Via LifeNews;
Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says he will decide after the 2010 Congressional elections whether to take on pro-abortion President Barack Obama. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, ran as a pro-life candidate against eventual nominee John McCain.
Romney is one of several Republicans considering a bid against Obama and consistently polls in the top three in most surveys of Republicans and American voters.
He has ranked as one of the top potential candidates along with pro-life former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
In a new interview with Fox News slated to air Wednesday, Romney discusses his plans.
“It’s always a possibility, and you keep the options open, but, you concentrate on the task ahead, for me that’s trying to get some good people elected in 2010,” he says on the Fox News program “Fox and Friends.”
“And, I know once that’s done the next item on the agenda is what’s 2012 going to be; and, Ann and I will give that some thought and make the decision then,” he added.
Appearing like a candidate, or at least an advocate for “change” in 2010, Romney voiced criticism of Obama, saying he has governed from the left when he pledged to be a moderate.
“I had higher hopes for him,” Romney said. “I knew he was a smart individual — I thought that he would learn that governing from the middle was the right way to go, as president Clinton learned his second term, but he’s made a lot of the mistakes that ideologues often do, which is thinking that everybody in the country voted for their extreme agenda.”
Romney also talked about Palin in the interview on the Fox News show and diffused rumors that she may consider a third-party presidential bid.
“I don’t know what her plans are but my expectation is that she’ll stay in the Republican party,” he said.
“Look, she’s a great, energizing member of the party. She has good ideas that have galvanized a lot of support for the party and she’s a welcome addition,” he added.
During the campaign, Romney said he is pro-life on abortion and went as far as endorsing the overturning of Roe v. Wade so states can again protect women and unborn children from abortion.
However, the former governor came under fire from some quarters for his state health care plan, which includes taxpayer-funded abortions. Romney countered that the state Supreme Court required abortion funding under the program.
A Gallup survey asked Republicans to say whether they would like any of several potential presidential candidates.
Some 71 percent of Republicans say they would seriously consider voting for Huckabee while the same 65 percent say they would consider Romney or Palin, both of whom ran as pro-life candidates in 2008.
A previous Rasmussen poll found 29% of Republican voters nationwide say Huckabee is their pick to represent the GOP in the 2012 presidential campaign.
The survey had 24 percent preferring Romney and 18% would cast their vote for pro-life former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
From Facebook;
President Obama’s meeting with his top national security advisers does nothing to change the fact that his fundamental approach to terrorism is fatally flawed. We are at war with radical Islamic extremists and treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our nation’s security. That’s what happened in the 1990s and we saw the result on September 11, 2001. This is a war on terror not an “overseas contingency operation.” Acts of terrorism are just that, not “man caused disasters.” The system did not work. Abdulmutallab was a child of privilege radicalized and trained by organized jihadists, not an “isolated extremist” who traveled to a land of “crushing poverty.” He is an enemy of the United States, not just another criminal defendant.
It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a common criminal. Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda rights. President Obama’s advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing to agree to a plea bargain – pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a suicide bomber. John Brennan, the President’s top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely claimed “there are no downsides or upsides” to treating terrorists as enemy combatants. That is absurd. There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals: terrorists invoke their “right” to remain silent and stop talking. Terrorists don’t tell us where they were trained, what they were trained in, who they were trained by, and who they were trained with. Giving foreign-born, foreign-trained terrorists the right to remain silent does nothing to keep Americans safe from terrorist threats. It only gives our enemies access to courtrooms where they can publicly grandstand, and to defense attorneys who can manipulate the legal process to gain access to classified information.
President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on America. Now he must back off his reckless plan to close Guantanamo, begin treating terrorists as wartime enemies not suspects alleged to have committed crimes, and recognize that the real nature of the terrorist threat requires a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor.
- Sarah Palin
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Over the last few weeks, there has been talk of not having the traditional “conference” to meld the Senate and House health care reform bills. I laughed off such thoughts, as transparency is something this administration and congressional leaders have been hammered for over the last several months. However, it appears I was wrong. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) and House Majority Leader Pelosi (D-CA) are setting things up so they will not have to have the conference, and instead get the “conference” bill without a conference.
This is bothersome. However, a number of media sources are doing their job and calling for the Obama administration to open the melding process to the public. (H/T to The Heritage Foundation’s “The Foundry.”) Let’s make our voices heard in support of C-Span’s efforts and make certain Democrats know they should have full transparency in this debate or face the wrath of the voters come November.
Rasmussen Massachusetts Special Senate Election Poll
- Martha Coakley (D) 50%
- Scott Brown (R) 41%
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Scott Brown 58% / 25% {+33%}
- Martha Coakley 60% / 35% {+25%}
This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Massachusetts was conducted by Rasmussen Reports January 4, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Inside the numbers:
Both candidates get better than 70% of the vote from members of their respective parties, but Brown leads 65% to 21% among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. In Massachusetts, however, Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans and it is very difficult for the GOP to compete except in special circumstances. Eight percent (8%) of Democrats remain undecided while just 3% of Republicans are in that category.
Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat.
