Friday, November 30, 2012

Jump!, cont.

And here I thought even Charles Krauthammer was going wobbly as we approached the fiscal cliff.  I was wrong.

Instead, he sees exactly what Obama and the Democrats are doing:
Ronald Reagan once fell for a “tax now, cut later” deal that he later deeply regretted. Dems got the tax; he never got the cuts. Obama’s audacious new gambit is not a serious proposal to solve our fiscal problems. It’s a raw partisan maneuver meant to neuter the Republicans by getting them to cave on their signature issue as the hold-the-line party on taxes. 
The objective is to ignite exactly the kind of internecine warfare on taxes now going on among Republicans. And to bury Grover Norquist. 
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Norquistian. I don’t believe the current level of taxation is divinely ordained. Nor do I believe in pledges of any kind. But Norquist is the only guy in town to consistently resist the tax-and-spend Democrats’ stampede for ever higher taxes to fund ever more reckless spending. 
The hunt for Norquist’s scalp is a key part of the larger partisan project to make the Republicans do a George H. W. Bush and renege on their heretofore firm stand on taxes. Bush never recovered.
Bush never recovered and neither will the Republican Party if they sign on to a bad or even ambiguous deal with the Democrats.  If they do, and I don't like saying this at all, conservatives will abandon the party.

But Krauthammer is, I fear, wrong about one thing:
Why are the Republicans playing along? Because it is assumed that Obama has the upper hand. Unless Republicans acquiesce and get the best deal they can right now, tax rates will rise across the board on January 1, and the GOP will be left without any bargaining chips. 
But what about Obama? If we all cliff-dive, he gets to preside over yet another recession. It will wreck his second term. Sure, Republicans will get blamed. But Obama is never running again. He cares about his legacy. You think he wants a second term with a double-dip recession, 9 percent unemployment, and a totally gridlocked Congress? (my italics)
I agree, Obama does care about his legacy, just not in the way you might expect him to.

Remember, Obama wants not to recover or restore the country, he wants instead to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."

To that end, he reasons, a new crisis, just like the last one, shouldn't go to waste and he, for one, won't let it.  A double-dip recession, 9-plus percent unemployment, and a totally gridlocked Congress are all near perfect ingredients in a recipe to nourish the still growing Leviathan.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Please Remember This

How we are taxed is a very important issue.  There are more and less efficient and/or just ways for our government to raise the revenue it needs to perform its functions and pay its debts and, therefore, the current debate is critical.

But of far greater importance is how much we are taxed.  That figure, however it's raised, more than any other signals the size and intrusiveness of our government and ought to concern us much more than the size of the top marginal rate.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Jump!, cont.

If you've paid any attention at all to the debate over what to do to avoid the nation's looming "fiscal cliff", you know that the issue has been framed as essentially one between the House Republicans, who do not want to raise marginal tax rates on anyone, and the White House, the congressional Democrats, the elite liberal media (as well as a growing number of "wobbly"  Republican senators willing to dicker after all), who want to raise them on the wealthiest Americans.

There remains, to this point anyway, little to no word at all about cutting spending.  And, if history is any guide, no matter what the final deal, no spending will be cut, now or ever.

So, how about gambling on this deal instead?  A deal for the GOP and for the Democrats as well, a deal to which both parties have already agreed? 

The Republicans should grab the Democrats tightly ("Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.") and simply step off the cliff.

The Republicans will enjoy the boast of, true to their pledge, not having voted to raise taxes.

For Democrats marginal rates will indeed climb.  True, for everyone not just the rich, but in their heart of hearts, that is what they want anyway.  For liberals, nothing is ultimately yours.  Rather, as they see it, in a more efficient and just society, all wealth belongs finally to the government, to be redistributed by it as necessary.    

But also, and this is key, real spending will be cut as well.

Think of it, for the first time since the New Deal at least, real spending will be cut and smaller government will result.  To be sure, it will be cut with a very blunt instrument, but cut nonetheless.

I say jump.

Sunday, November 25, 2012


As more and more Republicans appear ready to abandon their pledge to the American people (not to Grover Norquist for heaven's sake) by at least considering raising taxes in order to reach some budget agreement with the White House and the congressionbal Democrats, Marc Thiessen offers several reasons why they should not, but should instead call the Democrats' bluff.  If we go over the the fiscal cliff with them he insists, we'll win.

