The headlines are splashy and sensationalized.  “Obama Clears Way for Drilling.” “Obama clears way for offshore drilling for oil and gas, including off Va. coast.” “Obama energy plan would open Atlantic and Gulf drilling.”

The headlines are also something else: misleading. No doubt the breathless media intend to tell the gullible reader (or casual passerby) “see, this Barack Obama guy is a moderate after all. He’s doing the things you ‘Drill, baby, drill’ crowd wanted.”

The truth is not quite so clear.Buried in the article are sentences and stipulations that make it clear that Obama will gladly take your headlines today for an oil platform Tuesday. Or in 2012. Or never.

Observe:

The new strategy calls for oil and gas exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, more than 125 miles from Florida’s coast, and in large areas in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in the Arctic Ocean, north of Alaska, after the government conducts detailed studies.

…

If there is enough interest from industry and if the government determines that offshore drilling does not harm the environment or interfere with military activities, the Interior Department intends to hold a 2012 lease sale for exploration 50 miles off the coast of Virginia, as well as a similar one for Alaska’s Cook Inlet.

…

The fact that the average field off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts is smaller than those in the Gulf of Mexico, the report added, suggests that some of the areas subject to drilling under Obama’s new policy “may not be as economically attractive as available resources in the Gulf.“

Not enough for you? There’s more:

It would allow exploration along the south Atlantic and mid Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf “to support energy planning” — a step toward potential leasing. At the same time, the president also announced that proposed leases in Alaska’s Bristol Bay would be canceled. And the Interior Department is reversing last year’s decision to open up parts of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Instead, scientists would study the sites to see if they’re suitable to future leases.

We can read between the lines, the same as you. This is far from the boon to American energy independence that the headlines would lead you to believe. Instead, the administration is in fact taking away some drilling options that are currently available and replacing them with the promise of maybe having the government allow some development of drilling eventually. If they say it’s OK, and don’t change their minds in a year or so. But in any event, please donate generously, energy companies, because the Obama administration is sensitive to your needs. Honestly.

When 2012 rolls around, will American companies actually receive access to these oil fields? Will American energy independence move forward? Who’s to say? But is that the purpose? Or is all that matters is that you take your eyes off of “health care reform” and focus on this shiny new “moderate” decision?

The most appalling aspect (well, one of them anyway) of the whole HCR debacle is that Congress has just passed a bill which will impose new laws, taxes, fines, obligations, and penalties on ordinary citizens which they, of course, will not have to deal with at all. But we shouldn’t be surprised at the hyprocrisy. After all, leftists have long argued against privatization of government–oh, except when they find out that government run enterprise leads to spiraling debts, poor service, fewer choices, and higher cost, and inevitable taxpayer bailouts on something they actually care about.

What are we talking about? Why the Senate privatizing its restaurants of course. Turns out that the free market, and not government mandates, are good enough for our politicians. Just not for us.

Yesterday, Suzanne Venker had a post concerning co-sleeping that may have been well-intentioned, but spends a good deal of its time attacking the wrong target. We don’t disagree that our culture at large is too concerned with being PC, and often too sensitive to children’s self-esteem (see George Will’s excellent article in yesterday’s Washington Post). But we do take issue with some of her assertions and arguments.  In response to the Stephanopoulos’ sleep issues, she has only this advice to offer:

And there’s no greater loss of control than lying in one’s bed with one’s spouse with children who refuse to leave your space. The answer to the sleep problem is simple: Never let your children sleep in your bed in the first place.

With all due respect to Suzanne, this is the same kind of rigid, one-size-fits-all parenting approach that, on the flip side, also says “never spank your children” or “always put your child’s feelings first.” We understand her desire to fight against an ultra-permissive PC culture, but we believe she winds up throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

On one particular point concerning co-sleeping, we do agree with her. In the Mathison’s situation, yes, it is completely possible to get a 3 and 6 year old to sleep in their own beds. It might take a firm hand, but it might also just resolve itself as the kids grow out of the need to be close to their parents at night. (How many middle schoolers do you know who sleep with their parents?) In any event, we don’t think the problem is that they should have never allowed their children in their beds in the first place.