The last installment in this series, which seeks to find what unites us on the right, focused on the conservative’s belief in traditions that arrived with us systemically, rather than the brilliance of individual men. When I say ‘conservative’ in this context, I mean that these are principles that unite anyone who considers himself part of the right: whether it be the Old Right, classical liberals, movement conservatives, the Religious Right, or otherwise. We tend to broadly agree on these matters, despite our vast differences. The other uniting principles I have identified are: a belief in a universal human nature, a stance for personal responsibility, and a belief in personal initiative.
This article will focus on human nature.
One of the key reasons that liberalism is doomed to fail is that it looks at human beings as putty that can be shaped by the hands of the right thinker, statesman, or power-broker. This tradition has a long and distinguished lineage. Its earliest proponent was perhaps Plato, who believed that he could change the behavior of the masses if only the right people were in charge. Rousseau propelled it in the modern era: he believed that man’s goodness was corrupted by society. Lenin gave it its most dangerous form, in his belief that he could suppress the human instinct for self-preservation and productive work. So indeed, this view is no straw man — and no matter how many times it’s been proven feckless, it lives on in a mutated format. It’s a dream that just won’t die.
The conservative’s view is classically expressed by Adam Smith: it is not by the charity of the butcher or the baker that we expect our dinner, but by their regard to their own self-interest. Conservatives, understanding this to be so, want to take man’s instincts and channel them toward systemically productive outlets. Friedrich Engels, in contrast, unable to accept man’s motives, wrote that in a Communist society, a proper incentive would be the joy of work, the beauty of production, and the knowledge that he is a contributor to the plenty. And since there is “plenty for all,” that would and should be enough.
Conservatives do not deny the beauty of hard work, but we also recognize that man wants to reap the fruits of his labor. Moreover, we believe that he should be able to reap the fruits of his labor — not only because he, as the creator, is entitled to them, but because if he is guaranteed the same rewards, regardless of output, the system will collapse on itself as no one has any incentive to work. Whether man should want to work for an egalitarian good is a moot point, because he doesn’t and he won’t. Systems work for all. Men don’t.
Unable to come to terms with the fact that man is essentially self-centered, liberals still employ the “plenty for all” argument. “Why can’t you just work for your fellow man?” the liberal bureaucrat prods the white-collar worker. The answer he refuses to accept is: because I don’t want to, and nothing you say can make me want to.
Fortunately for all of us, money is made by doing what other people want, not by doing what you want. The capitalist system works for all: men can be productive, reap the profits of their own labors, and still contribute to the well-being of others all in one sweeping package. Capitalism invariably helps the “little guy.” Microsoft may have made Bill Gates a billionaire, but it also enhanced my life’s quality. The Walton family became the richest one in America by providing low-priced goods for hundreds of millions of people and jobs for millions more. Not all right-wingers have held similar opinions of businessmen: Ayn Rand celebrated them while Adam Smith hated them almost as much as Marx did. But they all have agreed that the system works for the benefit of all. It channels man’s nature into productive outlets. Individual men, in contrast, cannot start the world anew and shape man to their personal liking.
Capitalism does create inequalities, which have repulsed men of the left from Rousseau to Marx. But as right-wingers from Russell Kirk to Yaron Brook have pointed out: income disparities are a just and natural result of the fact that men are not carbon copies of one another. Egalitarian liberalism would seek to turn us into clones, all living easy, comfortable, but ultimately vapid and passionless lives. That is what we’re witnessing in Europe: a nation of men and women resigned to government care from womb to tomb; existing, but not really living. Egalitarianism, as Murray Rothbard so put it, is a revolt against nature. By seeking to shield us from it, liberalism robs men of the joys and sorrows of life. Men want — and deserve — better than that.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
You may have heard the name Bertha Lewis — she’s the CEO of ACORN. Or Malik Shabazz — he’s the head of the Black Panthers. I’m sure you know of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.
All of them have been visitors to the White House, according to visitor logs.
Oops, no — scratch that!
None of those people have visited the White House.
What a remarkable series of coincidences.
I believe everything I’m told by Obama’s White House, of course, although it would probably help their credibility a bit if they could tell us a bit about the other Bertha, Malik, Bill, and Jeremiah. Alas, they can’t — privacy concerns, you know.
HT: Big Government
From Adam’s campaign site:
I’m pleased to share that the National Taxpayers United of Illinois have just announced their endorsement of my candidacy for governor of Illinois. This is an important endorsement, as it highlights the difference between me and my Republican opponents running for governor. Three Republican gubernatorial candidates will not take a tax hike off of the table, while I have committed not to raise taxes in Illinois.
I’m also committed to cut spending. I’ll use the executive power—which does not require the approval of the legislature—vested in the office of governor to ‘open the books’ and show every dime of state spending. My first executive order will be followed by a second: A forensic audit—a deep and evidentiary audit to cut waste, duplication, fraud and graft. Learn more about my comprehensive plan to address Illinois’ budgetary crisis.
More endorsements will help Adam with his biggest obstacle: name recognition. The primary takes place in less than a month, so he still has a little time to introduce himself to Illinois Republicans and explain his incredibly promising proposal to close the state budget deficit.
