Rubio hit piece by The New York Times: An insult to all responsible adults with student loan bills

Marco RubioThe New York Times recently followed up its weird story on Marco Rubio’s traffic violation history with another on his personal finances. At the end of the day the newest piece essentially boils down to: Marco Rubio is unfit to be president because he’s just like the vast majority of responsible adults with large student loan bills. If Marco Rubio was like most politicians, who mysteriously become millionaires soon after arriving in Washington, D.C., then he might have the chops to be the next commander in chief.

The New York Times reported June 9:

Mr. Rubio entered public life in a deep financial hole of his own making.

Soon after he was elected to the Legislature in 2000, he reported a net worth of zero, about $150,000 in student loan debt, and $30,000 in what he called assorted credit and retail debt.

It was the inauspicious start to a decade of big financial ups and downs. In interviews, friends and advisers describe Mr. Rubio as a young politician entering public life just out of law school, whose charisma and stardom quickly outstripped his financial acumen, leaving him unprepared to manage the expensive campaigns and lucrative career opportunities that came his way.

How dare Mr. Rubio, the son of a Cuban immigrant bartender and a hotel worker, not have the financial acumen in his 20s of Tony Robbins in his 40s.

Do you see how it works with The New York Times? If a (Republican) man from humble beginnings claws his way into successful circles, then he has put himself into a “deep financial hole of his own making.” If a (Republican) man with a large bank account runs for office, then he’s out of touch and cannot be trusted (e.g., Mitt Romney).

Question: Am I in a “deep financial hole” that should cause employers to question my ability to handle money? I currently owe $52,328.16 in student loans that were raked up as an undergraduate student at the University of Southern California and a graduate student at American University in Washington, D.C.

Student LoanAnswer: No. The reason is because, like Marco Rubio and millions of other Americans, I used my education and work experience to obtain human capital. I have never missed a payment. If I lost my job tomorrow, then I would still find employment capable of paying the bills. I have saved money for a “rainy day,” and have a retirement account. It is absurd to suggest that a sitting U.S. senator with a law degree and a winning personality is somehow a financial liability because he has a mortgage, student loan debt, and car payments.

On some level, The New York Times’ coverage of the Rubio campaign comes across less as a hit job and more like a warning to Hillary Clinton: this guy is going to be tough to sink through the traditional means of personal destruction. Tell your A-Team to get creative with the slime tactics.

If parking tickets and student loan bills are the best The New York Times can come up with on Mr. Rubio, then he has positioned himself quite well. Regardless, he should expect the coverage to get even worse as desperation sets in. Democrats cannot afford to have a good-looking, well-spoken, bilingual minority become the face of the Republican Party. Partisan media hacks will do their best to destroy him, no matter how much sleaze the effort requires.

Update: Reader Patrick brought up the idea of a “Speed Rubio” poster in response to The New York Times’ traffic ticket story. I think that would be an amazing idea.

Go Speed Rubio

The New York Times: Why Read Hayek When Ad Hominem Attacks Work?

Kurt Anderson from the New York Times understands that it’s so much easier to call someone a lunatic than to try and understand what they’re saying. Conservatives don’t think he’s stupid (he’s apparently just a jerk).

I’ve been reading a lot of liberal responses to the debt ceiling fallout. Whereas once the media simply tried to label the Tea Party “racist”, we are now “madmen” and actually unhinged,” according to New York Times op-ed columnist Kurt Anderson (emphasis his). The only thing that is mad is our Mad Debt, as Mark Steyn points out for National Review Online:

“Cutting federal spending by $900 billion over ten years” is Washington-speak for increasing federal spending by $7 trillion over ten years. And, as they’d originally planned to increase it by eight trillion, that counts as a cut. If they’d planned to increase it by $20 trillion and then settled for merely $15 trillion, they could have saved five trillion. See how easy this is?

As part of this historic “cut,” we’ve now raised the “debt ceiling” — or, more accurately, lowered the debt abyss. Do you ever discuss the debt with your neighbor? Do you think he has any serious intention to repay the 15 trillion racked up in his and your name? Does your congressman? Does your senator? Look into their eyes. You can see the answer. And, if none of these parties seem inclined to pay down the debt now, what are the chances they’ll feel like doing so by 2020 when, under these historic “cuts,” it’s up to 23-25 trillion?

Most independent voters will read Mark Steyn’s analysis of the situation and conclude he’s a pretty logical guy. In fact, I would wager that most people would (even those who disagree with him) concede that he’s an incredibly smart man. But yet, according to Kurt Anderson, the millions of people who agree with the Steyn’s sentiments are “unhinged.” Obviously, Mr. Anderson has never read F.A. Hayek (another undeniably smart man):

It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background. If that were so, the movement would be much less dangerous than it is. But nothing could be further from the truth or more misleading. The doctrines of National Socialism are the culmination of a long evolution of thought, a process in which thinkers who have had great influence far beyond the confines of Germany have taken part. Whatever one may think of the premises from which they started, it cannot be denied that the men who produced the new doctrines were powerful writers who left the impress of their ideas on the whole of European thought…Once one accepts the premises from which it starts, there is no escape from its logic. It is simply collectivism freed from mall traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization,” (F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom).

Smart conservatives know that to dismiss liberalism as “a mental disorder” is to set the conservative movement up for failure. The left has incredibly sharp minds at work promoting an ideology that should not be taken lightly. While I hate to give advice to the guy who flat-out says that I’m an unhinged lunatic, I can’t help but advise Kurt Anderson to rethink his position. The Teaparty is composed of millions of people who are familiar with economic giants like F.A Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Sowell, and Walter E. Williams, among others. The Teaparty turns to the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and the timeless principles so eloquently articulated by our Founding Fathers, to guide them. To dismiss the Teaparty as a bunch of “madmen”, one wonders how Kurt Anderson feels about the Founders…

Actually, we know how liberals feel about them—and it’s not warm and fuzzy. In order to hide their animosity towards the Founding Fathers and the magnificent document they produced, liberals refer to the Constitution as “a living document” (i.e., it means whatever it is they want it to mean.) Only by viewing the Constitution in that light can liberals work around what has been an impediment — and a source of frustration — to their central planning for ages. In order for them to succeed, they need power. In a country of 400 million people — each with their own thoughts and dreams and desires —it requires incredible power to get everyone “in line.” The Constitution stops them in their tracks, which is why its defenders must be labeled “unhinged.”

Crazy? I think not.

Charles Blow Has Sarah Palin on the Brain: Pressure Causes Blindness.

Charles Blow has Sarah Palin on the brain, and the pressure on the back of his bald head is causing him to go completely blind. When you tell someone they're about to walk off a cliff and they speed might as well watch it all unfold.

Do you remember when Charles Blow of the New York Times was positing that the Tea Party Racist (that Bigfoot-like creature), was a danger because of their “subtle and less visible biases,” more so than your average bear racist of the Yogi Bear variety? Well, now Charles has decided that one of the Tea Party’s symbolic heads, Sarah Palin (who should be  just as racist and worth exposing), is getting too much attention.  Now he’s vowing to ignore her:

The logic goes that if she’s making people on the left this upset, she must be doing something right.

Yet the left continues to elevate her every utterance so that they can mock and deride her. The problem is that this strategy continues to backfire. The more the left tries to paint her as one of the “Mean Girls,” the more the right sees her as “Erin Brockovich.” The never-ending attempts to tear her down only build her up. She’s like the ominous blob in the horror films: the more you shoot at it, the bigger and stronger it becomes.

Yes, she’s about as sharp as a wet balloon, but we already know that. How much more time and energy must be devoted to dissecting that?

I find it interesting that Charles has the gall to call anyone “sharp as a wet balloon” when he was the one who couldn’t see that the individual mandate in Obamacare was unprecedented federal action that might legitimately be a cause for concern among millions of Americans.  I also find it interesting that a liberal like Charles Blow (who probably isn’t too strong on Second Amendment rights) is suddenly comfortable likening Sarah Palin to a monster that must be stopped—preferably by bullets if not for the unexpectedly beneficial effect they have on it.  Regardless, I’d rather play Captain Obvious and say it: Charles Blow is either more delusional than normal, or a really bad liar.  Notice that he starts off his piece by establishing his Sarah Palin escape hatch:

This is it. This is the last time I’m going to write the name Sarah Palin until she does something truly newsworthy, like declare herself a candidate for the presidency.

What is “truly newsworthy” to Charles Blow? Remember, this is the same guy who felt the need to write on the subconscious racist nature of the “some” Tea Party members and the “dark racial prejudices” of “others.” Names? Dates? Specific instances? Don’t ask. I believe Andrew Breitbart is still waiting to give out $10,000 to the first person who can provide him with video of racial slurs hurled at Rep. John Lewis.

Oh. Wait. Forgive me. Charles cited a single study of roughly 1000 people conducted by “WISER.” Didn’t you hear of it? I wonder why it’s not household knowledge…

Charles Blow and his liberal friends have Sarah Palin on the brain. The pressure has caused his vision to be even worse than normal. Conservatives tried to warn them about the cliff they were heading towards going into the midterm elections, and they walked off anyway. It appears as though they’ve dusted themselves off are and looking for something with a few more jagged rocks at the bottom. I look forward to hearing how it works out for you, Charles.

Maureen Dowd Stuck in High School as Adults Pass Her By.

No one is "mean" to Maureen. She opened her head-locker long ago, wrapped the sweaty gym shorts of liberalism around her brain, and weird things started fomenting in there. Like Bill Maher, John Cusack, Joy Behar, Kathy Griffin, and a whole host of other liberals, they're just angry people.

One of the reasons why I usually write about how conservatism relates to culture is because when you write too much on politics it’s easy to devolve into a whiney little kid arguing in the sandbox. Cut to the back and forth between Maureen Dowd and Dana Perino:

As the politicians droned on and my Irish skin turned toasty brown, I worried that Governor Brewer might make a citizen’s arrest and I would have to run for my life across the desert. She has, after all, declared open season on anyone with a suspicious skin tone in her state.

We are in the era of Republican Mean Girls, grown-up versions of those teenage tormentors who would steal your boyfriend, spray-paint your locker and, just for good measure, spread rumors that you were pregnant.

Dana’s response is rather funny, but again, she might as well say that Washington, DC insiders are still passing notes and gossiping about each other like they were still in high school:

One night her name came up at a dinner attended by members of both parties. Someone told a story about how at a past dinner she’d been a guest and had been droning on and on in a catty way and that one of the men at the table wrote on a cocktail napkin and passed it to another. It said, “What happened to her?” Sigh. Who the heck knows?

No one is “mean” to Maureen. She opened her head-locker long ago, wrapped the sweaty gym shorts of liberalism around her brain, and weird things started fomenting in there. Like Bill Maher, John Cusack, Joy Behar, Kathy Griffin, and a whole host of other liberals, they’re just angry people.

Conservatives just need to stay positive. Particularly, like the Andrew W.K. Conservatives I described in a recent blog post.  If an opponent is a jerk, “staying positive” doesn’t mean you can’t fight back, either.  Think of it like this:  if your message is a saturation bombing run of awesome comebacks it’s going to look really cool to a lot of people. However, regular people don’t like to hang out on an open battlefield, particularly one where gobs of firepower are used for middling adversaries.

Maureen Dowd could be taken out with a verbal sniper round (I italicized ‘verbal’ since Arianna Huffington has an itchy trigger finger when it comes to accusing conservatives of encouraging violence.  Sorry liberals, but I can’t help but use analogies influenced by my military past).

The point is, it’s easy to intellectually dispatch these rodeo clowns and move on.  The American people need answers right now, and we need to provide them.  The New York Times is concerned that the Tea Party is doing just that.

The Tea Party is a thoroughly modern movement, organizing on Twitter and Facebook to become the most dynamic force of the midterm elections.  But when it comes to ideology, it has reached back to dusty bookshelves for long-dormant ideas.

Dormant ideas?  I suppose basic economics has been lost on liberals for years, but for many conservatives they certainly haven’t been “dormant.” It’s just harder to shoot the messenger when the messenger is The Constitution, The Founding Fathers, and some of history’s most brilliant economists. Liberals have always been able to demonize their conservative opponents, but it’s trickier when to do so puts you at risk of coming out against the nation’s founding.  Liberals would mirror the Tea Party’s brilliant strategy, but it’s hard when you view the Constitution as a “living document” that means whatever it is you say it means…

Let’s put them into complete freak-out mode by making a classical education on the issues a long term commitment.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to pray to Aqua Buddha.

The New York Times: Scared of Your Rebel Yell.

The New York Times is worried. And that is a good thing:

Mr. Obey is one of nearly a dozen well-established House Democrats who are bracing for something they rarely face: serious competition. Their predicament is the latest sign of distress for their party and underlines why Republicans are confident of making big gains in November and perhaps even winning back the House.

