More From Rush

Well, Schwarzenegger has, apparently, taken on Warren Buffet as an economic advisor. And Mr. Buffet has spoken to the Wall Street Journal about raising property taxes. So naturally Rush has to point this out. As the media appointed spokesman for "real" conservativism, it was Rush's painful duty to tell his listeners that Schwarzenegger, the great Austrian hope, may not be a conservative like they thought he was. Let's have a moment of silence to honor Rush's bravery in telling the truth in this instance.

Ok, that's enough. Apparently Rob Lowe may also be taking a role in the campaign. "Actor and Democratic activist Rob Lowe isn't exactly moving from "The West Wing" to the right wing, but he's going to play a real-life role in Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign, people close to the situation said Thursday.

The 39-year-old actor has been asked by Schwarzenegger and his wife, Democrat Maria Shriver, who are longtime social friends, to take a senior position in the campaign, the sources said. Although Lowe is expected to have a co-chair title, his exact role is still being defined."

See now, I'd consider voting for Schwarzenegger, but only due to my intense love for "The West Wing."

Your Weekly Rush

Rush substantiates leftist claims that the White House is Engineering California.

Yep, ever since Arnold announced some have speculated that the White House was behind this election. Well you know how skeptical we are here at Make me a Commentator. Ever since we bought that swampland, we've been very picky about what we believe (although we did recently make a killing on some Magic Beans). But if Rush confirms the story, it must be true. Read what he has to say -->

Well, right here at the bottom of this page, my friends, you can look at the newspaper stories that we accumulated for you via research to find the White House has been involved in this.

There have been conversations between Karl Rove and Schwarzenegger, and these have been reported in the Washington Post and The New York Times and in other publications. The subject came up yesterday on the roundtable of Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume. Fred Barnes and Karen Tumulty of Time magazine discussed the White House involvement.

Yep Rush confirms White House involvement. He also reiterates that Arnold is barely a conservative. This may be another sign that the Bush Administation is a spineless middle of the road group of guys.

The O'Reilly Factor

Perhaps I have been to condemning of Mr. O'Reilly. Let's look at what he has to say in his own words.

"The main point here is that trying to hurt a business or a person because you disagree with what they say is simply unacceptable in America. And that message has been sent by FOX. . . .

I guess The Times editorial board would be yucking it up if their pictures appeared on a book cover accompanied by the word "liar." Satire, my butt."

Upon first reading O'Reilly words, I initially got my top research team working in figuring out ways to satire Mr. O'Reilly's butt, but one of them pointed out that there was a comma in between those two words.

Oh, and for those of you wondering, here at Make me a Commentator!!! no joke is too dumb.

Anyway I feel bad for Mr. O'Reilly, and that's why I'm happy to announce a new book rolling of the Make me a Commentator!!! presses. (Hot on the heals of our previous blockbuster, "Why don't you all shut up!.") I just got the cover, and it looks sensational--Check it out.



Anyway we hope that this helps Mr. O'Reilly feel better about himself, and be able to get over the disappointment of being mocked by Mr. Franken.

More on the Economy

I'm not very happy today. First of all Bruce Bartlett got me worked up over Conservative lack of care for the American worker. Again, let me underline, these are not bums, but hardworking Americans who worked in Manufacturing.

Well, then I read Bob Herberts column at the Times today, and he reminded me about the luck President Bush has. He gets the whole month off, lucky devil. Although he has had a meeting with his top economic advisors (Larry, Curly, and Moe).

President Bush and his clueless team of economic advisers held a summit at the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex., yesterday. This is the ferociously irresponsible crowd that has turned its back on simple arithmetic and thinks the answer to every economic question is a gigantic tax cut for the rich.

Their voodoo fantasies were safe in Crawford. There was no one at the ranch to chastise them for bequeathing backbreaking budget deficits to generations yet unborn. And no one was there to confront them with evidence of the intense suffering that so many poor, working-class and middle-class families are experiencing right now because of job losses on Mr. Bush's watch.

Herbert suggested that perhaps President Bush would benefit from spending some time in the real world. I'm not sure how you do that as President, but certainly the Bush economic plan looks more and more like wishful thinking.