I won’t spoil the surprise, because I want you to click here and watch the video - but it’s big. Furthermore, it’s yet another piece of evidence that Alberta’s stagnant Progressive Conservative Party is heading for the history books as the libertarian/conservative Wildrose Alliance gains steam. And while Alliance leader Danielle Smith may deny it, I’ve read some reports that this may only be the first wave. Wildrose may still be small in the legislature, but they’re now polling in the lead – and could very well take over the province in 2012. They present a good lesson for both the GOP and the Tea Party movement. I sincerely hope this is not a vision of the GOP circa 2025.
It looks like another long-serving Blue Dog Democrat may be going down in flames. This morning , Say Anything Blog reported that Pomeroy’s press secretary has suddenly resigned….and by “suddenly” I mean, “sent out resignation email at midnight.” So, it appears that the rats are jumping off the fast-sinking HMS Pomeroy after leaked polling show the nine-term incumbent down 50%-42% against “other”.
If Pomeroy is indeed as vulnerable as he looks, them the GOP needs to move quickly insert a name in place of “Other”. If you remember, I recently wrote a column plugging three-term State Rep. Stacey Dahl as the best hope for the ND GOP. At the time, I saw the 27-year old wiz-kid as a formidable challenger against Sen. Kent Conrad in 2012. However, if the unpopular-but-entrenched Pomeroy runs for a tenth term, then I would highly suggest activating the star prospect early.
For the record: Yes, I plan on continually updating this blog with the all the latest Scott Brown news until election day. Today brings news that three more debates have been scheduled, but that Democrat Martha Coakley refused the sponsors’ request fo a one-on-one showdown with Brown. Instead, she continues to insist that independent libertarian Joe Kennedy (no relation) be included. Kennedy has shown absolutely no signs of life in this race, but he is a pain in debates as he repays Coakley’s “kindness” by ignoring the front runner and instead attacking Brown from the right all night. Hence, Coakley has been skating through debates without ever answering Brown – and remaining above the fray by outsourcing her vicious attacks to Kennedy.
I’ll say it straight out – Martha Coakley is a coward. She refuses to debate Brown directly, and hides behind Joe Kennedy in every debate. This should be a major theme for the Brown campaign going forward. If Martha can’t handle one debate without her pet libertarian, then she does not belong in the U.S. Senate. I might add that, while it was bad enough for her to refuse Brown’s personal call for one-on-one confrontations, it reflects horribly on Coakley that she refused to face him after SPONSORS requested that Kennedy be left out.
Meanwhile, the Brown campaign is hitting the airwaves with yet another TV ad.
American Research Group 2010 New Hampshire U.S. Senate Poll
- Kelly Ayotte 43%
- Paul Hodes 36%
- Undecided 21%
The following results are based on 566 completed telephone interviews among a statewide random sample of registered voters in New Hampshire. Of the 566 interviews, 173 were among Republicans, 175 among Democrats, and 218 among undeclared voters. The interviews were conducted December 26 through 29, 2009. The theoretical margin of error for the sample of 566 registered voters is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.
This liberal pollster has new data;
Would you say you feel positive or negative about Sarah Palin? And is that very (positive or negative) or somewhat (positive or negative)?
- Very positive 34% (30.0%)
- Somewhat positive 21% (16.8%)
- Somewhat negative 12% (16.2%)
- Very negative 29% (31.2%)
Palin’s 55 percent positive rating is obviously way down from the stratospheric numbers she enjoyed early as governor. But it represents a rise from her 46.8 percent in the last Hays poll on Palin. That poll was taken at the end of July, right after Palin resigned from office and Parnell became governor.
Not surprisingly, people felt far stronger about Palin than Parnell. Thirty-four percent felt very positive toward the former governor and 21 percent somewhat positive. But her “very negative” rating was 29 percent (compared to Parnell’s 4 percent) and somewhat negative was 12 percent.-The numbers are from a statewide poll the Anchorage firm took on Nov. 20-21. Hays surveyed 400 adults, which is the sample size it’s consistently used for Palin and other public figures. Results from the poll conducted July 29-30 are in parentheses.
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Once again, Hugo Chavez is hurting his people. The Venezuelan leader has instituted electricity rationing policies, with various punishments for those who dare violate Chavez’s rules.
I hope our federal government allows the building of nuclear power plants and domestic drilling very soon. Chavez is America’s fourth-largest supplier of oil, and by buying from his country we give him the economic power to continue to hurt millions of people.
I no longer own a vehicle- it’s not necessary in the DC area- but when I did I refused to buy from Citgo gas stations as the company is owned by the Venezuelan government. If millions of people in this country instituted that policy in their lives, the free market would help to break the back of Chavez’s dictatorship and give his country’s people the freedom they deserve as human beings.
Should Republicans see to it that the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program remains alive, through private donations? Erick Erickson wrote about this idea in April 2009, but it seems that very little discussion regarding the topic has since occurred, anywhere. I would like to write about it now, in order to encourage a more serious consideration of the matter.
According to The Wall Street Journal in May 2009 (emphasis added):
About 1,700 kids currently receive $7,500 vouchers to attend private schools under the Opportunity Scholarship Program, and 99% of them are black or Hispanic. The program is a huge hit with parents — there are four applicants for every available scholarship — and the latest Department of Education evaluation showed significant academic gains.
According to the Cato Institute’s Andrew Coulson, DC “public” schools spend $25,000 per student. Our own federal government has admitted that the parent-driven voucher program is out-performing the government-run schools, and at 1/3 the cost.
