Right Klik

Washed Out - Feel It All Around

2012-01-28T08:27:00.002-05:00

Weird video, good music:

Washed Out is the stage name of the American chillwave musician Ernest Greene (born in 1983, Perry, Georgia).

Toro y Moi remix:

Hugo Chavez's Daughter's Fistful of American Dollars

2012-01-27T15:06:00.004-05:00

Cross-posted from the Left Coast Rebel

Drudge has a link up at the Daily Mail, "Daddy won't be pleased... Hugo Chávez's daughter sparks outrage in Venezuela after posting picture with U.S. dollar bills."

The report claims that native Venezuelans under the totalitarian thumb of Hugo Chavez are "seething" that his 14-year-old daughter Rosines had access to American dollars and was flaunting her stash on the 'net:

If anything I find it fascinating that the teenage daughter of a brutal communist despot is fascinated with what is still perceived as the symbol of freedom and capitalism across the world -- the American dollar (I see there's some 2-dollar bills in there, kind of strange).

Scrolling through the comments, I caught this from a Daily Mail reader:

In 2009, I visited former Soviet/Eastern Bloc countries. I did not realise it was possible to visit old KGB headquarters (now terror museums) and if I learnt nothing new (e.g. torture chambers, execution rooms), the experiences were upsetting and, of course, testimony to what happened under communism; as were the views of locals who told of how they queued for everything whilst the communist elite lived well. So, it was pleasant to relax and visit the churches of Tallin (Estonia) where I fell into conversation with an exiled Venezuelan. After I'd expressed concerns re: Chavez (he'd just tried to change the constitution to allow him indefinite re-election), she replied, and I quote from my diary, 'We, the young people, voted him in. Yes, change was vital, but, what have we done? He thinks he is Fidel and we live in a police state that tolerates no opposition'. A privileged elite + fear? As someone once said, 'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it'.

Fascinating words of wisdom. Why is it that young people fall for statist pipe-dreams that turn entire nations into prison camps? For some reason, young people gravitate to the utopian ideals that socialism, communism, progressivism and statism of all stripes represent (or are sold to the masses as representing). Think about it: much of the pain we are feeling in this nation has taken hold due in a large part to the fact that young people fell for socialism-lite in America -- Hope and Change.

The problem with collectivism is that the downside -- the cause and effect of loss of individual freedom -- is never considered as the certain part of the equation that it is.

Gordon Hodson: Conservatives Are Innately Inferior...

2012-01-27T03:54:00.012-05:00

...but we shouldn’t stigmatize these racists, because they were born that way -- right?

Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology...

...lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies ... we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice.

Gordon Hodson, Michael A Busseri, Brock University*

Few will have the opportunity to scrutinize Hodson's report because the deficiencies of this poorly-designed retrospective study are hidden behind a paywall, but politically charged "science" should always be viewed with skepticism.

Ironically, the science of intelligence is usually an anathema to progressive intellectuals. (Perhaps this is true because the heritability of intelligence poses a threat to the politics of radical egalitarianism).

But I digress.

Celebrated progressive scientists have insisted that it’s racist or stupid to take seriously the mountains of data that show differences in IQ between human populations, and they believe that "general intelligence" is not a valid concept. But IQ research suddenly becomes valid when it's construed to tell progressives something they want to hear about racism, giving them justification for bigoted attitudes against conservatives.

The mind-warping hypocrisy and willful ignorance is astonishing.

"Some of his best friends are conservative."

Gordon Hodson

Phone: (905)688-5550 ext.5127

e-mail: ghodson@brocku.ca

*Emphasis added

Update: James Taranto sums it up very well...

So IQ tests are racist, except when they're used to "prove" that people with "socially conservative ideologies" are racist and intellectually inferior.

John Hawkins' Take on Mitt Romney's Electability

2012-01-25T23:05:00.005-05:00

Maybe we should just ask Mitt: Are you electable?Graphic c/o ExposeMittRomney.com

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

"Let's be perfectly honest: Mitt Romney excites no one except for Mormons, political consultants, and Jennifer Rubin...To everybody else on the right, Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama would be a "lesser of two evils" election where we'd grudgingly back Mitt because we wouldn’t lose as badly with him in the White House as we would with Obama. That's not the sort of thing that gets people fired up to make phone calls, canvass neighborhoods, or even put up "I heart Mitt" signs in their yards."

--John Hawkins, Townhall.com, December 27, 2011: "7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Electability is a Myth"

I would add neo-conservative liberal flake A.M. talker Michael Medved to Hawkins' short list of fervent, unflappable Romney-bots.

Hawkins' seven-point list on Romney's unelectability is spot-on (I missed it with the busy holiday); here's a synopsis and my take on each point from his article (his words in italics):

1) Likeability (Mitt's lack thereof). I tell friends that Mitt Romney reminds me of that opportunist fraud of yesteryear -- "Tricky Dick" Nixon. I don't know what others see (that steady 20% primary voter); I see Romney as stiff, cold, robotic and unlikable. So does Hawkins; Hawkins thinks voters in January, 2012 will too.

2) Mitt's a loser. Writes Hawkins, "There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not a career politician." It's because he's not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of the vote." No analysis needed on my part. Again, just why is ultra-liberal Mitt "inevitable"?

3) He's too liberal for the South in the General. My heart is in the South, as opposed to the Left Coast where I hail from, and I agree, he's too Northeast-liberal.

4) The "inevitability" establishment canard won't play for poo-poo in the General. Hawkins writes, "Yet, every one of those advantages disappears if he becomes the nominee. Suddenly Obama will be the more experienced candidate in the race for the presidency. He will also have more money and a better organization than Mitt. Moreover, in a general election, the establishment and beltway media will be aligned against Romney, not for him. Suddenly, Romney will go from getting a free pass to being public enemy #1 for the entire mainstream media." I'll add to this: and because he's a liberal, the conservative grassroots won't coalesce around him, even given the stakes. I saw this dynamic with my own eyes with John McCain's "Maverick" run. Conservative voters in the GOP bastion of San Diego just stayed home.

5) Bain. I don't necessarily agree with Hawkins that Bain is Romney's albatross. But, his lack of defense for his record is certainly suspect. Voters can sniff out a fraud. And Romney's likely tepid support for his capitalist record will sink his ship. And given the choice between even a socialist -- Obama -- and a fraud (Romney) they will unfortunately choose... a socialist. It happened in 2008 after all. Plus, the Obama $1,000,000,000 Machine will absolutely roast Romney with Bain.

6) Mormonism. Hawkins thinks religious bigotry will play against Romney. Not sure about that, who knows? My opinion has always been that Romney is bad because he's a statist, not because he has a certain faith.

7) Flip-flopper. This also dovetails into 5) above, when voters face a choice between a fraud (flip-flopper) and the real socialist deal, they will likely choose the real deal. Mitt's flips and flops beg the question -- even from a political junkie like me -- what does he believe? What does he stand for? What's his core. Answer: nothing but the status quo. And we all know where the status quo is heading for in this country.

Read Hawkins' Townhall.com piece and debate it out in the comments.

Updated: Brilliance from Dr. Milton Wolf @ the Washington Times:

“Mitt Romney is masterful at defending Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich is masterful at defending conservatism... Mr. Romney is like the Apple app store for candidates: Got a problem? There’s an app for that. What’s your tax plan? There’s an answer for that. Flip-flops? There’s an answer for that. Romneycare? Bain Capital? There are answers for those. Job plan? There’s a 59-point answer for that… When given opportunities to defend conservatism with questions about his tax returns and hunting, Mr. Romney stammered through painful answers and defended only himself, not conservatism.”

Stuff Libs Say

2012-01-23T07:10:00.003-05:00

Is There a "Real" Romney?

2012-01-23T01:46:00.007-05:00

Speaking from his heart?

"I love this land, I love its Constitution, I revere its founders, I will restore those principles, I will get America back to work, and I'll make sure that we remain the shining city on the hill."

Check, check, check, check, check ... and check.

Are we to believe that these are the thoughts that run through Romney's mind when he lays his head on his pillow at night?

Is there a "real" Romney hidden somewhere, waiting to be unveiled? It's time to bring him out.

If Romney can't be authentic, he will continue to struggle in the primaries. But if the authentic Mitt Romney is revealed, will Republican voters like what they see?

Maybe these questions lead us to Romney's own Catch-2012.

Rick 1, Mitt 1, Newt 1

2012-01-21T23:11:00.011-05:00

I'm surprised Newt won so big in SC. Intrade had his probability of winning at about 7% as recently as a week ago. I seriously considered buying up all of Newt's shares at that point, but I never expected Newt to crush Romney like this.

There's a lot of discussion in the conservosphere about how and why Newt's debate performance has impacted his momentum. But almost everyone agrees that the debates have been the decisive factor.

I think the take home message is that the "Not-Romney" sentiment is still very strong, and that sentiment has coalesced around Newt as a consequence of Newt's forceful repudiation of the abusive anti-conservative media establishment.

That said, I still think it's Romney's nomination to lose. This might be the last Not-Romney win for quite some time.

As I noted earlier, the next five contests will be in Romney-friendly territory. Newt has an advantage in the south, but we're going to be out of the core southern states for a while now. Florida is up next, but Florida is more of a regional hybrid with swing state tendencies, and Florida's Jeb Bush, a popular ex-governor, is expected to endorse Romney soon (update).

Addendum: Good insights from The Other McCain:

...Mitt’s “inevitable” mojo spell is now decisively broken, and the questions now are multiple: Can Mitt get his mojo back? Will Newt be able to avoid further “drama”? Can Santorum get the financial resources to stay in the race, hoping to be the last man standing if Newt auto-destructs?

Read the rest...

Update II: Good insights from Red State:

Newt Gingrich Wins. What It Means...

The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since...

Read the rest...

Update III: DON'T MISS THIS:

Conservatives (accurately) perceive the media mainstream to be a de facto organ of the liberal left, and by extension, the Democratic Party - and they understand that conservative governance is absolutely impossible unless that organ is defeated or co-opted. On the latter count, ask President John McCain how his co-option efforts went. When Newt Gingrich crushes a hapless journalist, he isn't just tossing up a parlor trick: he's demonstrating an indispensable prerequisite to conservative governance today.

Read the rest...

Cuba Drilling off Key West; Keystone Pipeline's Obama-Directed Demise

2012-01-20T11:37:00.003-05:00

Their man listened. Photo credit: TarSandAction/Flickr

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

Mission accomplished, Barry:

(Washington Post) President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn’t often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and — beyond the symbolism — won’t even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his reelection that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.

Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won’t get much. Stopping the pipeline won’t halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global-warming emissions. Indeed, Obama’s decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.

Now consider how Obama’s decision hurts the United States. For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on other issues will be harder. Next, it threatens a large source of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the United States, could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.

Finally, Obama’s decision forgoes all the project’s jobs. There’s some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims 20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of everything from pumps to control equipment. Apparently, this refers to “job years,” meaning one job for one year. If so, the actual number of jobs would be about half that spread over two years. Whatever the figure, it’s in the thousands and thus important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.

The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a huge supply of nearby energy. There’s no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the possibility when the oil’s natural market is the United States...

