The following example of the politics of envy is the sort of thing that make me cringe and think that universal suffrage really isn't that great an idea. From WLW's Mike McConnell:
"I've cited this a half-dozen times but this was years ago - Americans were polled: would you rather see economic growth in the U.S. at 4% and Japan at 5% or both at 2%, and Americans said both 2%. They'd cut off their nose to spite their face as long as somebody else isn't doing better than them. They wanted their economy to grow half as fast, as long as the Japanese weren't moving even faster than we were."The mind reels. Perhaps it's because the concept of economies as not being zero sum hasn't sunk in yet.
Concerning lying - et tu John McCain?
This year, more than any in memory, it behooves one not to read anything about a candidate if you want to support that candidate. For example, take Ron Paul. (I'll skip the Henny Youngman joke.) From NR:
Will Ron Paul be “read out” of the libertarian movement? James Kirchick of The New Republic performed a useful service by publicizing inflammatory passages from the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The now-defunct newsletters featured familiar tropes from the fever swamps of conspiracy kookery, including speculation that Israeli agents were behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The newsletters also accused Martin Luther King Jr. of pedophilia and argued that police were able to quell the Rodney King riots only because blacks paused long enough to “pick up their welfare checks.” Ron Paul would like to put all that behind him, of course, but he cannot: Even now he is not so much a libertarian candidate as the candidate of the anti-war fringe (or at least those among them who cannot contemplate Mike Gravel without giggling) and of Israel-hating conspiracy-mongers. National Review expended much energy in the ’50s and ’60s evicting the John Birch Society and other insalubrious elements from the conservative movement. Seeing the anti-Semites, bigots, and general riffraff who have congealed upon the cause of Ron Paul, it appears that our libertarian cousins have a similar chore to perform.
Seems like Rod Dreher just had the "ah-ha" moment I had ten days ago. Rod's a little slow, but then so was I since I many of the Hollywood types all saw Obama as the "liberal Reagan" a long time ago and that's why they hitched their ride to him instead of Hillcat. Or maybe it was because they like a mandate and Hillary has 0% chance of a mandate (due to her high negatives) while Obama had a slightly higher chance and the only chance to really get things done is via a mandate. A Corner poster isn't worried and there's something to his argument. The liberal media tends to keep conservatives more grounded and thus more in touch with reality.