The Heritage Foundation covers the DC voucher program here. Even the liberal Washington Post gets it. From one Post editorial in favor of the program:
Hoping no one notices, congressional Democrats step between 1,800 D.C. children and a good education.
From another Washington Post editorial:
It’s clear, though, from how the destruction of the program is being orchestrated, that issues such as parents’ needs, student performance and program effectiveness don’t matter next to the political demands of teachers’ unions.
More from the May 2009 WSJ article:
The Education Department released its annual evaluation of the D.C. program last month — tellingly, without a press release or media briefing — and it showed that voucher recipients are reading nearly a half-grade ahead of their peers who didn’t receive a scholarship. These academic benefits are compounding over time. The study revealed that the program’s earliest participants are 19 months ahead of public school peers in reading after three years. Nationwide, black 12th graders as a group score lower on reading tests than white 8th graders. The D.C. voucher program is closing this achievement gap.
President Barack Obama cares about racial minorities, right? As they say, actions speak louder than words, and Obama appears ready to re-pay the government employee unions that helped elect him in 2008.
From Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government on December 31, 2009: “Democrats Officially Kill Successful DC Voucher Program.” Big Government quotes a December 10 press release from the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, “DC School Choice Leaders Blast Appropriators’ Decision to Kill School Voucher Program.”
The leaders of D.C.’s school choice movement, Kevin P. Chavous (former D.C. Councilman) and Virginia Walden Ford (executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice), today issued the following statement:
“House and Senate Appropriators this week ignored the wishes of D.C.’s mayor, D.C.’s public schools chancellor, a majority of D.C.’s city council, and more than 70 percent of D.C. residents and have mandated the slow death of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This successful school voucher program—for D.C.’s poorest families—has allowed more than 3,300 children to attend the best schools they have ever known.
More from the press release from DC school choice proponents Kevin P. Chavous and Virginia Walden Ford. They make clear what is happening, and who is doing it:
Despite the clearly positive results and the proven success of this program, Sen. Dick Durbin, Rep. Jose Serrano, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Secretary Arne Duncan worked together to kill the [Opportunity Scholarship Program]…
What is incredibly disappointing to low-income families in Washington, D.C. has been the silence of President Barack Obama. The President, who benefited from K-12 scholarships himself, worked on behalf of low-income families in Chicago, and exercises school choice as a parent, has stood silently on the sidelines while his Secretary of Education belittled the importance of helping such a small number of children in the nation’s capital.
Moe Lane at RedState wrote, “Democrats resegregate DC school system.”
1,700 students at $7500 per student equals a little less than $13 million. Let’s assume that it will take about $15 million to keep this program going. To me, it seems to be a worthwhile effort. I don’t see why it would be difficult to organize and administer a non-profit organization that would replace the government’s role.
If Republicans were to arrange for the private funding of this program, it would accomplish at least four enormous things:
- Over time, thousands of children would be given what may be their only true opportunity for economic prosperity. What a great charity this would be.
- Republicans will always increase their chances of winning over black and Hispanic voters through expanding freedom — too often, we try to “buy” votes through entitlement programs. Rarely does it accomplish anything of long-term value to expand government and entitlements, when there is a private-based option that is available.
- In the short-term, this would likely be a helpful party-building activity, at all levels.
- It would simultaneously result in consistent, positive news stories on behalf of Republicans, while causing Democrats to attempt to justify the indefensible.
It might even cause Democrats to re-consider whether they should kill the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
To reach $15 million, here is one of many possible funding formulas, for the first year:
= more than $15 million.
There are many ways to fund the program, and there are many ways to operate it. For example, it might be more feasible to run the program at a $4,000-per-student level.
At minimum, I find this discussion to be a necessary one, and the topic one that should not be dismissed.
______________________________________________________________
Benjamin Hodge publishes KansasProgress.com, based in Greater Kansas City. From 2005-2009, Hodge was a trustee at Johnson County Community College (JCCC), representing 300,000 voters and 40,000 students. He was a state representative from 2006-2008 and was elected in 2008 as a delegate to the Kansas Republican Party. Hodge’s record is recognized by AFP, the NRA, the Kansas Press Association, the Kansas Association of Broadcasters, Kansans for Life, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Connect with Hodge on Facebook, at Hodge’s political Web site, and on Twitter at @benjaminhodge.
Since the election of President Obama, the Democrats have been very effective at portraying the Republican Party as the “Party of No.” Depending on your political persuasion, this could be completely true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.
In the last couple of weeks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been hammered by Erick Erickson of RedState and Michelle Malkin for not fighting to the very finish on the recent Senate passage of a health care reform bill. On the one hand, these criticisms are of delaying tactics would only have slowed the vote by twelve hours, which would have done nothing in the halls of Congress but would have, as Ed Morrissey points out, given the media less time to cover the vote’s aftermath. On the other hand, if the Republican leadership had held firm on the many opportunities they had to slow things down, for example by following Senator Judd Gregg’s (R-NH) advice, and Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) wish to read every part of the Senate bill, among other tactics to slow the bill, senators would have had to go home for Christmas a) without a bill, and b) to face their constituents, the majority of whom dislike the Democratic versions of health care reform and whom are increasingly against them as time goes on.
