In my closet, I keep every computer (save one*) I have ever owned.  They are all Macs.  From when, in 1990, I bought my first Apple product, a Mac Classic until earlier this year when I upgraded to a desktop iMac, I have loved the products of the company Steve Jobs invented.

He created things we didn’t know we needed and made them indispensable to our lives.

Michelle Malkin called him, “A creative genius. American original. Entrepreneur extraordinaire. His vision transcended politics. His success showcased the power of the free market and individual initiative.”

He didn’t need a federal stimulus money or even a government loan guarantee.  He built his business the hard way, the American way, imagining a product, then, set about making his imagination a reality.  That process took a lot of determination and effort.  As John Hinderaker put it

It is difficult for those of us who don’t achieve greatness–pretty much everyone–to understand how hard those who do become great have to work. Jobs worked harder than most of us could ever imagine, and in the end, he did it for us. I, for one, am grateful.

As am I.  My Macs have held up well over the past decades, with glitches to be sure, but they crashed far less often than did my friends’ PCs.

Steve Jobs was a great man, a great American, a great innovator, a great entrepreneur.  In providing new products, Kevin D. Williamson contends, he improved our lives and, in many ways, embodied the spirit of capitalism.  He gave us

. . . better computers, better telephones, better music players, etc. In a lot of cases, he gave them better jobs, too. Did he do it because he was a nice guy, or because he was greedy, or because he was a maniacally single-minded competitor who got up every morning possessed by an unspeakable rage to strangle his rivals? The beauty of capitalism — the beauty of the iPhone world as opposed to the world of politics — is that that question does not matter one little bit. Whatever drove Jobs, it drove him to create superior products, better stuff at better prices.

I am grateful for whatever it was that drove Steve Jobs.  On his products, I have written a novel, numerous screenplays, outlined all my law school courses, crafted my papers for graduate school and composed my dissertation.  And more, so much more.

A giant has fallen, a man who has really changed our lives — and our culture.

* (more…)

I never expected Sarah Palin to run for president.  She’s smart and knows that should she falter in the campaign, she would lose some of the cachet she has in certain conservative circles.  Plus, it does seem she enjoys her life now as a conservative celebrity.

It came as little surprise thus when she announced as much “in a letter to supporters Wednesday night that was obtained by ABC News and read aloud on the Mark Levin radio program.”

Allahpundit explains why, he believes, the accomplished Alaska reformer “did the smart thing by staying out“:

Just yesterday, CBS found that three out of four Republicans didn’t want her to run compared to just 23 percent who did. Her favorable numbers have been underwater for ages and she would have been hammered on the inexperience charge for failing to finish her term as governor. I do think she could have emerged as the “Not Romney” in the race over Cain and a weakened Perry, but realistically there was no way to beat Mitt once it was a binary choice.  . . . . Worse, there was a chance that she wouldn’t even emerge as the “Not Romney”: If Perry or Cain ended up faring better than her in Iowa or South Carolina, it would have shattered her mystique as the ultimate champion of grassroots conservatives. By staying out, her supporters now get to say “she would have won if she ran” without ever having to test their theory and she gets to kinda sorta play kingmaker as people wait to see if she’ll endorse Perry, Cain, or (gasp) Romney.

Emphasis added.  Sarah Palin can read poll numbers as well as any politician.  She’s not in a strong position to win the Republican nomination (and in an even weaker position to unseat the unsuccessful incumbent).  Should she falter in the primaries, her charisma would likely not be able to rescue her reputation.

She’ll remain a kingmaker.  Her endorsement could well help decide the contest.  Whatever the case, the former governor seems to be enjoying herself now.  Having already experienced the rigors of a presidential campaign, she may rest a little easier that she will no longer have to subject herself to that grueling routine.

And she’ll still be able to make sport of the mainstream media.

In an e-mail, one of our regular readers wondered why I hadn’t commented on the Wall Street protests.  And my reply was basically this, these rallies aren’t as interesting a phenomenon as they are a meta-phenomenon, interesting only because the media is bending over backwards to find them significant, hoping to find in them some non-right-of-center grassroots movement, that is, an alternative to the Tea Party.  (They’ve been looking for such phenomena for some time in coffeehouses without labels.)