Jobs Don't Matter

That's Bruce Bartlett's contention in his latest article. Yep, millions unemployed is perfectly acceptable if the company still makes money.

Speaking specifically of the Manufacturing Sector, Bartlett says, "The truth is that manufacturing is doing just fine in every way except employment. However, few economists would judge the health or sickness of any industry solely based on employment. . . . Rather, such things as output, productivity, profitability and wages better determine industrial health. On this score, manufacturing is actually doing quite well in the United States. "

Now he does mention wages, which betray a scant concern for the American worker, but he is also comfortable with the fact that in 2000 we had 17.3 million manufacturing jobs and now we have 14.6 million. That's a loss of 2.7 Million Jobs. But luckily production hasn't dropped all that much, so we remain competitive and CEO saleries won't need to be cut.

So screw those ungrateful, unskilled workers. If they wanted job security they should have become CEOs instead of lazy unproductive members of society. They should have realized that manufacturing jobs would eventually get shipped overseas for the profit of the company, and prepared themselves with the skills to get good jobs at Arby's after their jobs were eliminated.

Fair and Balanced

Yes we are fair and balanced here at Make me a Commentator!!! Of course we don't mean those words in the traditional, or "accurate" sense. When we say fair and balanced what we mean is that out biases fill a need in the market and therefore our fair and balanced coverage, while not fair and balanced in and of itself, is fair and balanced if you take it as part of a daily diet of aborbing the entire media. You see this website is balanced if you read it as part of a daily news intake of reading the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and watching an hour of MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, or one of the nightly news broadcasts from a major network. If you consume all that news, and read this website as well, than your total news content will be fair and balanced. And in that sense, this website is fair and balanced.

Do you wonder if All Franken has sent Fox news a thank you card?

It's Just a State of Mind

Article today by Lou Dobbs which, at least on the surface, seems against legalizing Marijuana. But he presents arguments that, to me at any rate, seem more convincing the other way.

"Another Nobel laureate, Gary S. Becker, professor of economics at the University of Chicago, told me: "It (legalization) would certainly save a lot of resources for society. We could tax drug use so it could even lead to government revenue. . We would be able to able to greatly cut the number of people in prison, which would save resources for state and local government."

But the cost of drug abuse goes well beyond the expense to control supply and demand. Drug users cost the country $160 billion each year in lost productivity. Parental substance abuse is responsible for $10 billion of the $14 billion spent nationally each year on child welfare costs. And drugs are involved in seven out of every 10 cases of child abuse and neglect."

As for those questions in the second paragraph, I'd love to see those figures matched up against alcohol. Mr. Dobbs. How much productivity do we lose because of alcohol? How many broken homes have alcohol inside them? Another question is how much of that 160% is caused by Marijauna and how much by harder drugs that would remain illegal?

At any rate, Mr. Dobbs need not worry--legalized drugs are't on the table anytime soon.

Rush on Arnold

Rush was really crowing today about him succeeding in defining Arnold as a moderate or liberal Republican (as we commented on earlier). Apparently Clinton and others had planned to demolish Arnold as a right wing nut, and now Rush has put a stop to that.

He also commented on how Arnold might hurt future Republican efforts. "California has no money. Its debt is stretched to the limit; Schwarzenegger's campaigning on a theme of government doing even more than it is now. The two don't go together. So he will not have launched a movement that will help Republicans build a foundation for future victories out there, if he continues on this path. Liberal Republicans never do that, my friends. Liberal Republicans never do establish a movement that will help the Republican Party build a foundation for future victories."

It does seem likely Arnold will win, at this precise moment. But anything can happen.

President Bush Vs. The Terminator

Salon has an article by Tim Grieve today, well worth checking out, tracing the problems that President Bush's support of Arnold Schwarzenegger could bring to his upcoming election.

"The problem: While the White House is eager to back a winner in California -- and a Time/CNN poll released over the weekend has Schwarzenegger looking like one -- born-again Christian conservatives are mortified by the actor's liberal views on abortion and homosexuality and wary about allegations of drug use, infidelity and juvenile sexual antics. The Rev. Louis Sheldon, head of the ultra-right Traditional Values Coalition, warned in a statement last week of a "moral vacuum" in Sacramento. "It is hard to imagine a worse governor than Gray Davis," Sheldon said, "but Mr. Schwarzenegger would be it."

The whole article is worth checking out, although I think Mr. Grieve over emphasizes the possibility of more traditional conservatives acting on their frustration with President Bush.

More Thoughts on the Recall

Well, I guess, to be completely accurate, the California recall election is rough, raucous and regrettable. An affront to accepted political science standards, by gosh.

And isn't it, somehow -- I don't know -- uplifting?

Whatever judicious reproaches the political scientists may level at this exercise in voter sovereignty, nothing in John Locke, Montesquieu or the New York Times op-ed page cancels out the reality that when the political class gets out of hand, a ruler must sometimes be taken to its posterior. The California recall, featuring the Terminator, Gray Davis, Arianna Huffington and a cast of, literally, hundreds, is that ruler.
Bill Murchinson

Certainly, this is not the kind of direct democracy to hold incumbents accountable between elections that California Gov. Hiram Johnson had in mind in 1911 when he proudly worked to have the state's Constitution embrace the initiative, referendum and recall processes. He saw these tools as instruments for an aroused volunteer citizenry, not as mechanisms for wealthy corporate interests or political parties that pay signature-gathering firms to get their agendas on the ballot.
Ralph Nader

The problem is that I see some value in both of these sentiments. And neither of them mention Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Principles

Ms. Mona Charen is ruminating today on Republican Principles. That is Republican referring to the style of Government not referring to the Republican party. We live in a Republic where we elect people and then they govern as they see fit. Except in California, of course, the land of the Referendum and now the Recall.

Ms Charen writes, "A republican form of government means that the people choose their leaders. It does not mean that the people decide every question by referendum The latter would be direct democracy, and direct democracy (particularly at the federal level) was exactly what the Founders were wise enough to avoid.

. . . Is it really such a great idea to let the people rule completely? California (unwisely in my opinion, but they didn't ask my advice) re-elected Gov. Gray Davis. Now they regret it. But he hasn't done anything different from what he did during his first term. Times have changed, that's all. I could understand a recall based on the same principles as impeachment -- crimes, moral turpitude, that sort of thing. But for being a lousy governor?"

I agree with Ms. Charen on this point, unsurprisingly. Although her assessment of Arnold (who you knew I was going to bring up at some point) might be a little overly harsh. "Schwarzenegger is unpredictable. Some libertarians believe he is one of them. Let's hope so. But so far, his campaign rhetoric is dismally familiar. He's gonna kick out the "special interests" and run the state for the benefit of the people. How original. Ross Perot said the same thing in a different accent."

Planet Arnold

Yep, it's time for another article about Arnold Schwarzenegger. At MSNBC, Daniel Gross has compared Arnolds run for governor with his 90's business venture, Planet Hollywood.

Like in Planet Hollywood, Arnold is benefitting from the work of others. In this case, the work of Rep. Darrell Issa. Issa did all the work of getting the Recall going and laying the groudwork for Arnold's run, and has thoughtfully stepped back into the shadows so thar Arnold can shine alone.

Anyway, the article is pretty good; so go read it. Gross takes Arnold to task for speaking in generalities and trying to please too many people, saying, "Schwarzenegger’s political platform, which is long on platitudes but short on specifics, tries to do the same. It’s got items for the left (he’s pro-gay rights), for moms (he successfully lobbied for expanded after-school programs), for populists (he rails against “special interests”), and for small-government types (he won’t raise taxes)."

Well, Arnold is certainly not alone in his plan to be all things to all people; but can he really pull it off?

Also we are adding two new links. One is to Black Box Voting which is tracking this story on potential problems with computerized voting systems. This is a story that could become very very big over the next year, but take it with a grain of salt as well. While they have proved that there is cause for concern, they haven't proven any malice or deliberate attempt to sway the upcoming election for Bush.

The other link is to Daniel Patrick Welch's website, which has some interesting articles on it.

It's Arnold Day

Yep. Today we will see several articles all about Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unless I get bored with this idea.

Anyway the first is from Cal Thomas, sweater wearing conservative. Actually in his current picture he is not wearing a sweater, but he used to wear one. As you know, sweaters are liberal clothes--like sandals. Only liberals are allowed to wear them--Conservatives have to wear suits.

Anyway Cal Thomas is not impressed with Arnold's conservative credentials. "President George Bush has endorsed Schwarzenegger, saying he would make a good governor. Based on what? The president couldn't possibly know what Schwarzenegger stands for, because no one else seems to know, including Arnold." Thomas seems to be one of those consistent Conservatives. He hates actors when they speak out for liberal causes, and he's not all that impressed when they speak out for conservative causes. Leave the commentating to the commentators who are qualified.

He ends with this troubling statement, "To paraphrase the late Desi Arnaz, another actor with a thick accent: Arnold, you've got a lot of 'splainin' to do. You are no Ronald Reagan."

Thank goodness Thomas cleared that up, because I think we all have a little trouble telling the difference between the massively built Austrian Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan.

Liberal Islam?

Thoms Friedman is one of the more reasonable Iraq hawks. His position has been that we should have liberated Iraq in order to change the dynamic of the Middle East by creating a solid successful capitalist secular state. He broached this idea before the war in Iraq and was convincing.

His latest article discusses a recent visit to Iraq and a conversation he had with some young Iraqi clerics. He states, "Ladies and gentlemen, I have no idea whether these are the only two liberal Shiite clerics in Iraq. People tell me they definitely are not. Either way, their willingness to express their ideas publicly is hugely important. It is, for my money, the most important reason we fought this war: If the West is going to avoid a war of armies with Islam, there has to be a war of ideas within Islam. The progressives have to take on both the religious totalitarians, like Osama bin Laden, and the secular totalitarians who exploit Islam as a cover, like Saddam Hussein. We cannot defeat their extremists, only they can. This war of ideas needs two things: a secure space for people to tell the truth and people with the courage to tell it. That's what these two young clerics represent, at least in potential."

This seems like a fair assessment to me. This isn't the threat that Conservatives usually level at moderate Muslims (i.e. eliminate Muslim Terrorism or face genocide), but a simple statement of the historical forces.

Howard Dean: the man of a thousand faces

MSNBC's opinion page is one I haven't visited in a little while, but I have checked in recently. They posted a story the end of last week sometime on "The Many Faces of Howard Dean." Of course what it is really about is the many faces assigned to Howard Dean by columnists and writers.

Dean has, apparently, been compared to Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John McCain, George McGovern, Bill Bradley, Walter Mondale, as well as many others.

But of course, entitling an article the many faces of Howard Dean doesn't give the impression that these comments are coming from the media; it implies that Dean is changing his face so as to provoke different responses. As if Mr. Dean were spending one day on the campaign trail pretending to be Bill Clinton, and the next day pretending to be John McCain. The "liberal" MSNBC website also chooses exactly one quote to highlight along side the article, from Jonathen Chait of the New Republic.

"Dean’s opposition to the Patriot Act could be politically lethal… Witness George H.W. Bush’s 1988 attack on Michael Dukakis as a ‘card carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union."

Luckily, MSNBC is also able to print lousy articles about Republicans. Case in point; Timothy Noah's article on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Nazi problem. The short version of the story is that Schwarzenegger invited Kurt Waldheim, then running for President of Austria to attend his wedding and expressed support for him even though Mr. Waldheim was at the time accused of having been a Nazi. At the time the information was just coming out.

Mr. Noah states, "Rather than confront his Waldheim problem head-on, Schwarzenegger has proclaimed his disgust for Nazism, raised money for education about the Holocaust, traveled to Israel (where he met with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin), and given generously to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, which in 1997 bestowed on him its National Leadership Award. . . .

Clearly, though, that won’t be enough. If Schwarzenegger doesn’t renounce Waldheim in a highly public way, he can forget about ever becoming governor of California."

This is one of those hoops that political enemies put in front of you to humiliate you. If Mr. Schwarzenegger condemns Waldheim, Mr. Noah will find something else to attack him on. Perhaps Mr. Noah really does consider Schwarzenegger a Nazi (he is, after all, Conservative (maybe)). His last statement is questionable as well--why does he think that without renounce Waldheim, he can't win? Is Mr. Noah's vote the only one being counted?

New Quote

As is usual, I have posted a new quote. It's great.

By the way, if you really hate this site and everything it stands for, feel free to email me.