Roger Simon has this to say about the MSM ever evolving position on Obama:

According to Politico and PJM’s own Jennifer Rubin, barely two months after the inauguration, the mainstream media has its proverbial knickers in a twist over Obama’s ineptitude in office. Even Thomas Friedman - that most conventional of all purveyors of the conventional (except David Gergen - and he’s been straying off the reservation too) - is now complaining the onetime Messiah is not taking the financial crisis seriously enough, “getting in trouble cracking jokes on Jay Leno comparing his bowling skills to a Special Olympian.” Meanwhile, CNN is appalled the President pushed through a skillion page skillion dollar stimulus bill no one seems to have read.

Hello, children, you elected this guy. Take some responsibility!

Later on he states:

But they will be blamed - by us and by other people. They deserve to be. Their day is over. While pretending to be the friends of democracy, they have been the enemies of it. Their views have been so monolithic serious debate nearly vanished in this country. Only now, in the ferment of a still relatively tiny Tea Party movement, do you see the stirrings of bona fide discussion. Let’s hope there is more to come. And that the mainstream media, even if they don’t resign, will no longer be the gatekeepers.

In response to the AIG bonuses, Darwin came off the rails in expressing his outrage.

It’s no secret that America has a ruling class. political and financial power both travel in families and social circles, and members of the upper class have so many thousands of times more money and power and influence than the common man that any claim of egalitarianism is simply laughable.

It must be a secret being kept from me since I fail to see this so called ruling class. Perhaps you could point to it so that I can see it more clearly. Certainly this upper class has more money, seeing as that the defining feature of ‘upper class’, but as to having more power and influence I’m going to need to see more evidence.

I might be wiling to concede the notion that their has been a trend since the inception of our union of consolidating more power into fewer hands and perhaps thats what you are getting at. However, I would hasten to add that you are the very reason for such increases in power. For you see Darwin you support the polices that consistently put more power into the hand of less people. You have argued for these things:

Darwin, its your support of liberal policy that gives the so-called ruling class the power and influence that you bemoan. If you were really so against the political and financial classes you would endorse a whole different set of candidates and polices. It turns out you don’t care that so few people have so much ‘influence’. Your issue is that these people you have empowered won’t do your bidding. You don’t object to the consolidation of power only that the consolidated power is not being used as you see fit.

But we’ve accepted this for centuries based on the capitalist rhtoric which says the rich are being compnensated for extraordinary skills and abilities, which allow them to keep the entire economy strong and safe, benefitting everyone in the country.

I don’t support this so-called ruling class on the rhetorical grounds of capitalism. I think the more fundamental reason to support capitalism is that it provides people the most freedom of all economic systems. At it’s core capitalism’s fundamental axiom is that a person has absolute control over their property. They get to say how and when their property is used. Capitalism forbids others from using a person’s property without their consent. Effectively capitalism is the least coercive economic system there is. The freedom it confers dovetails nicely with with our bill of rights. Capitalism is to economic freedom what democracy is to political freedom.

Granted, the unfettered freedom of capitalism has its problem and thats why I approve of limited encroachments by the state to regulate capitalism. But I think our system gets it right. We favor the side of capitalism and demand justification for why the sate should interfere. Others systems like socialism get it wrong, assuming the infallibility of regulation forcing capitalists to justify repealing certain regulations. Or worse yet, in communism where the notion that people might own their property is so taboo that capitalism is never justified. Systems heavily respectful of regulation by their very nature have ruling classes. For you see Darwin, in order to regulate you need officials to determine when and how resources are to be used and in selecting those people you form a ruling a class. You consolidate all the resources in the hands of a few people enabling them to maintain their power with a small circle of people.

I favor capitalism not in spite of it’s ruling class but to protect against the formation of one.

Now, with the system crashing around our ears, real people suffereing, and both the political and financial elites revealed as at the very least incompetent and uncarring and at worst criminals and frauds, the general public is no longer willing to accept that rhetoric.

First of all I doubt very much the system is crashing around our ears. But I do want to point out several things. You characterize politicians (in addition to financial elites) as ‘incompetent, uncaring, and at worst criminals and frauds’. Why then do you consistently support legislation that would give these people more power? Placing your characterizations of politicians next to the policies you support leads one to the conclusion you are irrational. You are worried about a ruling class, you think those that rule you are incompetent, and yet you consistently come out on policy positions that gives ever more power to the incompetent ruling elite. Just seems completely irrational.