Co-sleeping works for many families, and to infer that those who choose to keep their children close to them at night are wishy-washy, no-backbone, ultra-permissive parents is insulting to those who have chosen co-sleeping for its many benefits, including easier breastfeeding at night, a close family bond, a reduced risk of SIDS in infants  and more sleep. We also fail to see how choosing to co-sleep with is the politically correct, socially accepted choice. In our experience, the culture at large was very hostile and ignorant about co-sleeping. We were often looked at like some kind of freaks for making a parenting choice that created a closer breastfeeding relationship between Alissa and our son.  Indeed, one only has to peruse the comment section of Suzanne’s to see that kind of hostility on display from commenters  who clearly have no understanding of co-sleeping. Additionally, it is extremely elitist to say that children should never sleep with their parents, and that their proper place is in the crib down the hall; not everyone has that kind of space. In many cultures around the world, co-sleeping is not only accepted, but the norm.

Co-sleeping worked for us for about 10 months; after that we transitioned our son to his crib and then into his own room, where he now sleeps (note that there is a large difference between moving a 10-month old to his own room and letting him cry for a while, and doing the same thing to a relative newborn). But if and when other Birkel children come along, we will definitely co-sleep with them in the beginning. We have seen the benefits — we have a little boy who is healthy and thriving, happy and secure.

And here’s the rub—just because we co-slept, doesn’t mean that we are permissive, anything-goes, hippie-dippy parents. We maintain discipline in the house—Sam gets his little bottom swatted when he tries to pull the lamp off the table, or throws his food on the floor when he’s done with dinner. The amazing thing about parenting choices is that they aren’t a package deal—you can pick and choose what works best for your family and your children while still maintaining an overall style that seems best to you.  There is a real danger here in the political blogosphere to assume that because a person is on the left politically, that every choice they make is therefore, wrong. We know that Stephanopolus is a political leftist. But assuming we didn’t know that, could we jump to that conclusion with sound logic simply by knowing he co-slept with his kids? No.  Even now, we have no evidence that he made that choice because he is liberal politically, or that he is struggling to get his kids to sleep in their own beds because he’s a leftist. Neither of those conclusions logically follow.

The problem in the Stephanopolous family seems to be (and we can’t say not being there) that they have a sleeping arrangement that no longer works for them. If co-sleeping makes everyone in the family happy, if both parents and the children are OK with it, then there’s nothing wrong with it. Co-sleeping in and of itself doesn’t make for unruly kids. Trust us, we know just as many spoiled, undisciplined children whose parents tiptoe around every their feeling and sniffle, but who put them to sleep in their own rooms at night.

Inherently leftist hobby, or healthy lifestyle choice?

Now, here’s our point. It may be true that more people who co-sleep are also more likely to make parenting choices that forgo necessary discipline, but that’s not a reason to condemn the practice. After all, more organic gardeners are leftist types, but that doesn’t stop us from enjoying a good home-grown tomato or pepper. Many musicians hold to some out-there political beliefs, but that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy Bob Dylan, the Clash or the Decemberists.

And isn’t the point of conservatism that we should be free to make our own choices? After all, there are plenty of us “crunchy cons” out there. Those who are quick dismiss anyone who makes a different parenting (or gardening, or musical, or literary) choice may find their list of political allies extraordinarily small.

A case currently being argued in the Supreme Court–McDonald vs. Chicago–seeks to further clarify the constitutional bounds of our Second Amendment rights. Specifically, this case deals with whether state and local authorities can impose more restrictions on gun ownership than are allowed by the federal government under the District of Columbia v. Heller decision of 2008.

The same five Justices who sided with the Constitution in the Heller case have again made arguments that the right to bear arms is a fundamental liberty–like freedom of speech–that state and local authorities cannot further abridge. Of course, the anti-gun Justices on the Supreme Court had their arguments as well.

Some members tried to moderate their call for restrictions even as their rhetoric gives away their true beliefs. Take Justice Stevens. As quoted in the WaPo,

“Stevens wondered if a limited Second Amendment right could be applied to the states, so that ownership in the home was protected, as opposed to “the right to parade around the streets with guns.”