Senators Gregg, Coburn and Jim DeMint (R-SC), among many others, have been vilified for their articulate and unyielding opposition to health care reform and other Democratic measures. However, they are also the poster children for what Republicans should be about- namely, being the party of “No, But Here’s A Better Idea.” All of these senators, along with other Republicans, have jammed the Democrats but also offered their own solutions to the various issues facing America. They have also worked with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion on a case-by-case basis.
When it comes to dispelling the myth that Republicans have been, and are being, merely obstructionists, let’s start with Senator Judd Gregg. On the one hand, Gregg voted for Secretary Geithner’s nomination, nearly accepted a position as President Obama’s Commerce Secretary, offered support for the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill and has worked with Democrat Kent Conrad (D-ND) on a debt commission. On the other, Gregg has hammered Obama on debt, passed around a virtual handbook for Republican obstructionism and taken the lead on opposing Democratic reconciliation. Additionally, however, Gregg has offered his own bill as an alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Senator DeMint is probably most famous for his Waterloo statement and his numerous delaying tactics on health care reform (see here and here for examples). However, he has also worked with self-declared socialist Independent Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on halting the Bernanke nomination and bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. As a representative of the Party of “No, but here’s a better idea,” he too has put forth a health care alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Lastly, we have Senator Coburn. Coburn has slid in two gun amendments this year to two Democrat-supported bills, halting the DC voting bill in its tracks. He has also held up funding for veterans because he wanted to use unused stimulus funds for the benefits and loudly opposed the stimulus package. He also forced a reading of Senator Sanders’ single-payer amendment to the Democratic bill. However, at the same time, he has maintained a friendship with President Obama, pushed a transparency bill with then-Senator Obama (D-IL) into law in 2006 and sponsored a Republican alternative to the Democratic health care bills on, of all places, Huffington Post. In fact, he wrote on Huffington Post not once but twice. This is a guy who clearly wants his message to get out to all Americans, not just his constituents or fellow conservatives.
Other “No but here’s a better idea” Republicans include Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), the numerous Republican co-sponsors of the Wyden-Bennett bill and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The fact is that Republicans are trying to stop a very bad makeover of a massive portion of America in ways that swing from bad policy to unethical to unconstitutional. For an example of the latter, with respect to David Frum’s recent piece supporting the individual mandate’s constitutionality, he is wrong- an individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Other bad components include the Senate bill’s abortion funding, the House bill’s public option and the lack of legitimate tort reform in either bill.
Personally, I think Republicans should have fought tooth-and-nail for a post-Christmas vote on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is supposed to do with a bill as bad as this one, with as little power as Republicans and conservatives have right now- stop the legislation cold and start over with a bill that includes conservative and free market principles and ideas. Some Republicans are just being the Party of No, but sometimes saying saying ’no’ is necessary, despite what some Democrats may say.
First Mitt got in, now Big Mac is throwing his weight behind the suddenly-serious Brown campaign.
Exit question: Can the other half of the ticket be far behind?
U.S. does trade of hostages for terrorists. (Hat Tip: The Corner.)
Arizona Mayo Clinic stops taking Medicare. (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)
Obamacare means government unlimited.
John Murtha’s earmarks wasted your money. (Hat Tip: Red State.)
Democrats propose fix for primary system.
Mother flees to avoid handing child over to former Lesbian partner.
Second Amendment update.
Child killed by celebratory bullet.
Environmentalists: Save the Earth: kill your pets. (Hat Tip: Townhall.)
Music by the Old Irish Quartette.
Click here to listen, click here to download.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Keeping with my tradition of being the site’s wet blanket, I’ve decided to ring in 2010 with a well-needed jolt of pessimism regarding the future of our nation. A Democratic friend with whom I shared several bottles of champagne on New Year’s Eve remarked to me at some point during the evening — and who can blame me for failing to remember the context given my mental state at the time — that the Chinese would assuredly invade American soil at some point in the next 50 years, and that I’d better get my passport ready, because they’ll probably win. I countered that this will never happen because it doesn’t have to. China will almost certainly rule the world a century from now, but when the sun sets on the American Empire, as was the case with Britain, it will be via death by a thousand largely self-inflicted cuts, all thanks to leftist compassion and consequence-free pseudo-conservatism. As such, in no particular order, following are the top five threats to America in the coming years.
1) China and India. As I said before, China has no reason to destroy America, because America is doing a good enough job of destroying itself. These two Asian nations boast 2.5 billion residents and their economic ascent is ongoing. While Americans fight ideological battles, the luxury of a spoiled populace, three billion Asians are simply doing what it takes to get the job done. While American liberals issue a blanket refusal of any reorganization of the public schools, lest the teachers’ unions get all huffy, and while American conservatives insist that their private polling shows that education is a “Democratic issue,” and all that matters is winning elections, our neighbors in the East are doing a heckuva job at producing highly skilled, highly educated workers in areas that matter to their nations and to the global economy. This is increasing the economic strength of Asia, and decreasing the economic prowess of America, none of which is helped by…
2) Debt. The Chinese don’t need to invade us, because pretty soon they will own us outright. Our national debt continues to rise thanks to our two major parties, the tax-and-spend party, also called the Democratic Party, and the tax-your-kids-and-spend party, also known as the Republican Party. Cheery optimists tell us not to worry. We’re laying the groundwork for a “growth society,” at which point we’ll grow our way out of all of this debt. But in order to have all of this growthy growth, we have to give people lots of free stuff. So we finance mortgages and educations on folks who are bad risks. If the banks won’t do it, we force them to by passing a law or guaranteeing the loan. Now we’re going to subsidize health insurance for everyone so that each and every American can have access to medical care. Well, housing, schooling, and health care are certainly things that everyone should have access to, but the way in which we’ve gone about ensuring universal access to these things has neglected to take into account the basics of economics. By subsidizing housing, education, and health care, the state has increased demand for these goods, which raises the price for everyone. That means that more people can’t afford these basic needs of modern life, which means more subsidizing, which means a yet higher price tag. And the cycle continues. All of this has to be financed some way, and it can’t be financed through higher taxes, because low taxes are needed for growthiness. So debt becomes the order of the day. And eventually the system collapses in on itself, because the presumed growth simply doesn’t occur to the extent needed to match our obligations, and all of our wealth was, as John Derbyshire put it in his new book, faery gold.
3) Immigration. Yet another reason that the Chinese will have no reason to invade us at any time in the future is that there won’t be anything left worth annexing if America doesn’t begin to develop a rational population policy. Conservatives are supposed to be the ones who understand the need to conserve finite resources, and that means limiting the quantity of newcomers to the U.S., as well as setting forth criteria to select those newcomers that will benefit the nation as a whole. America has always and will always attract the tired, poor, and huddled masses largely because it’s based on an idea — and a good one — that each individual should be able to live as an autonomous citizen equal under the law to every other citizen and should be free to live his or her life and otherwise be left alone. That’s a damned good way to found a nation. It also works a lot better when there’s plenty of frontier to be settled and when the world isn’t approaching a population of 7 billion, many of whom live in complete misery and want a chance at the land of opportunity. If America simply let eveyone in, we’d be gutted overnight, as we simply don’t have the wealth or resources to support every individual who languishes in poverty and oppression in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. It’s at this point that rational decisions must be made that further America’s interests. But since no one seems to be willing to do this, and since simply hopping over the Rio Grande is a pretty good way to gain semi-permanent residency in the United States, our country will probably continue to see an influx of impoverished residents of developing nations, who will eventually probably gain citizenship and access to social programs.
4) Intervention. Reordering the world is no easy task, and what better time to do it than during an economic collapse and while on the precipice of national bankruptcy? The same folks who brought to you the notion of massive debt to create perpetual growth at home also believe that by investing every last bit of America’s military resources into populations stuck in the Tenth Century half a world away, we will somehow reorganize the many nations of the world into mini-Americas, thus ushering in world peace and democracy, liberty, and free ponies for all. The trouble is that things don’t seem to be working out. Folks in barren and desolate places can be surprisingly stubborn, and again, that whole irritating concept of finite resources keeps interfering with the plans of idealists to knock down every two-bit despot in every dusty, forgotten corner of the world. There are only so many American troops, tanks, and weapons to go around. Shouldn’t we save at least some of them for that potential Chinese invasion?
5) Democracy. Yes, yes, it’s worst form of government except for all the other ones and all that. But it’s also what got us into this mess. Americans who want to blame our politicians for our woes need to look in the mirror. We’re the ones who vote ourselves largesse from the public treasury while refusing to pay for it. We’re the ones who expect education and health care to be free and housing to be virtually guaranteed and then wonder why all of this free stuff costs so damned much. We’re the ones who want to expend American resources on every unfortunate individual who just happened to be born at the wrong place in the wrong time, either by letting them come live here or by sending American troops, tanks, and tax dollars over there, and then we wonder why there are fewer resources to go around. We’re the ones who tried to spin straw into faery gold and ended up with neither. And unless the cycle is broken — and it’s clear that the current president is accelerating it, not reversing it — neither China nor anyone else will ever have to invade America. Like Britain, we will become a shadow of a once great empire. Invading America will become as laughable as invading Canada, as the balance of geopolitical, economic, and military power shifts east, as the sleeping dragon rises.
Newsweek recently published an exclusive that reveals “Obama got pre-Christmas intelligence briefing about threats to ‘homeland’”:
President Barack Obama received a high-level briefing only three days before Christmas about possible holiday-period terrorist threats against the US, Newsweek has learned. The briefing was centered on a written report, produced by US intelligence agencies, entitled “Key Homeland Threats”, a senior US official said.
The senior Administration official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that nowhere in this document was there any mention of Yemen, whose Al-Qaeda affiliate is now believed to have been behind the unsuccessful Christmas Day attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to bring down a transatlantic airliner with a bomb hidden in his underpants. However, the official declined to disclose any other information about the substance of the briefing, including what kind of specific warnings, if any, the President was given about possibly holiday attacks and whether Yemen came up during oral discussions.
According to the senior official, the holiday threat briefing, one in a series of regularly-scheduled sessions with top counter-terrorism officials, was held in the White House Situation Room on December 22. Present were representatives of agencies involved in counter-terrorism policy and operations, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
…Asked about what kind of intelligence reporting was circulated to senior officials about possibly holiday period attacks before the failed underpants attack, a US intelligence official, who also asked for anonymity, explained: “As everybody knows, terrorists often speak in coded language, especially when they think their communications might be intercepted. There was no clear discussion of an attack, on Christmas or any other time, in the Middle East or anywhere else. But as veiled as the message was, it was spotted, processed, analyzed, and presented to senior policymakers as a warning sign-however vague-of a holiday attack. While this was handled properly, there were, to put it mildly, virtually no details at all. That happens.” When Newsweek asked a senior Administration official about this characterization of a warning which was passed to White House policymakers, and whether it tracked what was presented at the December 22 Presidential briefing, the official would not comment.
The pre-Christmas intelligence does not qualify as the most important takeaway of this article (the intelligence field has a notorious reputation for ambiguous warnings); that distinction belongs to the fact that Newsweek, the magazine with managing editor Evan Thomas, of “Obama is like God” fame, broke the story. Could this signify a quickening end to the media’s love affair with the President? Only time will tell, but for the sake of objective journalism and the education of the voting public, we can only hope.
My latest piece is up at Pajamas Media:
The shine is off. Recent tracking polls have shown the president’s popularity trending downwards under 50%. And both Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen show President Obama in tight races with Republican front-runners, and even with some non-Republican front-runners.
The most striking notes: Sarah Palin, the woman who many allege absolutely could not beat Obama, comes within three points in the Rasmussen poll and eight in the Public Policy Polling poll. And even more surprising, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) comes within eight points on Public Policy Polling.
Yes, the 75-year-old Texas congressman is nearly as close to Obama as John McCain was in 2008. This suggests a growing number of Americans, as of this moment, would vote for anyone over Barack Obama.
A year ago, it was very different for Obama, who couldn’t wait to actually get sworn in before giving regular addresses to the nation. Obama was a great campaigner, a well-polished speaker, and a youth celebrity figure who inspired a best-selling song that became a YouTube sensation (and one of Obama’s favorite songs). A year later, if Rasmussen is to be believed, the Democrats are on the verge of a political cataclysm, with the GOP having built a 7-point lead on the generic ballot.
Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) is expressing his frustration, saying he’s tired of “covering Obama’s can,” and has some pointed advice: “The president could take a few pages from Lyndon Johnson’s book … and start knocking heads together.”
Conyers is wrong — the president can’t. During his four years in the U.S. Senate (which he spent running for president), Obama didn’t acquire the legislative “skills” Lyndon Johnson did during ten years as a member of the Senate leadership. If the Democrats had wanted someone who would be effective moving legislation, they picked the wrong guy. They picked a solid candidate who could excite crowds and raise money. They didn’t choose someone who could make good decisions and move bills.
What’s the lesson for Republicans in 2012? Simply put, the goal of the nominating process is not to pick a good candidate; it’s to pick a good president. The problem with political folks is we tend to imagine the presidential campaign as the Super Bowl of politics, when it isn’t even opening day.
Click here to read the rest.
Americans in general tend to ignore foreign affairs. That said we’ve got smart readers here and I bet many of you are pretty well informed.
So looking across the world who’s your favorite foreign leader?
I bet if I’d asked that in 2002-2006 most conservatives would have named Tony Blair. With his exit I wonder if there are any foreign leaders that conservatives still widely appreciate?
My favorite foreign leader is Lech Kaczynski although I like Donald Tusk, Stephen Harper, and Lee Myung-bak.
If you have one who’s your favorite foreign leader?
Commenting on an interview with Gov. Pawlenty, Jeff Shaw of TheModerateVoice.com notes the following about T-Paw:
I had to check the date to make sure it wasn’t April Fools day instead of New Years Eve. Why? Because it’s so rare to see a politician these days who actually seems to grasp the basics of government spending during a disastrous fiscal period such as the one we’re in now.
You can watch the interview in question right here:
If more self-described moderates view Pawlenty in such favorable terms, he should feel optimistically about his 2012 chances. With arguably the most impressive gubernatorial record (accounting for context) of any rumored 2012 Republican candidate and the apparent ability to appeal to moderates and Independents, we must not overlook or underestimate T-Paw.
As always, I’m ranking the likelihood of a candidate running for President, not their probability of winning:
Likely Candidates:
1) Tim Pawlenty: 78% (+5):
Everything looks full speed ahead for Pawlenty.
2) Mike Huckabee-67% (-3):
I don’t think the Maurice Clemmons matter had much of an effect on whether he would run. However, the number should be dialed back slightly because of the rise in Sarah Palin’s popularity. My general view is if Palin runs, Huckabee won’t, and I think his recent talk confirms that.
3) Mitt Romney-66% (-2)
Romney has been keeping a low profile this quarter and with good reason: The Senate health care bill is shaping up to be too much like Romneycare. While, I think Romney will make a 2012 run, I can’t help but dial back his chances a little bit because he didn’t become a success in business without a good healthy dose of pragmatism.
Unlikely Candidates
4) Sarah Palin 41% (+3)
This was a fairly good quarter for Palin with the successful release of “Going Rogue.” and some media appearances that allowed her to get a bit of a bounce back in her image. My concern with Palin has been the “want to” factor and I still don’t think that’s going to be there.