“The numbers,” as Roger Simon writes at Pajamas, “aren’t very big, especially for New York, and every generation has its ‘useful idiots.’ I’ve been one myself. The demonstrations appear to be just another float passing by in the grand media parade.”

The protesters — as well as the media covering them — wish they were part of a broader epoch-defining phenomenon when they’re merely a bunch of folks in late adolescence doing what idealistic and unhappy folks in that period of life do: blow off steam in a very public (and presumptuous) manner.

“‘Tahrir Envy,’ indeed,” Roger quips, referencing the recent protests in Egypt which brought down a tyrant:

Everyone wants to be part of the show and the insatiable media needs a subject. Factor in too something that might be called “Tea Party Envy.” The left, historically the ones making the noise, were shocked, appalled and, yes, envious of the Tea Party being the prime focus of attention over the last couple of years. They yelled and screamed imbecilically of racism and now they have a demonstration of their own. (That won’t stop them from screaming racism, of course.)

Read the whole thing.

Athena likes me:

From mid-afternoon yesterday to the wee hours of this morning PST, the editors at AOL kept the headline circled below on their home page:

The headline suggests that the Republican Party doesn’t think America can compete with China, as if the entire party had abandoned Ronald Reagan’s optimism and lost faith in this great country and its wonderful people. The text of the linked article tells a different story altogether:

The Obama administration is seizing on remarks by a top Republican who argued that the United States cannot compete with China in the solar energy business, saying it shows “defeatism” about America’s future and workers.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee leading probes of the government’s botched investment in solar firm Solyndra, made the comments Monday.

He was arguing that the government never should have guaranteed a $535 million loan to the solar manufacturer that declared bankruptcy last month because China will do better with that and other new energy technologies.

“We can’t compete with China to make solar panels and wind turbines,” Stearns said in an NPR story.

The White House is seizing not on an official policy, but on a statement by a one Republican, to be sure, a prominent House Republican, but just one Republican.  And this one Republican wasn’t talking about competition with China in general, but  about competition over the production of two items, solar panels and wind turbines.

Seems the White House is eager to charge Republicans with defeatism, distracting Americans from the real Solyndra scandal.  They appear ready to seize upon any statement a Republican makes that even hints at a lack of confidence in the U.S. economy.  At the same time, they provide the administration’s justification for its program guaranteeing loans for solar companies, without offering any criticism of the program or skepticism about the claim that “solar sources will eventually produce 20 percent of the world’s energy.”

AOL/Huffington Post merely parrots the administration’s talking points; the article could have been written by the White House press office.

We don’t know why Stearns believes we can’t compete with the Chinese (perhaps it has to do with the $30 billion in financing China has offered its solar manufacturers).  The article doesn’t inquire.  It doesn’t present both sides.*  It merely offers the administration’s line of attack.  (Just read the article and discover for yourself some of the other little tidbits where the HuffPo journalists repeat administration talking points.)

In short, AOL highlightrf an article which is little more than a press release from the Obama campaign White House.**

(more…)

When I read Glenn Reynolds’s quip last night on intellectuals, for some reason, a certain time of film snob that you encounter in this neck of the woods came to mind. First the quip:

Intellectualism, in today’s society, isn’t about intellect. It’s just a pose, like hipsterism or faux-redneckism. Most of those people who self-identify as intellectuals aren’t especially bright, they’ve just adopted a lifestyle that’s littered with what they think are markers of intelligence.

These folks pretend they are real film connoisseurs with a taste in cinema elevated from that of the common bourgeois. They ramble on and on (and on and on) about how superior foreign and independent films are to the commercial fare the studios peddle.  But, when youou ask them what makes such films better, they just tell you that they’re not the products of the studio system or some such.  Or they say, they deal with real emotions in a non-Hollywood way.  (Whatever that means.)

Among their “markers of intelligence” is a (pretended) preference for foreign and independent film largely because such films are not those the average American watches.*  Their markers of intelligence are not ideas they have embraced after study, conversation and reflection or arguments they have shaped after much thought and soul-searching, but notions and passions t they find other (supposedly) smart people preferring.

To be sure, this does not hold true for all film lovers in Los Angeles or even all liberal intellectuals, many of whom have developed their ideas through study and reflection, but a certain sort of film snob and professed intellectual who embraces a leftist worldview and harbor intense animus against conservatives.

* (more…)

Back during the debate over Obamacare, after protesters opposed to the president’s plan said some inflammatory things, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)  said “his GOP colleagues need to do more to ‘differentiate themselves’ from the hateful speech spewed in the healthcare debate’s final hours.”

Now that we’ve got some of the president’s supporters using some rather nasty language and insulting and African-American Republican with an offensive slur, we should expect Barney, given his concern for hateful speech — as well as his Democratic colleagues — to “differentiate themselves” from this hateful rhetoric.

You know how sensitive they are to angry cat-calls when even an audience member hurls them at a Republican event.  They’re sure to take these angry allies of the president to task for their inflammatory rhetoric.

It’s not just Barack Obama.  The Democrats of the 21st century will use whatever means necessary, even ones which transgress the norms of political discourse.  In his memoir, the most pro-gay Vice President in U.S. history, reminds us how his 2004 rival attempted to use that good man’s daughter as a wedge issue in their debate:

There was one subject on which he [John Edwards] had done some planning.  A little over halfway through the debate, moderate Gwen Ifill asked us about the the president’s proposal for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.  Edwards opened his answer this way:  ”Let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter.  I think they love her very much.  And you can’t have anything but respect for the fact that they’re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her.  It’s a wonderful thing.  And there are millions of parents like that who love their children.”  I was furious with that response.  What gave him the right to make pronouncements about my family?  But you never want to let the other guy get under your skin, so I kept my anger in check.  When Ifill asked me if I’d like to respond, I said, “Well, GEn, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.  I appreciate it very much.”  ”That’s it?” Gwen said.  ”That’s it,” I said.

When Edwards’s running mate brought up Mary Cheney’s sexuality in the presidential debate a week later, her father concluded that

. . . it was obvious that there was a concerted effort by the Kerry-Edwards campaign to remind viewers that my daughter Mary was gay, to bring her into the debate and into the campaign.  I don’t recall another instance of a candidate for the presidency attempting to use the child of an opponent for political gain.   (more…)

What is old is new again!  The alleged “gay Republican organization” known as Log Cabin has once again decided it is more important to tear down our candidates rather than defeat President Obama’s America-destroying agenda.

Log Cabin – a fully bought-off affliliate of the Radical Gay Left’s Tim Gill – attacked Cain after the GOP candidate appeared this morning on “The View”.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Cain chose to divert attention away from a solid platform of greater liberty and smaller government by indulging in anti-gay rhetoric. Log Cabin Republicans sincerely hope that Herman Cain is open to hearing the evidence and changing his mind on these issues.”

Chris Barron has an awesome, and gosh…. FACTUAL…. response to this Cain smear campaign by The Professional Gays.

 Cain specifically says on The View that he hasn’t seen enough scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality isn’t a choice and he admits that others have drawn different conclusions.

Finally, far from attacking gay people, Mr. Cain has made it clear that he is willing to be a President for all Americans – including gay people.  Mr. Cain does not support a federal marriage amendment, will not reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, supports policies like the Fair Tax, free market healthcare reform and social security personal savings accounts – all of which would benefit gay and lesbian Americans.

Back in June I wrote about the left, and in particular the gay left’s reaction to Cain:

For the gay left none of this will matter.  All that matters is the group hug.  For the gay left, it isn’t important whether the policies pursued by a candidate or a party actually improve the lives of gay people, all that matters is that they get the pat on the head – the assurance that they are ok.  I don’t need the group hug, nor do I need affirmation from the government that I am ok.  What I need is a President and a Congress that will pursue policies that will make life better for me and my family.

It is time the gay community put real policy before emotional theater, and that is exactly why gay people should be willing to listen to and consider the candidacy of Herman Cain.

The Gay Left, including their paid-off Log Cabin affiliate, are too invested in the Obama Democrats to have a rational response to the Cain candidacy.  Too bad.  But their hatred of conservatives is too blatant to ignore these days.  So at least there is that.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

With a sample, as Ed Morrissey reports, “tilted toward Democrats at 32/25/37,”  the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll finds President Obama and the Tea Party enjoying identical favorable ratings, with “42 percent” approving the job the president is doing while 42 percent support the Tea Party.