But it’s Justice Breyer whose arguments are the most twisted, and in light of his record on the Court, hyprocritical.

“When it’s free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life,” Breyer said. “Here, every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life.”

Really? That’s the issue here? Guns vs. life? Funny, but when we think about our right to own a gun in the home, guns are on the side of life. When we think about criminals breaking into our house, where our child is sleeping, guns are on the side of life–our lives. Our child’s life. We would rather have the ability to protect our family and home than leave our life in the hands of 911 dispatchers and police who might not always be able to get there, or get there in time. We read stories like this one of a man who waited for over 30 hours after calling 911 for help that never arrived, and can’t help but think we’re better off being able to fend for ourselves if we have to.

Yes, the decision to own a gun is not one to entered into lightly. Guns are like power tools–when used correctly, useful to have around. When used recklessly, dangerous as much to their owners as to others. Owning one is a big responsibility–teaching and living gun safety from the very first time you decide to own a gun is incredibly important. Guns are not toys, and you shouldn’t run out and buy one because they’re cool, or because they make you feel powerful.

But to paint this issue as guns vs. life is ridiculous. It’s an old argument, one we’ve heard time and time again, but we really have to ask if Breyer has heard it. He is aware that criminals don’t follow the law to get their hands on guns? That all restrictions on owning guns do is discourage law-abiding citizens from taking their protection into their own hands (and leaving them ever more dependent on the government?) We honestly this is a pretty uncontested fact, and wonder why it doesn’t occur to men like Breyer who spend most of their time thinking about just such things.

We, for one, will fight to be self-reliant as often and as loudly as we can. For now, we can only hope that McDonald will be decided in the same vein as Heller–with the Courts siding with the average American citizen’s right to protect their own life, and not be dependent on the government.

“Bush Derangement Syndrome has metastasized into Tea Party Derangement Syndrome, which has become epidemic among lefties.”

The title of today’s post refers, of course, to the lyric from The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again.” Those of you who watched last week’s Super Bowl halftime show probably heard the preserved corpses of Roger Daltry and Pete Townshend perform it. Every person in the crowd seemed to know that line. And yet, the world appears very much about to get fooled again.

Once upon a time (5 years ago) there existed the UN  Commission on Human Rights. The Comission, such as it was, was a mockery of its name. It enjoyed the membership of such paragons of human rights as China, Libya, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. In 2006, it was abolished in favor of the UN Human Rights Council.

Now, we introduce you to the new boss, same as the old boss. From its inception, the Human Rights Council has appeared interested in little else other than condemning Israel. As Claudia Rossett, writing in Forbes, notes:

At U.N. Watch, a nongovernmental watchdog in Geneva, executive director Hillel Neuer keeps a tally of activities at the council–where current membership already includes such abusers as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. Neuer says that since the council was launched in mid-2006, it has issued 33 condemnatory resolutions. Of these, half a dozen have concerned Burma and North Korea. The other 27 have focused on condemning Israel, while absolving its attackers, including the Iranian-backed terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Now, the UN is poised to potentially place Iran on the Human Rights Council. Yes, the same Iran that is currently usually any means necessary to supress opposition to its ruling government. The same Iran that employs “the use of torture, including severe beatings and rape, as a routine method for interrogating and punishing prisoners.”

Even as the US hopes to use Iran’s moment in the sun  to shed light on its abuses, Iran continues to deny it has done anything wrong. Rosset writes:

Iran has submitted an Orwellian report of its own, claiming meticulous respect for human rights, as redefined by Tehran’s lights–arguing that because “the system of government in Iran is based on principles of Islam, it is necessary that Islamic standards and criteria prevail in society.”

When the Human Rights Council was formed, then-Secretary General Kofi Annan claimed it would “usher in a new era of decency.” Perhaps it is too much to ask that decency include being on the side of the attacked the oppressed rather than the attackers and the oppressors. Now would be as good a time as any for the UN to start defining decency as the rest of the world sees decency, as not as the Islamofacists would have it. Sending Iran a swift “no” would be a good start in that direction.