5) Gary Johnson-40% (+2)
A little bit of re-emergence for Johnson as well as some net buzz behind his potential candidacy lead to an upgrade.
6) John Thune and 6) Haley Barbour-38% (-2)
Nothing makes me think either of these two oft-mentioned potential candidates will actually pull the trigger.
8: Rick Santorum-33% (+3)
Santorum continued to make some noises, but I’m doubtful of the money being there for him. His best shot would be a Palin-Free/Huckabee-free field. I don’t see him putting his family through the ordeal of a Presidential run if there’s no chance.
9) Jon Huntsman-29% (NC)
10) Newt Gingrich-28% (-4)
Someone who pedantically lectures the base is either not too smart or not planning on running for President.
11) Mike Pence -18% (-2)
I think Pence is more likely to run for Governor. Plus a HuckPAC endorsement that Pence received for re-election could be the start of Pence and Huckabee working together.
12) Mitch Daniels-15% (-2)
13) Bobby Jindal-14% (-2)
14) John Cornyn-13% (-1)
Cornyn realizing that it was a bad idea for the NRSC to stick its nose into primaries was too little too late.
15) Jim DeMint-9% (-2)
16) Charlie Crist-7% (-5)
Winning the Senate Primary looks dicey, let alone getting “Good Time” Charlie nominated for President.
17) Jeb Bush-6% (-2)
Chances are greater of me getting a tongue ring and the Cubs winning the World Series on the same day candidates…
18) Ron Paul-4% (-1)
Chances reduced slightly because of Gary Johnson talk.
19) Tom Ridge-3% (-1), 19) Rudy Giuliani-3% (-6), 19) David Petraeus-3% ()
Ridge has done nothing to indicate running. As for Rudy Giuliani, if his consulting for Brazil’s 2016 Olympics makes a Senatorial run out of the question, that’d seem to go for a Presidential run, too. As for Petraeus, there’s little reason to think he will run.
Dropping off our list: Mark Sanford, who ought to have had the decency to resign from office, but who there is simply no conceivable chance he’ll run for PResident.
What does it mean to belong to the right? Looking through history, one can either be for the free market or against it (Friedman vs. Kirk), for interventionism or against it (Kristol vs. Buchanan), for interference in social affairs or against it (Schlafly vs. Hayek). Conservatism, then, cannot possibly be merely an ideology. It cannot strictly be a bullet-point agenda based upon mixing the disparate sections together, hoping to come up with a unifying result. Liberalism is a program; conservatism is a way of looking at the world. Even broadly conservative policy proposals like the Contract With America — the closest it comes to a set of policy prescriptions — are not programs; they are, if anything, anti-ideological in nature, deferring to the accumulated wisdom of the ages, human nature, personal responsibility, and individual initiative.
This piece will focus on the first of those points — deferment to tradition, for both moral and practical reasons.
The conservative recognizes that the world does not begin upon one’s birth. Countless men and women have walked the same footsteps we have, engaging in the same human experience, asking the same vexing questions about man, the state, the family, God, and meaning — and the products and traditions that they have given us were not accidental. In a society such as the United States, they are especially important, for they are the products of men who have countless liberties of which have been made excellent use (which in turn came from the freest society of the time, Great Britain). This is the fatal flaw of socialism and modern liberalism: the arrogant and foolhardy idea that a special group of men can start the world anew if only they are given enough power and resources. But as George Bernard Shaw noted, it is not power that corrupts men: men corrupt power. It is man’s limitations and imperfect nature that drive him to use power for unjust or imprudent aims. Systems, not men, create worthwhile results. Some men drive those systems, but any attempt to use man for a program rather than for a system is doomed to fail. The conservative believes that government should not be used to direct man’s aims, but rather that government should allow men to direct their own aims, because it is both just and practical.
What is meant by tradition is not a blind upholding of the status quo. The patron saint of traditional conservatism, Edmund Burke, for instance, was a staunch abolitionist in his first principles. But he recognized that one cannot simply take a hammer and smash something overnight that took centuries to build. The slave trade was entrenched: banning it was not the same as eliminating it. Burke, who cared more about getting something done than securing his own ideological purity in the eyes of his compatriots, proposed dozens of steps to go about actually eliminating the slave trade: wrapping up the practice in red tape and regulations would provide tired-and-true disincentives, eventually making it unpalatable. Meanwhile, the moral debate would continue, and with the force of the state’s implied disapproval, the abolitionists would ultimately prevail. It was a sobering and dispassionate analysis — especially for a politician — and one that we could all learn from. Change is not something that happens with one man — it is a process. The social and governmental order has to be tampered with very carefully, recognizing the limitations of man’s capabilities. The only practical consequence of banning the slave trade overnight would have been to drive it underground. (The feckless War on Drugs comes to mind.)
All conservatives should be able to agree on this: man’s imperfect nature prevents him from being able to dictate sweeping changes from on high. It is not, contra Thomas Paine, in our power to begin the world anew. The limits of our ability to do so in government should lead us to be careful about tampering with the accumulated, systemic wisdom of the ages. Errors are abundant and inevitable, but should be treated with, in Burke’s words, in the same way one would tend to the errors of a parent. It is not that the state is or should be a parental figure, but rather that folly is inevitable in the affairs of men. This humility comprises the core of conservatism.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
