Cornucopia

Echoing the words of fellow propagandists Jonah Goldberg and Bush-worshipping Fred Barnes, Megan McArdle devotes a post to explaining how disappointed liberals are in Obama. An economist would quote statistics, but McArdle is an English major with and MBA, so all we get is a link to a Politico article instead. Thanks to Google, however, it is possible to check the popular thesis with facts, namely a USA Today/Gallup poll. (Via and Via)

But a USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted December 1, undermines the suggestion of significant disappointment with Obama. That poll found that in addition to Democrats' approval of Obama's handling of the transition and their support for Obama's selections of Clinton and Gates, 77 percent of Democrats indicated that Obama's administration will be "more effective" because he has chosen individuals who held positions in Bill Clinton's administration, with only 3 percent saying those choices will render his administration "less effective."

We will note that once again McArdle has not checked her pet theories with relatively unbiased facts, and completely understand why. A girl's got expenses, you know.

But theory isn't enough in the demanding blogosphere. It requires entertainment as well, and McArdle delivers it in generous amounts. Ann Coulter does this kind of thing much better, but McArdle better fits into the magazine's image.

Some progressives apparently shocked to discover that they elected a
politician, not (awesomely wise secular teacher!) Jesus. Clip at eleven.

Did progressives really think they'd woken up in Sweden on November
5th?

And when you do buck the will of the voters in order to do something that
most economists agree is vital to the health of the nation, apparently, many
progressives get mad and say ridiculous things[.]

Frankly, the knowledge that there are such lunatics out there, but that
Obama is ignoring them, has heartened me greatly.

McArdle has quite a talent for throwing red meat to the audience without getting her hands bloody.

McArdle also returns to another favorite tactic, her studied air of weary cynicism while she lecture to the kiddies about The Way Things Really Are In The Real World.

Enacting legislation is not a matter of getting a president and a
fillibuster-proof majority, unless you happen to have a congress filled with
career-suicide bombers. It is a matter of getting a fillibuster-proof
majority and a bill that either no one cares about, or is supported by close
to a majority of voters. (Actually, it's much more complicated than
that. But as a general rule, this simple model is much more effective than
believing that shortly before electing Barack Obama, America collectively
read Gunnar Myrdal and shifted about 20 points to the left.)...

First rule of politics: small groups get favors from the politicians
they support only to the extent that it does not annoy large groups who voted
for those politicians. Check the progressive agenda. See which bits
do not annoy large groups who voted for Obama. That is what the
progressives are going to get.

Fear not, McArdle doesn't neglect class warfare.

Oh, yes, Barack Obama couldn't have been elected without progressives. He also
couldn't have been elected without lower-middle class Moms who like to drive to
Wal-Mart in their SUVs to buy enormous flat-screen televisions for the family
room. Guess which group is larger?

When she is done with seven paragraphs and a quote about the failures of progressives and progressivism, she tosses in a token paragraph about Republican. It's actually quite an efficient post, fitting a considerable number of conservative tropes into a pseuolibertarian screed.