Did he say that? Almost. Let us simply accept as a predicate that David Brooks quite definitely considers himself among the educated elite.

And here's what he has to say about the public's response to the educated elite.

The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.

The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.

Did you catch that? The public doesn't like the educated class, so -- because of that -- they childishly, petulantly take the position opposite that class.

Rather than: The majority of the public disagrees with this self-declared technocratic soft-socialistic urban would-be elite on most issues, so -- because of that -- their estimation of this small but extraordinarily noisy cohort necessarily diminishes.

Notice how Brooks inserts himself in a central position at every turn in the American political drama. He is the dominant actor; he causes all action. By simply taking a position, he causes people to recoil against it.

It's not that people have always been against that position. No, it's because he is such a crucial and unavoidable force in America that he also causes opinion to shift negatively, away from him, by simply act of choosing a position.

We disagree with Brooks because we disagree with Brooks. Not because we're reacting emotionally.

However, I will cop to reacting emotionally to this rather hysterical assertion by Brooks that he is the Irresistible Force in my own intellectual laboratory.

We disagree with you because we disagree with you; and we think you are arrogant, effete, entitled douchemongers because you are arrogant, effete, entitled douchemongers.

He then goes on to explain, as if we had any doubt, that he's "not a fan" of the tea party movement.

You know who sparked the tea party movement?

David Brooks. Just by being so awesomely influential and scary-smart, he provoked a reaction against himself.

He's kind of like Jerry Rice in his prime. You can't stop him, you can only hope to contain him.

Posted by: Ace at 09:09 AM | Comments (312)
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

Supporters of trying terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian courts like to scoff at the concerns of their opponents. They say, 'hey, we successfully tried Zacarias Moussaoui in federal court, so why not KSM?".

As Andy McCarthy observes, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Moussaoui's sentence yesterday but the case only has a happy ending because Moussaoui pleaded guilty.

The appellate court notes that Moussaoui claims it was error for the trial judge to interfere with his unqualified right to represent himself; "to have personal, pretrial access to classified, exculpatory evidence"; and to be able to summon witnesses like co-conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for trial testimony. The Fourth Circuit acknowledges that all these claims have merit, but the court finds that Moussaoui, by pleading guilty, waived any claim of prejudice. Opinion at pp. 24–28. Even more alarming, the Fourth Circuit concedes that its waiver rationale is inconsistent with a decision by the Ninth Circuit on which Moussaoui relies — i.e., if the Fourth Circuit had followed the Ninth Circuit, there's a good chance it would have had to agree that, regardless of the guilty plea, Moussaoui's convictions should be reversed.

That split in the reasoning by the circuit courts could lead to a Supreme Court appeal and there's no telling where His Imperial Majesty Anthony M. Kennedy will come down on any given day, nor a Wise Latina so there still may be some hope for Moussaoui to get a new trial.

Based on the 4th Circuit's rulling imagine that KSM doesn't just plead guilty (why would he?) and decides to represent himself, he most likely will get to see all the classified materials we have on him and his 'associates'.

Undoubtedly the left will claim that he can't do any damage with that information since he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail.

Ok but what guarantee is there that he's going to jail forever? Are those so ardent to see due process for these guys saying the trials are rigged? But don't worry, it's not as if there's ever been a case where a lefty lawyer has passed messages on for convicted terrorists or anything.

Read the rest of McCarthy's piece for a reminder of just how stupid and dangerous a game Obama is playing by giving these terrorists the same rights and protections you and I enjoy.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:32 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

It's on life support and the prognosis is grim.

Congressional leaders, however, reportedly are expected to bypass the traditional conference committee process, in which lawmakers from both parties and chambers meet to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill. Instead, The Associated Press reports that top Democrats at the House, Senate and White House will figure out the final product in three-way talks before sending it back to both chambers for a final vote.

This format would seem ideal for closed-door meetings, which congressional Democrats have used many times to figure out sensitive provisions in the health care bill -- though President Obama pledged during the campaign to open up health care talks to C-SPAN's cameras.

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are,"

An old, but still relevant, photoshop below the jump. more...

Posted by: Slublog at 08:11 AM | Comments (73)
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

50-41.

Health care will be a factor:

The health care issue is expected to play a big role in the debate and Massachusetts voters hold modestly favorable attitudes about the proposed legislation. In the Bay State, 53% favor the plan working its way through Congress and 45% oppose it.

