Mitt’s Masquerade

On January 10, 2012, in Barack Obama, Congress, John Kerry, by HigleyLocklear930

During the election season of 2010, there was a schism in the Republican Party between populist Tea Partiers and more politically-sensitive establishmentarians. Today those two factions have been reshuffled into the Romney voters and the Anyone-But-Romney voters. The media is still gawking at the volatile Iowa caucuses where the two camps did battle for the first time, resulting in a hair-breadth victory for Romney over the insurgent Rick Santorum. But in New Hampshire, it’s a much steadier affair. Polls have consistently crowned Romney the frontrunner, up to and including a recent 7 News/Suffolk University survey that found 41 percent support for the former Massachusetts governor. Ron Paul, in second place, is barely visible in the rear view mirror with 18 percent. New Hampshire is the Mitt Romney Show. This doesn’t mean that Romney will win the nomination. The quirky, occasionally eccentric alloy of libertarian and moderate politics that is the Granite State Republican primary has produced presidential candidates and has-runs. But it will give him significant velocity going into other states. But what happens if Romney gets the nomination? That question has been stubbornly elusive in media coverage, which has instead focused on the lothario innuendoes surrounding Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich’s grandiosity. Meanwhile Romney slips by relatively unscathed, the beneficiary of the perfunctory conventional wisdom of political strategists. Well, he looks good on television and doesn’t say outlandish things, so he must be the best candidate. He’s the flag-carrier for hardheaded realists who will compromise generously for a win over President Obama. But he’s also a patrician flip-flopper from Massachusetts. Sound familiar? This is the problem with Romney: a strong comparison can be made between him and 2004 historical footnote John Kerry, and the similarities aren’t just superficial. Romney seems to be haunted by Kerry’s ghost, perhaps as it sips a fine Sauvignon Blanc. When Kerry won the Democratic nomination in 2004, the historical moment was rooted in the tumult of the Middle East and in smoldering memories of 9/11. But Kerry’s political genealogy traced back to the 1960s counterculture, found in war medals chucked over the White House fence and accusations of monstrous crimes against his fellow soldiers in faux committee rooms. The American people wanted a rock-ribbed leader who would prosecute the war and keep them safe while they slept. Kerry didn’t fit the part. Kerry’s political life wasn’t any more helpful. He’d somehow made the transition from counterculturalist to Beacon Hill bon vivant , sipping French wines and parking his yacht at the Rhode Island marina, an almost-cartoonish portrait of a New England senator. But deep in his past, Democratic strategists spied a glimmer of hope. Kerry had spent three months serving in Vietnam and was decorated afterwards. It wasn’t much, but in the greasy hands of the right political strategist, it could work. Thus Kerry was transformed into a barrel-chested war hero; a steadied military hand in a time of uncertain war. This charade was at its manufactured best when he stepped out at the Democratic convention and declared, “I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty.” It hit an absurd nadir when the old war horse took up arms again and decided to go goose hunting, mugging for the camera in a camo hat. Inconvenient details, like the accusations of war crimes he leveled at his fellow soldiers or his fastidious record of military pruning in Congress, were papered over. Today’s historical moment is one shaped by recession and belt-tightening. It’s also shot through with outrage. The American people are animatedly angry at their political and corporate elites. Romney is both a political and corporate elite, and it’s difficult to imagine him animated about anything, much less angry. All the open shirt collars and appearances on Letterman can’t erase those facts. They also can’t blot that damning picture from Bain Capital, where Romney grins as dollar bills flutter downwards. But erase he must try. If Romney wants to win the general election, he’ll have to don the coat of a populist fighter ready to raise hell for the coupon clippers struggling to pay the mortgage. It is, to say the least, difficult to imagine — perhaps even more difficult than picturing Kerry as a GI Joe. No demographic of Americans is reserved greater rage these days than the political class, a fact borne out by Congress’s 11 percent approval rating, according to Gallup. This may present the most daunting challenge of all for Romney: he’s a firmly entrenched politico. Romney’s been dipping his toe in the pool of presidential politics since at least 2005. He spent much of the Romney Administration — governor of Massachusetts, in this case — running for president. The Boston Globe calculated that Romney spent 212 days absent from Massachusetts in 2006, visiting 35 states to dig the foundation for a presidential bid. As one Bay State Republican operative told me in 2008, ” It seemed he had Potomac fever from the time he got in, and everything was done to position himself to run for president.” Republicans rose to national power last year on the wings of the Tea Party, which put its trust in citizen-politicians and rallied voters with cries of “Throw them all out!” It’s difficult to imagine an electorate of this composition rallying behind a man who’s spent the last six years running for president. This is just one of the many contradictions and unfortunate facts that Romney’s political handlers will have to blur. Right now the polls pick Romney as being the most electable Republican candidate. This alone may ultimately score him the nomination, as Republicans fall into ranks and decide he’s their worst candidate except for all the rest. But will he still be able to win if the Obama campaign opens the historical vault and starts screaming about his Bain capitalist and Massachusetts runaway roots? If they do, his campaign handlers may find themselves in the awkward position of having to craft an alternative personality for their man, à la John Kerry in 2004. And as Kerry’s flameout that year would prove, such masquerades can be tough to stage.