The fight for the midterm elections is not confined to traditional battlegrounds, where Republicans and Democrats often swap seats every few cycles. In the Senate, Democrats are struggling to hold on to, among others, seats once held by President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

It seems as though a lot of people are looking forward to November. Not Mole Men like Neal Gabler, but Americans who see liberals replicating policies that led to a financial meltdown, making back door deals on unconstitutional atrocities, and running up deficits that will make your eyes bleed.

Liberals know they’re in desperate straights, which is why I suspect immigration is now being bandied about. The Tea Party movement has the moral high ground, and what better way to create confusion and dent their credibility then by muddying up the waters with immigration. They already tried to paint the Tea Party movement as a bunch of angry white klan members. It’s not particularly working because independent voters of varying amounts of pigmentation realize that entitlement spending-walls are colorblind, and they know we’re on a high speed collision course with no seat belts, no helmets, and old-school glass windshields with a nasty habit of decapitating passengers.

However, it’s in the interest of liberal Democrats to veer attention away from the Constitutional concerns and motivations of the Tea Party

Let out a Rebel Yell or two if you want over the next few months, but be cognizant of the fact that Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are looking for any excuse to distract the public from your legitimate concerns.

movement; it’s a losing argument for those trying to federally mandate you buy a particular good or service. If Chris Matthews and Keith Olberamann can find a few immigration-enforcement signs they can portray as proof the Tea Party is fueled by racists, nothing would make them happier. We need to get out ahead of this curve, anticipate what they’ll do, and act accordingly.

In the coming months, we need to stay motivated and stay focused. Let out a Rebel Yell or two if you want along the way—but stay zeroed in on the issues and we can be constitutional Heroes…just for one day.

The Duran Duran Nanny State: Hungry Like the Wolf.

Whenever I see stories about internships I take a closer look, probably because I have a job that deals quite a bit with the subject at hand. As Ed Morrissey explains:

Meet the Democrats … exploiters of the disadvantaged — at least according to their own definition. On the other hand, conservatives recognize that internships offer students an opportunity to add real-world experience that increases their ability to compete in the labor marketplace later. If the intern volunteers for that kind of relationship, it’s no more or less exploitative if the free labor benefits a private business, or if it benefits a class-war politician who imposes rules on others that he doesn’t abide for himself.

First, let me say that all interns at The Heritage Foundation are paid, and that all housing is available to them if they need it. Most DC internships are not. I interned for a stand-up Congressman from Illinois a few years ago and, sadly, it was not paid. However, the knowledge I gained while working there was invaluable. The friendships

The government doesn't want to make out with you. Ask Duran Duran. It's hungry like the wolf, my friend. And your civil liberties are on the menu.

and contacts I made there opened professional windows that would have remained closed otherwise.

Likewise, my internship at Heritage shortly thereafter forever changed the trajectory of my life. Even though I had already completed graduate school and had plenty of other real world experience on my resume, the human capital that internships often offer is something that can be worth much more than money. Is it possible that an intern can be exploited at an organization if they don’t have a watchful intern coordinator (like me!) monitoring the situation? Sure. But it doesn’t matter one bit whether the organization is “for profit” or a non-profit, because people are people; they’re fallible.

What irritates me about liberals is that they don’t have faith in business. They don’t have faith in the institution of the family. They don’t have faith in God. They only have faith in fellow liberals. As Ohanglaman Makadem claims:

“Oh the voters of America…
Barack Obama be they name
The change shall come
Thy will be done…”

It boggles my mind how the same people who claim Jesus is a “fairy tale” are the same ones who tend to find their personal Jesus in some elitist DC politician who claims to have the power to take all their problems away. Just ask Peggy Joseph.

The only hitch: the reality is exactly the opposite—the federal government is always hungry like the wolf, and it’s your liberties, freedoms, and cash it’s after. Don’t believe me? Then you haven’t been paying attention for the past year (perhaps you’re reading The New York Times’ Charles Blow a little too much?) YOU are the greatest tool at your disposal for shaping your destiny–not the government. YOU and the entrepreneurial spirit inside you are the best problem solver in your life—not the federal government. And YOU will always be a better arbiter of your time and resources than a bunch of wild boys inside The Beltway.