Racism, Racism, Everywhere! Plus: ‘Fact-checking’ Paul Ryan

Lately a lot of liberals seem to think that our desire to elect Republicans can only be explained by racism.

Rich Lowry discusses some examples (full version at Politico, short version at National Review Online).

[Michael Eric Dyson] wrote a blog post for The New York Times contending that, by attacking Obama for cutting Medicare to pay for “Obamacare,” the Romney campaign is engaged in a politics of “racially freighted resource competition.”

Why? Because Medicare beneficiaries are “largely white” and “Obamacare” beneficiaries will be “disproportionately minority.” Edsall calls this supposed strategy “subtle.” Very, very subtle.

Mitt Romney, the Person

It has come to my attention that some well-meaning voters are being influenced by certain narratives about Mitt Romney, put out especially by the Obama campaign, Obama supporters, and the liberal news media—e.g., that Romney is somehow inappropriately rich.  (News flash: President Obama is a millionaire, too.)

I would prefer that elections be decided more on the basis of candidates’ policy positions and job-related qualifications, but if personal narratives are what the voters want, who am I to say they’re wrong?  (I actually do think it makes sense for voters to take indicators of a candidate’s character into account, within reason, though I’d prefer that voters not take them from vague impressions created by the liberal news media.)

Debt-ceiling Fight Rages On

Speaker Boehner wasn’t able to get enough Republican votes in the House to pass his plan after all; apparently it will now be amended to require that Congress send a balanced-budget constitutional amendment to the states before a debt-ceiling increase is triggered (as would have been required by the failed Cut, Cap, and Balance Act), which is a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view. 

Not Inevitable

In the July 4th issue of National Review (page 18), Kevin D. Williamson has a piece that’s informative and also pretty funny (perhaps he hopes to be the next Mark Steyn?), describing how Canada overindulged in deficit spending for decades, but then sobered up in response to fiscal crisis in the ’90s, and has kept deficit spending under control ever since. 

Republican Leaders Make Two Great Points

Speaker of the House John Boehner at a press conference today:

. . . the fact is that House Republicans have a plan. We passed our budget back in the spring, outlined our priorities. Where is the president’s plan? When’s he going to lay his cards on the table?

Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell today on the floor of the Senate: 

Getting Serious

Charles Krauthammer has a good column today about America’s debt crisis, and hope for the future.

We have heard everyone — from Obama’s own debt commission to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — call the looming debt a mortal threat to the nation. . . . We can see the future. The only question has been: When will the country finally rouse itself?

Amazingly, the answer is now.

I know, I’m amazed, too!

More of the Same

Didn’t President Obama and other Democrats use to criticize the Failed Policies of the Past Eight Years?  (See, e.g., here and here.)  The more things change, the more they stay the same:  Apparently sticking with the failed policies of the past two years, by contrast, is a great idea.

Salt in the Wound

Polls only mean so much.  How representative is the sample?  Even to the extent that a given opinion, as worded, is genuinely held by a certain fraction of the population, what exactly does that mean, and how deep does it go?  How transient is it?  Etc.

So, as with any poll, however carefully scientifically controlled, however carefully conducted, take these data with a grain of salt.

That said, I was interested to hear this week that President Obama is the “Most Polarizing President Ever”.

Celebrate Good Times

Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley yesterday in the race for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, 52% to 47%.  If you haven’t been following it, here’s the skinny:

This probably means that Democrats no longer have enough votes (60) to overcome Republicans’ filibuster of the health-care bill in the Senate.  That means that the Democrats’ version of health-care “reform”—already getting less and less likely as time went on, given that they hadn’t passed it before this year, an election year—is probably now dead.  We won.  Thank You, God, and a big thank-you to the people of Massachusetts.