However, as is the case nationally, those who feel strongly about the bill are more likely to be opposed. The overall figures include 36% who Strongly Oppose the plan while 27% Strongly Favor it.

And Brown is better-liked:

Twenty-one percent (21%) of those likely to vote in the special election have a very favorable opinion of Coakley, while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.
For Brown, the numbers are 25% very favorable and 5% very unfavorable.

See Allah, of all people, for some optimism and unabashed boosterism of Scott. Make no mistake; Scott is still very much the underdog. But he also seems to be an underdog with an outside chance of winning.

So if you're committed to stopping health care with a 41st vote against cloture, and don't mind expressing that commitment with cash-money, donate to the guy. The NRSC is staying out of this one, so far.

Turnout Factor: Turnout will be low-ish which will help Scott -- assuming the GOP mobilizes for him and generates the usual Republican advantage in turnout.

I forget the exact numbers, but near the end of the Christie-Corzine campaign, the polls had it tied, or Christie a little ahead, or, more and more, Corzine a little ahead. Christie wound up winning fairly comfortably.

So turnout -- and money -- are critical in these things. If Brown can pull to within, say, 5 in the polls, that might actually he's ahead where it really counts -- in actual voting.

And that's not a lot of ground to make up, really. He's an appealing guy, Coakely isn't particularly beloved (and is connected to the radioactive Duvall administration), and there's a tea party fervor that Brown can tap into.

The Debates: Are still upcoming. A commenter calling himself "Huge, Quickly" points out that Mitt Romney beat his Democratic opponent largely on the strength of his debate performance.

The Obama Factor: I wonder how many Democrats -- maybe of the PUMAish persuasion -- are pretty cranked off at Obama and will cross over to vote for a Republican just to block him.

There is debate about a "Wilder effect" (whether whites claim to vote for black candidates in polling interviews at higher rates than they actually do), and here any such effect would be indirect and attenuated (i.e., voting for the Republican as a proxy for voting against Obama), but still I wonder if something like that isn't good for, say, 2%.

There are a lot of Democrats pretty upset by the health care thing. Especially seniors, I'd imagine.

Posted by: Ace at 07:14 AM | Comments (79)
Post contains 486 words, total size 4 kb.

Not sure which way this should cut, as Steele's statement should please the harder-core by suggesting the GOP needs to be more strongly committed to conservative principles before it's worthy of leading.

But I know which way it will cut. Another gaffe.

Appearing on Sean Hannity's nationally syndicated show the same day his new book, "Right Now," hit store shelves, Steele said the GOP is set for "nice pick-ups" in the House. But, he said, at the moment there aren't enough candidates to take out enough Dems.

"I can't give a number [of seats the GOP will win] yet, because like I said, we're just now beginning to look at the races," Steele said. Asked if GOPers will take back the House, Steele confessed: "Not this year."

"I don't know all the candidates yet," Steele continued, according to a transcript of the show. "We still have some vacancies that need to get filled, but then the question we need to ask ourselves is: If we do that, are we ready?"

In fact, when Hannity followed up on the point, Steele said he doesn't know if the GOP is ready to take back the reins of power.

"I don't know. And that's what I'm assessing and evaluating right now. Those candidates who are looking to run have to be anchored in these principles," he said, referring to 5 conservative ideals he lays out in his new tome. "If they don't [anchor themselves], then they'll get to Washington, and they'll start drinking that Potomac River water, and they'll get drunk with power and throw the steps out the window."

It is the latest in a series of comments Steele has made that have GOP strategists on Capitol Hill privately fuming...

Members of Congress and top GOP aides are livid with Steele's latest comments. Buzz early Tuesday surrounded just how aggressive Congressional aides and political strategists should push back, a delicate task when Steele controls the RNC's purse strings.

I continue to believe Michael Steele has an entirely-wrong view of his job's responsibilities. The job is to promote the GOP, not promote himself. I don't like impugning the motives of an ally, but I can't help but notice he said this while promoting a book, and a political book always sells better if the author generates some controversy, maybe establishes himself as a "truth-teller," maybe picks a fight with his party.

I also notice the five principles he alludes to can be conveniently found within his book.

How these statements are intended to advance the GOP's cause I could not possibly hazard a guess. Hope is the fuel of political campaigns -- even before Captain Wonderful -- and telling your base "We can't win" is also telling them "Save your money and save your volunteering-time for more worthy causes."