Read the rest.

Zero Hedge has the political-societal implications of Dear Leader's move:

But it is not only crude. Wonder why no jobs are being created? Wonder why despite record low mortgage rates there is no bottom in sight for housing? Simple - nobody can plan one month, let alone one year ahead for any US-based venture or business. The political risk is simply too great - whether it is contract law (see GM and Chrysler) or simple solvency (see record high levels of cash hoarded by companies), it is there, and as long as it is there, there will be no hiring, no capex spending, no growth, and no real improvement in the economy, the real economy, not that defined by where the Russell 2000 closes on any given day.

On a related note, as our nation languishes, guess who's taking advantage of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? If you guessed communist Cuba, you guessed right. It gets worse, though. Not only are the red-communist Cubans now drilling just miles (60-70) off of Key West, Florida, they are doing so from a Chinese-manufactured oil rig under the guidance of Repson, a Spanish oil firm. Plus, we are barred from buying the oil from the Cubans which are estimated to be sitting on several billion barrels of reserves (they say 20 billion, the U.S. government says it's closer to 5 billion).

Truly the only way to stop madness like this is to drastically scale back the power -- money -- of the Federal Leviathan. Starving the beast is the only way we will finally heal this nation and get us off this national suicide trajectory. And that doesn't mean slashing taxes while not cutting spending, Republicans.

Which presidential candidate today has the gravitas and track record to usher in such a scaling back?

Protecting Obama With Juiced-up Sex Stories

2012-01-20T00:01:00.003-05:00

Once again, Newt uses his jujitsu against a partisan media attack:

"I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans."

(Transcript)

Newt did the viewers a great service by forcing John King out of left-wing hack mode and into the role of humble moderator.

One of the four men in the debate could become the next president of the United States, but instead of discussing issues of national importance (which might make Barack Obama look bad), CNN was launching partisan attack, wasting valuable time on old tabloid gossip.

Newt changed the tone for the better, for the rest of the debate.

Newt hasn't earned my coveted endorsement, but I think he won the day.

Fixed It: Obama's New Campaign Ad

2012-01-19T08:25:00.012-05:00

Obama has released his first ad for the 2012 presidential campaign. There were a few small problems. I took the liberty of making some adjustments:

You're welcome, Mr. Obama!

Original propaganda here.

Update:

Near the end of the video, Obama points to a quote from Politifact from January 21, 2009: "kept a campaign promise to toughen ethics rules." A couple of observations:

Does this have anything to do with his energy policy? It looks like this quote is almost completely unrelated to the main theme of the video.
This is an old quote. Has Obama been as "tough" with lobbyists as he was the day after inauguration?

Update II:

The Lonely Conservative: Obama Can’t Run On His Record, So He’s Making One Up

Update III:

Obama takes credit for things he didn't do and he fabricates the rest. Even the Washington Post can't swallow these lies:

...figures are correct, but they are also not tethered to anything Obama has done.

...the Energy Department cited a host of reasons why foreign oil imports have declined, noting the main reason was “a significant contraction in consumption” because of the poor economy and changes in efficiency that began “two years before the 2008 crisis”—ie, before Obama took office.

Then, in bold type, the ad proclaims: President Obama “kept a campaign promise to toughen ethics rules” and it cites: “PolitiFact, 1/21/09.”

Politifact did write that on Jan. 21, 2009, but then it almost immediately changed its ruling as Obama began granting waivers to his ethics policy...

The suggestion that Obama was responsible for the 2.7 million clean-energy jobs or the decline in foreign oil imports is bad enough... We have more trouble with the citation of PolitiFact.

Update IV:

Obama's First Ad Riddled with Falsehoods...

Politifact: “We Rate Obama's ‘Revolving Door’ Policy For Former Lobbyists His Biggest Broken Promise...”

Solyndra, Obama’s Poster-Child For “American Ingenuity And Dynamism,” Declared Bankruptcy...

Obama did not create 2.7 million green jobs...

This is a bad way to start a presidential ad campaign, even by Democrat standards.

Schooling Ron Paul on Taliban History

2012-01-18T23:39:00.003-05:00

Image via Conservative Daily News

Some excellent points from Big Fur Hat at iOwnTheWorld:

Ron Paul keeps repeating his same old false information and his Hot Pocket Basement Brigade keep lapping it up with their 40 year-old virgin tongues...

"The relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaeda was one of the hot topics of Monday night’s presidential debate. Candidate Ron Paul downplayed the dangers of the Taliban, declaring the 'Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians… The al-Qaeda wants to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says we don’t want foreigners.'

"The Taliban came on the scene in Afghanistan in 1994, several years after the Soviets departed. Taliban (which translates to “students”) were made up mainly of Afghan refugees who had grown up in Pakistan during Soviet rule in Afghanistan and attended Deobandi religious schools, where they learned a strict, puritanical form of Islam. While some of the current Taliban may have previously fought on the same side of the U.S. during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is inaccurate to say the Taliban as a movement was ever an ally of the United States."

Ron Paul's radical interpretation of Taliban history is disturbing enough, but let's back up and look at his quote again:

“The Taliban just says we don’t want foreigners.”

Yeah, who could blame them? The Taliban live in a paradise on earth!

Note how easily Paul relates to Taliban xenophobia. Peas in a pod.

Preserve the Status Quo?

2012-01-16T23:49:00.004-05:00

Heads, they win. Tails, we lose:

South Carolina, please choose wisely.

Via i-am-john-galt

Romney's Bain Helped Obama With Auto Bailout... UPDATE: Story Retracted

2012-01-13T01:51:00.009-05:00

Here's your free-market capitalism:

Revealed: Bain & Company advised Obama on auto bailout, recommended cutting dealerships...

Does it matter that Romney hasn’t worked for Bain & Company in nearly 20 years or are the optics of this one bad enough to make it newsworthy regardless?

...The NYT reported recently that to this day, as part of the deal he negotiated when he left, Romney still gets a share of Bain Capital’s profits.

Uhm, let's see... Romney's cronies at Bain (a company Romney co-founded) worked with Obama on Obama's fiat-market, counter-capitalist, union-appeasing, jobs-killing auto bailout. Does that look bad? Why yes, yes it surely does.

Call it the Obamney Bailout.

x-posted

Update:

...this is what really ticks me off. We're told what a great capitalist Romney is and if we attack him, we're attacking capitalism. So, then why did his firm engage in so much socialism and still manage to screw up businesses, after pocketing tons of cash for themselves? This doesn't sound like the kind of capitalism I believe in. The taxpayers often took part of Romney's risk, or bailed out his mistakes, as with a pension fund, but he always managed to feather his own nest pretty damned well. This is what's wrong with America, not what's worth defending...

Stay tuned...

UPDATE:

STORY RETRACTED

Senator JimDemint on the Daily Show

2012-01-12T21:18:00.007-05:00

Senator Jim DeMint speaking in Iowa. DeMint image via Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

Over at Memeorandum, Think Progress thinks they have a juicy a-ha moment concerning Senator Jim DeMint. DeMint was on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and countered Stewart's argument for the goodness and federal-wonderfulness that is the fed education program Head Start.

Why doth the Think Progress troll protest so much against this:

The problem we have is from the federal level, it’s very hard to do things well. I mean, you don’t find too many federal programs that are working…When we politically manage the programs, the money is not distributed well and there’s no evidence — I mean we spent trillions trying to help poverty in America. But we don’t cure poverty, we subsidize it when we make people dependent on the government and make it harder for them to get up the ladder.

The clincher here -- and the truth -- is that the War on Poverty actually makes it harder for poor and lower-income Americans to move up the economic ladder. It takes away their drive, their spirit and eventually their life-meaning and humanity. How is that liberal? And, how is that compassionate, ~~conservatives~~ republicans?

Here's video of DeMint on the Daily Show:

LBJ's Great Society and "War on Poverty" are anything but over 40 years later. Always be eternally weary of politicians preaching a "war" on anything; as a rule anything the government declares war against -- the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty" being the two biggest examples -- actually exacerbate, accelerate and increase the problem they were created to solve. Government is not eloquence; it is forcing of unintended consequences.

For anyone that doubts this assertion, please read this report at the Cato Institute: "Nine Trillion Didn't End Poverty, What to do?"

Pass this along, too, from Dan Mitchell at Cato:

"My argument is simple: in the real world, social welfare programs create a perverse incentive structure and leave out the most important aspect of getting out of poverty which is economic freedom and opportunity."

More at Cato on the failure that is Head Start here and here.

Figures that lib Jon Stewart didn't get the memo that his example of Head Start as the crown jewel of the effectiveness of the Leviathan federal government -- the same government that federal supremacy folks like Stewart think that we (but not them) must all swear allegiance and eternal subservience to -- is an out-and-out failure.

Updated: Even that loathsome Joel Klein agrees with me. I guess even a busted clock is right twice a day:

According to the Head Start Impact Study, which was quite comprehensive, the positive effects of the program were minimal and vanished by the end of first grade. Head Start graduates performed about the same as students of similar income and social status who were not part of the program. These results were so shocking that the HHS team sat on them for several years, according to Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution, who said, "I guess they were trying to rerun the data to see if they could come up with anything positive. They couldn't."

I wish we as tax-paying Americans could rerun the data (and turn back the clock) with our mulit-generational, multi-trillion experiment with the welfare state. If the entitlement-welfare state had never been created, we wouldn't be facing this down and we wouldn't have enslaved and broken the spirit of millions across this nation.

Aside from the mountains of debt created, the human toll is the most tragic unintended consequence of the welfare state.

*Related thought (via RK): The perversion of the implicit marginal tax rate is a cruel trap for lower-income Americans.

Update x2 (via LCR): Just found this gem at Liberty Unbound, "Hurting the Poor, Helping the Rich."

Excerpt:

Statism helps wealthy corporations in many ways — not by giving them tax breaks as the modern liberals complain, but by giving them rent-seeking handouts such as farm subsidies and defense contracts. Ending all subsidies and all pork barrel spending would be a huge loss for rich people with political connections, yet the modern liberals have bamboozled the poor into thinking that statism actually helps the poor and hurts the rich. On Wall Street, the SEC’s maze of rules makes legal compliance so difficult that it is virtually impossible for newcomers to compete with the old established investment banks. Established businessmen use taxes and regulations to stifle competition from start-up entrepreneurs and up-and-coming small businessmen who can’t afford to hire compliance lawyers and tax consultants, as their old money rivals can. Yet small business is precisely the engine of opportunity for hard-working ambitious people from poor backgrounds.

Read the rest.

Romney's Kinsley Gaffe

2012-01-12T08:47:00.003-05:00

Wikipedia:

In U.S. politics, a Kinsley gaffe is an occurrence of someone telling the truth by accident... The term comes from journalist Michael Kinsley, who said, "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."

Mitt Romney's Kinsley gaffe comes in his defense of his work at Bain Capital:

“In the general election I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler – closed factories, closed dealerships laid off thousands and thousands of workers – he did it to try to save the business,” Romney said Wednesday on CBS.

President Obama has publicly touted his plan to “retool and restructure” the auto companies as “an investment in American workers.” Romney was strongly opposed to the auto bailouts, but on Wednesday likened the president’s strategy to his own.

