I mean – If these agencies were so smart, why didn’t they do it sooner?

As Dana Vachon tweeted to me, Where were these “credit agencies” during the housing bubble?

My guess is, hot tubbing.

Can’t blame them. Hot tubbing is fun.

Which means the downgrade was not a logical reaction, but a scolding meant to make everyone feel bad.

Now, irrelevant ninnies like John Kerry are blaming the Tea Party.

But how can you blame them- when they got nothing they wanted?

The debt ceiling debate culminated in the highest debt ceiling bump ever. The spending cuts were like a fat guy forgoing the sprinkles on his half gallon of Chunky Monkey – and calling it a diet.

But I can see why the Tea Party is getting hammered on this.

No one represents them – for they are them.

Let me put it this way: the Tea Party is a principle, without a person.

President Obama is a person, without a principle.

No wonder he hates them.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobe.

Tonight:

The return of Bob Beckel.

Patti Anne Browne

Kurt Loder.

Fun, fun fun…

Farm Tax Breaks for N.J. Celebrities: MyFoxNY.com

In some songs, like “Livin’ on a Prayer,” Bon Jovi manages to bring both messages to bear at once: he speaks both of love and of the struggles of the everyday American:

Tommy used to work on the docks
Union’s been on strike, he’s down on his luck
It’s tough, so tough
Gina works the diner all day
Working for her man, she brings home her pay
For love, mmm, for love

I don’t think I go to far in saying Bon Jovi’s lyrics about the struggles real Americans face are ingrained in generation upon generation of “Tommy’s” and “Gina’s” in this country.  So ingrained, in fact, that some may confuse the message of the songs with the messenger, and assume Bon Jovi really is a bulwark for the common man.

Of course he’s not. Instead, he’s just another liberal who talks the talk, but fails to walk the walk.

He sings about the plight of the common man, but spends his free time supporting tax-and-spend politicians like former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, President Barack Obama, and former presidential candidate John Kerry.  Democrats all, these are enemies of working men who’ve dedicated their lives to things like endless business regulation (Corzine), hikes in taxation (Obama), and demeaning our troops (Kerry).

And if you want to be honest about things, Tommy’s job on the docks is in peril precisely because men like Corzine, Obama, and Kerry, support union bosses over individual employees.

To make matters worse, after campaigning in support of politicians who levy higher taxes on moms and pops (and Tommy and Gina), Bon Jovi spends his days taking advantage of tax loopholes that allow him to pay meager taxes on his land holdings in New Jersey.

In other words, the very man who told us the tough economy had forced Tommy to pawn his guitar to make ends meet (“Tommy’s got his six string in hock”), is proving to be another out of touch multi-gazillionaire who supports the very politicians placing more regulation and taxation on Tommy’s back. All the while, Bon Jovi sits behind the high fence that surrounds his mansion, availing himself of tax loopholes that keep him from paying his fair share.

Call me crazy, but I think Bon Jovi owes Tommy an apology.

It seems Springsteen is upset with Christie’s ongoing battle against government expenditures, particularly public entitlements. And as liberals and hard left ideologues like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon have done against Republican Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, so Springsteen is now doing against Christie in New Jersey.

Wrote Springsteen: “[Christie’s] cuts are eating away at the lower edges of the middle class, not just those already classified as in poverty, and are likely to continue to get worse over the next few years.” (If you’re like me, when you read Springsteen’s words all you see is “blah, blah, blah, and blah.”)

Honestly folks, I’m beginning to get embarrassed for him in the way I’ve come to be embarrassed for Larry Hagman’s family and Al Gore apologists.

Springsteen demonstrates no grasp of American political history–particularly the history that proves shrinking the size of government, like Christie is doing, results in greater wealth for all.

And while I’m embarrassed for Springsteen, I’m also appalled by his hypocrisy. I mean, here is a man who takes advantage of the system in order to keep from paying all the taxes he’s supposed to pay in his home state of New Jersey: which means he’s making sure his money isn’t in the system to be distributed to those less fortunate ones whom he’s accusing Christie of overlooking.

