The Republican presidential campaign thus far has been so bizarre and, frankly, depressing, that some of us have failed to adequately cover worrisome developments on a number of other important fronts. By ineptness and, worse, by deliberate design, Barack Obama daily makes this nation weaker abroad, less free (and more authoritarian) at home, economically more feeble, and in the civic realm more bitterly divided than ever. Meanwhile, ominous developments crowd the world stage. In short, we’re in a big heap of trouble. The recent litany of Obama’s odiousness begins with his growing, unambiguous war against traditional Christianity. He has now left no room for any pretense otherwise to be believed. Right on the heels of a unanimous Supreme Court, including his own two appointees, smacking down his administration’s attempt to kill the “ministerial exemption” for employment practices of faith-based institutions, an unchastened Obama has decided that even faith-based organizations must provide insurance that covers contraception — even including abortifacients. This is not just a narrow policy disagreement; it is, as Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote , the president’s way of saying “To Hell With You” to people of faith — “To hell with your religious beliefs. To hell with your religious liberty. To hell with your freedom of conscience.” Zubik continued: “This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone — not only Catholics; not only people of all religion. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens.” Obama’s broadsides, plural, against religious liberty are only a part of his radical transgressions against the U.S. Constitution. Conservatives are rightly up in arms about Obama’s illegal recess appointments . Obamacare, of course, contains several anti-Constitutional abominations , including the “individual mandate” and the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Meanwhile, his administration is flagrantly violating precedent by trying to force explicit hiring quotas on the Fire Department of New York, in a case in which a key amicus brief was filed on January 24 at the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. And so on. Abroad, this man leading the Occupy the Oval Office movement is even worse. He threw away a clear victory in Iraq and may be doing the same in Afghanistan. His fecklessness regarding Iran, perfectly in line with his long record of favoring Shia interests, is now leading to a crisis of the first order. His strange mishandling of the Egyptian revolution has left the United States with very little leverage in a country that for more than three decades was a major American ally, and has left Coptic Christians scared to death . He long ago insulted allies such as Israel and Great Britain, repeatedly and with malice aforethought. He seems to have no real relationship of any positive nature with any allied foreign leader, perhaps with the exception of those in Brazil, whose oil exploration he subsidizes while blocking tens of thousands of jobs that would come from domestic energy production he has snuffed out. And he seems hell-bent on a mission to starve the American armed forces to dangerous thinness. Killing the private college-loan industry. Hobbling private for-profit colleges. Illegally seizing auto companies. Whoring for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Turning public policy over to thuggish union bosses and destroying jobs in South Carolina to do so. Turning the Justice Department into a thoroughly corrupt, lawless, racialist, hyper-politicized, gun-running, vote-fraud-enabling, bullying arm of the left wing of the Democratic Party. Regulating the life out of almost every aspect of the economy. Buying political support by funneling taxpayer money to failing private alternative-energy companies. Lying with the Supreme Court sitting in front of him about what they decided in the Citizens United case. Lying about so many things that one loses count. Roiling racial tensions every chance he gets. This is a man who has no interest in serving the United States that most of us know and love. Instead, he’s a man who, by hook and definitely by crook, serves the despicable vision of the utterly foreign America he wants to impose on us. Four more years of this guy in power, and we are doomed. He is a menace, and, by every legal means possible, he must be stopped — and his maladministration reversed and thoroughly buried.
One of the most bizarre narratives I have ever seen take hold during a Presidential campaign is the narrative that Newt Gingrich, who spent three decades in Washington, ultimately rising to the top of the House leadership, is the “outsider” and “TEA Party” candidate whereas Mitt Romney, who has never had a job in Washington in his life (although admittedly that is not for lack of trying), is the “establishment” or “insider” candidate. Newt is not without his redeeming qualities but I have to confess that whenever he rants in his inimitable style about the “Establishment” I am struck with a powerful sense of vertigo. It isn’t just Newt’s ancient past that presents this problem. As recently as 2010, when TEA Party fervor was sweeping the nation, Newt Gingrich was completely absent from its key battles or just as often was on the completely wrong side of the debate. In NY-23, Gingrich endorsed Dede Scozzafava right before she bolted the party and endorsed the Democrat (for the record, Romney donated $5,000 to and endorsed Hoffman). In Utah, Bob Bennett kicked off his campaign with an endorsement from Newt Gingrich who aggressively campaigned on his behalf (Romney also supported Bennett and then donated $5,000 through his PAC to Mike Lee). In Delaware, Newt confidently predicted Mike Castle would win and then was completely absent from the discussion over the race until O’Donnell won the primary (Romney donated $5,000 to O’Donnell, but I’m not clear whether that was before or after the primary was over). In virtually every major TEA Party fight in 2010 – Toomey vs. Specter, Paul v. Grayson, Crist v. Rubio, Gingrich was either AWOL until the matter was completely decided or on the wrong side. The only Senate candidate that Newt’s PAC donated to whatsoever was Scott Brown . For all of his many faults (and watching his speech last night I have very grave concerns about his ability to ever learn to sound like a real human being), Romney apparently learned the right lesson from his thumping in 2008, as he busted his hump in 2010 raising money for and campaigning for Republicans, including TEA Party Republicans (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Jim Demint, Ron Johnson, Ovide Lamontagne, Marco Rubio, John Raese and Pat Toomey, among many others, got $5,000 or more from Romney in 2010). I again emphasize that there are a lot of candidates out there that I would prefer to see as our nominee than Mitt Romney but if this really is a contest between “Establishment Republicans” and “TEA Party Republicans,” I am at a loss to know how Gingrich has any claim to TEA Party support at all, or how he somehow escaped the label of “Establishment” when he is one of the most “Establishment” candidates who has run for President in my lifetime.
Here is the original post:
Newt Gingrich, Establishment Sellout
Fresh off a dominant win in the Florida presidential primary, Mitt Romney managed to unload a clip of .45 ammunition in both feet on national television this morning. In an interview with Soledad O’Brien, Romney said the following (emphasis added): Mitt Romney: “ I’m not concerned about the very poor; we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.” Soledad O’Brien: “I know I said last question. You said I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net . And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that?” Mitt Romney: “Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it , I will repair them. The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor . And there’s no question, it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids getting ready to go to college. These are the people who have been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.” While Romney’s intent was clearly to reiterate his focus on the middle class, which has suffered greatly in recent years due to economic troubles and rising unemployment, he committed not one but two major fouls in that statement (as well as a third that is only slightly less severe). First, he committed the cardinal sin of saying, in just so many words, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” Context be damned, Romney has now provided a direct quote that can and will be used against him ad nauseum for the remainder of his participation in this election. Second, and perhaps worse, he said in almost so many words that not only does he not care about the “very poor,” but the Democrat Party does. Take a minute to let that sink in. The presumptive nominee for the Republican presidential nomination, in a class warfare/economy/jobs election, said on national television that he doesn’t care about the very poor in our country, but that the opposition party does. As @Slublog noted on Twitter , “The only thing that could have made that Romney quote worse is if he ended it by laughing manically and lighting a cigar with a $100 bill.” The fact he didn’t mean precisely that is immaterial; you simply can’t say that in a political campaign , particularly when you’re (a) already filthy rich (and have never spent a day of your life in the middle class, let alone as a ‘poor’ individual), and (b) running for the top position in a party that is already portrayed by media and opposition as being unconcerned with any Americans outside of the super rich. Again, the fact that (b) is entirely inaccurate is immaterial; just as every possible Rick Perry gaffe contributed to the narrative that he was incoherent, inarticulate, and mentally challenged, every statement by Mitt Romney that could possibly be construed as being out of touch with (and unsupportive of) “the 99%” adds to the narrative that the rich, white, out-of-touch GOP is preparing to nominate a rich, white, out-of-touch automaton to lead its party and the country. In an election that will be focused on employment and the plight of working (and out-of-work) Americans, neither Romney nor the GOP can afford to provide any additional fuel for that narrative. In this case, all he had to say was something to the effect of, “My focus is on the millions of Americans who are suffering from the Obama economy.” The fact that Romney instead provided direct ammunition for negative advertising, while talking up his opposition’s support for the same poor he disavowed any concern for, is a major issue. Of more minor concern is the fact that Romney twice addressed the problems with America’s social safety nets in conditional terms – if the safety net has holes in it, he’ll fix it. That ‘if’ should grate those who have spent the last several months, years, and decades warning of the major issues facing our entitlement programs and safety nets (not least of which is cost, like the $55,000,000,000,000.00 that medicare and social security are currently in debt over the coming 75 year horizon), and proposing solutions to address them. Of greater concern, though, are the shots Mitt Romney fired into his own feet this morning with his declaration that he doesn’t care about the poor, but that the Democrats do – a simply inexcusable error. NOTE: Even unofficial Romney campaign spokesperson (and official Romney shill) Jennifer Rubin, who has a typically incoherent response at the Washington Post , can’t explain away such an egregious unforced error on her candidate’s part. Further, Rubin’s final line, ostensibly addressed to “the media,” is the height of irony. She writes, “Perhaps a less crazed approach to covering Romney would restore their credibility.” Ah, self-awareness.
See the original post:
Mitt Romney’s ‘Very Poor’ Choice of Words
With Speaker Gingrich having won South Carolina, and now polling ahead of Gov. Romney in Florida and nationally, there is one question that keeps popping up. What is it about Newt Gingrich that conservatives voters find appealing? Rush Limbaugh has at least part of the answer : To those of you in the Republican base, this isn’t complicated. Newt is winning. He is on a momentum roll here because he can articulate conservatism, that and he’s willing to take it to Obama. I have said for the longest time that whoever does that, whoever articulates conservatism with passion, with love, cause that’s love of country, with good cheer. Conservatism is inclusive. Somebody who can articulate it happily, proudly, with good cheer cannot be beat. Rush is right, Newt articulates conservatism. He does it very well and he rarely misses an opportunity to do so in grandiose fashion. This in and of itself isn’t that big of a deal. In all honesty, articulating conservatism isn’t all that hard, especially when our focus is leaning more and more towards conservative populism. What makes this interesting is that Newt has managed to win by articulating conservatism while having a considerable record of apostasies. Newt isn’t an empty vessel as Rush suggests. No, he is a vessel filled to the brim with ex-wives and mistresses. Newt is a man who sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, who favored an individual mandate, who, for all intents and purposes, lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So what is it about Newt that allows the conservative voter to so easily look beyond these betrayals? I attempted to answer this question in a series of tweets last night. To my surprise, Ben Domenech gathered up my tweets and put them in this morning’s Transom. To even greater surprise, Peter Robinson then quoted me in a post at Ricochet . In “ The Transom ” this morning, Ben Domenech quotes Aaron Gardner , providing a big part of the answer: From @Aaron_RS: “I think much of Newt’s appeal is that he is on a journey of redemption, and the people want to believe they are as well. His conversion, and the broader idea of Americans being able to bounce back. His story fits the mood. You add the redemption theme to Newt being able to appear confident and communicate ideas to people, and you have a result like SC. Mitt, on the other hand, has no redemption story because to repudiate any past position is to admit he was wrong. In the end, Newt is more optimistic while being honest and that goes a long way in building trust. Mitt isn’t getting that benefit.” Romney, in other words, is the diligent older brother, the one who has behaved himself all his life and just can’t understand why he doesn’t get more credit. Newt? Newt’s the prodigal son–a sinner like everyone else. The idea of redemption being a compelling force in this cycle isn’t really all that far fetched. The last decade has left many people wanting redemption. Whether it is because of the war taking its toll, the economy tanking, or the less than subtle feeling that Orwell’s boot is stomping on our human faces forever; the reality is that a lot of people in America are looking for some sort of redemption, political, economic, and even spiritual. And they are getting it vicariously through Newt’s candidacy. To be clear, Gingrich is not the redeemer, he is but one of the many seeking redemption. And that, when looked at in the right light, is humanizing and, as odd as this may sound, akin to humility. His candidacy revolves around a symbiotic relationship with the angst the voters are expressing. This was made clear last night when the audience was disallowed the opportunity to provide instantaneous feedback. Newt was thrown off his game by not being able to interact with the audience. Add to this the fact that Newt isn’t simply seeking redemption, he is willing to fight for it by articulating conservatism, and you start to see why his likability is increasing and his negatives are dropping. We won’t know until later whether this story ends with actual redemption, both personal and national, or if it ends with another betrayal. That said, the circumstances that exist today have made people less apprehensive towards taking this leap of faith. As for myself, I haven’t decided whether I can support Newt, or that I could defend him for four years. But like Rush said in the transcript I linked at the beginning: I trust the Republican base. That’s who I trust. I trust the Republican voters. I’m totally confident with them. They are the people in this audience. Why wouldn’t I trust them? They’ll figure this out. They’re not a bunch of brain-dead, mind-numbed robots. This is how democracy works. It’s how representative Republicanism works. It’s what we’re trying to hold onto, for crying out loud. Aaron B. Gardner
Go here to see the original:
Conservatives, Gingrich, and Grace
Yesterday, 16-year old Laura Dekker became the youngest person to circumnavigate the globe by sailboat when she completed her solo journey which she began a year ago. Dekker had wanted to set sail in 2009 when she was 14 but Dutch authorities prevented her by seeking and obtaining joint custody of her with her father who has supported her ambitions from the outset. She was born on a boat in New Zealand and has spent most of her life at sea. Eventually, her father and Dutch authorities reached a compromise which allowed her to set sail last year when she was 15. Here’s a blog post I wrote about the controversy at the time. I realize that many people would be appalled at the idea of a 15-year old girl sail solo around the world. Under normal circumstances it would be a crazy idea but I think Dekker is an exceptional case. Given her background, she probably knows more about the sea than most people twice, perhaps even three times her age. Let me put it