Read the original here:
Mitt’s Masquerade

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress
Tagged with:
 

Obama goes to Osawatomie, Kansas to ‘channel’…

On December 4, 2011, in Barack Obama, by DixiePeters

…quick: which legendary figure from American history is Obama planning to ‘channel’ there? If you said “John Brown”… HAHAHA! You’re funny . No, the odds of a Democratic politician going to honor a hardcore abolitionist militant who helped start a war that ended up penalizing the Democratic party on the national level for seventy years are, well, nil. The Democratic Establishment does not so hold grudges as they clutch them in their hands until the heat and pressure deforms the grudges into a non-recognizable form; put another way… John Brown’s body lies a-moldering in its grave, and that’s just fine with them. Nah, President Obama’s going to Osawatomie to channel Teddy Roosevelt . Lots of liberals like Teddy Roosevelt, and think that he’s a great Republican, for three reasons. First, Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive*; second, Teddy Roosevelt went third-party in 1912 and assured a Democrat’s election; and third, Teddy Roosevelt is dead . I’m not even really certain that Obama is really aware of the historical importance of the town, or why Teddy Roosevelt picked it in the first place.  On the other hand, I’m reasonably certain that Obama knows that Roosevelt’s speech there in 1910 can be seen as being one step on Teddy’s journey to the aforementioned third-party run in 1912… and that’s really what it’s all about for this administration, yes? Quick exit question: if Barack Obama is going to Osawatomie to evoke Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism speech **, does that include this passage? No man is worth his salt in public life who makes on the stump a pledge which he does not keep after election; and, if he makes such a pledge and does not keep it, hunt him out of public life. Because I could get behind that , Mr. President. (Via Hot Air Headlines ) Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *I would like to note for the record that Teddy Roosevelt did not have the benefit that we have ‘enjoyed’ (if that’s the right word) of having a century of dealing with the fallout from various Progressive policies. I would also like to point out that our party’s Progressive President was still infinitely better than that racist, fascist son-of-a-gun Woodrow [Expletive Deleted] Wilson. **Which I have read; and I suspect that this puts me one up on any number of people in the Obama administration. Including, possibly, the President himself.

Visit link:
Obama goes to Osawatomie, Kansas to ‘channel’…

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

Emilio Estevez, son of legendary actor and long-time left-wing activist Martin Sheen, took an unexpected jab at Hollywood Friday when he stated that he is “embarrassed” by the content he sees in many of the industry’s films.  The actor appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show to promote his upcoming film, “The Way,” which Estevez states is a “celebration of family and faith and community and healing and our humanity.” “I go to so many films and I’m embarrassed by what I see,” Estevez stated. “And, you know, Hollywood is responsible for those themes and those messages that they’re projecting out there for not only Americans to see, but the rest of the world. It’s one of our last great exports, is our popular culture. And it’s just that there’s so much of it that is negative and anti, and this is a movie that’s not anti anything. This is all inclusive.” He added: “And it’s, you know, there’s no CGI, there’s no explosions, there’s no vulgarity, there’s no overt sexuality. There’s a ton of humor, and none of it is raunchy. So, this movie is really a reflection of the path that I’m walking on.” Below is a synopsis of  The Way : Martin Sheen plays Tom, an American doctor who comes to St. Jean Pied de Port, France to collect the remains of his adult son (played by Emilio Estevez), killed in the Pyrenees in a storm while walking the Camino de Santiago, also known as The Way of Saint James. Rather than return home, Tom decides to embark on the historical pilgrimage to honor his son’s desire to finish the journey. What Tom doesn’t plan on is the profound impact the journey will have on him and his “California Bubble Life.” Newsbusters provides the audio of the interview: Read more from the original source: Emilio Estevez Takes Jab at Hollywood: ‘I’m Embarrassed By What I See’

Go here to read the rest:
Emilio Estevez Takes Jab at Hollywood: ‘I’m Embarrassed By What I See’

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

Catholic Controversies

On September 20, 2011, in Barack Obama, by DixiePeters

Catholic Controversies : Understanding Church Teachings and Events in History By Stephen Gabriel (Moorings Press, 512 pages, $19.95) For reasons that are both understandable and regrettable, apologetics , the science of demonstrating the reasonableness of religious doctrine, is not often mentioned in public life these days. In part, this is due to the demands of charity and prudence, to avoid unnecessary and often acrimonious strife among religious denominations in a nation which has benefited from the political genius inherent in James Madison’s First Amendment. But there is a certain intellectual laziness that has infected theological and religious discussion, driven by an easy-going relativism and an inability to sustain an argument through to its necessary conclusion, resulting from a general loss of faith in rational discourse — not just in theological circles, but in the public square at large. Yet, beyond technical theological debate, there is the broader realm of popular, journalistic discussion of religious matters in American journalism that is, typically, driven by two overarching obsessions — sex and the Catholic Church. Of course, the sexual obsession will drive coverage of any religion that offers even the slightest resistance to the reigning zeitgeist which is somewhere to the left of “Whoopee!” on human sexuality and family issues. But there is a special kind of bile reserved for Roman Catholicism, given its staying power and consistent and sustained resistance to the demands of sexual liberation. Moreover, the journalistic onslaught extends to many matters outside the sphere of sexuality and to other historical matters. Indeed, the battles over church history are often the most uninformed, suffering from a lack of historical conscience and a tendentious, biased use of history for political ends. The British historian Herbert Butterfield called this tendency The Whig Interpretation of History (1931). There is rarely any serious coverage given to the Catholic side of the argument that isn’t rather distorted or minimalist in terms of depth or understanding much less sympathy. Fortunately, Catholics and sympathetic fellow travelers of all faiths now have a resource at hand in the form of a new collection of essays assembled and edited by Stephen Gabriel, an economist, father, and active layman. His new book, Catholic Controversies : Understanding Church Teachings and Events in History, provides a substantive, yet accessible, collection of essays by an impressive number of writers and authorities on selected topics, all of which are controversial and frequently in the press and media throughout the United States and Europe. Catholic Controversies “is intended for anyone who wishes to dispel the many myths and misperceptions about the Catholic Church and its teachings that are promoted by university professors, the media and the uninformed,” says Gabriel in his Introduction to the book. The book is divided into four parts covering 26 topics, all “hot-button” issues, each prefaced by Gabriel’s description of the matter at hand as well as citations to authoritative sources, including official Church documents. Brief, bulleted summaries of the articles are provided before the actual articles themselves. The topics run the gamut from the most fundamental (“Can the Existence of God Be Proven?”) to the historical (“The Galileo Affair”). They cover the Crusades, women in the Church, and a range of matters impacting the human person and sexuality: contraception, abortion, stem cell research, cloning, and homosexuality. Two of my favorite articles are one by Rabbi David Dalin on “Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust,” who, like the historian and Churchill biographer Sir Martin Gilbert, defends the late pontiff against charges of being some kind of stooge for the Nazis, and another by Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University, an expert on the study of global Christianity, entitled, “The Myth of the Pedophile Priest.” Jenkins does not whitewash any of the horrific crimes of any priests or the negligence of the hierarchy in handling the crisis. He does, however, review the current data and research to document that Catholic or other celibate clergy are no more likely to be involved in sexual misconduct than any other denomination or any non-clergy group. Not all readers (even Catholic ones) will agree with every author or article compiled in Catholic Controversies . Still, taken as a whole, the book provides a useful corrective to the unrelieved anti-Catholicism of the age. Every fair-minded person of whatever denomination or none would benefit from reading Stephen Gabriel’s excellent volume. Buy it for your college-age son or daughter.

Go here to see the original:
Catholic Controversies

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress
Tagged with: