January 20, 2010

Wow … Brown Wins; Pajamas Media Column on Victory (‘Liberty 1, Tyranny 0 After Brown’s Big Win’) Is Up

Filed under: Economy,Health Care,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 1:15 pm

e49725_Scotty_01202010Note: Moved to the top for the rest of the day.


Epic upset.”

Funny, I’m not upset at all. :–>

The PJM column is here.

The column got up when it did because I wrote it in advance, and the folks at PJM turned it around with incredible speed. Intense thanks for the quick review, guys.

I will note the subheadline here, because those who celebrate victory tonight need to understand that Scott Brown may turn out to be a high-maintenance Senator:

Conservatives scored a huge victory in the Bay State, but the battle for liberty has just begun. First job: keep an eye on Scott Brown.

Go to the column for the reasons.

But for now, savor the truth of the column’s opening sentence:

In electing Scott Brown to what the elites believed was Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat one day shy of the anniversary of Barack Obama’s inauguration, Massachusetts voters have delivered an irrefutable repudiation of the president, his agenda, and the people in Congress who support him.

Happy anniversary, Mr. BOOHOO-OUCH. :–>


UPDATE: When the blackout period expires, it will carry today’s date and have an alternate title — “Punk President Repudiated.”

UPDATE 2: Here’s one factor I wanted to mention in the column but left on the cutting room floor, as expressed in AP’s coverage

Coakley’s supporters … (said) … her lead dropped significantly after the Senate passed health care reform shortly before Christmas and after the Christmas Day attempted airliner bombing that Obama himself said showed a failure of his administration.

Interesting that Coakley’s people would bring that up, and that AP would frame it as “a failure of his administration.” I guess the “we blame Bush” for anything and everything isn’t even working for AP reporters any more.

UPDATE 3: I wrapped my Monday column by saying that “a Brown win by a large margin ends any pretense that the country supports the actions and policies of Obama, his government, and Congress.”

I’d say a 4.87% margin in a state that only gave Ronald Reagan a 2.79% victory in 1984 is quite large enough.

Effective today, no one can credibly contend that the country supports the actions and policies of Obama, his government, and Congress. Period.

Globe Columnist Goes Off Deep End: Mass. Electorate Was ‘Drunk on Power’


I heard Rush reading from a newspaper column during his first hour, but missed the first couple of paragraphs. So I didn’t know its origin. Given what I was hearing, I thought that El Rushbo was surely reading the latest from Maureen Dowd at the New York Times.

Nope. It turns out that it was written by the Boston Globe’s Brian McGrory (pictured at right; original is at this link). McGrory wants to tell us that the Bay Staters who voted for Scott Brown over Martha Coakley did so because of the self-importance thrust on them by the national media spotlight and not out of any real conviction.

But his bawdy treatment distracts from his intent, as you will see in the excerpts that follow, which in this case are no substitute for reading — or actually enduring — the whole thing:

Seduced by our new senator

I’m going to need some Advil and a cold compress, please. I’m the Massachusetts Electorate, and I have what is bar none the absolute worst hangover of my entire voting life.

Seriously, I was so drunk on power, so caught up in the moment, so free of any of my usual inhibitions, I can’t remember what’s gone on these last two weeks. Think, Electorate, think. What did I do?

This much I’m starting to remember. Martha and I walked into the party and everything seemed to be going fine. She wasn’t talking much, but she never really does, and she wasn’t exactly pushing me to bare my soul, either. That’s what I’ve always liked about Martha: She’s a low-maintenance politician.

And now I’m vaguely recalling that stranger across the room, the one in the barn jacket who kept smiling at me and seemed to know my name. Martha vanished for a while, and – is it bad that I’m saying this? — I didn’t really care.

Suddenly, that tall, handsome man was standing at my side doing something that Martha rarely did – offering to pay for drinks, chatting me up, curious what was on my mind.

…. We were on the dance floor, Scott and I, moving to the music, his hands all over my body politic. Everyone was watching, and I mean everyone – fellow partygoers, bartenders, passersby staring in the windows. Look at me, the Massachusetts Electorate, the bellwether of America!

I think I took my shirt off. I think I didn’t care. I remember something about Scott in a pair of Calvin Klein jockey shorts, but it may have been a picture he showed me from his wallet.

Out of nowhere, there were video cameras filming us from every angle. Analysts were describing the events. Scott’s important friends were texting and calling my cell. Get this: Curt Schilling, talking to a regular old Electorate like me.

…. I remember catching my breath. I remember pulling a curtain shut. I remember having to make a really important choice.

Globe commenters are mostly not amused. Some examples:

  • “Typical liberal article. Surely the stupid voters didn’t knowingly vote for who they truly wanted to represent them. Nope, they were seduced by a cunning republican. Elitist much?”
  • “… thoroughly disturbed!”
  • “Another low point for the Globe, Brian you need some counselling.”
  • “What a creepy piece of writing.”
  • “I hope this article is the death (k)nell of the Globe. You were once a great newspaper, now you are just a phony tabloid, and a bad one at that. I am so embarrassed for you, Brian. Shame on you. Poor sport. Poor loser.”
  • “… Who wrote this drivel? Did some thirteen year old girl steal Mr. McGrory’s laptop and write an entry for her diary?”
  • “Is this author comparing a vote for Scott Brown with a drunken one-night stand? That’s offensive and insulting to those who legitimately chose Scott Brown based on the issues. For shame.”

I strong agree with commenter “jimnagle”: “I think I need a shower.”

McGrory has written several books. His author page at Simon & Schuster tells us that “Brian McGrory was a roving national reporter for the Boston Globe, as well as the Globe’s White House correspondent during the Clinton administration.” McGrory’s blind, vindictive partisanship would seem to partially explain why Clinton got the endless supply of free passes for his conduct and behavior from the press when he was in office.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Lucid Links (012010, Morning)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 8:42 am

From “If the economy improves, it won’t be Obama’s doing” file:

Windows Vista was widely shunned by businesses, but there are indications that its successor, Windows 7 will fare better in commercial environments.

Microsoft noted this week, for instance, that numerous businesses are moving from to Windows 7 as they update their client systems.

For several years, many businesses frozen in XP haven’t done the kinds of productivity-improving things they might have done if Vista had been more widely accepted.

If Windows 7, which is getting generally very favorable reviews, really is all it’s cracked up to be, and if enough businesses make the move away from XP, the economy will benefit greatly. Let’s hope these things come to pass.


Of course, this wasn’t news in 2008 when it happened, and when reporting it would have mattered — “The tension between Barack Obama and Joe Biden was far greater than between the Palin and McCain camps.”


Remember former UN weapons inspector turned Iraq War opponent Scott Ritter? You won’t believe this. Well, if you remember this, you will.


From a January 12 Wall Street Journal editorial:

Among the astonishing things about the ObamaCare debate—or lack thereof—is that Washington is inundated with warnings about the destructiveness of this plan, and it doesn’t matter. The agency that runs Medicare rung the latest alarm bell on Friday, and good luck finding any media mention.

Richard Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, reports that under his analysis national health spending will rise under the bills by $222 billion over the next 10 years. In other words, ObamaCare really does “bend the cost curve”—up.

If there was media attention, I sure missed it — which is why the WSJ’s daily editorial effort has to be a hard-news destination of choice during a Democratic administration.


Some useful and stunning facts and stats (bolds are mine) on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

Fannie, Freddie are frauds

During the period from 2005-07, under the aegis of (Barney) Frank, in particular, these GSEs were buying all the risky business they could lay their paws on. (Risky loans include Alt-A mortgages, which are essentially loans of poor quality, with either insufficient down payment or borrower documentation, and subprime loans, essentially loans to people with poor credit ratings).

By 2008, these Twin Towers of liar loans owed 10 million risky loans, totaling $1.6 trillion. Between the 10 million risky loans, and the other 5.2 million such loans held by other government entities, the federal government owned almost 60 percent of subprime and Alt-A loans in the country. This was moral hazard on steroids – the steroids being the cheap credit supplied by the Federal Reserve. Yes, unscrupulous brokers sold bad loans to imprudent buyers, but it was all enabled by these GSEs. They were the root cause.

As of now, Freddie and Fannie own or guarantee half of the $10 trillion in U.S. mortgages – the really lousy half.

…. The GSEs defrauded the public.

Y’know, I remember telling some folks whose names I will not mention to protect the guilty (just kidding, peeps) sometime in 2007 that I sensed but obviously couldn’t prove (which is why I never blogged it) a deliberate attempt by these two Democrat crony-controlled entities to take down the financial system in time for the 2008 election. The excerpt just quoted moves that instinct into the realm of the plausible.