From My Man, Jay

I'm supposed to be writing right now, but I had to drop off a few lines from Jay Nordlinger at NRO. He had a couple of Impromptus articles this week, so I'm just going to cut and paste a few parts that I liked. The first is here, and the second is here.

Did you hear about what President Obama had to say about Rush Limbaugh last week?

Last year, during the presidential campaign, John Kerry kept talking about Karl Rove—how Rove was the weaver of all evil, etc. This was four years after the ’04 election, mind you. And I heard someone say, “Karl’s still in his head.” Well, Rush Limbaugh seems to be in the “head” of many a person—including the president of the United States. Colin Powell and others have singled him out too.

If that’s not proof that Rush is the Leader of the Opposition (as National Review once dubbed him), nothing is.

“Don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh,” say the Obamas and the Powells and some other people. They are giving “free advice” to the Republicans. Well, since when has the GOP listened to Rush? If it did, we would not have nominated Senator McCain last year (for all his virtues, which are considerable). Moreover, Rush did not ask for many of the policies of the Bush administration, particularly in the domestic realm.

Rush says what he regards as true, political consequences be damned. He is not a party strategist, or a party anything. He’s a man with opinions, and they are sound, and that’s why so many people are drawn to him, and them.

Keep it up, Rush—and stay “in their heads.”

That's true about Rush, isn't it? I mean, you don't call him a Republican, but you would say he's conservative. Not because he brands himself that way, but that's how he leans in his own personal understanding. That seems to be the most important part about politics, and the most principled way to approach current affairs. Who cares about how Obama, Clinton, McCain, or Palin votes. How is it that you actually feel about social, fiscal, or policy issues?

On some of the new president's first orders of business:

I saw a headline from Reuters about two weeks ago: “Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism.” This is serious business. The men in Guantanamo aren’t choirboys, you know. They aren’t victims of Texas injustice. They are dead set on killing you and me—even the editors of Mother Jones (to use a shorthand). They do not discriminate against Left and Right in America (which is something about which Michael Moore expressed dismay on September 11). (Remember when he lamented that the terrorists weren’t confining their attacks to pro-Bush population centers?)

In his first days in office, President Obama has done some very popular things: closing down Gitmo, softening our interrogation techniques, and so on. (At least he has pledged to do so.) Fine, fine. The world says, “Hurray!”

But to what extent were Bush’s policies and practices responsible for saving innocent lives? And will the undoing of those policies and practices wind up costing innocent lives? These are very, very discomforting questions, but they need to be confronted. President Bush and his people liked to say, “You never get credit for what didn’t happen.” True. It’s like preemption: Nobody likes a preemptor, really. (Well, I do.) It is essentially a thankless task. There are always people who say, “Oh, no harm would have come, without your preemption.”

You sure about that?

Some more Obama love from the AP:

A reader sent me an amazing article about Obama and food. It is from the Associated Press, and can be found here. This is how it begins:

Visiting one of his favorite Chicago restaurants in November, Barack Obama was asked by an excited waitress if he wanted the restaurant’s special margarita made with the finest ingredients, straight up and shaken at the table.

“You know that’s the way I roll,” Obama replied jokingly.

Rick Bayless, the chef of that restaurant, Topolobampo, says Obama’s comfortable demeanor at the table — slumped contentedly in his chair, clearly there to enjoy himself — bodes well for the nation’s food policy. While former President George W. Bush rarely visited restaurants and didn’t often talk about what he ate, Obama dines out frequently and enjoys exploring different foods.

They’ve got to knock President Bush even for what he ate—or rather, for not talking about what he ate! And for “rarely visiting restaurants.” Of course, if he had gone to restaurants—particularly pricey ones—the press would have scored him for extravagance, plutocracy: for indifference to the unfortunate. “W. Dines on Beef Wellington While Barrio Kids Go Hungry.”

Thought this part was insightful:

On a recent visit to Fort Bragg, I saw something on a bulletin board, and it was a little bit dispiriting. It reminded people of “Ethnic Observances”—and different months were assigned to different groups. February was Black History Month, of course. Then there was something about Hispanics. And about Asians and Pacific Islanders. There was even a whole month for Women. (Who knew?) (And they’re not even an “ethnicity.”)

I thought of the title of an Arthur Schlesinger book—indeed, my favorite book from that source: “The Disuniting of America.” These days, there is way too much emphasis on the “pluribus” and not nearly enough emphasis on the “unum.”

And then just this last item.

The Left doesn’t like it very much when you say that, for many of them, politics is their religion, or environmentalism is their religion. I can understand that dislike: the insult. But left-wing champions such as Susan Sarandon aren’t very helpful when they say—as Sarandon said of Obama—“He is a community organizer like Jesus was, and now we’re a community and he can organize us.”

You know?

I've made that point in here before. While many on the left reject the enforcement of a state recognized church, they have no problem forcing you to buy into bad science and the gospel of global warming, the virtues of freedom of choice, or acceptance and tolerance. Their prophets are scientists and their evangelists are the media. In a lot of ways they're just wolves in sheep's clothing.

I don't want to go into too much depth here about what the president has been doing since taking office last week, but doesn't all of it just feel like gesturing? Maybe you could say the same about any president in his first week of office, but one thing that does seem like a terrible idea is the current "stimulus" plan. I haven't read a ton on this yet so I'm not an expert, but from what little I have seen, 80% or more of the funds that are intended to aid us in the current recession will not even reach us until more than a year from now, maybe two years. So what's the rush on putting this through? And what's the point if anyway? We could very well be emerging from the recession in that time frame. It would only depress the growth that could be occurring at that time.

How much did the previous stimulus help us as a country anyway? We're still in a recession. It doesn't seem like increasing the bill is going to help at all. We need expansion in the private sector and that seems to only come through incentives, and the only incentives that carry any weight are tax cuts. But of course, House and Senate Majority leaders Pelosi and Reid are calling for a repeal on W's tax cuts. Strangely, Obama is the roadblock. Let's hope he stays true.

Politics aside, it's in everyone's best interest that the new president succeeds. What's good for America is for Obama to figure this out, so our thoughts and prayers should be in support of that and not anything else.

Unfortunately, I haven't been very impressed so far, but I could be wrong.