Interesting, 47% support the grassroots political movement while “54 percent disapprove” of the incumbent Democratic president.

Save when the media unfairly pilloried (or left-wing activists assaulted and/or demonized) Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, I didn’t pay her candidacy much heed, largely because I  expected to her to fade early in the nominating process.

It looks like her campaign is fading ever more rapidly than I had forecast.  She barely broke into the single digits, scoring just 1.5%, in the recent Florida straw poll.  And now comes words that more aides are leaving her campaign:

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is losing her pollster and senior adviser in a staff exodus that raises questions about the viability of her White House bid and her campaign finances.

Pollster Ed Goeas plans to leave the campaign after upcoming debates in New Hampshire and Nevada, and senior adviser Andy Parrish is returning to the Minnesota congresswoman’s office where he served as chief of staff.

Last month, Ed Rollins, Mrs. Bachmann’s campaign manager, and his deputy stepped down.

While I appreciate her ability to articulate the conservative message (on fiscal issues) with passion and conviction and acknowledge her commitment to Israel, I have long had concerns about her attitudes toward gay people.

She doesn’t appear to have responded to GOProud’s request for a meeting.  I won’t be shedding any tears at the fading of her political fortunes and hope her fall will allow more competent and less divisive conservatives to seize the Tea Party mantle to which she once laid claim.

UPDATE: Shortly after posting this piece, I e-mailed Chris Barron, Chairman of GOProud’s board to confirm the information in the first sentence of the concluding paragraph above.  He wrote back with this statement:  ”It is clear at this point a meeting is not a high priority for Rep. Bachmann. It is unfortunate. I think she has missed a real opportunity to confront and explain some of the things from her record.”

In a piece on Roseanne Barr, Ed Morrissey explains:

Just remember that when conservatives organize into grassroots movements, it’s almost always about protecting their own property and individual liberty.  When leftists decide to start grassroots movements, like OccupyWallStreet or Barr’s example of leftist populism, it almost always involves seizure of property, threats of violence, and eventually re-education camps and the guillotine.

And yet it’s those conservatives protests which our friends in the mainstream media most often accuse of violence.

SOMEWHAT RELATED:  James Taranto observes:

No matter how these guys try to hype it, a left-wing political mob is a dog-bites-man story. For at least 40 years lefties have routinely mounted protests for fun and profit–rallying for a nuclear freeze, against various and sundry wars, against the World Trade Organization and other international financial agencies, against the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. On the right, by contrast, with the exception of the antiabortion movement, there is no permanent protest culture or infrastructure. That’s why the Tea Party was important and newsworthy.

No wonder the president is running scared:

A majority of Americans expect Barack Obama to be a one-term president, an assessment on which, in past elections, the public more often has been right than wrong.

Just 37 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say they expect Obama to win re-election in November 2012; 55 percent instead expect the eventual Republican nominee to win.

And this poll tends to tilt slightly toward the Democrats.  No wonder the Obama campaign is going on the attack, slamming presumptive Republican frontrunners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney as out of the mainstream, with Ben LaBolt, press secretary for Obama’s re-election effort, writing, “They would return to policies that have been tried before and done nothing to improve economic security for the middle class, rewarding special interests who can afford to pay for lobbyists instead of looking out for working families.”

Good job, Mr. LaBolt, you can sure pack a lot of White House clichés into one sentence.

Now, what about the president’s policies which have increased economic anxiety in the middle class while rewarding special interests who can afford to pay for lobbyists and have connections to top Democrats, well, the campaign prefers not to talk about the president’s actual record as it would rather focus on the horrible, not good, very bad Republicans:

With a still-struggling economy and a base that remains less than enthused about the 2012 election, Obama must turn the race into a choice between two candidates, as opposed to a referendum on his first four years in office.

“Try to make the GOP candidate the issue in the election instead of Obama’s handling of the economy,” summarized Neil Newhouse, who is polling for Romney’s campaign, of the president’s strategy. “Good luck with that.”

Perhaps, as 1980, the race can be both a choice between the two candidates and a referendum on the incumbent.  And we all know how that turned out for the Democrats.