 I find his arguments compelling.  How about you?

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Many Thanks

Thankful for so much, it's impossible to itemize...remember even.  Shame on me.

Do consider, today at least, that without the gift of life itself, nothing else is possible.  Then pause and thank your Maker.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

This is Tyranny

Hobby Lobby, the national arts and crafts supplies chain, sued the federal government for relief from that part of Obamacare that required the company to provide morning-after and week-after birth control pills as part of its employee health care plan.  The owner claimed the mandate violated his pro-life religious beliefs and thereby the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment.  U.S, Federal District Judge Joe Heat disagreed, rejecting the request and ruling that:
"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion."
It's not coming ladies and gentlemen, it's already here.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Rush is Right

Since the election, more than a few of the political consultant class have been quite publicly explaining away the Romney loss by blaming it on among other things the disproportionate influence on the Republican Party of right-wing talk radio personalities, especially Rush Limbaugh.  The argument--it's more childishly petulant excuse-making than argument actually--is that Rush has made the party too conservative to win a national election.


...moderate Republicans have succeeded in getting their candidate or a candidate to their liking nominated for the last 20 years.  (Yes, even George W. eschewed direct identification with movement conservatives in 2000.  Remember "compassionate conservatism"?)  Save for the 2004 election when the same W. won their enthusiastic support for unapologetically responding to the national security challenges post 9/11, conservatives in each election have had to swallow hard in order to pull the lever for the party's eventual nominee.  But pull them they did and had it not been for Rush Limbaugh--him more than anyone else I'd argue--many if not most of those same conservatives would have either stayed home on election day, or worse, launched a third party effort that would have been a disaster for both the Republican Party and conservatism.  Ross Perot was just such a disaster in '92 and '96 because many foolishly thought him a conservative alternative to George the First and Bob Dole despite Rush's best efforts to discredit his crazy candidacy.

However many votes the party may attract by moving to the ideological center, it will lose more, many more, by alienating it's to this point still loyal conservative base.

And to think these guys make millions, win or lose. 

Rush is Wrong

The people didn't vote for Santa Clause almost two weeks ago.  Sure, Santa gives stuff away, but he doesn't take from anyone

We Shall Overcome

With the right to unrestricted military service secure, and the one for legal marriage within grasp, the next great challenge for the country's homosexuals is to win the struggle for the right to public nudity.

But when the practice is threatened in even otherwise freedom-loving San Francisco, you know reactionary forces may already have the upper hand.

Meanwhile, professional Republicans, their campaign consultants, and many pundits as well are urging the GOP to ignore the demands of the Tea Party and instead to pursue aggressively some middle way.  The very high stakes are of course the votes of the nation's election-deciding moderates.  The strategy they suggest is for the party to remain in principle opposed to public nudity, but to communicate clearly nonetheless its willingness to compromise on the issue, topless or bottomless, for example, but not both.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Where Sheepskins are Nervous

Fordham's president finds conservative gadfly Ann Coulter beyond the pale and recently convinced (coerced?) the College Republicans to withdraw her invitation to speak at the university.  But Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, famous defender of infanticide and bestiality, apparently passed moral muster and was a most welcome participant and speaker at a panel discussion the college hosted yesterday afternoon.

Shame on Fordham!

Yea, I know, I know.  It's nigh impossible to shame Lefties.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Wait Just One Minute!

It appears that FOX News is going to focus its attention on the alleged alteration of the intelligence talking points that Ambassador Rice used to dissemble on the five Sunday news shows two months ago.  (The non-FOX News doesn't care one way or the other save for the fact that it's a timely and very welcome distraction.)  This is a mistake.

I wasn't there, so I can't know what actually transpired.  But, judging from the reports of the congressmen who were, I know I would have reacted very differently to Petraeus's testimony.

What do I mean?