If you honestly believe their are ‘real people suffereing’ then you should go there and help them. Donate some time and give some of your money to charity. I recommend looking into churches in your neighborhood, they carry the bulk of helping those in need despite you and others being highly critical of their ideology. However, don’t complain about how the financial and political elites refuse to help when you don’t seem inclined yourself to help.

The outrage at the AIG bonuses isn’t because it’s a misuse of the bailout funds, it’s because it’s a final, incredibly blatant and insulting confirmation of the fact that competency, hard work, and good results are NOT what is rewarded in this economy, and that the elites we entrust our economy to are completely corrupt and looking out only for themselves.

Actually I would argue a big part of the outrage is predicated on the fact that it does seem to be a misuse of the bailout funds. However I really don’t know enough of the details to determine if this shows that our merit based economy is a fraud. However if I had to guess, I suspect there is not enough evidence here to demonstrate convincingly that we have ‘confirmation of the fact that competency, hard work, and good results are NOT what is rewarded in this economy’.

I would like to point out that the decision to nationalize AIG was absolutely against the spirit of capitalism and something I vehemently oppose. The decision to nationalize AIG was certainly a slap in the face of the principle of rewarding good results. I opposed both the legislative and executive support of such a decision. One of the reason I voted against both McCain and Obama was because I know both of them would support such polices when elected to office.

The only question I have is why did you support Obama if you were so worried about the state ruining our meritocracy? It was obvious he would support and put forth many of the policies that would create more state interference in the markets. Including policies advanced by wealthy financial elites attempting to influence the political elites in passing laws that secure their finances after they make bad financial decisions.

It might be wise to direct some of your understandable outrage at yourself. You support many of the policies that has lead to this outcome.

In Micheal’s last post he attempts to argue for equivalence between Obama and Palin in dealing with financial problems. I think the argument fails and also underscores why so many on the left fail to understand the objections on the right.

Crucial to his argument is that notion that Palin is asking for others to help her pay her bills. Presumably Michael is arguing that this demand is similar to Barack asking citizens to help pay for the debts he is creating in ‘fixing’ the economy. Thus he argues that the two are similar in principle.

However, Michael fails to draw distinction between the two sources of funding which is absolutely necessary for his argument to work. Palin is asking for private donors to help her pay off her legal debt while Obama is using the state’s monopoly on coercion to forcibly take money from the citizenry to stimulate the economy. In one case those that wish to contribute to Palin legal fund are doing so by their own choice, while those funding Obama’a policies have no choices in the matter. In fact, many of those people don’t even exist yet, as they have not even been born.

I would take no objection to Obama deciding to establish a save the economy fund in which he attempted to get Americans to donate close to a trillion dollars. My core issue with Obama’s policy is that he is taking without consent other people’s money to ‘fix’ a perceived problem. At the end of the day, I don’t care how people spend their money just so long as its not my money they are spending.

In the case of Palin, people are not spending my money to pay for he legal counsel. In the case of Obama people are spending my money to pay for ‘fixing’ the economy. In no way can it be argued that Palin’s voluntary legal fund is equivalent to Obama’s mandated stimulus fund.

While alarming, the fact that Michael confuses coercion with volition is a common mistake many on the left make. It’s how they are able to support expensive legislation without feeling guilt. They simply forget about the part where guys with guns forcibly take your money away from you.

Palin is hoping other people will pay her debts.

Gov. Sarah Palin owes more than a half million dollars to an Anchorage law firm that has defended her against ethics complaints, and she may create a legal fund to pay the bill, she said Friday.

Palin made $131,891 last year, counting her $125,000 salary and expense payments she collects when she’s away from Juneau, according to the disclosure. Todd Palin made $86,150 from his two jobs, a a commercial fisherman and a BP production operator.

“Obviously we cannot afford to personally pay these bills — and really no future governor should feel the sense of financial vulnerability at the hands of those with a political vendetta bent on personal destruction,” Palin wrote. “Some have suggested a legal fund to pay these bills. We’ll have to pursue that.”

