The secularists of the French Revolution regarded the Roman Catholic Church as the last obstacle to atheism’s final triumph. Blurting this out, the French dilettante Denis Diderot proposed to his fellow revolutionaries that they strangle the last priest with the “guts of the last king.” Under this spirit, the forces of secularism picked up speed in the 18th and 19th century, went into overdrive in the 20th, and now floor it in the 21st. Barack Obama is the one these revolutionaries have been “waiting for.” He is the stealth radical, soft in temperament but hard in thought, who seeks to use religiosity without religion to purge all traces of God from public life. Not wanting to repeat John Kerry’s electoral debacle — which even Nancy Pelosi attributed to the leaden senator’s undisguised secularism — Obama worked hard to con the religious into voting for him in 2008. He “valued” religion, particularly the votes of the religious. On his campaign web page, “people of faith” enjoyed their own special slot, a mere two tabs down from the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community.” Obama cast himself as a “post-partisan” politician on matters of the spirit. He found fawning dupes in the religious community to provide him with pulpits and platforms for faux-pensive addresses on his newly conceived “connection between politics and religion.” This pretentious throat clearing amounted to nothing more than Alinskyite advice to his fellow Democrats that they exploit religion for secularist and socialist purposes.
Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas made waves when he skipped the White House ceremony yesterday honoring the 2010-2011 Stanley Cup champions. Thomas made the following statement to explain his absence: I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL. This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT Bruins President (and former Bruins legend) Cam Neely released a statement on behalf of the Bruins which said in part, “We are disappointed that Tim chose not to join us, and his views certainly do not reflect those of the Jacobs family or the Bruins organization.” The absence of Thomas was significant for two reasons. First, Thomas is no bit player. He won the Conn Smythe Trophy which is essentially the equivalent of being Stanley Cup MVP. Second, the NHL is largely populated by Canadians, Russians and Eastern Europeans and Scandinavians. In fact, of the 690 players currently on NHL rosters, only 162 were born in the United States. Despite the fact that 23 of the 30 NHL teams are based in the United States, only 23% of the players are American. The New York Islanders and Buffalo Sabres have the most Americans on their roster with nine apiece while the Phoenix Coyotes , the Florida Panthers , and yes, the Bruins have only two Americans on each of their rosters. Tonight, the Bruins face the Washington Capitals (which is as much as any reason why the Bruins visited the White House yesterday) and they only have three Americans on their roster. Not surprisingly, Thomas is being criticized in some quarters and even been absurdly accused of hating our troops . Yet Red Sox principal owner John Henry along with former Red Sox GM Theo Epstein,
Mind you, you wouldn’t know that from the Washington Post’s article on the arrest of John Kiriakou. While the Washington Post – from appearances, somewhat reluctantly – reported that Kiriakou (a former CIA officer and Senate Foreign Affairs staffer) had been arrested for revealing names, operations and investigations to the media back in 2008-2009, the paper completely neglected to mention who Kiriakou ended up working for – which is to say, Senator John Kerry (D, MA ). Oddly enough, the Washington Post managed to simultaneous note that “[t]he committee had not been aware of the criminal probe of Kiriakou, according to a former U.S. official familiar with the matter” in its article, while unaccountably mentioning that Kiriakou has been leaking classified information publicly for years – including to the, well, Washington Post . One can only guess why a premiere Left-Establishment paper would be so eager to whitewash the record when it comes to protecting prominent Left-Establishment politicians… like, say, John Kerry, who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee (at least until next January)… One last note: I don’t say this often, but I have to admit that the Obama administration has been a lot better on hammering down violators of the Espionage Act than I expected them to be. Politico reports that the current number of investigations “exceeds the number of such cases in all previous administrations combined;” and while I may have a low opinion of the White House’s motivations (essentially, I think that the Obama administration hates it when people talk out of turn on anything ) I’m not going to overly quibble about results. I recognize the need for whistle-blowing and oversight, but the rules are there for a reason. Some things out there really should be only available on a need-to-know basis, and I don’t need to know them . And neither do you. So. A chill wind a-blowing, and that suits me just fine. And John Kerry needs to do better vetting of his staff. Particularly when it comes to this guy: I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t it seem to be a little odd that Kerry would pick as a senior adviser somebody who would think that it’s a good idea to release classified photos and names of CIA operatives to the media? Particularly since both the photos and names ended up on the wrong side of the bars in Gitmo? Moe Lane ( crosspost )
Go here to read the rest:
Former John Kerry staffer John Kiriakou arrested for blowing CIA agents’ cover.
For the past week, it’s been all the rage among pundits across the political spectrum. No, not wondering whether First Lady Michelle Obama is indeed an “angry black woman” but rather pontificating on whether former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is “the least electable” Republican candidate or even simply “unelectable.” Some say that Romneycare, the Massachusetts state-run intervention into health insurance which was largely the model for Obamacare, makes Mitt Romney an ineffective opponent to take on President Obama’s signature “achievement” — an achievement that the majority of Americans has consistently wanted repealed since its inception. Others argue — perhaps from wishful thinking — that Romney’s Mormon religion will be held against him (interesting how it’s usually liberals saying this will be a problem among conservatives) or that his work at Bain Capital (and the now famous picture of Romney and partners posing with money) will do him in. Some worry that Mitt Romney will not inspire enthusiasm, that he will struggle to get Republicans to contribute cash, man phone banks, and otherwise participate in the grassroots ground game critical to winning a major election. And everybody knows that Romney has changed his position on a range of issues from abortion to health care to gays in the military. Other candidates, including Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman , and Rick Santorum are calling Romney unelectable — going after the “most electable” theme that has been a key early selling point for the Romney candidacy even if not made overtly by Romney himself. According to Associated Press exit polling during the recent New Hampshire primary, of primary voters who said that their “most important consideration was finding a candidate who could defeat President Barack Obama in November… Romney won 62 percent of their votes.” In short, the web is ablaze with articles discussing why Mitt Romney’s electability is a myth. Color me skeptical of the current “unelectable” fad. I understand all the arguments against Mitt Romney. I would add another: his aggressive anti-free trade rhetoric regarding China is ill-advised economic nonsense. But there is something about the “he’s unelectable” craze that resembles wishful thinking and attempts at political hypnotism. Romney’s Republican primary opponents and Democrats who still expect him to be the nominee are waving the pocket watch in front of our eyes and saying “he can’t win, he can’t win…,” hoping beyond hope that if we hear it enough we’ll come to believe it. Romney has more than a few things in his favor, not least the public perception that he is a man who understands the economy. Recent attacks on Bain may dent that shiny electoral vehicle, but they won’t total it. And his achievements in “saving” the Salt Lake City winter Olympics are a non-partisan feather in his cap. Romney seems distinctly presidential. And although Willard Mitt Romney has a patrician air about him, coming from a prominent and successful family, he comes across as likeable in a way that John Kerry never could. (And Kerry married his wealth, twice, while Romney earned his.) Important in the theoretical world of electability, and in the real world of ever-increasing numbers of independent/unaffiliated voters, is that many of the areas that trouble conservatives — and cause Newt Gingrich to call Romney a “Massachusetts moderate” — allow Romney to appeal to the vast middle of America in a way that more intensely conservative candidates would struggle to match. It will be difficult for the left to credibly portray Romney as “extreme,” one of their favorite tactics against Republicans. And still all of this misses — surprisingly for what the question of electability really means — the fact that the Republican nominee will be running against a president with a record. It’s a record of failure and incompetence and corruption and near-tyranny so all-encompassing that it allows Jimmy Carter a sigh of relief as he considers his own presidential legacy. It is the reason that Charles Krauthammer, when asked who should be the Republican nominee, said “someone dull and competent” because this election “must be about Obama and Obama-ism” for Republicans to win. Of Republicans who are or were likely contenders for the presidential nomination, only Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels embodies “dull and competent” better than Mitt Romney does. Channeling Krauthammer, the focus on President Obama’s disastrous record — rather than the lamentations of perfection-seekers — is what comes through in the data as being in the minds of most Americans: Pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that “former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the only GOP contender that most voters view as having a chance against President Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) of Likely U.S. Voters think Romney is at least somewhat likely to beat the president in November. ” That view of electability is turning, albeit with obvious if waning reluctance, into electoral support. A Quinnipiac University poll released last week had Mitt Romney three points ahead of Barack Obama in the key early primary state of Florida. And Romney’s favorable/unfavorable rating is better than any of the other candidates asked about in the poll — including Barack Obama. A CBS News poll released the same day as the Rasmussen data shows Romney two points ahead of Obama nationally, making Romney “the only GOP candidate to hold a lead over the president in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup.” And a Saturday poll of South Carolina Republican voters shows Romney with massive 21-point lead over his closest rivals in the Palmetto State in the face of the most aggressive attacks yet faced by the Romney campaign. To be sure, many polls show Obama ahead of Romney nationwide, but Romney leads every other Republican versus Obama with the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls having Obama ahead of Romney by less than two percent, as compared to leading Newt Gingrich by 9 points, Rick Santorum by 7 points, and Ron Paul by 5 points. In political betting , after a week of intense assault by his Republican opponents and Democrats alike, Mitt Romney’s odds of winning the South Carolina primary, the Florida primary, and the Republican nomination have each climbed slowly upwards (to roughly 85 percent, 95 percent, and 87 percent, respectively.) Furthermore, the anti-Bain onslaught has not dented Romney’s betting odds of winning the presidency itself, now standing just over 42 percent — a remarkably high number so early in the nominating process and against an incumbent president who won an overwhelming victory just three years ago. Pundits and politicians of all political stripes keep telling us that Mitt Romney is not electable — or at least not as electable as we think. But the data simply doesn’t back them up. Furthermore, and I say this with the utmost respect to those talented political writers who are also on the “least electable” train, there’s a fair bit of projection going on: Principled conservatives (and libertarians like me) wish that firm commitment to principle were the key factor in electability, especially having been through the last decade. In fact, it is barely a factor at all, at least during these days of extremely high unemployment and economic insecurity. People want results more than they want the candidate who is most right — in any sense of the word. This may not portend well for our republic’s long-term prospects. But in the short term, for those who believe that our nation, and perhaps the world, can’t afford another four years of Barack Obama, it is hard to be as troubled by Mitt Romney as some others are. Do Republicans really need the “most principled” candidate to be motivated to help him beat the most imperfect president in modern American history? One clue to the answer is the Romney campaign’s $24 million fourth-quarter haul — nearly doubling his closest Republican rival. Few things are more important measures of electability and enthusiasm for the candidate than hard, cold campaign cash. Perhaps fortunately, the public is not listening to the chattering classes who are saying that Mitt Romney can’t pull the Republican train to victory. Instead, they’re taking a closer look at Romney — policies, religion, Bain Capital and all — and saying “I think he can. I think he can.”
Original post:
I Think He Can
April 12, 2006 is a day that will live on in infamy. That was the day that then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed his signature socialized healthcare bill into law with Ted Kennedy standing over his shoulder. It was the first time in American history that government of any sort compelled its citizenry to purchase health insurance. It served as the catalyst for an individual mandate on a federal level, paving the road for Obamacare. At the time, John Kerry heaped accolades on Romney, ominously suggesting that “we really need to be doing that on the national level.” Ted Kennedy praised it as “just what the doctor ordered,” and observed that we “may well have fired a shot heard round the world.” It took less than four years for the shot to metastasize into a bombardment – one that will permanently attenuate our free-enterprise economy. So how did Romney feel about his signature accomplishment of an otherwise uninspiring one-term tenure as governor? At the time of its passage, Romney dubbed it as a “once in a generation” achievement. He referred to his magnum opus , which created subsidies for government run exchanges (larger than those created under Obamacare), as a “landmark” achievement “to get all of our citizens insurance without some new government-mandated takeover.” From Romney’s perspective, did he consider final passage of MassCare a meritorious ideal or a mediocre compromise watered down by the Democrat legislature? Well, immediately after he signed the bill into law, he told Newsweek reporter Jennifer Barrett that “the final legislation incorporates about 95 percent of my original proposal.” At the time, did Romney feel that the framework for his healthcare plan was a virtuous policy endeavor for the rest of the nation? On the day he signed the bill, he put out a press release quoting then-Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson (who, by the way, must be defeated in Wisconsin) saying, “Massachusetts is showing us a better way, one I hope policy makers in Statehouses and Congress will follow to build a healthier and stronger America.” Being that Romneycare was Mitt’s “landmark” and “once in a generation” accomplishment, you would have expected him to tout it incessantly during his presidential campaign later that year and in 2007. Instead, Romneycare became the best kept secret of his presidential campaign. As the crushing costs of Romneycare –both to the public and private sector – became evident, and as Romney began to court conservative voters opposing McCain, he placed his signature accomplishment in the Mittness Protection Program. Not only did he decline to offer it as a national solution, Romney never spoke about MassCare unless prodded by conservative figures. When pressed about the vices of his healthcare bill, Romney would summarily dismiss them as problems stemming from Democrat provisions in the bill – unspecified aspects that he supposedly opposed. In January 2007, at the beginning of the presidential campaign, he told a group of National Romney Review Online supporters that “we believed we’d get everybody insured in an economic way, but I don’t know what is going to happen down the road as the Democrats get their hands on it.” Romney often cast doubts as to the future success of his plan as a result of the “Democrat legislature.” In Feb. 2007, he told a crowd in Baltimore “if Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation. If not, other states that are copying aspects of Massachusetts’ [plan] will find a better way, and then we can copy them.” Well, the facts are in. Romneycare has failed to control costs , and has dramatically raised the price of health insurance on everyone. Nevertheless, Mitt Romney denies the facts and continues to view his signature legislation as a success. He has repeatedly asserted that 92% of Massachussets residents are unaffected by Romneycare. Yet, he has consistently and vehemently declined to endorse a similar plan on a national level. What happened to his conviction that ” if Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation?” In 2006, while he was Governor, Romneycare was a “once in a generation” accomplishment that should be mimicked on a national level. In 2007, while running to the right of McCain, it was a dirty skeleton in the closet that was exacerbated by Democrat sabotage. Now it is a resounding success….but only on a state level. God forbid it to be even entertained on a national level. So which one is it, Mitt? This is what we have to look forward to from Democrats in the general election:
Continued here:
Multiple Choice Mitt’s Changing Colors on Romneycare