Acknowledging the headwinds he faces in running for reelection, President Obama asked a curious question:

Calling himself an “underdog,” President Obama today said the faltering economy is a drag on his presidency and seriously impairing his chances of winning again in 2012.

“Absolutely,” he said to a question by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos about whether the odds were against him come November 2012, given the economy.  “I’m used to being the underdog. But at the end of the day people are going to ask — who’s got a vision?

The American people, he conceded, are “not better off” than they were four years ago.

Emphasis added.  Hope and change is not a vision.  As the article above suggests, a large part of his vision is, what Victor Davis Hanson has dubbed, “the new venom,” rallying the interest groups which form his party’s base by attacking his political adversaries.

Perhaps, the Democrat sees the fundamental question of the coming presidential campaign as one of vision because he doesn’t fully understand the conservative vision, thinking it to be a dark one based upon greed and corporate hegemony.  The Republican candidate who can best articulate that vision will more readily be able to tap into that majority of Americans who would prefer an alternative to the incumbent in the upcoming election.

That said, what, beyond class warfare and bromides about the middle class, has the president offered as a vision for our country?

In an insightful post today on the Corner, Victor Davis Hanson sketches out the contours of the president’s 2012 campaign:

With Bruce’s candidate (but not mine) for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination saying “Sunday that he should not have stayed silent after the audience at a GOP debate booed a gay soldier serving in Iraq“, the question remains should we fault the candidates for remaining silent when a boor in the audience booed just after a gay soldier asked the candidates a question on the repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).

As Herman Cain himself noted, “it wasn’t immediately clear . . . what had drawn the audience’s scorn, adding, ‘I happen to think that maybe they were booing the whole “don’t ask, don’t tell“ repeal more so than booing that soldier.’”

From the candidate’s response, it seems that he had heard the booing, suggesting that his rival for the GOP nomination, Rick Santorum, was not speaking honestly when he said he had not heard the boos.

It is a very ugly thing to boo a member of our armed forces, whether he be gay or straight.  That said, audience members do not speak for the candidates.

“Had the candidates spoken out,” I wrote in an update to a previous post, “they would have shown themselves to be of a more noble sort.  But, absence of nobility does not necessarily mean smallness [as the president suggests it does].”

Would we even be having this discussion if leftist radicals booed a service member at a Democratic forum and none of the politicians there failed to chastise them?

So, let me throw this out to you, if Santorum had heard the boos, was he duty bound to criticize them?  Indeed, is any candidate duty-bound to denounce hateful rhetoric spoken (or rude actions undertaken) by an audience member at a rally where he speaks?

FROM THE COMMENTS:  ILoveCapitalism offers:  ”Since Santorum was asked a question by a soldier, Santorum should have begun by thanking him for his service. I think we can agree on that.”  Yes, we can agree on that.

In linking my post on the president’s demagogic attacks on the Republicans seeking to replace him come January 20, 2013, Glenn Reynolds quoted the paragraph I had intended to paraphrase in a follow-up post:

He didn’t need to attack Republicans. He could have simply highlighted his accomplishments on issues of concern to the gay community, notably repeal of DADT (which even yours truly believes is a feather in his cap). . . . The president’s mean-spirited attack shows his eagerness to repeat the talking points of left-wing pundits. He is attempting to hold Republicans responsible for the actions of perhaps not more than one boorish individual. This demagoguery, having defined the president’s governing style for these past several months, has also begun to define his re-election campaign.

So, why did it attack? Is it that, the president knows, as our reader MV quipped that “‘HRC’ stands for: Hate Republicans Campaign.”  He was just playing to his audience.

Or is there something else to it.  He could have just listed his accomplishments — and not just on DADT repeal — on those issues of concern to gay people.  Instead, he chose to attack Republicans for standing silent when on numerous occasions, he remained silent when others, in his presence, hurled invective at his political adversaries or other groups.

So, why did this self-professed post-partisan politician feel compelled to attack?  This is not the new kind of politics he promised, eschewing the name-calling, buck-passing and divisive rhetoric that seemed to have defined our political discourse for the sixteen years prior (save for a brief respite after 9/11) to his taking office.

The answer to this question might help us better understand the real motivations of the incumbent President of the United States.