When I was an impressionable youth with no direction in life, I went to a couple of Springsteen concerts during the mid-1980s. Like many at that time, I hadn’t grasped the fact that Springsteen’s thematic “Born in the U.S.A.” wasn’t praising this great country but condemning it.  Yet I’ve long since figured it out, and wouldn’t now walk across the street to see Springsteen perform if he was doing a free show in a mall parking lot.

Chris Christie is trying to save New Jersey from the financial implosion politicians before him set in motion. If Springsteen wants more money to go to the impoverished in his state, maybe he’ll put his money where his mouth is and start paying all the taxes he could be paying on his little farm there.

Until then, his rudimentary op-eds will continue to provide Larry Hagman with some degree of cover, as laughter shifts from the loon who thinks solar power will cure the world’s ills to disgust toward the hypocrite who’s calling the rest of us to a standard he’s not prepared to meet.

For starters, Johnston is the former almost son-in-law of Palin. It was he who fathered a child with Palin’s daughter out of wedlock and provided the mainstream media with the opportunity to attach the “bad parent” moniker to the then-Republican Vice Presidential candidate during the 2008 election cycle.

Furthermore, Johnston added fodder to the media’s coverage by promising to marry Palin’s daughter, only to call it off (after learning that one of his former girlfriends had become pregnant) and then posing naked in Playgirl. After all this, he threw gasoline on the media fire by badmouthing Sarah Palin and announcing that he himself desires to be Mayor of Wasilla, AK.

With headlines like those, it’s just hard to look at a proposed reality show centering on Johnston as anything other than an attack on Palin. Were this not so, then tell me why we haven’t seen a reality show on Al Gore’s son (busted for drugs) or John Kerry’s daughter (DUI), or even Congressman Barney Frank?

The answer is obvious: Gore, Kerry, and Frank share the same worldview as the dominant crowd in Hollywood, thus their children and their actions are shielded from criticism. Moreover, unlike Palin, they aren’t in a position to steer the course of this nation toward conservatism in 2012.

Suffice it to say, Crow couldn’t have insulted Country Music fans more without calling them by name.  She apparently doesn’t know (or doesn’t care to know) that Country Music fans put the heart in heartland America: that they are loyal to those whom they see as being loyal to American ideals but couldn’t care less about those who go against them.

These things not withstanding, as Crow undertakes the American leg of her latest tour, her backstage rider for venue owners reads more like the musings of a speech writer for Al Gore than a would-be country artist. For instance, the rider contains an “environmental portion” which clearly states that Crow wishes to “minimize the overall environmental impact of the tour.” And while there’s nothing wrong with this on the surface, the problems arise when her to-do list for achieving this lowered environmental impact is fleshed out.

For instance, she asks venue owners to “utilize…non-petroleum cups” and other “alternatives to Styrofoam” for backstage drinks. She requests they reduce their reliance on fossil fuels by using “renewable sources and/or to [buying] sustainable energy credits where possible.” She actually asked them to check with their local utility companies to see if there’s a “green power” option they can switch to during her concert. She asks for “eco-friendly cleaning and bathroom products [and] post-consumer recycled toilet paper and paper [towels].”

Maybe it’s just me, but there’s something kind of weird about the thought of using “post-consumer recycled toilet paper” (and I’ll bet you there a lot of guys on tractors in heartland America who concur with my point).

Crow also describes how every food item, from snacks to dinners, should be prepared and packaged, and is explicit in her demand that everything be organic. From the “good quality, dark, organic chocolate bars” that are supposed to be placed in her backstage hospitality room, to the “organic coconut water” she’s going to use to wash those bars down, everything is painstakingly detailed in echo-friendly terms.

The arrogance of all this is magnified by the fact that Crow is a c-player in the music industry at best (and it’s always aggravating to watch somebody pretend to be more famous than they really are). Yet as bad as her arrogance is, her duplicity is worse.  She proved this in her rider when she asked venue owners to use the same type of “ride-sharing program” she uses in order to cut down on pollution while she’s there. This is quite a request coming from a woman who’s touring the country in two buses (each 45 feet long) complimented by 2 full-size tractor-trailer rigs.

Unless those buses and trucks are running off solar panels, Crow needs to hush. And she need not be surprised that when heartland Americans look at her, they see what they saw in John Kerry during 2004: A snooty leftist who doubles as a control freak.

On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters humbled Democrats by reversing the decision of their state legislators and electing Republican Scott Brown to a U.S. Senate seat that has been held by democrats for all but 6 years since 1926. Tuesdays vote provided definitive proof that “God don’t like ugly. And he ain’t too fond of cute.”

As Republicans anticipate the mid-term elections and what appears like an opportunity to shift the balance of power in the Congress, it is wisdom the GOP would be wise to remember. The special election in Massachusetts was not solely a referendum on the healthcare boondoggle the new left is attempting to force down Americas [clearly unwilling] throat; it was also a clear refutation of the President’s economic policy as well as a refutation on the free spending ways of the previous administration. It would be arrogance of the Democratic sort for Republicans to imagine that Tuesday’s repudiation of democratic over-reaching was an endorsement of Republican congressional governance of the sort America witnessed during the first decade of the 21st century.

To say that voters were not enamored with Republican spending during the Bush administration is an understatement. In a relatively short time the Obama administration, along with a Democratic Congress, has made Bush look like a miser. They have expanded the federal budget by $1 trillion; tripled the deficit; is on track to add $1 trillion per year to the national debt for the foreseeable future; accelerated spending on social entitlement programs and proposed another trillion dollar takeover of the healthcare industry all the while holding a cap and trade tax in its hip pocket. “We are fed up!” is the message voters delivered last November and again in Massachusetts on Tuesday. To put it plainly, Americans are looking for responsible government.

The GOP must take care that they do not become the party of opposition. Rather, over these next months they must seek to define themselves as the party with an alternative plan for America’s future – a plan based on common economic sense.

To whit: money borrowed must be repaid with interest; dollars printed reduce the value of dollars saved and public works projects initiated with the goal of stimulating the economy only succeed in diverting capital from one sector of the economy to another. Further, they are paid for by tax dollars and ultimately become a drag on economic growth. The jobs government creates are government jobs, which are paid for through tax dollars. What government can do through prudent regulation and streamlining of bureaucratic processes is to create a hothouse environment friendly to entrepreneurs and small business owners, who are the true source of job creation and economic stimulus.

For instance, in this country there is an enormous amount of energy in a variety of forms: off our shores lays an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil and substantial natural gas reserves. The hinterlands of Alaska contain another 16 billion barrels of crude. There are another almost 2 trillion barrels available in oil shale. And we have not even mentioned our vast resources of coal, our capacity to produce nuclear energy and the ongoing development of solar and wind power.

An “all of the above” energy policy that would continue to encourage the development of alternative energy while at the same time reducing bureaucratic and activist roadblocks to our abundant natural resources would literally create millions of jobs, add trillions of dollars to our GDP, substantially lower consumer costs and aid in our national security with little or no cost to the American Taxpayer.

Or we could borrow another trillion dollars and pass another “stimulus bill.”

The voters of Massachusetts expressed their dissatisfaction with government over-reaching and fiscal irresponsibility with a loud and courageous voice. They showed great wisdom on Tuesday. With any luck some of that insight will find its way to Nevada and the streets of San Francisco in November.

2+2=4

Brooks is a superstar pundit.  A featured journalist at The Weekly Standard, in 2000 Brooks was author of “Bobos in Paradise,” a smart look at “bourgeois bohemians,” the educated, “counterculture” crowd that had become America’s new blue state power elite.  Brooks went on to occupy the house conservative Op Ed position at the liberal mainstay New York Times and the equivalent chair on PBS NewsHour’s version of crossfire, with ever-apologetic Brooks pitted against the always garrulous lefty Mark Shields.  These two roles established Brooks as the left’s favorite conservative, a position he solidified as one of the Obamacons, prominent conservatives who supported Obama, believing him to be a moderate centrist, or in Brooks’ case, even a closet Burkean conservative. 

