The press didn’t even need to think for itself — there were plenty of economists and others who raised these questions early on in the, well, debate doesn’t quite describe how this all happened, does it? All the press had to do was give equal space to those who questioned the President’s and Democrats’ narratives about how urgent and necessary it was to pass this behemoth of a bill without debate, without examination, and without delay.

Blogs, the WSJ, IBD, and a few other media outlets were the only places that one could read any opposing opinions of its long-term estimated cost and its doubtful efficacy.

Enjoy these conservative articles and blog posts from around the web: Keith Hennessey is getting mixed…

Amen

“If they want to argue that the long-term climate benefits are worth the economic costs, that’s a debatable argument. it is absurd to claim that higher energy prices will help the U.S. economy by creating “green jobs.”

I watched a pollster on Fox the other night explain the public has little to no understanding of what cap and trade legislation entails. The public does, however, resonate with the phrase “green jobs.” I am willing to bet that at least 90% of the voting public pays minimal attention to specific pieces of legislation and only retains broad sketches of political arguments. If you ask the average “Joe” if they support “green jobs,” “clean energy technologies,” etc. why would they say no? Let’s be honest, if Waxman-Markey weren’t fraught with peril for the economy, the Senate with a 60 vote super majority would rush this through without hesitation. If the “postage stamp” cost was completely true, there would be little reason to hesitate on passing this legislation to create massive numbers of “green jobs” particularly in light of the recent unemployment reports.

The docile press doesn’t really question these buzz phrases largely because they support the President and his agenda in greater numbers than does the general public who seem to be increasingly disenchanted with this administration. The press certainly failed to question the efficacy of the stimulus legislation when it was proposed. In fact they failed to point out the incongruence between the President’s rhetoric urging immediate passage of stimulus that could not have immediate impact with the bulk of the spending to take place a year in the future. Our economy is suffering as are millions who are now unemployed, this is hardly the time for the press to put their personal ideology over the welfare of the American people. If the policies are economically sound and beneficial, they would certainly withstand rigorous questioning. The American people may not, however, withstand the failures of those that are unsound as we’ve seen with the stimulus.