunately, I fear we’re going to be treated subjected to some very public makeup sex.
UPDATE: This really does sound like a lovers’ quarrel. Blogging law professor William Jacobson observes, “The complaint now is not that the media is not too critical of Obama, but that it is not sufficiently supportive.”
Note: tweaked the post to eliminate a passive.
Roger Clegg (via Glenn) offered a slightly different take on the New York Times article I considered in my previous post. While, like me, Clegg finds the “renewed emphasis on [‘disparate impact’] lawsuits . . . disturbing but, again, not surprising,” he found the policy was nothing new:
. . . the issues raised by the Obama administration’s civil-rights policies will be important, but they will not be surprising or even new. Here, as elsewhere, it’s just the usual liberal nonsense, warmed over and worse.
Emphasis added. The usual liberal nonsense heated up with a extensive infusion of cash from a Democratic Congress eager to dole out dollars to favored interest groups.
Clegg’s words that Obama’s polices at Justice are little more than the “usual liberal nonsense warmed over” made me wonder yet again why so many on the left wax lyrical about Barack Obama. While kayaking with my family, I met a nice liberal woman from LA who was shocked (**shocked**) to learn that I did not think very highly of the President.
What, I continue to ask, justifies their enthusiasm for this man offering warmed over liberal policies?
He’s no new kind of politician, just a hard-core leftist* of the old school, with increased eloquence and a more powerful presence.
As per my last post, as I read the New York Times yesterday, I caught something which gets at the essence of conservative and liberal (using those terms in their contemporary, not classical context) attitudes toward discrimination:
. . . the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush’s appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination.
Regardless of what one feels about the state adjudicating discrimination in the private sector, if the government is going to get involved, shouldn’t it limit that involvement to sanctioning (or otherwise punishing) those who single out individuals from protected classes?
The contemporary conservative wants to want evidence of bias before pursuing a case of discrimination, the liberal proceeds when he finds inequality of results. Now you see why I bristle at gay activists demanding equality, particularly when they claim their goal is “full equality” (whatever that is). As the Times article shows, under a liberal (in the contemporary context) Administration, we’re not talking about equal rights, but about equal outcomes.
And that means less freedom and increased government intervention in the decisions of private associations and enterprises.