Last week Brooks went with his 15-year-old daughter to see a Springsteen concert in Baltimore and witnessed her joyous astonishment.  Her arrival at utter abandon echoed the exhilaration, the emotional learning, Springsteen had long ago imparted to Brooks, the depiction of a world of “teenage couples out on a desperate lark, workers struggling as the mills close down, and drifters on the wrong side of the law,” tales told with a jolt for “10,000 people in a state of utter abandon.”   

Brooks fondly describes the artistry and stories of Springsteen’s universe, “a distinct map of reality” seen on an epic and anthemic scale, in which “losers” always retain dignity and their choices have immense moral consequences, with emotions like stoicism, seen through veils of exaltation and nostalgia.  

Brooks also contemplates the artist, Springsteen himself, elusive, but for Brooks revealed by the “embarrassed half-giggle he falls into when talking about himself,” which Brooks reads as a humble de-emphasis of his own individual contributions in favor of the various musical traditions he presents. 

Brooks’ view is both charmingly personal and astonishingly superficial. It should occur to Brooks that the epic, anthemic performance he celebrates, through veils of exaltation and nostalgia, is a brilliantly constructed and much polished reach toward the mythological.  The desperate teenagers, laid-off mill workers, lawbreaking drifters are less the real folks of Springsteen’s life or American history than the figures of 60’s counterculture mythology, all of whom stand in, like Bonnie and Clyde, for alienated middle class adolescents searching for an identity.  

In an affectionate but clear-eyed analysis of the Springsteen show, Slate’s Stephen Metcalf has described this map of reality as “Faux Americana,” “a middle class fantasy of white, working class authenticity,” which Metcalf wisely attributes to Jon Landau, Springsteen’s producer, manager, and “full-service Svengali.” Landau, graduate of Brandeis and veteran of the 60’s Boston political scene, ‘discovered’ Springsteen, famously declaring, “I have seen rock and roll’s future and its name is Bruce Springsteen,” echoing left-wing journalist Lincoln Steffens 1921 remark after visiting the Soviet Union, “I have seen the future, and it works.”  Springsteen’s own politics have been decidedly left-wing: “I was politicized by the 60’s,” he has observed, and has supported John Kerry, anti-nuke, pro-Sandinista, Amnesty International, and MoveOn campaigns.   

The ‘Bruce’ David Brooks celebrates is not just the self-effacing voice of our musical traditions.  After all, in the rock pantheon he is ‘the Boss.’ Rather, the concerts are fully dramatized and choreographed presentations of Springsteen as the everyman oracle of this mythology, bourn on Wagnerian walls of sound.  Metcalf observes, the persona is constructed, “a majestic American simpleton with a generic heartland twang,” a much refined invention, all “po-faced mythic resonance that now accompanies Bruce’s every move.” 

The fanciful working class authenticity is key, the basis of the Boss’ claim on what Brooks sees as immense moral authority.  Brooks quotes Landau, that there is “not a lot of irony” in Bruce’s work, which, if you have any critical distance from the fabricated character, attendant mythology, and anthemic music, is dead wrong, Otherwise, you are Metcalf’s “rock and roll naïf,” and Landau is a circus huckster.  

Springsteen is not alone in constructing a persona, with its own mythology, claiming an imagined authenticity.  Many among the cast of characters of the 60’s counterculture, including rock stars, were in fact middle class kids who remade their own histories and identities, which is okay so long as 40 years after Woodstock and Altamont you mention to your impressionable 15-year old kid, this is show business, these are not the real gods, this is not your real history. 

But this is not likely among the blue-state elites.  Rather, it is likely that Brooks’ daughter will, at an elite university, be taught a map of reality rather close to the Boss’ faux Americana.  This is only too cruel, as it is also likely that today’s 15-year-olds will be asked to be stoical, to pay for all the mischief, all the self-serving boomer schemes, financial and otherwise.