Ann Althouse did the due diligence I had intended to do when I first read about the Washington Post story on the offensive name of a hunting camp that Rick Perry’s family leased.  In the synopses and excerpts I skimmed, two apparently contradictory facts stood out:

1. The Texas governor’s (and current GOP presidential candidate) claim that whenever he saw a rock with the offensive name, he and his father painted it over.  Indeed, it was one of the first things they did when they leased the property.
2. Seven individuals, one as recently as last summer, claim to have seen the name on the rock (with the name visible) when Perry’s father leased the land.

So, I got to wondering whether or not the Washington Post reporter had actually gone to the ranch and snapped a picture of the rock.  Evidence of paint on the rock would back up the claims of the Texas governor.

And it does seem there was that.  ”As recently as this summer,” the Post’s Stephanie McCrummen report, “the slablike rock — lying flat, the name still faintly visible beneath a coat of white paint — remained by the gated entrance to the camp.” But, as Althouse notes (and this is her “due diligence”): “Lots of photos of Perry having nothing whatsoever to do with this story, and not a single one of the rock. Well done, WP!”  (Read the whole thing.)

Wonder why the Post wasn’t interested in tracking down the most important image for this story.

Via Glenn Reynolds who finds its funny “that they never found Obama’s background this interesting.”

Interesting that when President Obama addressed his party’s gay and lesbian auxiliary (the Human Rights Campaign) last night, he generated the most energetic reaction not for touting of his accomplishments, but for attacking Republicans:

The most electric reaction, however, came when Obama sharply criticized the GOP presidential candidates for staying silent when audience members at a debate booed a gay soldier who asked a question about DADT.

“We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s okay for a stage full of political leaders — one of whom could end up being the president of the United States — being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don’t believe in that,” said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation.

“We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens. We don’t believe in them being silent since. You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient. We don’t believe in a small America. We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot.”

It is sick what this Democrat is doing.  He didn’t need to attack Republicans.  He could have simply highlighted his accomplishments on issues of concern to the gay community, notably repeal of DADT (which even yours truly believes is a feather in his cap).

It is telling that Obama felt it incumbent upon himself to attack, attempting to hold Republican presidential candidates responsible for the boorish behavior of at most three (but likely just one) rude and disrespectful louts.  And it is telling that this mean-spirited attack generated the “most electric reaction” at an HRC event.

The only candidate who would be expected to condemn the boor would be the man to whom the gay soldier’s question was addressed.  And that man, Rick Santorum, albeit belatedly (though he claims not to have heard the boos during the debate*) did condemn the boors who bood the soldier.

To suggest that the Republican candidates do not stand up for the men and women in uniform is demagoguery plain and simple. The president should abolish for suggesting as much (while hinting at their “smallness“). (more…)

Former President Bill Clinton, the AP’s Andrew DeMillo reports, “on Saturday offered a vigorous defense of President Barack Obama against what he called the same anti-government stances he faced during his campaign and two terms in office“:

“Underlying those challenges is the same old debate about whether government is the problem or whether we need smart government and a changing economy working together to create the opportunities of tomorrow,” Clinton told the crowd, which was flooded with old campaign signs for him or his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who lost to Obama in 2008′s Democratic nominating contest.

. . . .

“There’s not a single example on our planet, not one, where an anti-government strategy has produced a vibrant economy with strong and broad-based growth and prosperity,” Clinton said.

Yeah, but Mr. Clinton, as I recall, you compromised with those anti-government forces in the 104th and 105th Congresses. As a result, growth in government slowed as the economy prospered.  The federal government consumed a far smaller percentage of the GDP than it does today.  Indeed, federal spending in the 1990a, as a percentage of GDP, was slightly lower than it was in the 1970s.

And what, pray tell, fell between the 1990s and the 1970s.

UPDATE:  Over at Powerline, Steven Hayward critiques historian Sean Wilentz’s recent article in The New Republic, “20 Years Later: How Bill Clinton Saved Liberalism from Itself”. Here, he addresses a point similar to the one I make above:

Wilentz left unsaid one key part of Clinton’s success that Podhoretz noted prominently: Clinton’s adaptation to the Republican landslide of 1994, which was a direct rebuke to Clinton’s McGovernite ways his first two years in office.  Wilentz’s silence on Obama’s lack of adaptation to the 2010 election result is telling.