Had I been there, as soon as I heard the former CIA Chief say to those of us assembled that not only did he know from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack, but that he said as much at the time, I would have raised up out of my chair, and while shaking my fist at him shouted something like:  "The hell you did General!  Not only did you testify to the contrary at the time, but it was widely reported that you did so.  If indeed your initial testimony was otherwise, not only have you not seen fit to correct the record during the intervening two months, but every @#$%& representative of this feckless administration, from the President to the janitor, has used since then that very testimony to hide behind.  Now, while my aid goes to retrieve copies of the transcript from your prior visit with us, I suggest you think a little harder and perhaps remember a little more clearly exactly what it was you said back then.  And remember General, this time you're under oath."

But that probably explains why I'm not now, and probably never will be a congressman.

This Makes it Worse

General Petraeus's testimony, that is.

From what I gather, in today's closed-door hearing before Congress, General Petraeus insisted that he knew almost immediately that it was not an out-of-control response to the video, but instead a terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate that resulted in the murder of our ambassodor and three other Americans.  He said this was so despite numerous reports at the time, and ever since, that his testimony before Congresss two months ago was exactly to the contrary, i.e., that the deaths were the result of the video.

OK, it's easy enough to check the record to see if in fact he did say as much then.  (I doubt it.)

But even if he did, why did he wait two months to correct the record?

This is getting muddier, and darker, with every passing day.

Let's Review

The White House, congressional Democrats, and the elite media collectively are now accusing the Republicans of trying to politicize Benghazi-gate.  Their strategy, I'm sure, is to muddle the story with charges and counter-charges of  politicization so that the public will grow weary, lose focus, and issue a "pox on both your houses" judgment, a verdict that amounts to an acquittal for the guilty party.  Don't fall for it.

Remember that the story began on September 11 with news reports of protests at the US embassy in Cairo, Egypt over the production of an offensive-to-Muslims video.  Embassy personnel quickly issued a disclaimer for the video that sounded to many a bit too much like an apology for America itself.  The "many" included Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, who said as much.

It was only later that evening and early the next morning that reports came in that the Benghazi, Libya consulate had actually been attacked, resulting in the murder of our ambassador and three others as well.  Subsequent reporting made it very clear very quickly that Benghazi was different than Cairo.  But, and this is the rub, the administration insisted nevertheless that it was not different.  Moreover, the administration continued to insist that it was just like Cairo for days and even weeks while the evidence that it was indeed different continued to grow.  Among those who perpetrated and perpetuated this falsehood were Secretary of State Clinton, CIA Chief Petraeus, Press Secretary Carney, UN Ambassador Rice, and the President himself.

Why did they do this?

Before we make important judgments about whether or not the administration adequately defended the consulate before the attack, or reacted appropriately during and after it, we must have the answer to this question.

Be Careful What You Say

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said yesterday that, "There is no fiscal cliff," and argued that the looming crisis is not real at all, but "manufactured" instead.  Presumably, he wants President Obama to hold his ground against the Republican House.

But if there's no cliff and no crisis, then not only is there no reason for the President to negotiate, there's none for the Republicans to do so either.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Until the Sun Goes Down Over Santa Monica Boulevard, cont.

Without comment:  Los Angeles City Council Backs "Meatless Mondays"

The Philly Fix

Look, the President would likely have won reelection anyway, but with reports like those of 59 precincts in Philadelphia voting 100% to 0% for Obama over Romney, not to mention others from Florida and Ohio, we're justified at least to roll our eyes the next time some liberal talking head smugly disputes any evidence of voter fraud.

The media's liberal and Democrats cheat.  Those are facts.

But we can beat'em still.

How to Throw a Party...Overboard

As a general rule, politicos in a democracy should refrain from insulting the voters.  But if insult them they must, they should at least aim their jibes at those who voted against their candidate.  It would seem that some Republican pols are finding this increasingly difficult to do.

Appearing on MSNBC (where else?), Steve Schmidt, the architect of Senator John McCain's loss to Barack Obama in 2008, spoke what has apparently long been on his mind and agreed with the Left, the Democrats, and their aiders and abettor's from the elite liberal media that the GOP is indeed being run by a bullying band of sexists and racists.  By saying so publicly, he insulted the 48% of the electorate who voted for Romney anyway, not to mention the 30% of Latinos and 44% of women so blinded by their own intolerance that they agreed with the Republicans by voting against their own interest.

I suspect Schmidt is not alone among GOP professionals.  But if his very public complaint is followed by similar ones from others like him, then look for more and more conservatives, who are already disenchanted with the Republican brand, to leave it altogether for a third party, or maybe even for the hills.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

And That!

