Who is Ezra Klein?

Last week, The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein puzzled many when he said the Constitution “…is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago.” Klein’s popularity, especially on MSNBC, has long puzzled me, but this statement took it another level and begs the question, who exactly is Ezra Klein? Reading his Wikipedia bio, it sounds like Klein is just another kid with a blog, yet progressives view him as much, much more.

I’ve tried reading Klein’s work in the Post, but it comes off very amateurish, repeating worn out progressive talking points, adding nothing original to political debate.  For example, consider his December 30, 2010 column, “What the tea party wants from the Constitution.” It begins with an ad hominem attack on the GOP and then opens into a passive voice-filled, incoherent tirade against tea party affiliated politicians’ intent to require all legislation to carry with it “a statement from its sponsor outlining where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to enact such legislation.” In the end, the article merely mimics what Klein’s colleagues at Slate have been writing for months. Stripped down to its core, Klein’s writing is nothing more than a “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Clearly, the Post bought into Klein for his image and nothing else.

Klein comes off as nothing more than a beard-less hipster parrot, incapable of forming an original thought, but because he started blogging before blogging was cool, and because he can tweet about Bon Iver or the Avett Brothers, the Post felt he could score with young readers. Landing a job with the Post offers many perks, chief among them working for a prestigious American newspaper, but also the ability to work with all of the subsidiaries of the Washington Post Company and the Post’s cozy connections with MSNBC–all of which are darlings of the Left.  Now, instead of running out Eugene Robinson for the millionth time, the Post can run out Klein, someone far more palatable to a younger demographic.

It’s Nothing Personal

As the results for the Massachusetts Senate race began to trickle in, exactly seven precincts reported before MSNBC pundit, Keith Olbermann, insinuated that race possibly played a role in the results, never mind that both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley are Caucasian.  Olbermann’s straw man argument was directed at the grass roots political organization, which played a major role in the Republican candidate’s surprise showing and represents yet another attempt to classify all opposition to the Democratic agenda as personal attacks against President Barack Obama.

While I fiercely reject the labels “conservative” and “Republican,” and dare not speak for those associated with those labels, I too oppose many of this administration’s policies, but it’s noting personal. Simply put, the progressive agenda of the Democratic does not work. I find the people behind the policies, especially President Obama, to be hip, creative and, most importantly, relevant, but in every other area of life EXCEPT making policies that directly impact my life.

I would have loved to have had President Obama as a professor in college. He seems like the type of guy who could lead some pretty powerful and interesting discussions on political theory. Unfortunately, not all of those theories are practical in the world in which we live.

To put it another way, many Dallas Cowboys fans dislike Wade Phillips as a coach. They feel his coaching philosophy is not one to lead championship teams. However, just about every Cowboys fan you meet will say the same thing about Wade Phillips, “he’s the type of guy I would love to be my neighbor.”

I feel the same way about President Obama. He’s the cool guy on the block with the picture-perfect family, the one you hope and pray invites you to his backyard cookouts,  but that doesn’t necessarily mean you think his political philosophy is the best fit for this country.

What you saw in Massachusetts tonight was voters saying that they too find the current policies of this administration to be failed policies, but it’s nothing personal.

Most wheels off moment of the day?

When did Stephen A. Smith become a current events expert? I saw him on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting hosted by Dylan Ratigan. They had him on discussing the housing market.

Weird!

He could barely talk sports and now MSNBC wants him to discuss current events and politics? Even more messed up than Fox News having Miss California co-host one of their programs.

Oxford, Mississippi Presidential Debate

I like getting political analysis from a variety of sources.  Every media outlet slants one way or the other, an unbiased media does not exist. Therefore, it is imperative to flip around to get the full story.