The only mitigation I can see is that these are, I will guess, Steele's real, honest opinions.

But the job isn't about his real, honest opinions. The job is about promotion. And a promoter doesn't go out and offer his real, honest opinion that his organization is selling a defective product.

I had earlier thought Steele hadn't resolved the dilemma of promoting himself versus promoting the GOP. Now I think he has resolved it just fine, just not in the way I'd like.

Posted by: Ace at 07:05 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.

Whistling past the graveyard...

The market got off to a great start in 2010 on the back of yesterday's strong economic numbers. But that hasn't stopped a loud minority of economists from worrying about a "double-dip."...

...Anything's possible, but a double-dip recession is unlikely, says our guest Chris Rupkey, chief economist at the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi...

...There's plenty to lose sleep over, Rupkey says, but a double-dip is unlikely. Barring external shocks and policy errors, economies just don't behave that way...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:50 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 144 words, total size 2 kb.

Smart Diplomacy^(tm) finally produces a win!

Iran said Tuesday it welcomes Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's comments that there is no hard-and-fast deadline for starting nuclear dialogue.

On Monday, Clinton said the Obama administration remained open to negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program, though it will move toward tougher sanctions if Iran does not respond positively. She stressed there was no hard-and-fast deadline for Iran.

Responding Tuesday, Iran's foreign ministry welcomed the comments

"We share the same idea with her. Deadlines are meaningless. We hope other countries return to their natural path, too," said Ramin Mehmanparast, a foreign ministry spokesman.

The remarks were a rare positive response by the Iranians to U.S. comments on its nuclear program.

The Iranians responded positively to the abject surrender of the US? Wow, I didn't see that coming. Obviously this lowering of tensions between are two nations shows just how wonderful Obama's engagement strategy has worked. This 'rare positive response' would never have taken place under the Bush-Cheney Regime.

Flashback to May of last year and what Obama said as he was sitting next to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Sitting next to Netanyahu in the Oval Office, Obama said he hoped to begin negotiations with Tehran soon, after Iran holds elections next month. Iran's leaders have so far rebuffed his efforts to reach out to them and toughened their rhetoric.

"The important thing is to make sure there is a clear timetable, at which we point we say these talks don't seem to be making any serious progress," Obama said.

"By the end of the year we should have some sense whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits, whether we are starting to see serious movement on the part of Iranians," he said.

But there's nothing to worry about, we have that NIE from '07 that assured everyone that Iran had given up its nuclear program. Oh, wait, not even the idiots in this administration believe in that fairy tale.

Mr. ObamaÂ’s top advisers say they no longer believe the key finding of a much disputed National Intelligence Estimate about Iran, published a year before President George W. Bush left office, which said that Iranian scientists ended all work on designing a nuclear warhead in late 2003.

After reviewing new documents that have leaked out of Iran and debriefing defectors lured to the West, Mr. ObamaÂ’s advisers say they believe the work on weapons design is continuing on a smaller scale -- the same assessment reached by Britain, France, Germany and Israel.

If it wasn't clear before, it surely is now...the US is officially out of the Stop Iran From Getting Nukes business. The only outstanding questions are, will the mullahs survive long enough to build one and will the Israelis do anything to stop or even slow the program?

Posted by: DrewM at 06:49 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:17 AM | Comments (171)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Welcome to the first Monday evening of 2010. I hope it's everything you've been hoping for.

2009 Darwin Awards Announced
Winners were a pair of Belgian bank robbers who tried to blast an ATM out of a bank with dynamite but managed to blow themselves up instead. Runner up was a woman who dove into a flooded river to save her drowning moped. And yep alcohol may have been involved. And a retroactive award goes to the Brazilian Catholic priest who tried to recreate Lawn Chair Larry's adventure but instead floated away over the Atlantic. I guess God helps those who actually read the GPS manual.

The Ultimate Star Wars Mashup Collection
Is there anything that can't be improved with a little Benny Hill-ization? And Episode 1 surely could have used some scantily clad women running around. The fun part starts at the 1:21 mark. (Thanks to CDR M)

Posted by: Open Blog at 05:55 PM | Comments (797)
Post contains 320 words, total size 4 kb.

A lot of shooting. Video from street outside.

HT Mesablue

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:09 PM | Comments (51)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.