I posted Mark Thiessen's Top Ten Consequences of a Second Obama Term a couple of days ago. (See "Take That!")    Now Matt Purple adds ten more of his own with "Ten Little-Known Consequences of Second Obama Term"  He introduces the list with a reminder of what ought to be obvious to all, but, alas, is not:
Believing in activist government means your work is never finished. You pass a new law that you think combats injustice and inefficiency. Then human nature kicks in and, with great disapprobation, you discover that injustice and inefficiency still exist. So you pass another law, then another. And with no Mitt Romney there to stop you, the Circle of Regulatory Life continues.
Anyway, here's Purple's "Little-Known" Top Ten:
1. More expensive cars 
2. Fewer stethoscopes 
3. Less access to special needs education 
4. So long, free checking accounts 
5. More children in apartment complexes 
6. More pregnant prison guards 
7. More horses at restaurants 
8. Easier miniature golf games 
9. Drier urinals 
10. No more Roll Your Own tobacco
I can almost hear you: "Huh?"

Read it!

Saturday, November 10, 2012

We Win, They Lose

In the wake of the dispiriting losses the GOP took last Tuesday, more and more Beltway Savants from both the Left and Right are insisting, yet again, that the Republican Party is simply out of touch, too conservative by half, at least.  Moderate, they counsel, or risk irrelevance.

Let's assume they're right about the disposition of the country, that it's now split about 55-45, more liberal than conservative.  They are wrong, however, about the consequences for the party if it becomes more centrist as they suggest.  The results will not be a more competitive 50-50 proposition.  Instead, the losses will be more on the order of 60-40 or worse.  Or, what's more likely, it'll be a 60-30-10 disaster with the 10% being what's left of the old GOP.

Conservatives, who remain a substantial minority in this nation (thank God!) and a large majority of the Republican Party, don't want merely to slow down the liberal advance, to better manage its predictably ruinous consequences, or to negotiate with its standard bearers some sort of domestic detente.  Rather, we want victory.  In fact, we want rollback.

Unrealistic, you say.  So was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Read it...and Weep

I used that old line in what for me was a sad post yesterday.  I was referring you to a piece by Jonah Goldberg about the meaning of the election.  Today, for the moment feeling sadder still--what an emotional roller coaster this has been--I use it as my title.

Please take a few minutes to read Charles C.W. Cooke's reflections on the vote last Tuesday as he compares his native Great Britain's decline with what may well be our own also.  His title says it all: "Why I Despair"

Friday, November 9, 2012

Strange Affair

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the general reaction to the surprise resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus for the reason of an extra-marital affair a bit curious, curious for more than just the suspicious timing of it?

Remember that this is the same guy who just a few years ago was slandered by the Left and congressional Democrats alike with labels like General Be-Tray-Us.  But now, instead of what has happened being understood, at least in part, as something like condign punishment for his sins in the Iraq War, the response has been more on the order of viewing it as a tragic end to an otherwise exemplary career of public service.

Also, I've yet to hear anyone dare to compare these circumstances and Petraeus's fate with that of former President Bill Clinton.  If the General's resignation was necessary because the affair made him vulnerable to blackmail, a vulnerability that because of his position was extended to the security of the country as well, and this kind of irresponsible behavior from one serving in so high an office is altogether unacceptable, then what of Clinton and his indiscretions?  (Does anyone really believe his dalliances were limited to the unfortunate Ms. Lewinsky?)  I mean it's just sex, right?


The Habits of the American Heart

What happened on Tuesday?

I sincerely doubt a more reasonable, unloaded explanation than this one by the National Review's Jonah Goldberg is possible.  He contrasts our Founders' vision for the country with that of the Progressives.  On Tuesday, the Progressives won.

Please read it...and weep.

I'm only half joking.

Along with frustration and anger, another very important part of what we conservatives are experiencing in the wake of the election results is sadness.  Leave aside for a moment any debate about which vision is superior, at a much more basic level we fear we are witnessing the passing of an older understanding, the end of an old and trusted way, the death of an exceptional friend.  Our hearts are broken.

Take That!

So, it's been a few days now.  You're over your pity party.  You're feeling a little better about everything.  Life goes on.  Etc.

Not so fast.

Thank Mark Thiessen for dumping a very cold bucket of water on all of us.  Here's his Top Ten List for Obama's second term:
1. Obamacare will now become a permanent feature of the American political landscape. It will never be repealed. 
2. The unprecedented levels of spending in Obama’s first four years will become the new floor, as America sets new records for fiscal profligacy and debt. 
3. Job creators will face massive tax increases, and more Americans will come off the tax rolls—resulting in fewer citizens with a stake in keeping taxes low and more with a stake in protecting benefits. 
4. Government dependency, already at record levels, will continue to grow. 
5. Four lost years in dealing with the entitlement crisis will become eight—digging us into a hole from which we may not be able to emerge. 
6. Obama, unworried about the impact of gas and electricity prices on his reelection, will finally wage the regulatory war on fossil fuels the Left demands. 
7. He will unleash the Environmental Protection Agency to impose crushing new burdens on U.S. business. 
8. His administration’s assault on religious freedom will go on and expand to new areas. 
9. The Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower. 
10. Obama will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices, possibly replacing conservatives on the high court — ending the Roberts court in all but name for a generation.
Have a nice day.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Forever Wealthier

The American Spectator's Tom Bethell has a short piece introducing or reintroducing his readers to the great thinker (I don't know what else to call him) George Gilder.  It seems there's a new edition of his 1981 best seller, the supply-side apologia Wealth and Poverty.  I remember reading the book the year after it came out and it changed forever my thinking about economics.  I highly recommend it still.

I was reminded of just how profoundly the book effected when I read this line Bethell quotes from its prologue:
The belief that wealth consists not of ideas, attitudes, moral codes, and mental disciplines but of definable and static things that can be seized and redistributed is the materialist superstition.

The Untouchables

"Anti-Islam Filmmaker Sentenced to One Year in Prison"

Like Al Capone for tax evasion, you got him Hillary, you got him.

They Stab It with Their Steely Knives

"California Voters Approve Higher Taxes"

But they just can't kill the beast.


I remember this, oh, so clearly.

After the Republicans took back the House of Representatives in 2010, it was incumbent upon them as the victors to lead, to set the example, to compromise, to reach across the aisle in order to forestall gridlock.  At least that's what the Obama administration, the Congressional Democrats, and their lackeys in the elite media said to us then, and said over and over again.

Now President Obama is again the victor and whose responsibility do you think it is to lead, to compromise, etc.?  Any guesses?

Stand firm you mighty mastodons, stand firm.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Tighter Than Ever

This morning my daughter made me laugh with this one that came from either her husband or from her brother through her husband:  "I'm clinging to my guns and my religion like never before."

Another Casualty

I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt now we'll ever learn the truth about Benghazi and, as a result, no one in the Obama administration will have to pay a price for it.

The still GOP-controlled House will be accused by the elite liberal media of sour grapes if they press the issue and those that persist anyway will be dismissed as obsessive loons.  Oh, and professional Republicans, forever fearful of a backlash, can be counted on to counsel everyone to drop it as well.   

A Wise Filipina Woman

From Michelle Malkin some very wise and very sweet words for us all:
Please, do not be bitter. Do not fall prey to the Beltway blame game. Do not get mired in small things. Do not become vengeful creatures like our political opponents who voted out of spite instead of love of country. 
We still have boundless blessings to count — and to secure. 
I remain a proud, unrepentant believer in the American Dream. And I know you do, too. 
Freedom will endure because we will keep fighting for it. We can’t afford not to, friends. 
Earlier this evening, when many conservatives on Twitter started despairing, I quoted from Psalm 46:10. Elections come and go. Faith endures: 
He says, “Be still, and know that I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth.”
Chins up. Stand tall. We’ll fight again tomorrow.


Go ahead, get it off your chest.

Or, better, let Robert Stacy McCain do it for you.  DO give this a read!  You'll feel better as a result.

Wail, rend your garments, gnash your teeth, and then smile with those very same pearly whites.


For conservatives, NRO's Kevin D. Williamson has a few from yesterday's results and offers them with admirable concision:
There is not much in this to comfort conservatives. The lessons of Ohio are that Barack Obama is a skillful demagogue, that the ancients were wise to number envy among the deadly sins, and that offering Americans a check is a more fruitful political strategy than offering them the opportunity to take control of and responsibility for their own lives. This is what Oakeshott had in mind when he wrote that liberty was something that many people simply are not equipped to “enjoy as an opportunity rather than suffer as a burden.”

Which America?

There's an old joke from Northern Ireland about a bloke walking about at night who is confronted by a gang of suspicious countrymen.  "Catholic or Protestant?", they demand.  "Atheist," he replies.  Unsatisfied, they insist on an answer nevertheless, "Aye, but are ye a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?"

I fear the results of yesterday's election portend a similar fate for our own country.  We have increasingly become two peoples (at least two) who share less and less save the ground we live on.  This cannot stand.

Michael Barone, he of the Big Romney Win prediction, feels similarly and wrote as much last night even before the returns were in and the Obama victory confirmed.
We used to get along by leaving each other alone. The Founders established a limited government, neutral on religion, allowing states, localities, and voluntary associations to do much of society’s work. Even that didn’t always work: We had a Civil War. 
An enlarged federal government didn’t divide mid-20th-century Americans, except on civil-rights issues. Otherwise, there was general agreement about the values government should foster. 
Now the two Americas disagree, sharply. Government decisions enthuse one and enrage the other. The election may be over, but the two Americas are still not on speaking terms.
Leaving each other alone is no longer an option.  It was always chiefly a conservative strategy anyway.  Not leaving you alone, or anything else alone for that matter, is almost a defining part of the liberal creed.

I'm afraid yesterday neither solved nor even resolved anything.  The cultural divide will continue to grow until one day one side clearly wins and the other side clearly loses.  Let's hope we can keep a sense of humor about it in the meantime.

God help us. 

Another Day

It seems all those conservative prognosticators who predicted what would almost be a landslide victory were wrong.  The late-breaking enthusiasm we all witnessed, and perhaps even felt, for Mitt Romney turned out to be not enough after all.

Before I go any further, I should confess first that I bought it too.  Shame on me.

So, what does it all mean?

First, the professional Republicans got their moderate candidate and, as we can see, it turned out to be a strategy that fell short of the mark just the same.

But the conservative, Tea Party-types like me, and maybe you too, can take no solace in that.  Although our support for Romney may well have been more anti-Obama than pro-Romney, it could not possibly have been more enthusiastic even had our candidate been Ronald Reagan himself.

We did our very best and we simply have to face the fact that there are now more of them than there are of us.

I could describe the difference between "them" and "us" as the difference between "takers" and "makers", but on election night that would be less than appropriately gracious.  Let us say the difference is between those who continue to believe in ever Bigger Government and those who remain very suspicious of it.

That being said, if reasoned argument, coupled with the strong evidence of these past four years, could not convince "them" otherwise, then they simply could not, or would not be convinced.

Therefore, all that remains to convince "them", it would appear anyway, is the collapse altogether of our system around their very feet.  In case you haven't heard, we're broke and can no longer afford the Big Government we or, rather they just voted not only to continue, but to grow.  Although that collapse may be inevitable, it at least has the advantage of being, when it happens, undeniable.

But, and this is very important for us conservatives, the country is still very much deserving not only of our loyalty, but also of our love.  America remains the "indispensable nation".

We conservatives always were going to be the ones tasked with "picking up the pieces", now we'll be challenged with "cleaning up the mess" as well.  God help us.

But, with God's help, we can.  And we must.

Fight on!    

Monday, November 5, 2012

Compare and Contrast

So, prominent black Democrat and former Virginia Governor and Richmond Mayor L. Douglas Wilder has chosen not to endorse Barack Obama again as he did in 2008 referring to his less than successful record as president.

Meanwhile, prominent black Republican and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Obama yet again despite that same record of performance.

Gelded Age Democrats

Just the other day I noted where Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel had resurrected the phrase the Gilded Age to attach to and thereby smear GOP policies.  Well, liberals are nothing if not a mob and now, somewhat hysterically I might add, E.J. Dionne has adopted the same phrase to warn against Republican plans for the country should Romney win tomorrow.

I suspect we'll hear it more and more often from more and more people (to test, tune in to MSNBC, if you can bear it), but they had better stop and think it through before they make it into a campaign slogan.

See my title.

One at a Tiime

Echoing Ronald Reagan, wealthy entrepreneur and philanthropist Sheldon G.Adelson concludes that,  "I Didn't Leave the Democrats. They Left Me."

One is sorely tempted to ask him, um, and why did it take you so long to figure that out?

But instead we'll just say--altogether now--Welcome Home!

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Suspicious Minds

Remember the 1960's spy-spoof TV show Get Smart?  The Democrats in Orange County, Florida do as they may be playing "the old suspicious package in the polling place trick."  Successfully done, one can get a judge to extend early-voting hours.

Look for more of these kinds of "old tricks" on election day as well.

Sorry about that Chief.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Maher of the Same

Comedian and Democrat Party hack Bill Maher had this on-air warning for white people who support Mitt Romney:
"If you're thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after you."
While he'll pay no price for the comment either way, it's not clear to me who he is insulting more, whites or blacks?

Be of Good Cheer

When conservative, but always cautious and careful number cruncher Michael Barone calls it for Romney, it's over.

So relax.


But relax.

The Stakes, cont.

How serious is next Tuesday's vote?  Mark Steyn thinks it's very serious and tells you as much with the familiar bite, but, significantly without the usual admixture of mirth.
I don’t know whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can fix things, but I do know that Barack Obama and Joe Biden won’t even try — and that therefore a vote for Obama is a vote for the certainty of national collapse. Look at Lower Manhattan in the dark, and try to imagine what America might look like after the rest of the planet decides it no longer needs the dollar as global reserve currency. For four years, we have had a president who can spend everything but build nothing. Nothing but debt, dependency, and decay. As I said at the beginning, in different ways the response to Hurricane Sandy and Benghazi exemplify the fundamental unseriousness of the superpower at twilight. Whether or not to get serious is the choice facing the electorate on Tuesday.
Four more years of debt, dependency, and decay?  Remember that when you vote.

Friday, November 2, 2012

The Stakes

One of the things I like most about Charles Krauthammer is his roll-your-eyes realism that's almost, but not quite, cynicism about politics and politicians generally.  For a man who was reared in Quebec, it's a most American of traits.

FOX News's Brit Hume has it too, as did the late David Brinkley before him.

That being said consider the last line of today's Krauthammer column, his last before the election next Tuesday.
Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.
He's right.  Do make sure you vote next Tuesday if not before.

Cost Counting

Need a pick-me-up this weekend before the looming election?

Then try The Weekly Standard and Jay Cost's analysis of the now long and growing importance of independents in deciding the outcome of a national election, coupled with the fact that Mitt Romney has consistently out-polled Obama for their vote.

Now, have a good weekend.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Is the Party Over?

The Tea Party, that is?  So thinks E.J. Dionne.

He's wrong.

I saw his piece a couple of days ago and just shook my head.  I should have responded.

No matter, as Jenny Beth Martin has for me, for all of us actually.
Tea Partiers have elevated the question of the proper role of government to the forefront of America’s national debate--to the point where, during America’s first national presidential debate, both candidates were asked about the proper “role of government."
And there's more, much more.

Party on!

What? No Frenzy?

Ever fair Jonah Goldberg tries to understand the mainstream media's lack of aggressive reporting about the undeniable blockbuster story that has become Benghazi-gate.
If you want to understand why conservatives have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ponder the question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy? 
Unlike some of my colleagues on the right, I don’t think there’s a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts (some even brag about this; you could look it up).  And, collectively, the mainstream media’s instincts run liberal, making groupthink inevitable.
(Feeding frenzy?  Heck, I'd take a passing interest from them.)

I think Jonah's about half right.

Ignoring these sorts of stories, i.e., stories that are harmful to the Left or helpful to the Right, does not begin as a conspiracy, but just your garden variety liberal bias.  But once liberal elite media editors and journalists are scooped by the likes of FOX News (the horror!), and worse, are then called for their poor journalism, there's a tendency on their part to dig their heels in.  "Don't tell us what is and and isn't news, we'll decide that."  That is, what begins as innocent enough (though still troubling) liberal bias, ends far too often as unprofessional ego assertion and ego protection.