Personally, I felt John McCain won tonight’s debate and exposed Barack Obama as a one trick pony. Sure, Obama looked debonair, but he continues to fail to comprehend the basic principles of capitalism, either that or he disagrees with the principles of capitalism.  Indeed, Obama admitted that he felt “government regulation” was a major component to solving the ills plaguing the financial world. Though quick to point out the predatory nature of some lending institutions, Obama failed to talk about the role the irresponsible consumer and the tax-happy Federal government played in contributing to our current economic environment. Obama’s failure to understand these basic principles of capitalism prevent him from understanding the very basics of Wall Street.

Not only does he fail to understand Wall Street; he fails to understand “Main Street.”  I grew up on Main Street, literally, 202 West Main Street to be exact.  I’m not upset that Americans wealthier than me receive tax cuts. Other people’s success does not threaten me, rather it inspires me. Obama wants to cut taxes for 90% of Americans? That’s not good enough, McCain’s tax cuts extend even to wealthy Americans, which is only fair.

The one thing Obama continues to prove over and over again is that he does understand one street in the United States–Hollywood Boulevard.  Obama’s foriegn policy script could have been written by any Hollywood screen writer, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, or any other of the radical Leftists in Hollywood. Since we’re talking actors and directors, I feel it’s prudent to quote Shakespeare, “what’s done is done and cannont be undone.” Indeed, we may have gone into Iraq under false pretenses, but Obama and his Hollywood friends fail to acknowledge that once we entered that country, be it right or wrong, we had an obligation to finish what we started. Throughout tonight’s debate, I continued to hear this drivel spill out the mouth of Obama.

As you know, MSNBC decided to reassign their Leftist lightning rods, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann for these debates. Matthews got stuck with the late shift following the debate tonight and I flipped it over to watch a bit of his Obama love fest. On several occasions, I was reminded of film clips of star struck female fans of Elvis and The Beatles from the 1960′s watching Matthews. He sat in a chair, arms cross his chest, as if he was trying to hug himself, his head tilted gently to the side as he stared off into the night, obviously enjoying a case of happy pants as he thought of his ultimate man crush Barrack Obama. He asked two basic questions to his guests, “Wasn’t Obama great?” and “Will  being ‘troll-like’ hurt John McCain?”

Seriously?  “Troll like?” If John McCain is “troll like,” what is Barrack Obama? Fascist like?

Chris, tell me, will being a fascist hurt Barrack Obama? Let’s hope so, because the one thing Obama does understand and embrace is fascism.

Next week, the Vice-Presidential debate: Palin v. Biden, should be a good one, but my money is on the Barracuda.

 

UPDATE: Please, feel free to post your comments. I’m not like the Daily Kos and left-wing blogs; all view points are welcomed here. If you disagree with me, I desire your comments even more.  I will never attack you. I’ll just comment on your comments. All I ask is that you come back to check for my response to your comments. Enjoy!

Islami Fascists II

 

 

I wrote about this previously, but saw this article on MSNBC this morning and felt compelled to raise the issue once again. 

 

While the Bush administration touts Iraq, the media bombards us with horror stories of a nuclear North Korea and the Democrats talk sex, the Islami-fascists continue to destroy Somalia. 

 

Why should we care?

 

Like the regressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Islami-fascists trying to control Somalia seek to establish a government based on the principles of sharia law. Do we really need another Afghanistan? God knows the average American didn’t even realize that Afghanistan was a country prior to 9/11, much less understand the nature of the religious nuts that ran the country.

 

At least with Somalia there is some recent history.  Sadly, we didn’t finish our mission in that country.  For political reasons, many on the left would like us to pull out of Iraq, just like we did in Somalia.  It’s safe to assume that if we pulled out of Iraq now it too would turn into another Afghanistan or Somalia.  That’s why in spite of my objections to the war in Iraq, I feel it’s imperative that we maintain our presence.

 

Did the Bush administration lie? No doubt…

 

Should we have attacked Iran instead of Iraq? Of course…

 

But it’s too late to second guess.  We’ve left Iraq with no legitimate government and no legitimate army and the minute we pulled our troops out the world would have on more government led by militant Muslims. Let this story be reminder of why, regardless of your political affiliation, we must “stay the course” in Iraq.