So why are they so grumpy? I suppose it’s because the idea that anyone might stray from the reservation is anathema to them, and this little thing in our Constitution called the First Amendment kind of gets in the way of collective happiness and singing Kumbaya around the campfire.

John “Cougar” Mellencamp is the latest to notice that not everyone is part of the collective, and he’s mighty peeved, making this observation about free speech in general and bloggers in particular:

“I don’t think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and be mean. I don’t think that’s what freedom of speech is,” he continued. “Freedom of speech is really about assembly — for us to collectively have an idea. We want to get our point of view out so we can assemble and I can appoint you to be the spokesman. That’s freedom of speech — to be able to collectively speak for a sector of people. But somehow it’s turned into ‘I can be an a****** whenever I feel like, say whatever I like, be disrespectful to people and not be courteous.’ It’s not good for our society. Not being courteous is not really freedom of speech. …

Geez, send this guy back to civics class.

The First Amendment pretty much means what it says when it comes to political speech: as long as it’s not libel or slander, you can say whatever you want. If you come across as a mean jerk, others can point it out, thus exercising their free speech rights. It’s not hard to figure out, except for liberal Statists who don’t really believe in the First Amendment.

That said, I agree with Mellencamp – to a point. I believe discourse in this society has sunk to a new low, and honest debate is often replaced by name calling and angry diatribes not meant to enlighten the other side to your point of view, but to shut debate down by shutting the other side up. However, while I don’t think our Founders ever envisioned the Internet with its pluses (i.e. spreading information at lightning speed around the world) and its minuses (i.e. the anonymity factor that emboldens some to say things they wouldn’t say to one’s face), I doubt they would agree with Mellencamp’s assessment of free speech. We “collectively” have an idea and appoint a spokesman? Well what about those of us who aren’t part of the collective, John? If we don’t subscribe to the current fashion of groupthink, do we not have recourse? Are we not allowed to speak out?

For some, blogging is their only way of making their voices heard. Not everyone has million dollar recording contracts that suddenly make their political opinions worth seeking out by reporters bedazzled by someone who plays a guitar and sings.

And who, pray-tell, decides what kind of speech is “nice” speech and what is “hate” speech? Perhaps Obama will appoint a Speech Czar to add to his ever-growing collection of direct reports who get to circumvent Congress, in a power grab noted even by die-hard Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd.

This transformation in thinking on Mellencamp’s part is nothing short of miraculous. He must be regretting this little outburst at a John Kerry fundraiser during the 2004 presidential campaign, right?

Other celebs also competed to bash Bush. Singer John Mellencamp sang a specially written song that called the president “just another cheap thug” and ridiculed him as the “Texas bambino.”

Perhaps that can be attributed to “artistic expression,” an excuse entertainers and artists often use when some find their content objectionable. The unenlightened bottom feeders “just don’t get it.”

Well, we get it, John. We understand that now that your man (well, your second choice) is in the Oval Office, and suddenly it’s unseemly to make fun of him or – even worse – disagree with him. I hear it on talk radio shows all the time: liberals call in and tell the host to stop criticizing Obama, that we must all get behind the president and support him.

Remember Hillary in 2003?

I am sick and tired of people who call you unpatriotic if you debate this administration’s policies. We are Americans and have the right to participate and debate any administration.

Times have changed, people. We must heed the collective. We must appoint a spokesman. I wonder who John has in mind?

But don’t listen to me. John Mellencamp probably thinks I’m an a****** too.

Such portrayal couldn’t be further from the truth.  Since the end of the draft, America’s military men and women have courageously volunteered to defend our country; they have put themselves in harm’s way for a higher purpose than themselves.  They aren’t selfish or stupid – or dupes, as John Kerry suggested (“You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”).  They are heroes.  As Orwell put it, “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”  And today’s soldiers have trained themselves to be rough and ready; they haven’t been coerced or forced.  If the highest sacrifice is the sacrifice by choice, these men and women make the highest sacrifice every day.