If you were watching the Super Bowl last night, whether for the game or the commercials, you might have seen the little ad above by Audi. For those that haven’t seen it or can’t watch the video,  the ad featured the “Green Police” arresting people for “crimes against the environment.”

A man is arrested for choosing plastic over paper (bags). A man is led away in handcuffs for using an incandescent light bulb. Roadblocks stop motorists cold while the GP monitor their gas mileage. Over these scenes and more, a light, bouncy soundtrack cheers on the GP in their crime-busting spree.

Cute? Yeah. Funny? Sure. But also more than a little creepy, given that there are plenty of people out there who would look at this commercial and say “hey, that’s a good idea”? Certainly.

We’d like to say this commercial is clever satire, but we’re not sure that’s the case. After all, the ugly truth is, big business gains the most from excessive government regulation and interference. Who gained from banning incandescent bulbs? Large companies like GE and Phillips that make CFL bulbs and suddenly have a government effectively mandating the purchase of their products. Who gains from legislation that imposes mandatory fuel standards? Companies like Audi that would see competitors forcibly removed from the market.

After all, we live in a world where a leftist Congress and a supposedly conservative President already conspired to effectively outlaw most incandescent bulbs (never mind their potentially serious health risks and dubious overall benefit to the environment). This is a country where some people thought it was the givernment’s business to micromanage churches’ (or other charitable organizations’) bake sales, garage sales and thrift stores, and restaurant menus.

This is a country where one major political party wants to impose its “Green Police” policies on every industry in the nation.

We’d like to say that this commercial is harmless. A bit of humor that might hit too close to home, perhaps, but nothing more. But let’s face it–you can get more people to accept something with a laugh, a wink, and a smile that you can with an order handed down from on high. It would be funny if there weren’t too many environmentalists that really do think like this. It would be funny if it weren’t entirely too possible.

Laugh, sure, but also think. Is “cap and tax” that different? After all, if the government can tell big business what their allowed “eco-behaviors” are, they can just as easily do it to individual citizens.

We spend the majority of our time in opposition to the policies put forth by President Obama‘s administration. Only one of us (Tim) has seen “Avatar,” but he can vouch that it’s a grab bag of leftist tropes wrapped in stunning visuals. Yet today we find ourselves in agreement with both the President and “Avatar” director James Cameron.

Cameron has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post praising Obama’s decision (by way of the Augstine Commission and the new NASA budget) to scrap a $100 billion program to develop entirely new rockets to send astronauts back to the moon by 2020. Instead, the new NASA budget provides funds to contract with private companies who are developing and will continue to develop commercial rockets and manned spacecraft for orbital uses such as transferring crew and cargo to the International Space Station.

Blue Origin's New Shepard, a Vertical-Takeoff-and-Landing spacecraft.

This strikes us both as a wise choice (and makes us wonder why Cameron painted the private space exploration company in “Avatar” as so unswervingly evil and greedy, but that’s another debate for another time). Manned exploration of space is, for its fans, a romantic notion. Cameron’s op-ed says that “rockets run on dreams.” But spending $100 billion to do something that was done over forty years ago seems silly. Obama likes to talk about pragmatic solutions–and this is exactly that. Companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Scaled Composites are already building exactly the type of rockets and crew vehicles that the Constellation program was intended to produce, at a lower cost and with greater efficiency. This plan also reduces the amount of time–5 years with Constellation–where the only way Americans would be able to get into space would be on rented Russian rockets.

This is exactly the sort of privatized, market-based solution that we like to see. Imagine, if markets are good enough for space, maybe they’re good enough for some of our problems right here on earth (hint: health care).

President Obama has given us plenty of reasons not to like him — his penchant for redistributive policies, his love of increasing the power and scope of government, and his stances on terror and security that could at best be called ambivalent. But perhaps the thing that rankles most is his attitude. This is the President. Of the United States. The “leader of the free world” and the “most powerful man in the world.” His party had a supermajority (and still maintains a hefty majority despite the recent Massachusetts election) in the Senate and a wide majority in the House.

And yet he still insists on taking a whining, hurt tone when someone disagrees with him. Obama’s act is reminiscent of a rich, star high school quarterback who’s still bitter because someone, somewhere doesn’t like him and won’t invite him to their birthday party.

Sometimes, it seem the President really believes his own hype, that just by existing he’s changed the rules of politics and policy forever. How else to explain this latest complaint about holds being placed on his nominees for federal jobs?

A hold is the practice of a Senator objecting to a specific nominee–sometimes anonymously, and on any grounds–to a nominees for a Federal office. With a hold placed on them, the nominee can not be brought up for an approval vote in the Senate.

In the Washington Post, the writer, Ed O’Keefe (no relation to James as far as we know) gives voice to Obama’s complaint over Senate Republicans placing hold on his nominees for Federal positions. But in the lead paragraph (and let us just say that when a prominent newspaper does not consign a knock on this President to the 17th paragraph of the story, it’s quite telling), he also points out that this is the very same tactic that Obama himself used at least three times, for reasona having nothing to do with how qualified the nominees (of then-President George W. Bush).

Obama has this to say now, perhaps believing himself to be some sort of Obamasatz Haderach, who can take many positions at once:

“We’ve got a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified — nobody has a specific objection to them — but end up having a hold on them because of some completely unrelated piece of business.”

The rarely-photographed two-faced Obama speak many position to many people at once.

But had this to say just 5 short years ago. WaPo:

In 2005, a year after his election to the Senate, Obama placed a hold on Susan Bodine to lead the Environmental Protection Agency office that oversees Superfund and emergency cleanup programs because the agency had missed a deadline on new regulations for lead paint exposure.

In September 2006, Obama and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) blocked Robert L. Wilkie’s nomination as a Defense Department assistant secretary over a long-delayed Pentagon report on Midwestern wind farms.

And Obama joined with other Democrats in October 2007 to block the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission. Von Spakovsky later withdrew; Wilkie and Bodine were eventually confirmed.

This sort of whiny, rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me attitude is unbecoming of the Office of the President.  Obama knew the rules of the office when he ran for it.  If he doesn’t like them, perhaps he’d rather find a line of work more suited to his temperament? We hear there are communities everywhere that need organizing.

While the whole truth about the latest story surrounding James O’Keefe is not entirely clear, one thing is certain: he made a mistake. No, we’re not talking about whatever mistakes he may have made at Senator Landrieu’s (D-LA) office. We’re talking about the mistake of exposing the establishment media not only for being intellectually bankrupt, not only for being ideologically partisan, not only for taking down ACORN, an organization on the same side of the intellectual divide as a large percentage of the media, but also for exposing the media’s down-and-out laziness. A twentysomething kid showed the big bastions of supposed “investigative journalism” how its done. And for that, they have never forgiven him.

So it comes with absolutely no surprise that these same media giants leapt at the chance to proclaim a New Watergate (notice the establishment media still clings to its glory days of 40+ years ago in attempt to maintain their bone fides.) when O’Keefe was arrested after gaining entry to the Louisiana Senator’s office under false pretenses.

O’Keefe released a statement today (found here on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism site) in which he pointed just a few of the media inaccuracies:

“It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.”  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.”

We wish O’Keefe the best of luck in clearing his name, but we find the media’s “mistakes” not at all surprising. When you succeed in getting even Jon Stewart to mock the media’s dereliction of its stated duties, you’re going to make the media’s hit list. This is just the latest example of a left-tilting media playing one of its favorite games–writing big, splashy, character-assassinating headlines and then, after public perception has sunk in, issuing back-page retractions to cover their collective…posteriors.

O’Keefe’s real crime–in the eyes of those rejoicing of his latest situation–is showing people how little they can rely on those who purport to be our arbiters of fact and truth.

With the SOTU already well-covered here at NewsReal, we will take a narrower focus. George Will’s column in today’s Washington Post must have been written before the President’s speech, but it delivers a stinging rebuke to one of Obama’s talking points, as well as the leftist media’s phony outrage over the recent Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision.

From the SOTU, Obama had this to say:

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

In addition to the obvious rejoinder–if Obama was so concerned about foreign influences on the elections, maybe he should have been a little more diligent checking where his own donations came from–the President is incorrect on the substance of the decision. Will sets us straight:

” Bringing law into conformity with this 1976 precedent, the court has struck down only federal and state laws that forbid independent expenditures (those not made directly to, or coordinated with, candidates’ campaigns) by corporations and labor unions. Under the censorship regime the court has overturned, corporations were even forbidden to send political communications to all of their employees.”