 Also, much like some of Obama’s cabinet picks, Palin owes back taxes:

The Alaska governor released her 2006 and 2007 tax returns on Friday, sparking a lively debate on tax blogs and among tax professionals over whether reimbursements and per-diem meal payments from the state should be subject to federal taxes. Since taking office in December 2006, Gov. Palin, whose state salary is $125,000 a year, received reimbursements totaling $43,500 for travel and lodging for her family in connection with state business. Of that total, $25,000 was for her children’s travel and the rest was for her husband, Todd, the Washington Post reported.While several tax experts have raised serious questions about whether the payments to Gov. Palin are taxable income, they said the case was clearer cut for treating the reimbursements for the children’s expenses as taxable income. “The kids are a slam dunk problem,” said Robert Spierer, a partner with the accounting firm Perelson Weiner LLP in New York City. “The husband you could make an argument that he had to be there because it was required for spouses to be there.”

But not the children, he said. “I don’t think I would ever claim that on my clients’ returns. I can’t think of a real strong argument for it.”

Gov. Palin also accepted $17,000 in per-diem meal payments for nights spent at her home in Wasilla, 40 miles from the governor’s office she used in Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city. Gov. Palin often used that office rather than traveling to the state capital of Juneau, more than 800 miles away. Several tax experts have argued this should be counted as taxable income. 

Governor Palin should have the integrity to resign her post, much like the people Obama was trying to appoint. Not only is she taking taxpayer money she doesn’t need, she’s not even paying taxes on it. No wonder she’s having so much legal trouble in the ethics department.

xkcd

The nation is already swinging back to the conservative side. Karl Rove puts these numbers together:

For example, the liberal Center for American Progress recently found that 61% of Americans say government spending is almost always wasteful and inefficient, and 57% think free market solutions are better than government at creating jobs and economic growth. A late February poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal found that 61% were concerned “the federal government will spend too much money” and “drive up the budget deficit” versus 29% concerned the government “will spend too little.”

These general attitudes translate into opposition to specific policy initiatives. For example, CBS found support for the stimulus bill falling to 51% in February from 63% in January. Meanwhile, opposition to more money to bail out banks rose to 53% in March from 44% in February.

Republicans have a chance to bounce back, that is if they can act like fiscal conservatives.

If you have been paying any attention at all to the news, then you have undoubtably heard that AIG is paying out $165 million in bonuses to its executives. This may anger you, to know that millions of your tax dollars are going to a group of people who played a large part in driving our economy into the ground. But let’s take a step back.

Thus far, the US government has poured $170 billion into AIG. Those bonuses everyone is up in arms about amount to less than a tenth of one percent of this bailout. An insignificant number, in perspective, the same could happen from a rounding error.

Yet the press and the government would have you believe that this is the largest injustice ever perpetrated on the American people. They would like you to forget that it was they who created this monster by making the case for, then enacting these bailouts, against the will of the people.

Our government wasted $170 billion in taxpayer dollars, while a mere $165 million was squandered on AIG execs. Yet the AIG execs are the ones with their backs against the wall, not congressmen or people at the Fed, or the journalists who sold this deal to America.

But you can’t talk about AIG without talking about her creditors. The reason AIG was about to fail is that it owed way more money than it had. To whom, you might ask? Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, etc. you know, the people we’ve been bailing out. Now guess where the AIG bailout money is going.

That’s right. These banks and investment houses just got another round of bailouts, funneled through AIG. They were paid back in full on their crappy investments with AIG. And people want to complain about $165 million, when Goldman just got another $12.9 billion.

I have to give props to those AIG executives who found a way to profit from our massively fucked up system. They not only bankrupted their company and brought the global economy to its knees, but they got a bonus for doing so. My share of the AIG bonuses comes to about 55 cents. This is a small price to pay to expose our government as completely and utterly incompetent.

There is so much accordance in our views at Gitmo.

The Obama Administration, taking its first position in a federal court on claims of torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, urged the D.C. Circuit Court on Thursday to reject a lawsuit by four Britons formerly held there. In addition, the new filing argued that a recent appeals court ruling makes clear that “aliens held at Guantanamo do not have due process rights.”

Moreover, the document called for a sweeping ban on lawsuits against U.S. military officials, claiming constitutional violations by such officials. Allowing such lawsuits “for actions taken with respect to aliens during wartime,” it said, “would enmesh the courts in military, national security, and foreign affairs matters that are the exclusive province of the political branches.”

The brief was another indication that, at least so far, the new Administration is not moving to make a wide-ranging break with detention policies of the former Bush Administration. While President Obama has ordered the closing of Guantanamo by next January, lawyers for the government have taken positions in a variety of detainee court cases that do not propose fundamental change.

You opposed this outcome: