Saturday, November 30, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
I'm not going to get into the blame game on Cuccinelli's loss, but when you have a viable candidate, you fight hard. You fight hard until the end because you never know what might happened.
Exit question to those who say Cuccinelli "ran hard" on social issues: Did Cuccinelli do that, or did McAuliffe do that?
Chris Christie will not be the GOP Presidential nominee in 2016.
It's not so much the in-your-face attitude that gets me, its the in-MY-face attitude. Christie snarled at fiscal conservatives who didn't want the Sandy relief bill to be too porked up.
So that's a strike on fiscal issues, which you can add to his Second Amendment problems.
Screw you too, buddy.
Monday, November 04, 2013
This is a rather slick tautology. The plans are "sub-standard" in that they are below the legal standard -- the Obamacare standard. So when people complain that they were kicked off their plan because it didn't meet the Obamacare criteria, it is a semantically null defense to say that the plan was "substandard".
Of course it is substandard. Obamacare defined the standard, and that is the very thing about which people are complaining.
"Substandard" is particularly weaselly because in addition to having the precise meaning of being below the standard, it has a looser connotation of being of poor quality. Not all substandard plans are of poor quality, but they'd like you to think so while repeating a technically accurate word.
And regarding idea that the POTUS "misspoke" (several dozen times), I think it's time the GOP bring back a word that was used effectively against Bush: "misled".
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
-Then don't do that!
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Friday, August 23, 2013
In an episode of The Big Bang Theory, Wolowitz is asked if his family has a history of heart disease. His retort - "My family is the history of heart disease."
Similarly, I note that my family is the history of cancer. My paternal grandmother had breast cancer twice before succumbing to melanoma. My maternal grandfather died of lymphoma, as did one of his brothers. His other brother died of liver cancer. A great grandfather died of brain cancer. Several of my dad's aunts died of various cancers. And my Dad is currently living with leukemia.
I'm sure I forgot a few, but you get the idea.
And who gets hit hardest by Obamacare? Cancer patients! (h/t Mark Levin)
Guess who else gets hit? Insured spouses. And wouldn't you know it, my cancer patient dad is insured through mom's workplace policy. Potential double whammy.
So forgive me, but I'm taking this personally.
But beyond my family's horror story, and similar ones around the country, Obamacare promises to stifle the economy and strain the federal budget, most likely to the breaking point. At what point do we stop treating Obamacare as a political game and take the most aggressive stance we can against it?
No, the polls don't favor "shutdown". The polls don't favor Obamacare either. Winners don't just read the polls, they influence them. And that is not just some partisan bravado, but a fact of life. A poll is essentially incapable of capturing the potential for self-reinforcing trends. ("Reflexive" phenomena, to use George Soros' term.) A poll can not look more than one or maybe two iterations ahead in a trend. A poll can not predict a social tipping point. And I say this as a big fan of polls, and a proponent of their proper use.
The most coherent opposition to the "defund" strategy is the percieved probability that the effort will eventually fail, and we will look weak for having tried and failed. But this is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Navel-gazing Republicans are our worst enemies. By talking down the strategy, they diminish its probability of success. And we need it to be a success.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
“The abortion lobby has said they want abortion to be safe, legal and rare,” Johnson told me. “But clearly we see that they’ve dropped the safe part and the rare part because they are trying to increase abortion.”
Johnson told me that during her time with Planned Parenthood, staffers were given abortion quotas to meet. Workers could easily influence vulnerable women into choosing an abortion, not necessarily for the benefit of the woman, but to meet the monthly quotas set by management.
Sunday, July 07, 2013
Brit Hume made an excellent point on Fox News Sunday, which is that whether US policy makers decide to continue or to cut aid to the Egyptian military, the decision isn't whether or not to exercise US influence, but how to exercise US influence. "Two sides of the same coin", as Hume said.
Again, there is a good argument for continuing aid in this case, which is the preservation of peace between Egypt and Israel by placating the Egyptian military. But make no mistake, we find ourselves being forced --one way or the other-- to exercise what some might describe as imperial power due to a policy of significant and seemingly perpetual foreign aid.
Perhaps we should remember this dilemma when considering our other foreign aid commitments.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
The utterance launched numerous tweets and re-tweets, and, predictably, a backlash against an out-of-context quote.
Let me charitably re-phrase what Pfeiffer was probably trying to say — That, regardless of the whether the IRS actions were technically illegal, they were definitely wrong, and the Obama administration will be working to rectify the problem.
That’s about as generous as I can be. But it’s still a problematic and revealing statement. The administration’s broad strategy is to direct the media away from inquiries about illegality. You know, because it almost certainly was illegal.
These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.
Monday, April 08, 2013
The most abused falsehood is the blurring of the distinction between semi-automatic weapons and fully automatic ones. Gabby Giffords. Obama referring to Newtown. Bloomberg, as a general statement.
All three false, but frequently repeated and widely believed propositions.
I can sort of forgive Gabby Giffords, as she has been made into an unfortunate puppet of her husband/handler. But I can't forgive her husband, who clearly knows better, nor the President, who actually "corrected" himself, nor Mike Bloomberg, who has made it his raison d'être to make as many legal guns illegal has he can afford to.
Yes, there are certainly circumstances of painfully obvious ignorance, but on the whole we are seeing a deliberate obfuscation of numerous gun control issues. And they will continue to lie, and they will do so because for the most part they can get away with it. The media has already largely acquiesced to the change in language from "gun control legislation" to "gun violence legislation". Frickin' Pravda, man.
Guns are an extremely emotional issue, and it pays for the Left to keep it that way. As Jonathan Swift is credited as saying, It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
The subject of "universal background checks" is probably a close second to the auto/semi-auto obfuscation. Sure, "90%" support universal checks, but it's unlikely that most of them have any idea what that would entail, including making it a felony to go on vacation without your guns for more than seven days if your roommate is still on the premises.
And yet, Nanny Bloomberg continues to run an absurd ad by some phoney-baloney gun "owner" where he breaks every safety rule ever invented while claiming to support gun rights.
I just shake my head in despair as I consider that people take Bloomberg and the gun control crowd seriously.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Whether Obama knows or believes this is almost irrelevant. The important point for conservatives to understand is that the demand for pre-K is an appeal to two segments of the population:
- Parents in need of day-care
- Teacher unions
The first could conceivably be won by Republicans. The second seems forever lost.
If Republicans are forced to offer an alternative to universal pre-K, we might consider day-care vouchers for 3-to-5 year-olds.
It's not ideal, but it is a heck of a lot cheaper than pre-K, which would surely require certified teachers with bachelor's degrees and union memberships, not to mention the infrastructure building that would be necessary to cope with another year or two of schooling.
Day-care vouchers would avoid direct subsidies to hostile entities, save money while accomplishing the exact same goal, and introduce parents to the concept of voucher-based subsidy of goods and services, which might come in handy should anybody try to get far with K-12 education vouchers.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
And so too do I think Republicans ought to reveal some of Obama's rhetorical slights of hand, particularly closing tax loopholes.
It should go a little something like this:
"You know, [name of reporter], it's a funny trick the President is playing now by talking about tax loopholes, because Republicans have been talking about closing loopholes for months in the context of comprehensive tax reform. At the time he seemed to dismiss the idea. [chuckle] We're glad he's coming around on that issue. We'd be happy to talk with the President about closing loopholes in a revenue neutral way as a part of comprehensive tax simplification so we can stop picking winners and losers in the tax code and free up this economy so we can finally get some real growth and job creation."
Monday, February 11, 2013
There's actually something to be said for that idea. The biggest problem is who would be running the show, and that's Karl Rove. I really don't trust Rove to fully understand how people misapply the Buckley rule, and from my point of view Rove is too old-school (think median voter theory) to pull this off, even if there weren't enormous backlash against him personally.
AFP might have a better chance at getting this right. They have base-voter credibility.
Related: Matt Lewis recommends candidate training. I endorse this idea.
I promised constructive ideas in my previous post. You'll notice I haven't posted here since November. That's because the most "constructive" thing I did was obtain my license to carry firearms, and that's not especially constructive.
Monday, November 12, 2012
But, consider this: A president of the United States just ran a reelection campaign based on the promise of government largess, exploitation of class division, the demonization of success, the glorification of identity politics, and the presumption that women are a helpless interest group; and he did so while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the looming — potentially fatal — crisis that the country faces. And it worked.
Alas, there is nothing written in the stars that says that America will always be America. “Rome,” as Joseph Heller brutally reminded us, “was destroyed, Greece was destroyed, Persia was destroyed, Spain was destroyed. All great countries are destroyed. Why not yours? How much longer do you really think your own country will last? Forever? Keep in mind that the earth itself is destined to be destroyed by the sun in 25 million years or so.” There will be little virtue in America if it becomes a larger version of Britain, but with free speech and the right to bear arms.
My natural inclination is towards despair. However, I must acknowledge that this is not a fruitful sentiment, even if it may be true.
More constructive thoughts to come...
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
So now we know. And it's not good. I'm trying to sort through exactly how "not good" it is, and attempting to avoid being alarmist.
But it's hard. There's a debt crisis coming. Yes, the "fiscal cliff" too, which is a big deal, but that's just a symptom of the debt. Things would have been tough with Romney. I don't see how things work at all with Obama.
So how fast will the debt crisis bite us in the rear? Good question. Could be years, perhaps after Obama is out of office. Or it could be next year. Given tepid economic news here and discouraging economic news from Europe, I'm reasonably certain that a double-dip recession is in the cards.
When Greeks rioted over governmental austerity, the world raised a serious eyebrow. Frankly, Europe still isn't out of its troubles. But if the US starts to look like Greece (and by certain measures we're worse than Greece already)... the entire global political, economic, and military/defense system begins to warp.
I'm still sorting out what this means, but it's not a good sign that the country re-elected a President who has done literally almost nothing right except fail to close Gitmo as he promised. The man has absolutely no grasp of economic reality. The ability of the electorate to self-correct when faced with an existential crisis is in very serious doubt.
As to who is at fault, or how Conservatives can rebuild, I'm still sorting that out too. But here are a few of the more reasonable responses to those questions:
- "Three Ways of Explaining Defeat" - Victor Davis Hanson at NRO
- "What Happened" - Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel at The Daily Caller
- "Ten Reasons Why Romney Lost" - Ace at the Ace of Spades blog
- "How Romney Lost" - Kevin Williamson at NRO
- "Live Free... Or Die" - Mark Steyn at NRO
- "It's Not Just A Math Problem" - pollster Steve Lombardo at HuffPo
- "Last Night, You Got To See Why I Co-Founded NotMittRomney.com" - John Hawkins
Saturday, November 03, 2012
What October Surprise could possibly top everything we've already been through? (Related: "Obama fatigue" as early as March of 2009)
"Zombie" at PJM:
But in Barack Obama’s case, the situation is reversed: Everything he’s ever done is scandalous. The reason there was no October Surprise for Obama is that we’re all scandaled out. Anyone’s who been paying attention since 2008 has literally been in paralytic shock every single day. We spent October 2012 exactly as we’ve spent every month of the last four years: Our jaws on the floor, aghast, stupefied, unable to breathe. Almost every single thing Obama has done since he’s been in the national spotlight could have been and should have been a career-ending October Surprise. But the mainstream media, as we all know, has devoted itself to protecting him.
Not a day has gone by since Obama took office when I didn’t learn of some fresh outrage and say Oh. My. God. But we’ve been traumatized so often that over time the scandals have all blurred together and fused into a single red-hot thought: Please let this nightmare end.
Zombie goes on to list numerous incidents, many of which would have ended the careers of less-worshiped Presidents. The list is quite extensive, but here are a few of my favorites:
- Operation Fast & Furious ...
- Militarily intervened in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act — technically an impeachable offense. (** - ed.- Zombie is saying this is impeachable. I'm not so quick to the draw on that. It was certainly scandalous.)
- Before he entered politics, Obama worked as a lawyer suing banks in landmark cases, forcing them to give home loans to unqualified minority borrowers — a practice now understood as one of the primary initial causes of the eventual housing bubble and market collapse.
- Proposed in 2008 to intentionally bankrupt the coal industry — and now lies to voters and workers in coal-producing regions about his true intent.
- During the 2008 campaign, Obama repeatedly promised that if he was elected “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” This promise was broken over and over again once he was elected.
- Cash for Clunkers, which doled out taxpayer money to anyone who wanted to replace their old cars, but which mostly only ended up subsidizing the puchase of foreign-made cars by people who could have afforded them on their own anyway; meanwhile, the traded-in cars were all destroyed, creating a shortage and thereby increasing the cost of used cars, hurting the pocketbooks of poor people.
- Was caught on a “hot mike” promising the President of Russia that he would cave in to their demands for a weaker missile shield — after he was re-elected and no longer had to keep up the pretense that he sought to defend America.
- Blocked continued construction of the Keystone Pipeline, thereby intentionally reducing energy resources for the US and forcing Canada to sell more of its oil to China.
- In the GM bailout, he illegally shortchanged investors who according to bankruptcy laws were first in line to be recompensed; instead, he gave their share to the unions.
- Canceled plans to complete a missile defense shield in Poland, a move which was highly praised by Russia and Iran — the very nations whose missile threats would have been neutralized if the shield had been completed. (** - ed. - Not only did he cancel this project, but he got nothing in exchange from Russia, and he sold out Polish politicians who had previously stuck out their necks to approve the project.)
- Twisted the arms of defense contractors to not issue layoff notices in early November, so as to avoid causing bad news for Obama right before the election — even though federal law (the “WARN Act”) requires such notices.
- Sided with Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime regarding the Honduran Constitutional Crisis of 2009, the first time ever that the U.S. formed a political alliance with socialist governments in Latin America.
- More than once Obama made so-called “recess appointments” when the Senate was not actually in recess, which directly violates Constitutional rules about how appointments must be made; in each case it was his way of getting his political allies into certain key positions without them being vetted or approved by the Senate, as required.
- Despite the fact that the Falklands Islands have been part of Great Britain since 1833 and that Great Britain is supposed to be our strongest ally, Obama essentially sided with Argentina in its new claim on the Falklands, not only by adopting the Argentine position that their status is open to negotiation, but even by (attempting to) refer to the islands by their Spanish name (Malvinas).
In summation, folks who vote for Obama are out of their bleedin' minds. When you hear conservatives shake their heads at the fact that the race is even close at all, these are some of the reasons why.
Few of these were reported by the major media, and when they were reported, they were reported lightly and with key facts omitted.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Kids are not happy with the new school lunches. This is the kind of thing that leaves an impression on somebody.
A student "Pack Your Lunch Day" protester:
"We know the cafeteria ladies, Mr. Crosson and the school board are not making the decisions on healthy food regulations - it's a federal thing," said Patrick Parker, one of the event organizers. "It's a matter of principle that we feel the government has no right to tell us how to eat."
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Some extremely rare kudos go to the media for re-engaging on this story. The way this was playing out for the first two weeks, I was sure this was going to be swept under the rug. Perhaps all the public shaming had some effect. (So noted.)
I know major polls have finally switched over to LV rather than RV models, and Romney got a bit of a boost from the first debate, but with the Romney's numbers looking substantially better, I wonder if this Benghazi business has crept into the collective consciousness a little bit. Perhaps the public is finally starting to see, at the very least, that Obama is a political animal, not a god on earth.
I'm not saying people are voting on the Libya issue. I'm saying it's gotten into their heads that the emperor might not be fully clothed.
Shame it took a dead ambassador to make it happen.
Biden's shamelessness in the Veep debate surely didn't help.
Monday, October 08, 2012
Of course not. But that's the question I'd like Romney to ask Obama.
It's a perfectly logical question. We're told that things were much worse than the administration thought when they first sold the stimulus, thus accounting for the fact that their so-called predictions about the unemployment trajectory were so far off.
So, knowing then what they know now, would they hadn't made the stimulus bigger?
I think if Obama is honest, his answer has to be yes.