This decision still doesn’t allow Wal-Mart or SEIU to write checks directly to candidates, but it does allow them to spend their own money to say what they really feel about who should be elected and the direction in which they want the country taken. We’re hard-pressed to think of something more American than simple honesty.

Will also points out the media’s theatrical hysterics over Citizens United is a fine example of prize-winning hypocrisy:

“The New York Times calls the court’s decision, which enables political advocacy by (other) corporations, a “blow to democracy.” The Times, a corporate entity, can engage in political advocacy because Congress has granted “media corporations” an exemption from limits.”

Let’s be clear:the idea that the government itself should be picking and choosing which corporations–or entities in general–are allowed to participate in the political arena, and what they are allowed to say, is folly and censorship at its finest. The very concept seems, to us, anti-American-ideal.

Will’s thoughts are similar to ours–the whole idea of campaign finance reform centers around the idea that Ameicans are too stupid to make their own decisions, and that the government must protect them from their own easily-led nature. We don’t buy that for an instant. People are not wards of the state, and shouldn’t be treated as such. People should be free to make their own decisions based on all available information–they should even be free to make decisions that we think are the wrong ones. That’s what’s great about America: we’re all allowed to raise our voices, and we’re all allowed to make our own decisions. Not on the whim of the government, but as we choose to believe.

If you went looking for comedy last night, you couldn’t have done better than tuning in to the Rachel Maddow show about the time that Scott Brown officially won last night’s election to succeed Ted Kennedy as Massachusetts Senator. Host Maddow and guest Chris “Shiver Me Timbers” Matthews were beside themselves, aghast at the results. Maddow kept sputtering about Republicans being “divorced from reality” even as she tried to spin in any direction to explain her candidate of choice’s loss. It was about “anti-incumbent sentiment” or Coakley’s bad campaign. It was about moving the country in any direction except, of course, the one that’s blindingly obvious.
Suffice it to say, when Chris Matthews becomes the voice of reason and moderation (although not before getting in a gratuitous “conservatives are hypocrites” jab) on your show, you might just have come a bit unmoored. Take this exchange:

Maddow: But if you were really upset about fiscal challenges, to look at the guy that turned surpluses into deficits, they would have been up in arms then.  And there was no tea party movement against George Bush, you know?  I mean, they now, in retrospect, say, “Oh, yes, we hated him when we did it.  We just never said anything about it….I don‘t think you can say that this—that policy is at the root of this dissatisfaction.
…
Matthews: I think debt‘s a real problem.  I think when this candidate came along and talked about taxes, he was really talking about other things.  He was talking about worries about overkill, in terms of government spending. I think they‘re worried about it.  We‘ll see as we analyze this in the weeks ahead.  I don‘t think it‘s irrational.

Yes, it’s true. Rachel Maddow: Making Chris Matthews seem relatively sane and put-together since 2010.

These are only projections. The reality is far worse. Unless fiscal conservatives can stop it.

But if Ms. Maddow really wants to play the divorced from reality card, we’re just going to have to trump her with cold, hard facts. After all, there is this wonderful tool called “the internet” which enables one to search for things people said just a few short years ago. And it turns out, conservatives were plenty unhappy with Bush from the word “spend.” Conservatives like the Club for Growth. Has she never heard of the Porkbusters movement, touted by leading right-of-center websites like National Review Online and those of a more libertarian bent like Glenn Reynold’s Instapundit? She wouldn’t have to look far to find article after article after article detailing fiscal conservatives dissatisfaction with Bush’s spending. But what were they (read: we) to do–vote for a party that would be (and has ultimately become) ten times as bad on deficit spending? Sometimes you’re stuck backing a bad team over an even worse one. Fiscal conservatives can take solace in the fact that the country has begun to wake up, even as they must face the reality that it took staggering amounts of spending and debt to make it happen. There are certainly those still divorced from reality. To find them, Ms. Maddow might start by locating a mirror.