“We also had the occasion to do things that are tough to try and save a business,” he said.

Watch the video.

It's an awfully awful comparison, but I suspect there's more truth in Romney's statement than he would care to admit.

With all of the cronyism and government bailouts at Bain, I fear that Romney’s accomplishments there exemplify the beauty of capitalism in the same way that Romneycare exemplifies the beauty of free markets.

UPDATE: OMG, this is worse than I thought...

Revealed: Bain & Company advised Obama on auto bailout, recommended cutting dealerships...

Does it matter that Romney hasn’t worked for Bain & Company in nearly 20 years or are the optics of this one bad enough to make it newsworthy regardless?

...The NYT reported recently that to this day, as part of the deal he negotiated when he left, Romney still gets a share of Bain Capital’s profits.

Uhm, let's see... Romney's buddies at Bain (a company Romney co-founded) worked with Obama on the fiat-market, counter-capitalist, jobs-killing auto bailout. Does that look bad? Yes it does.

Call it the Obamney Bailout.

Obama States Choose Romney

2012-01-11T07:36:00.001-05:00

More good news for Mitt Romney. After a tie with Rick Santorum in Iowa, Romney wins big in his own back yard, New Hampshire.

Note that both Iowa and New Hampshire are Obama states: New Hampshire went for Obama by 10 percentage points in November '08, and Iowa went for Obama by almost the same margin.

Reflecting a bit further back in recent history, you probably remember that the winner of Iowa's caucuses failed to win the GOP nomination in 2008. New Hampshire, however, was successful in launching McCain's ill-fated bid for the White House.

I hope the folks in New Hampshire and Iowa have experienced some kind of enlightenment in the last four years.

More (potential) good news for bonny Prince Mitt: Five of the next six GOP contests will be in Obama territory. The next six elections will be in South Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Maine, Colorado and Minnesota. Of those states, only South Carolina rejected Obama in the general election in 2008.

Even more good news for Romney: Three of the next six contests will be held in Romney states. Nevada, Maine and Minnesota all went for Mitt over McCain in 2008.

Yes, following in John McCain's footsteps, Mitt Romney appears to be the man whose turn it is.

Who can blame the Republican party for choosing Mitt? With the technocratic warmth of Mike Dukakis, the home field advantage of Al Gore, the aristocratic appeal of John Kerry — and the progressive instincts of all of the above — Mitt Romney is a no-brainer.

Yay, GOP!

Update: Insanity

SpiceGirl-in-Chief

2012-01-06T23:54:00.002-05:00

This is the punk who takes credit for killing Osama bin Laden and saving our economy form a Great Depression.

(A photoshop job, but it might as well be real.)

A Metaphor

2012-01-06T07:12:00.002-05:00

Crown Prince Wins by 8... Update: Santorum Certified Winner

2012-01-04T07:14:00.003-05:00

The crown prince of the GOP establishment insiders club won in Iowa by 8 votes. But after spending the better part of a decade wooing Iowa voters with millions of bushels of ~~corn~~ cash, he failed to win as many votes in 2012 as won in 2008, missing the mark by 6 votes:

Romney 2008: 30,021

Romney 2012: 30,015

Santorum 2012: 30,007

UPDATE:

Rick Santorum -- who trailed by a mere 8 votes in the initial tally -- actually beat Romney by 34 votes, according to the certified vote totals.

Iowa: Can Romney Match His 2008 Performance? UPDATE: No

2012-01-03T22:27:00.004-05:00

In 2008, Romney got 25.2% of the vote in the Iowa Republican caucuses. Four years later, as I write this, Romney is stuck at 23.6%, just behind Rick Santorum. If Romney can't muster 25% of the vote after all these years of campaigning and spending massive amounts of money, what does that say about this crown prince of GOP establishment insiders?

Update:

Popular vote for Romney 2008: 30,021
Popular vote for Romney 2012: 29,657 (99% reporting)

Update II:

Romney's blogger groupie doesn't get it (via Jacobson).

Update III:

Photo finish...

Conservative Dad: Pretty vs Hot

2012-01-01T03:58:00.005-05:00

For a long time, I've been planning to start a category of posts dedicated to topics of interest to conservative dads. Tina Korbe has a post packed with good points that have inspired me to launch my "conservative dad" series. The whole post is worth your time, so go check it out. With my two-year-old daughter's future in mind, I've selected a few key points:

"Why what women wear actually matters..."

Truthfully, I didn’t plan to write about this. We’re not a fashion blog — and, by and large, I don’t think what folks wear does matter. But, this morning, I read a brief blog post headlined “The Death of Pretty” — and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it. This is a rather long excerpt, but it’s too good to not be shared (the whole piece is worth your time, too!):

"...pretty is dying.

"People will define pretty differently. For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence.

"Once upon a time, women wanted to project an innocence. I am not idealizing another age and I have no illusions about the virtues of our grandparents, concupiscence being what it is. But some things were different in the back then. First and foremost, many beautiful women, whatever the state of their souls, still wished to project a public innocence and virtue...

"By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.

"Young women today do not seem to aspire to pretty, they prefer to be regarded as hot. Hotness is something altogether different. When women want to be hot instead of pretty, they must view themselves in a certain way and consequently men view them differently as well.

"As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend. Pretty is cherished. Hotness, on the other hand, is a commodity. Its value is temporary and must be used. It is a consumable.

"Nowhere is this pretty deficit more obvious than in our 'stars,' the people we elevate as the 'ideal.' The stars of the fifties surely suffered from the same sin as do stars of today. Stars of the fifties weren’t ideal but they pursued a public ideal different from today."

It’s so true — and it’s so sad...

...somewhere between childhood and adulthood — or, sadly, sometimes in the midst of childhood — girls begin to think it’s an embarrassment to be innocent, to be naive.

It’s not an insult to be called naive, though — not really. The first definition of the word is “having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality.” What’s wrong with that? To encounter the natural and artless — to escape cynicism and ugliness — is to be refreshed. Yes, it’s foolish to ignore ugliness — for it’s real and revealing. But we have such a limited amount of time in a day: Why not look to the beautiful, the good, the true at least as often as we look to anything else?

Here's the rest.

I would add that on another part of this spectrum (or perhaps on an entirely different plane) is a group of girls and women who may be neither pretty nor "hot," but who strive like rough men to be crass, brash and crude.

Pretty, hot... or crude?

I hope my daughter makes the right choice.

Nukes for Nuts: Ron Paul Stands With Iran

2011-12-29T21:05:00.007-05:00

Shorter Ron Paul: Give the world's bullies what they want and they'll go away...

Ron Paul told voters in Iowa on Thursday that western sanctions against Iran are "acts of war" that are likely to lead to an actual war in the Middle East...

...[Paul] said Iran would be justified in responding to the sanctions by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war...

"I think we're looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran," Paul told a midday audience at the Hotel Pattee in Perry, Iowa. He said the Iranians are "planning to be bombed" and understandably would like to have a nuclear weapon...

...the Texas congressman said that "we always seem to have to have a country to bash," linking the current saber-rattling against Iran to previous hawkish rhetoric that led to conflicts in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere.

"If you want to quiet things down," he said, referring to Iran, "don't put sanctions on them" because it's "just going to cause more trouble."

Ron Paul must think we're all crazy.

Update: a list of Ron Paul's goofs and gaffes at Hack Wilson.

Obama's Paths to Victory

2011-12-29T20:17:00.005-05:00

Via HotAir

Ron Paul's Dangerous Smear

2011-12-21T04:00:00.002-05:00

Blaming America first...

In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo), and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims. This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.

I struggle to understand how Ron Paul's incendiary insinuation is supposed to be helpful, but as Paul surges in the polls in Iowa, it's time to begin taking his delirious rants seriously.

Long after he finally leaves the White House, Obama will be remembered for his international "Blame America" tours. Ron Paul seems eager to build on that tradition.

Note: That strategy doesn't work.

Power To The People: Will and Delingpole

2011-12-20T07:38:00.001-05:00

Two videos, one from American Power the other from Powerline. First the shorter one, the the longer one:

Via American Power

Via Powerline

Obama Destroys Romney's Health Care Argument

2011-12-18T00:20:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney has defended his expensive, ineffective, coercive health care program by stating that while he had hoped each state government would do to its citizens what he did to Massachusetts, other states were ultimately free to reject his approach.

When Obama copied Romney's plan and the Democrats forced the controversial ObamneyCare health insurance scheme on all 57 states, Romney hastened to declare that his godawful plan was intended for one state and one state only:

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another.

[emphasis added]

Now Obama has undermined Romney's flimsy argument:

In a major surprise on the politically charged new health care law, the Obama administration said Friday that it would not define a single uniform set of “essential health benefits” that must be provided by insurers for tens of millions of Americans. Instead, it will allow each state to specify the benefits within broad categories.

The move would allow significant variations in benefits from state to state, much like the current differences in state Medicaid programs and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Obama's shrewd move is in perfect sync with Romney's purported values, allowing each state to experiment with crony health care statism in its own way.

Obama's community occupiers are not impressed:

The first thing you note is that this move is one more step towards Mitt Romney, who argues that RomneyCare might be fine for Massachusetts, but each state should be free to decide for itself how best to provide health coverage — or not. The White House political geniuses ... apparently think moving towards Mitt’s incoherent position will leave one less reason to vote against Mr. Obama; others might conclude it’s one less reason to vote for him.

Obama's loyal minions are missing the point. This is an easily reversible move that has one very important immediate consequence: It neuters Mitt Romney:

By giving states the discretion to specify essential benefits, the Obama administration sought to deflect one of the most powerful arguments made by Republican critics of President Obama’s health care overhaul — that it was imposing a rigid, bureaucrat-controlled health system on Americans and threatening the quality of care. Opponents say that the federal government is forcing a one-size-fits-all standard for health insurance and usurping state authority to regulate the industry.

[emphasis added]

The Obama administration temporarily lends some of its newly-acquired health care power to the states while stealthfully destroying Mitt Romney's weak but crucially important argument on health care reform...

That's very clever.

Update (12.18.11): Prediction...

Obama will make full use of this in his campaign.

Update II: Edited for clarity.

Romney vs Newt in a nutshell...

2011-12-16T19:43:00.000-05:00

Two moderate, big-government Republicans:

...one a bland businessman from an extremely blue state who used his power as governor to implement an expensive, coercive health insurance progra m...

...the other a controversial pedagogue from a red state who used his power as Speaker of the House to implement welfare reform.

Update:

“Romney’s signature achievement was Romneycare, while Gingrich’s signature achievement was welfare reform.” But, last night, I had a thought that tipped the balance in Romney’s favor. Both Romney and Gingrich have betrayed conservatism. But Romney’s betrayals came in a liberal state surrounded by liberals.

In the White House, Romney would be surrounded by beltway insiders and the liberal press, comfortably insulated from tea party pressure and red state heat.

How's that gonna play out?

Truth in Error

2011-12-15T08:09:00.001-05:00

Team Obama: Give The Gift of Spite This Christmas

2011-12-14T01:15:00.001-05:00

In a nasty fundraising effort for Barack Obama, OFA has sunken to an incredible new low, recommending spiteful Christmas gifts for conservatives:

Friend --

Everyone's got that special conservative in their life.

Maybe it's your dad, who forwards you every chain email about the President's birth certificate, or your neighbor, who just put up a Mitt Romney sign.

Dealing with these folks can be ... frustrating.

This holiday season, we're giving you a chance to have a little bit of fun at their expense. Let a Republican in your life know they inspired you to make a donation to the Obama campaign -- chip in $3 or more today.

When you give to the campaign, simply enter your Republican friend's email address and they'll get a note letting them know that they motivated you to donate -- which will surely make their day.

Not only that, but when you donate today, you'll be entered to win a chance to have dinner with the President and First Lady. Just picture how good it'll feel to let your honoree know about those dinner plans...

Give your conservative friends the gift of knowing they've inspired you to donate. After all, actions speak louder than words.

Please donate $3 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Your-Inspiration

Thanks,

Julianna

Julianna Smoot
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America

P.S. -- Really want to fire up your GOP friends? Buy them a gift from the 2012 store. I recommend the birther mugs -- they get the message across pretty well.

Even on Christmas, Obama wants supporters to find conservatives and "get in their faces."

This is NOT a joke: via email (screenshot)

Ron Paul: 9/11 Prompted "Glee" in Bush Admin... Update: "There was a lot of pleasure..."

2011-12-10T02:10:00.008-05:00

Ron Paul apes the paranoid left:

"Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately, before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because, 'Now we can invade Iraq.'"

This lends credence to those who say that Ron Paul is a neoliberal crank.

Update: (via Freedom's Lighthouse) Conservative radio host Mark Levin blasts Ron Paul for saying there was “glee” in the George W. Bush Administration following the September 11 Attacks on the United States...

Update II:

Ron Paul doubles down (starting at 5:17)...

Kelley: Do you really believe, Congressman, that there was "glee" in the Bush administration after 3,000 American citizens died?

Paul: They might not describe it that way, but there was a lot of pleasure...

Update III: Linked at Proof Positive!

At Some Point You've Been Subsidized Enough

2011-12-09T23:00:00.014-05:00

Image via IowaDawg

I have to disagree with our good friend at The Lonely Conservative on this idea from the Wall Street Journal:

It’s so ironic that President Obama goes out on the stump day in and day out bashing the wealthy while providing them with subsidies that add up to hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Stephen Moore and Walter Williams propose The Millionaire Subsidy Elimination Act. Their intention isn’t to bash millionaires, and they aren’t calling for higher taxes – only an end to the transfer of wealth to those who don’t need it. Unfortunately, it’s a bipartisan problem.

The much bigger fiscal drain from the wealthy is on the federal expenditure side of the budget ledger: tens of billions each year in grants, loans, subsidies, guarantees and benefits pocketed each year by wealthy Americans as individuals and firms. Any campaign to downsize big government will only succeed if the needed deep cuts in spending are deemed by voters as equitable. In an era of $1 trillion-plus deficits and a $15 trillion national debt, we would like to think that a national consensus could be reached to eliminate handouts to individuals and companies with net incomes above $1 million.

[snip]

Last month Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) put out a report, “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous,” that identified tens of billions of dollars of handouts to the wealthy. His report included farm payments under government programs to rock stars like Bruce Springsteen and former professional athletes like Scottie Pippen.

Rather than stand up against all this, Republicans recently allowed the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee home mortgages of up to $750,000. Not many in the bottom 99% can afford such homes.

[emphasis mine]

Sorry, I’m not keen on this idea.

The weird and perverse consequences of implicit marginal tax rates (income plus subsidies minus taxes) are already bad enough. Let’s not make them worse.

And let’s remember that people with high incomes aren’t always “rich” -- and wealthy people sometimes have low incomes.

End government subsides? Yes.

Target some arbitrary income bracket for poetic justice? No.

This comes dangerously close to Obama's “At some point you’ve made enough money" mentality.

Walter Williams is usually right on target. I’m surprised he has adopted the language of the Occutards to promote this idea.

We need to get away from the idea that government-funded “grants, loans, subsidies, guarantees and benefits” are appropriate in any form, even when they’re selectively redistributed like Marxist candy to the middle class. From that point of view, The Millionaire Subsidy Elimination Act falls woefully short.

Recommended reading:

The Dead Zone: The Implicit Marginal Tax Rate

Look who pays for the bailout: Meet the Henrys

Poor or Low-Income?

2012 Republican Caucuses and Primaries

2011-12-08T20:18:00.005-05:00

An outline of the Republican caucuses and primaries in 2012, with other helpful information below, via UVA Center for Politics:

An Advantage for Newt Gingrich via Google Ngram Viewer

2011-12-06T01:31:00.005-05:00

Perhaps this illustrates the obvious, but I think this graph is an interesting way to look at one of Newt Gingrich's advantages (Newt in blue):

(larger graph)

Google Ngram Viewer doesn't go beyond 2008, but that might be just as well. Scanning the massive database at Google books for use of the Republican presidential candidates' names in this time frame, we get an indication of the relative size of the candidates' footprints at the starting line, before any of them began running for president officially.

For comparison, I included John McCain below (note... Gingrich changed to red):

(larger graph)

For greater perspective, I made a graph with Gingrich, Romney, McCain, Clinton and Reagan (Reagan in red in this one; time frame goes back to 1970):

(larger graph)

It's fascinating to note that Bill Clinton never really eclipsed Ronald Reagan, even while Clinton was still in office and Reagan had been out of office for a decade.

It's also interesting to note Reagan's curve prior to 1980 vs Clinton's prior to 1992 and Newt's prior to 2008.

Update: I almost forgot to include a graph with Barry O (Newt in Green):

(larger graph)

Of course we shouldn't try to read to much into all this (Google's Ngram Viewer is not without certain limitations), but the graphs provoke thought nonetheless.

Update II: Intro to Google Ngram Viewer...

Update III: Interesting words and phrases on Ngram Viewer...

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Liberty%2Cliberty&year_start=1060&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

A State of Constant Fear

2011-12-04T22:42:00.001-05:00

Image: Fellowship of the Minds

Remember this?

“…find a right winger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear…”

Herman Cain did not just fall, he was pushed.

There's a lesson to be learned. Herman Cain went after the left with gusto. Remember this?

In New Hampshire on Thursday, Cain accused the [OWS] protesters of "trying to destroy the greatest nation in the world..."

Going back a bit further, remember this?

Herman Cain, who has already formed a presidential exploratory committee for the next election cycle, alleged "stupid people are ruining America" on Friday at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference.

"It's sad," he said in a speech at the annual event before going on to take aim at the left side of the political spectrum. "The objective of the liberals is to destroy this country..."

If you keep talking like that, you're going to pay a price.

Remember this?

"What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left."

Herman Cain never stopped attacking the left. He paid the price for that. Too few on the right were willing to defend him. They knew they would have paid a price too.

What happened to Herman Cain is what the Democrats intend to do to whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be. They know they can’t win a debate on the economy or on President Obama’s record, so they will do everything they can to distract the voters’ attention from those matters, which should be decisive, and instead turn the focus to the GOP candidate and his or her alleged foibles.

More on that here and here.

I never expected Herman Cain to win the nomination. His biggest surge in the polls was much more than I ever anticipated.

But I like Herman, and before the Cain Train crashed, I had hoped Cain might finish strong enough to emerge as someone's running mate. With Cain's charismatic and persuasive attacks on left-wing statism, the Jounolistas of the MSM could not afford to allow anything of the sort.

Your favorite candidate might be next. Are you ready?

I Found The Path To Victory...

2011-11-27T04:49:00.002-05:00

...and you can too!

I found a cool website that allows the user to tinker around with the states to configure any number of potential election scenarios. The map is shown with 2012's electoral view in a tie, with Obama states in blue and Generic Republican states in red.

You can click on the map flip states to Republican red or Democrat blue depending on what you think might happen with any given match-up. States also can be flipped to neutral so you can account for potential toss-ups.

Perhaps most importantly, the tally for the electoral college changes in real time as you make changes.

For deeper analysis, you can compare with previous years' results (e.g. 2004 and 2000).

When you're done, you can share your map with friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, etc. with easy-to-use buttons on the page.

Here's my map for a narrow win for John Q. Generic Republican (with the map's URL below the image):

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=etB (revised 12.16.11)

I think more than one of the Republicans running for president could pull off something like this, don't you?

If you want to share your own generic or candidate-specific map with the rest of us, I'll post it below...

PS: This chart is very helpful.

UPDATE: John wants to think big. Very, very big:

Is Mitt Romney Re-electable?

2011-11-26T07:45:00.005-05:00

Romney's disapproval ratings (click to enlarge)

For reasons that have not been explained well to me, Mitt Romney has been assumed to be a highly electable candidate for the office of the president of the United States.

Thankfully, some people are beginning to scrutinize that assumption.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that Romney can win the GOP nomination and then go on to beat Barack Obama. That would lead us to another important question: Is Mitt Romney re-electable?

Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts would raise some concern about that question. You see, Mitt Romney only served one term as governor, and looking at the precipitous drop in his approval ratings might cause one to wonder whether Romney would know how to get himself re-elected.

Mitt Romney won the Massachusetts gubernatorial election in 2002 with less than 50% of the vote (49.77%). With an underwhelming victory of that magnitude, it's no wonder Romney chose not to run for re-election.

Romney might have us believe that he could have won a second term if he had wanted it, but by the time Massachusetts voters had picked Romney's Democratic replacement in November of 2006, Romney's approval ratings were down to the low 30s and his disapproval ratings were as high as 65 percent!

Among all of the governors in the 50 states, Mitt was ranked #48 in popularity.

Why is Mitt Romney considered a safe choice for the GOP nomination?

Worst Recovery Since The Depression, $1T Down The Drain

2011-11-25T03:00:00.001-05:00

Image: Victoria Taft

As usual, the government's "cure" turns out to be worse than the disease:

...the CBO now says it's possible that the stimulus had virtually no meaningful effect on growth and employment despite its massive price tag.

All this comes after the CBO increased that price tag to $825 billion from its initial $787 billion — a 5% hike.

Adding insult to injury, the new report also says the stimulus will hurt economic growth in the long run because of "the resulting increase in government debt." Each dollar of additional debt, it reports, "crowds out about a third of a dollar's worth of private domestic capital."

[emphasis added]

"Occupy Black Friday" Rage: Haters Gonna Hate

2011-11-24T19:45:00.001-05:00

OC Register

The Other McCain explains the intellectual deficiencies and irrational hate upon which "Occupy Black Friday" is founded:

...why should Occupiers focus on Wal-Mart? Why not Sears, Best Buy, Target, Costco, or Dollar General? Aren’t all of those “corporations”? Aren’t they offering Black Friday specials? Aren’t the stockholders and executives of those companies as avidly in search of profits as Wal-Mart? Isn’t it only Wal-Mart’s spectacular success that makes them an especial focus of anti-capitalist rage?

[snip]

Why Wal-Mart? Because the Occupiers are ignorant, that’s why. Their arguments against capitalism appeal to the worst emotions — envy and self-pity — of people who fail under the free-enterprise system because they haven’t made the effort to understand the free-enterprise system.

READ THE REST

If Wal-Mart Occupiers want to start a civil discussion about the Fifth Amendment, or if they want to complain about the injustice of ObamaCare and other such foolishness, I might start listening to what they have to say. Until then, they should get out of the way.

Mitt Rewrites The History of RomneyCare

2011-11-23T03:36:00.010-05:00

If you like this video please share it on Facebook, Twitter, your blog or via email:

Mitt Romney hasn't been compelled to defend his record on health care. Now is the time to make that happen. Voters will be going to the primaries and the caucuses in just a few weeks.

If you learned something from this video, help me get the word out!

*Learn more about RomneyCare here, every fact presented in the video (and much more) is addressed in detail with numerous links: http://is.gd/RomneyCare

RELATED: Only about 30% of Republican voters say they know enough about RomneyCare to have an opinion.

x-posted

UPDATE: Linked by Smitty at The Other McCain! Thank you.

UPDATE II: Linked by Pundit and Pundette! Thanks.

UPDATE III: Linked at Rational Nation USA. Thanks!

UPDATE IV: Video posted at American Power. Thank you!

UPDATE V: Tweeted by Legal Insurrection, Ryan WN Garcia, Monica G, Yun Sun Cho, Ric and Richard McEnroe. Thanks!

UPDATE VI: Video posted at BBCW and Dueling Barstools, thanks, Clay and Ryan!

UPDATE VII: Posted (with pithy commentary) at The Humble Libertarian. Thanks, Wes.

UPDATE VIII: Posted at NotMittRomney.com. Thanks, Ali!

Newt: Go to Church, Pay Taxes, Get Amnesty (VIDEO)

2011-11-22T22:39:00.013-05:00

It's a simple formula: Go to church, pay some taxes ... get your amnesty!

Bonus points for having grandchildren and for breaking the law for at least 25 years:

If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.

I smell a straw man.

Here's a longer clip for context.

When Newt Gingrich gave his pro-amnesty opinion, I fired off a few tweets:

Who knew that you can't enforce laws if it will inconvenience families? There are lot of people in jail who apparently didn’t get that memo.

The Lonely Conservative calls it "Newt's Heartless Moment," referring to Rick Perry's famous anti-enforcement gaffe.

On the plus side, the MSM will probably reward Newt by cutting back on the smears for a couple of days. (UPDATE: Within two hours of the debate's end, the fawning begins.)

"He's a good little Newt!"

UPDATE II: Gingrich mentioned the Krieble Foundation's "Red Card Solution."

More of Newt's immigration statement:

Should Mitt Romney Switch Parties?

2011-11-20T01:51:00.002-05:00

The one-term wonder from the People's Republic of Massachusetts doesn't like to, uh, win -- at least not when it comes to beating Democrats:

Gee, Mitt, are you worried that "victory" over Democrats evokes the notion of Jimmy Carter surrendering the White House to Ronald Reagan in 1980? I know you don't want to emulate Reagan, but how far will you go with that attitude?

Folks, the weak-kneed Romney we see today is the toughest Romney we'll ever know. After he wins the GOP nomination, he'll be back at the campfire singing Kumbaya with Democrats faster than you can say "ObamaCare."

If the GOP wants a man in the White House who will compromise with Democrats even before the negotiating begins, Romney is the one.

Hat tip: Legal Insurrection

The Tea Party Budget

2011-11-18T07:27:00.001-05:00

I haven't examined the details, but this topline graph is intriguing:

Let's take a look at this.

Via Instapundit

Newt Gingrich & Herman Cain Go Way Back

2011-11-17T07:43:00.003-05:00

As Gingrich signals an interest in a Newt/Cain or Cain/Newt ticket, it's interesting to note that Gingrich and Herman have a history that goes back at least 16 years:

Among the personalities and books and events that have “influenced” or “changed” or “left an indelible impression on” the thinking of the Hon. Newton Leroy Gingrich... are, by his own accounts, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Isaac Asimov, Alexis de Tocqueville, Tom Clancy, Allen Drury’s Advise and Consent, Robert Walpole, William Gladstone, Gordon Wood, Peter Drucker... “the great leader of Coca-Cola for many years, Woodruff,” an Omaha entrepreneur named Herman Cain (“who’s the head of Godfather Pizza, he’s an African-American who was born in Atlanta and his father was Woodruff’s chauffeur”)...

OWS Only 99% as Popular as Public Defecation & Tuberculosis

2011-11-17T00:53:00.001-05:00

Public defecation , rapes, theft, tuberculosis , arson ... these are a few of the wonderful things that have grown from the militant left wing "Occupy" movement (a wave of protests infamously celebrated by Barack Obama and Princess Pelosi.) Surprisingly, -- wink, wink -- the filth, violence and disease is less popular than crowds of middle-aged tax payers standing around in patriotic garb complaining about politicians:

...asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43–37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40–37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable — from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43–34, to siding with the Tea Party 44–40.

As usual, the Democrats at PPP who came up with these numbers have buffered the bad news with what appears to be a liberal slant...

The PPP poll included an excessive number of liberals (27%). Gallup puts libs at only 21%

Also of note, the PPP poll had fewer moderates (31%) compared with Gallup (36%).

Liberals should probably be happy that the OWS protesters are "drowning out" their own message. Their incoherent anti-American left wing agenda is probably only about 99% as popular as human waste.

UPDATE... VIDEO: Tea Party vs OWS (via Nice Deb) ...

Coming to Grips With Grim Reality

2011-11-16T02:44:00.000-05:00

My thoughts on the grim reality of the 2012 elections, as initiated in an online discussion:

Yes, we're in trouble. When we elected Obama, I almost gave up hope. That Obama's approval numbers still aren't in the low teens concerns me greatly. And I get no comfort from the current state of the GOP. The Republican party is unprincipled and rotten to the core.

Republicans haven't learned the hard lessons of 2006 and 2008 because they don't want to learn them. They LOVE watered-down statism. And they present themselves as little more than a semi-competent alternative to the socialist buffoonery of the Democrat party.

I don't know what the current crop of Republicans will do for us...except maybe they'll slow down the rate of destruction just a little bit.

So here we are, probably stuck with Mitt, Perry, Cain or Newt.

As far as I'm concerned, Mitt's a moderate Democrat. Where I live, Democrats are often more conservative than he is. What's the point in replacing a Dem with a Dem?

Same analysis for Al Gore's old buddy, Rick Perry. He'd make a fine Democrat governor in my state. With hair so pretty, Rick Perry is simply a poor man's Mitt Romney with W's southern drawl.

What about the Hermanator?

Cain is Cain. WYSIWYG. His heart seems to be in the right place most of the time. But I'm no longer willing to try to believe that he's "in it to win it," as he so often tells himself.

I'm convinced that Cain is as at least as intelligent and competent as Barack Obama -- and he can communicate at least as well off tele-prompter -- but unless he develops the communication skills of a Ronald Reagan and a mastery of the issues comparable to that of Newt Gingrich, there's no way the Obama MSM won't annihilate him on the way to the White House. There's just too much at stake. If the Democrat party stands to lose even 25% of the black vote, Whig-esque oblivion will be just around the corner.

That brings us to Gingrich, the "not Romney" du jour.

Gingrich is a big-government moderate with some conservative tendencies. He can be an idiot, but at least he always knows what he's talking about. And I think a conservative Republican congress could keep him in check. That might not be easy, but it's probably doable.

My biggest worry with Newt is that he seems to yearn for approval from the wrong people. So he'll be too easily influenced by the Journolist MSM. But I've been slightly reassured by his willingness to attack the media lately. We'll see how long that lasts.

Anyway, I think the smart money is on Romney or Newt at this point. My apologies to anyone who has their heart set on other candidates, but I don't think any of them will make it. I'll eat my hat if they do. Mark my words.

Having said all that, and having gone on record as being adamantly opposed to Mitt the centrist socialist, I'm beginning to lean to Newt at this point. Yes, he sucks lemons -- and he's only modestly better than Romney -- but I'll take what I can get. Mike Pence and Nikki Haley aren't running this year.

What do you think?

UPDATE:I think Jacobson is generally correct here.

Brain Freeze: Can We Trust This Man to Run The Country?

2011-11-14T21:27:00.003-05:00

There's been a lot of talk about brain freezes in the news lately. Can we trust brain-frozen politicians with the world's most important work?

Rush Limbaugh:

We got the Iranians with nukes. We got Occupy Wall Street. We got an economy going to hell in a handbasket. We got Fast and Furious. We got the attorney general saying, "I'm not gonna apologize," and then he writes an apology letter and shows it to the media first. And this is the lead item on ABC's World News Tonight complete with a look at the science that explains show stopping brain freeze, which translates me, "Okay, we're gonna show you official science about why Rick Perry is an absolute blooming idiot. And we're not gonna have to say it. We're gonna get a scientist in here to say it for you so that you have no doubt that this guy is a stupid, dumb idiot. The lead item on ABC's World News Tonight. And when they finally got to the report by reporter John Berman, he mentions three politicians in addition to Perry who also look stupid, who all happen to be Republicans.

(emphasis added)

Inevitable Nominee Falls to #3

2011-11-14T19:30:00.004-05:00

What does it say about a candidate when he can only muster third place in the polls after running for five years? With only seven weeks until the Iowa caucuses, this is how it's shaping up for Mitt Romney:

Cain leads the field with 20 percent but is in a statistical dead heat with Gingrich, who gets 19 percent. Romney gets 14 percent.

Only 9% say they're "definitely" voting for Romney.

Beautiful Video From NotMittRomney.com #tcot

2011-11-09T07:37:00.003-05:00

This is beautiful on many levels. The end is devastating. Watch:

Ali Akbar rocks! Check out NotMittRomney.com now.

Hat tip: LCR

Erick Erickson's Scathing Post on Mitt Romney

2011-11-08T10:44:00.004-05:00

Go ahead: Ask Mitt anything because he'll tell you just what you want to hear
Graphic c/o ExposeMittRomney.com

Cross-posted from the Left Coast Rebel

The truth hurts. Mitt Romney stinks and is no conservative. And it's not that I am still debating whether he is a liberal or a Country-Club republican; it's that he simply stands for nothing and says whatever needs to be said to whatever group wants to hear.

And you know where standing for nothing gets us during these perilous times: more, more, more socialism like we see today. It is the path that Washington has thrust upon the nation and someone with no convictions or core will simply continue that trajectory.

This is something that us Tea Partiers (and indies, libertarians and conservatives) fear the most about the man: unlike Reagan and the tea party candidates elected last year, he has no core.

On this note, RedState's head cheese Erick Erickson lists most of the reasons that have brought us to this conclusion, writing:

Should Mitt Romney win the Presidency, conservatives will find this pattern play out repeatedly. Romney will head in a direction conservatives do not like and they will bitch and moan repeatedly and maybe, just maybe, he’ll part his hair in their direction.

Scathing.

More:

Mitt Romney is not the George W. Bush of 2012 — he is the Harriet Miers of 2012, only conservative because a few conservative grand pooh-bahs tell us Mitt Romney is conservative and for no other reason.
That is precisely why Mitt Romney will not win in 2012. But no worry, once he loses, Republican establishment types will blame conservatives for not doing enough for Mitt Romney, never mind that Mitt Romney has never been able to sell himself to more than 25% of the GOP voters. It’s not his fault though, it is the 75%’s fault.

The worst of it. Meet Mitt running for president, aka Mitt Inc.:

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.
I’ve been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself. You want him to be tough? He’ll be tough. You want him to be sensitive? He’ll be sensitive. You want him to be for killing the unborn? He’ll go all in on abortion rights until he wants to run for an office where it is not in his advantage.

But, something that I disagree with:

Conservatism is already dying. Republicans on Capitol Hill are about to raise taxes on the American people with this Super Committee, but they’ll say they are just “raising revenue,” not taxes. Conservatives will give them a pass as they have on virtually every other major issue. Conservatives keep giving passes to people who shouldn’t be given passes because conservative in Washington have been there so long, they’d much rather get invited to the cocktail parties and avoid awkward encounters.

I don't think that conservatism is dying. In fact, the ethos of self reliance, responsibility, the abundance of free markets and the founding concepts of this nation (like the banner at the top of this site) have never been more desired by the public. It's the republican party that is dying (and has been since the end of Reagan's presidency). There's is a big difference: The republican party is not conservatism. If anything (as you see with leadership such as statist John Boehner and the other clowns in leadership positions), the party has done almost irreversible damage to the conservative political cause. For they tell conservative America what they want to hear (to get elected) then do the precise opposite and offer the nation no true alternative to the socialist democrats.

In other words, the legacy of "conservative" George W. Bush.

Erickson sees this too:

Washington, D.C. conservatives will also rally around Mitt Romney, just as they kept doing over and over and over with George W. Bush even after steel tariffs in Pennsylvania, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the GM Bailout, and TARP. At some point the public will cease taking conservatives seriously when the most prominent conservatives — those in Washington who pose as the faces, voices, and writers of the conservative movement at large, keep throwing their lot in with a guy who keeps selling out the very principles conservatives claim to hold dear.

Unfortunately, Erickson's conclusion is laughable at best:

I’m starting to think I need to walk it back on my rejection of Jon Huntsman. Because I’m starting to think even he would be more faithful in his conservative convictions than Mitt Romney.

Then again, he may have a point: perhaps even John Huntsman would be more faithful in his convictions than Mitt Romney. And that is truly pathetic.

Check out NotMittRomney.com and spread the word. Head over to RightKlik for more on the pretzel candidate.

Via Memeorandum.

Herman Cain Discusses Sex Flap on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!'

2011-11-08T07:57:00.009-05:00

FWIW (see discussion below video):

Not exactly what I'd expect from a guilty man. But let's keep an open mind. What's Sharon Bialek side of the story? Here's how I understand it. Correct me where I'm wrong:

Boy meets girl and her boyfriend.

Boy invites girl and her boyfriend to party.

Girl and boyfriend go to the party.

Girl loses job.

Boyfriend tells girl to call boy (boy can pull strings?)

Girl calls boy to meet for coffee.

Boy meets girl for coffee.

Boy gets creepy with girl.

Girl says to buzz off.

Creepy boy buzzes off.

Thirteen or fourteen years fly by.

Creepy boy runs for president!

Girl seeks out creepy boy for personal confrontation.

Creepy boy seems creeped out.

Rumors percolate.

Girl pursues justice, tells world all about creepy boy.

Girl's explanation:

I’m all about doing the right thing, about justice being served. I wanted to do this because those that know me, know I don’t back down from controversy and things. I felt I needed to do this for the other women that couldn’t or wouldn’t regardless of what happens And I know you’re right. There’s going to be a lot of backlash and I’m going to have to suffer through that. And I’m sure that I’m not going to be portrayed as you know, different things. So, um, I’m willing to handle it. I’m a tough girl.

Related: Bialek accusations, assuming they are true, in no way vindicate Politico

The Race Card: To Play or Not To Play?

2011-11-05T19:59:00.004-04:00

William Jacobson makes the case for not playing the race card, arguing that when conservatives play the race card, it only emboldens and encourages the professional race card players of the Left, ultimately giving the Left more ammunition.

Here is my response:

I suppose “not playing the race card” means that the player refrains from making accusations indiscriminately. I assume that we always want to call the Left out when they are really indulging in [unambiguous] racism and bigotry.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, you’ve made a good case for not making race-based accusations willy nilly.

On the other hand, I’m not sure if there’s anything we can do to get the Left to play the race card less. And our restraint becomes our vulnerability.

If we outlaw the race card, only outlaws will have the race card.

Sometimes you fight fire with fire.

I’d also note that if everyone plays the race card all the time, at some point people become more skeptical — à la The Boy Who Cried Wolf. And I’m not sure that’s a bad thing (e.g., as we’ve seen with skepticism over sex harassment charges).

What do you think?

Dan Reihl Goes Hysterical Over Herman Cain Flap

2011-11-05T00:06:00.006-04:00

Ninety Herman Cain stories (and counting) since Sunday night, and what does Politico have to show for it? This, for one:

...that so many conservatives, driven by nothing more than negative emotions, would allow themselves to be drawn in by a jive talking huckster with silly cobbled together at the last minute plans designed more for pizza box sloganeering, than governing a great nation, is embarrassing...

This isn't a serious political movement right now, it's a clown show, one with which I'm coming to resent being affiliated...

I'd rather sit out 2012, than join in that humiliation that speaks to little more than the conservative movement's current bankruptcy when it comes to a serious and viable political leadership.

Alinsky Rule 5 success!

Dan, you're overreacting. Not a single vote has been cast yet. The voters are still vetting Herman Cain. They're still vetting Mitt Romney for that matter. Over 70% of Republican voters don't know enough about Romneycare to render an opinion. How many years has Romney been running now? And yet we're supposed to think that the Conservative Movement is crumbling because conservatives are still intrigued by the fresh face in the crowd?

Herman Cain: Bellwether

2011-11-04T05:30:00.011-04:00

Despite the fact that he's has been embroiled in scandal and controversy all week, Herman Cain still leads in the polls. And he's raising loads of money.

How is this possible?

Herman Cain has never held elective office, he struggles to explain his positions on important issues, and he's met with derision from powerful commentators on the left and the right.

Why has he continued to rise?

Perhaps Cain is exactly the sort of candidate we should have expected this election cycle.

For the past several years, the American voter has rebuked the political establishment at almost every opportunity. Republicans were punished in 2006, and again in 2008 -- and this was followed by a swift kick in the teeth for the Democrats in 2009 and 2010.

Along the way we've wrestled with The Combine over candidates like Sharron Angle and Arlen Specter at one end of the spectrum and Marco Rubio and Lisa Murkowski at the other end.

Of all people, perhaps Chris Matthews captured the sentiment best with this bit of commentary a few weeks before the 2010 elections:

I saw the strength of the flames that consumed him and will consume many others this rapidly approaching election night. I have waited all my adult life for an election in which voters have the fire to reach up and burn those who have been running the show for decades. But I didn't know it would come from the right and center.

2010 could be the first year in modern times when being in office in Washington and part of Washington is the worst possible credential when facing voters. I don't know how far the fire will burn. Based upon last night's returns, I expect it has a long way to go. It could topple the House and, yes, the U.S. Senate. It could bring the defeat of people who feel even now they are not endangered. It could produce an election night spectacle of name brand politicians standing before stance supporters saying their careers are kaput.

Why is this happening? Because this economic system is failing to produce the security and opportunity people have come to expect in this country. In this middle-class country, the middle class are scared and when people are scared, they get angry. They sense a rot at the top and are ready to chop it off.

If the plan of those in power to raise a ton of cash and run nasty TV ads saying you can't vote for this new person, that he or she is flawed -- I expect the voter will say, "Are you telling me I have no choice but to vote for you? Are you saying that I, this little voter out there, dare not take a chance on someone who has not yet let me down as you have? If that is what you're telling me, that I have no choice, well, Mr. Big Stuff, you just have to wait -- stay up late election night and see what I have done."

Matthews was right, and it appears that the spirit of 2010 has not yet passed. Our elite politicians and pundits have lost credibility. Americans are marching to the beat of their own drums now.

Whether he wins or loses in the end, Herman Cain is a bellwether for the prevailing anti-establishment attitude.

RELATED: Legal Insurrection

x-posted at LCR

Top Reasons to Oppose Mitt Romney

2011-11-02T23:42:00.005-04:00

New Results from Quinnipiac:

What is the main thing about Mitt Romney that might make you consider voting against him in the primary?

RomneyCare 15%

Flip flops 9%

Not conservative 6%

What is the main thing about Mitt Romney that might make you consider voting for him in the primary?

Business experience 12%

Nothing would make me vote for him 10%

Political experience 8%

This doesn't look very good for Romney.

Only about 30% of Republican voters say they know enough about RomneyCare to have an opinion. Support for Romney could deteriorate as more voters learn about his signature political achievement.

Obama The Theocrat

2011-11-02T22:29:00.003-04:00

Obama criticizes Republicans:

“I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people to work.”

How does Obama know what God's politics is? He is building a religion:

*Parody and irony alert

Herman Cain Roundup: Waiting for the Other Shoe(s) to Drop

2011-11-02T19:09:00.009-04:00

As accusations from team Perry thicken the plot of an otherwise underwhelming story, voters in Iowa yawn and wait. Even Cain's critics are beginning to wonder "if there’s any there there." But supporters are tiring of Cain's amateurish response to the accusations.

So far, however, the story has created a massive fundraising windfall for the Cain campaign.

Meanwhile, Instapundit reminds us to filter the news through our memory of the Journolist scandal, "where journalists got together and talked about how to bury stories that hurt Democrats and push stories that hurt Republicans." Is Politico "creating" complaints?

Cain's best friends in the conservative blogosphere have advised Cain to "get it all out there" PDQ. If he doesn't, Cain's astonishing strength in the polls will wither and the "anyone but Romney" crowd will begin to re-examine the alternatives.

Stories cited in this post, in order of their appearance:

GOP 12: Consultant who "witnessed" Cain harassment has Perry Super PAC ties
Legal Insurrection: Cain, the saga continues, and $35k is no biggie
Politico: Iowa yawns at Herman Cain flap
Patterico's Pontifications: How about another Cain “aggressive and unwanted behavior” post?
The Lonely Conservative: Witness to Alleged Cain Harassment Comes Forward, Can’t Give Details
RightKlik: $400,000: Controversy Propels Cain to Biggest Online Fundraising Day…
Instapundit: A Journolist Reminder
Legal Insurrection: Creating Complaints
The Other McCain: Let Her Speak
The Tipsheet: Herman Cain Dominating in South Carolina
Legal Insurrection: Chewing through the not-Romneys

UPDATE: Finger pointing

$400,000: Controversy Propels Cain to Biggest Online Fundraising Day…

2011-11-01T21:34:00.006-04:00

High tech lynching backfires:

...although Mr. Cain was hit with sexual harassment accusations in the 90's from two females who worked for him when he was president of the National Restaurant Association, Monday's online campaign fundraising for the campaign was the best ever up to this point.

Human Events is reporting that Cain Campaign Manager Mark Block says the campaign raised $250,000 in online donations in one day. However, the number turned out to be much higher than that. "We raised $400,000 in the last 24 hours," Cain campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon told me Tuesday evening.

The concern trolls are concerned. Maybe Cain should suspend his online fundraising until Allahpundit gives the green light.

UPDATE: Over $1,000,000 in 48 hours.

It's Not Easy Being a Black Conservative...

2011-10-31T00:20:00.011-04:00

...because we all know that they're lewd and dangerous and consumed with uncontrollable lust:

...the Politico begins a sincere effort to destroy the black guy running to be the GOP’s Presidential nominee. The opposition dump on Herman Cain has begun in earnest. Before getting into the details, let’s pay attention to what this means.

It means for certain that Herman Cain’s lead in the polling is real — very, very real. People are taking him seriously. Mr. Cain is about to spend a week in Washington answering questions and giving speeches. Someone wanted to make sure he has a miserable week.

The allegations are pretty straight forward. At least two women complained of sexual harassment by Herman Cain when he ran the National Restaurant Association. How did this play out? Well, the Politico says it learned about the allegations and then began putting together a roster of board members, etc. Someone tipped them off obviously.

Stacy McCain wonders why this is coming out now:

We know nothing about the accusers and the specifics of the accusations from a dozen years ago are reported rather vaguely by Politico: “episodes that left the women upset and offended” and “physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.”

All in all, it’s a long run for a short slide. Unless and until we have some specifics — including names, dates and places — my instinct is to agree with Gordon that this is “part of a smear campaign.”

Why are Cain’s enemies firing the thermonuclear component of their oppo-research arsenal so early? Generally speaking in such matters, you save your big stuff for later in the campaign.

Erick Erickson agrees that this isn't the typical smear campaign.

Why is Herman getting special treatment?

Professional associates, including a number of women, say this story doesn't comport with the sterling reputation of the Herman Cain that they know:

"such behavior would be totally out of character"

“That’s a shock to me...”

“not within his character”

“It’s not what I know of him...”

Cain’s treatment of women was “the same as his treatment of men. Herman treated everyone great...”

x-posted to LCR

Learn more about Herman Cain.

UPDATE: Herman Cain's wife, Gloria Cain

UPDATE II: Herman Cain said that this would happen, and that he would be prepared:

Cain predicted this would happen five months ago. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York reported in May:

But wouldn't liberals and Democrats still find a racially-based way to attack Cain? They certainly found a way to attack Clarence Thomas, the black, conservative Supreme Court justice.

"They're going to come after me more viciously than they would a white candidate," Cain responded. "You're right. Clarence Thomas. And so, to use Clarence Thomas as an example, I'm ready for the same high-tech lynching that he went through -- for the good of this country." Cain smiled broadly. "I'm ready for the same high-tech lynching."

UPDATE III:

This just might backfire, solidifying conservative sympathy for Herman Cain. Ann Coulter:

"I'm spitting mad about this attack on Herman Cain. Maybe he should be a the top of the ticket."

UPDATE IV: Cain: I was "falsely accused"

“In my over 40 years of running businesses and corporations, I have never sexually harassed anyone,” he told an audience at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

“I was accused — falsely, I might add. When the charges were brought, I recused myself, and allowed my general counsel and human-resources officer to deal with the matter.

“After a thorough investigation, it was determined there was no basis for the complaints,” Cain related.

UPDATE V: Cain: This is "a witch hunt"

Herman Cain called the accusations of sexual harassment against him “a witch hunt” and said he had been falsely accused while the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.

Declaring at the National Press Club that he “would be delighted to clear the air,” Mr. Cain said that he is unaware of any settlements paid to his accusers.

“It was concluded after a thorough investigation that it had no basis...”

UPDATE VI: Cain details gesture that led to sex accusation...

...I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, 'My wife comes up to my chin.'" At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. "And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable," Cain said...

UPDATE VII: Professor Jacobson opines...

This is a taste of the medicine the mainstream media ... has in store for the eventual Republican nominee...

...it looked like Politico was out to get Cain, not just investigate a story. The view from above was quite clear...

I just watched Cain’s interview by Greta Van Susteren, and he was clear and persuasive that there was no harrassment.

UPDATE VIII: Limbaugh's remarks...

Politico Story An “Unconscionable Racially Charged Attack”

UPDATE IX:

The fine art of portraying black men as sexual predators...

Memeorandum thread

Photo: Herman Cain's Wife... UPDATE: Another picture of Gloria Cain... UPDATE: Gloria & Herman With Family... UPDATE: Gloria Cain Video

2011-10-31T00:19:00.026-04:00

Gloria Cain and Herman Cain

UPDATE: Gloria (Etchison) and Herman in 1968:

**Read about the Herman Cain "sexual harassment" story here.

UPDATE II: Mrs. Cain to the rescue?

UPDATE III: Gloria will appear this Friday on Greta Van Susteren's Fox show (via Business Insider).

UPDATE IV: Gloria backs out.

UPDATE V: More pictures...

Gloria, Herman & Family

Hat tip: No Quarter

Background information:

How Herman and Gloria Met:

Herman and Gloria met during their college years.
Herman: "One month after she graduated from college, I swept her off her feet — we knew each other — and we got married a month later."
Source: Alex Pappas. "Herman Cain: My wife will not be traditional 'campaign wife.'" DailyCaller.com. 5/19/2011.
Wedding Date:

Gloria and Herman were married in the spring of 1968.
Children:

Herman and Gloria have two children and several grandchildren.
Melanie Cain: Born abt. 1972.
Vincent Cain: Born abt. 1978.
Herman: "Two was actually the right number of children for us. When two people get married, two equations of happiness are added together. If they match perfectly, which is very rare, you get a marriage bonus, as in 'two plus two equals five.'"

Source: Herman Cain. CEO of Self: You're in Charge! 2001. pg. 100.

Gloria Cain Video: "My husband respects women..."

Mitt in The Tank

2011-10-29T21:42:00.008-04:00

"Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor..."

What will they think when they finally learn about Romneycare?

Among those Republicans who actually expressed an opinion on Romneycare, the results weren't even close: 23 percent said they had an unfavorable view of the law, compared with just 3 percent who had a positive view. That's a nearly 8 to 1 margin of opposition to the law that was Romney's signature legislative accomplishment as governor.

What's working to Romney's advantage, however, is that a whopping 70 percent of Republicans surveyed said they didn't know enough about the law to have an opinion. (Among all Americans, it was even higher at 76 percent.)

The history of "Dukakis in the tank."

George Will Pistol Whips Mitt Romney

2011-10-29T07:23:00.010-04:00

On Sunday, George Will compared Mitt Romney to liberal Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis, the infamous robotic candidate for president who was pulverized by George H. W. Bush in 1988. (See the short video below for Will's comments.)

Tomorrow, George will stand apart from the rest of the elite GOP talking heads with some unvarnished truth on pretty boy Mitt Romney:

Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable, he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate: Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the tea party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming. Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from ‘data’ ... Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for THIS?

The normally restrained George Will reacts in frustration to his disappointment in Romney by writing in ALL CAPS.

I'm shocked.

UPDATE: The rest of Will's column is already out...

The Republican presidential dynamic — various candidates rise and recede; Mitt Romney remains at about 25 percent support — is peculiar because conservatives correctly believe that it is important to defeat Barack Obama but unimportant that Romney be president. This is not cognitive dissonance.

Read the rest.

Federal Government Provides Life Support for RomneyCare

2011-10-28T06:07:00.004-04:00

Think of RomneyCare as a federal welfare program for the health care system in Massachusetts. Because that's what it is...

Flashback Via Doug Ross:

State treasurer of MA absolutely shreds RomneyCare, which "has nearly bankrupted the state" and is surviving solely because of federal aid...

“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office.

...[T]he state’s health insurance law…Cahill said, “has nearly bankrupted the state.”

Cahill said the law is being sustained only with the help of federal aid, which he suggested that the Obama administration is funneling to Massachusetts to help the president make the case for a similar plan in Congress...

Voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina should take note. After all, they are paying for RomneyCare along with all of the rest of us.

VIDEO: Peter Schiff Takes it to Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-27T20:40:00.002-04:00

Crossposted from the Left Coast Rebel

This is simply just too cool. You can almost hear the collective "Occupy-I-am-entitled-to-everything-I-want-simply-because-I-have-a-pulse" synapses misfiring in the crowd as Peter Schiff engages them (poor saps have probably never even heard his viewpoint that he aptly expresses).

There are too many quotable moments from Schiff here, "WalMart doesn't hold a gun to their head" may just go down in interweb infamy:

I love how Allahpundit notes that Schiff pulls this thing off like an Austrian-school ninja.

Indeed.

More from Nick Gillespie at Reason.com:

"Did a corporation end slavery, or did the government end slavery?!?!"

That's the sort of question investment guru and radio show host Peter Schiff fielded as he debated Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters last week in New York's Zuccotti Park.

Schiff is no ordinary observer. As the prinicipal of the financial firm Euro Pacific Capital, he's a full-fledged and unapologetic member of "the 1 Percent." As an outspoken radio show host (listen online here) and commentator, he not only predicted the housing crash and financial crisis, he railed bank and auto-sector bailouts as they were happening. Schiff believes that capitalism offers is the only hope for young, frustrated people to have a vibrant and prosperous future (get information on his latest book, How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, here). So he went to Occupy Wall Street to engage and debate the protesters.

Touring the Occupy Wall Street scene in New York with a sign that read "I Am the 1%, Let's Talk," Schiff spent more than three hours on the scene, explaining the difference between cronyism and capitalism, bailouts and balance sheets, and more.

"The regulation we want is the market," said Schiff. "That's what works."

Via Memeorandum.

Karl Rove Attacks Mitt Romney With His White Board

2011-10-27T05:10:00.010-04:00

Karl Rove discusses Mitt Romney's vulnerabilities

Karl Rove, Mitt Romney's biggest fanboy, admits that Mitt faces a challenging climb to the GOP nomination. But as usual, he ends his discussion on a positive note:

"Mitt's starting to slip in the polls, but he might be able to hang on to front-runner status if he gets some personality coaching and a spinal transplant."

*Parody Alert*

Update (via The Other McCain):

When the insiders try to dictate our political choices, by anointing some candidates and dismissing others as “not up to the task,” it is directly analogous to economic planners attempting to substitute their own preferences for the free choices of consumers in the marketplace. And just as economic planning destroys the essential vitality of the free market, so too do these interventions by the political elite destroy the essential vitality of the grassroots.

The central-planning model of politics — which dominated the GOP when Karl Rove was at the White House and Ken Mehlman ran the RNC — is deeply implicated in the Republican “brand damage” problem that led to landslide victories for Democrats in 2006-08. It was only with the rise of the Tea Party in 2009-10 that the conservative movement recaptured the momentum it lost during the Bush/Rove/Mehlman era.

Bad News for BHO, Good News for Herman Cain

2011-10-26T23:32:00.002-04:00

Via Fox News:

The bad news for the president is that more voters would be displeased or scared if he were re-elected (47 percent) than if Cain (32 percent), Romney (33 percent) or Perry (38 percent) wins.

Republicans and Tea Partiers are about twice as likely to be “enthusiastic” about a Cain win as a Romney or Perry victory.

With a bad economy and with approval numbers generally low across the board, my guess is that most voters will be "voting against" rather than "voting for" candidates this year.

That's probably bad news for Barack Obama.

Frightened by his own shadow, Romney runs from the fight...

2011-10-26T00:31:00.008-04:00

In the all-important battleground state of Ohio, Mitt Romney has proven again that he's not up for a tough fight:

June 2011: Mitt casts a shadow...

My friends in Ohio are fighting to defend crucial reforms that the state has put in place to limit the power of union bosses and keep taxes low. I stand with John R. Kasich and Ohio’s leaders as they take on this important fight to get control of government spending. Please visit www.BetterOhio.org for more information.

October 2011: Mitt runs from his shadow...

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped into the middle of the charged battle over organized labor in Ohio on Tuesday ... but he would not say whether he supports or opposes the specific measures.

"I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues," Romney said, only after repeated questions from reporters. "Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party's efforts here."

Conservatives react:

Conn Carroll: "If Romney can't endorse this common sense reform at the state level, why should conservatives believe he will fight against government unions at the federal level.

Ed Morrissey: "...practically guaranteed to enrage conservatives looking to break the political stranglehold unions have on state politics and budgeting."

Right Scoop: "This is EXACTLY why I refuse to support Romney for the nomination. He is nothing more than a political opportunist..."

Red State: "Typically, when a politician stands for nothing except his own election, he winds up not getting elected."

Drew at Ace: "Why would Republicans in Ohio who are working their butts fighting the good fight here come out and work for a guy who won’t support them?"

Where's the ever-impartial Karl Rove when a front-runner needs some tough love?

June 2011:

Update: Romney's link to BetterOhio.org takes you to the mother lode of information on union reforms (Issue 2). Romney now says he's sorry for all the "confusion" he created. Does this count as a gaffe? Or does a gaffe only count if it comes from a "not Romney" candidate?

BetterOhio.org:

Update II:

Ace tries to explain:

1, he didn't do his homework here, and really the one thing I like about Romney is that he does his homework, so when he doesn't, it leaves me wondering what good he is at all.

2, not sure of what his previous statements were, he was cautious and disciplined and tried to offer a lukewarm response that he calculated, quite incorrectly, would get no press at all and would not cause him any consternation.

3, the Trouble with Romney. This last point illustrates why a lot of people are having trouble rallying to Romney. I am not going to knock caution and discipline per se...

But there's a point at which caution, which is defensible, becomes pure timidity, which is not. And it's worrying that, having forgotten his programmed strategy/position points, his natural inclination wasn't simply to say "Of course I support these reforms!"

I would add this:

4. Romney probably had done his homework, but was seeking to distance himself from good reforms (reforms that he had publicly supported only four months ago) because those reforms are now down in the polls.

Prediction of the Day: Left Wing Duplicity Edition

2011-10-25T20:43:00.004-04:00

It's the Alinsky approach to religious diversity and tolerance:

But here’s a prediction: If Romney wins the nomination, we will see a rush of anti-Mormon propaganda -- generated by secular liberals, not evangelicals. Anti-Romney leftists, the sort of people who would be loath to utter an unfavorable word about Islamic doctrine, will expend a great deal of energy and money bringing to light the most peculiar aspects of Mormon theology and practice, in an effort to convince evangelicals that the man leading the Republican Party is a harebrained heathen.

Jeffrey Goldberg, being of remarkably open mind, argues that one loutish gentile religion is just as good as any other.

Rock 'em sock 'em Republicans

2011-10-25T05:42:00.002-04:00

Maybe it time to start attacking Obama...

GOP Candidates Should Praise Estonia

2011-10-22T07:44:00.002-04:00

With small efficient government, Estonia leads the way:

In the middle of this year, two rating agencies, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, upgraded Estonia's credit rating ... Government debt is about 6.6 percent of the gross domestic product, as compared with 120 percent in Italy, 160 percent in Greece and 80 percent in Germany. In the first two quarters of 2011, the Estonian economy grew at an annualized rate of 8 percent...

"Comparisons are always difficult," he says. "But when we had finally escaped from Soviet socialism, we were sick and tired of government centralism. We wanted precisely the opposite in all respects: We wanted a transparent state. A country that isn't constantly intervening, nationalizing businesses, placing a bureaucracy above everything and imposing rules on people in every respect."

"...The state must clear the way for those who want to achieve something. That's the function of the state."

When the Soviet system collapsed almost exactly 20 years ago, the Estonians crept out from under the ruins, declared independence and reinvented themselves, making sure that their legal system, administration, legislature and economic system were as far from socialist as possible...

Read the rest. Via Instapundit

Herman Cain on Abortion Within The Context of Rape and Incest

2011-10-20T07:59:00.006-04:00

Piers Morgan asked a question about abortion within the specific context of rape and incest:

"But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?"

Herman Cain said the following:

... it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

It sounds to me like Cain is saying that within the context of rape and incest, government should stay out of the decision. Cain gave a nearly identical response to the question of abortion to save the life of the mother, so I wasn't particularly surprised by this. Here's what Cain said on Meet the Press:

MR. GREGORY: What about abortion? You want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Could you support or condone abortion under any exceptions at all?
MR. CAIN: I believe in life from conception, and I do not agree with abortion under any circumstances.
MR. GREGORY: Exceptions for rape and incest?
MR. CAIN: Not for rape and incest because...
MR. GREGORY: What about life of the mother?
MR. CAIN: Because if you look at, you look at rape and incest, the, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options. If it's the life of the mother, that family's going to have to make that decision.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm. But you can--would you condone abortion if the life of the mother were...
MR. CAIN: That family is going to have to make that...
MR. GREGORY: You won't render a judgment on that.
MR. CAIN: That family is going to have to make that decision.

The MSM is presenting this as a sort of schizoid conflict of opinions, and it's created a firestorm on conservative websites. What do you think?

Here's the video with a poll below:

Occupy K Street

2011-10-19T22:18:00.007-04:00

The freegans and rabble-rousers of "Occupy Wall Street" would do well to direct some of their angst away from the mysterious "1%" and toward the well-compensated whores on K street who fuel the juggernaut of cronyism that rides roughshod over our anemic economy.

Via Lonely Conservative:

Here’s a big shocker. According to Bloomberg, the US city with the highest household income is Washington, DC. So that’s where all the stimulus has gone!

Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation’s greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose as the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area, government data show.

The U.S. capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley, according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046.

[...]

It gets better from there. One Chamber of Commerce official was quoted, saying “Wall Street has moved to K Street.”

As true now as it ever was:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden."

Romney Made Iowans Pay

2011-10-16T19:20:00.009-04:00

One-term wonder Mitt Romney is proud of his accomplishments as Governor of liberal Massachusetts. He's particularly proud of his health care "reform" law.

Here's Romney's best kept secret: Massachusetts isn't paying for it! The state has been able to shift the majority of the costs of RomneyCare to the federal government.

Do voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina know this?

More RomneyCare enlightenment here.

x-posted

RomneyCare: The Big Lie

2011-10-16T03:55:00.005-04:00

September 22, 2011:

"Let me tell you this about our system in Massachusetts: 92 percent of our people were insured before we put our plan in place. Nothing’s changed for them. The system is the same..."

~ Willard Mitt Romney

Actually, quite a bit has changed for the people of Massachusetts since Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts health care law in 2006 (with Ted Kennedy standing over his shoulder).

Here are the facts:

RomneyCare killed more than 18,000 jobs in Massachusetts in 2010.
Romney's health care law reduced personal income for workers and families.
Under RomneyCare, private health insurance costs have risen by $4.311 billion in Massachusetts.
Access to primary care physicians is becoming more restricted, as wait times continue to increase.
Most primary care practices are closed to new patients.

Shortly before his plan became law, Governor Romney claimed that "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need no new taxes, no employer mandate and no government takeover to make this happen." Nothing could be more completely divorced from the truth:

With RomneyCare in place, state health care expenditures have risen by $414 million.
The federal government has spent an additional $2.418 billion on Medicaid for Massachusetts.
Medicare expenditures increased by $1.426 billion.
Under Romney's health care law, the cumulative increase in the cost of health care has come to $8.569 billion, so far.
Employers "who employ 11 or more full-time equivalent employees" and do not make a "fair and reasonable contribution" to their employees' health insurance are required to pay a fine.
Mitt Romney increased taxes the moment he signed RomneyCare.

Here's the best kept secret: Massachusetts isn't paying for it! The state has been able to shift the majority of the costs to the federal government.

More troubling facts:

More emergency room crowding: Despite reassuring predictions to the contrary, wasteful "low severity" ER visits continue to skyrocket. The total cost of emergency visits has soared by 36%.
The number of people "gaming" the state’s health insurance system (by purchasing coverage only when they are sick) quadrupled from 2006 to 2008.
RomneyCare increased single-coverage employer-sponsored insurance premiums by about 6 percent.
As a direct result of Romney's proudest achievement, low-to-medium earning families often suffer financially when they work harder to earn more money.

The future of RomneyCare:

Why is Mitt Romney so proud of RomneyCare?

x-posted

UPDATE: Linked at American Power. Thanks!

UPDATE II: Linked at The Other McCain! Thank you.

When Mitt Romney's Ideas Metastasize

2011-10-12T07:48:00.007-04:00

The link between ObamaCare and RomneyCare is like the link between metastatic cancer and its primary tumor. For example: Barack Obama borrowed Mitt Romney's advisors...

Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.

“The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.”

(Via HotAir) Also via Hot Air, this comment:

"The news here is…the level of access provided to RomneyCare architects, including to Obama himself…"

With all the damage they've already done, do we really want to send all of Team Romney to the White House?

x-posted

Moderates Are Losers

2011-10-10T03:33:00.003-04:00

Not all moderates are losers, of course. But when I was reviewing some of my earliest blog posts from the dawn of Obama's presidency, I was reminded of an important fact:

McCain the moderate only got 39% of the moderate vote.

On the other hand, Obama the extreme liberal got a whopping 60% of the moderate vote.

I would submit that uncommitted moderate and independent voters aren't necessarily looking to vote for candidates who strike a photogenic pose at the middle of the ideological spectrum. In fact, a large number swing voters aren't looking at ideology at all. They look at confidence, charisma, and a candidate's ability to communicate clearly without prevarication.

This is what can happen when swing voters find those things in a politician:

Yes, 1984 was a long, long time ago, but it isn't ancient history.

A word to the wise...

x-posted

Vocabulary Word of the Day: Prevarication

2011-10-10T02:57:00.013-04:00

pre·var·i·cate (pr-vr-kt)

intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates

To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie².

Can you think of a way to use "prevarication" in a sentence? Bonus points for thinking of politicians to whom this word might apply.

Please discuss with your friends...

Those Tea Party Rubes Barely Have A Clue...

2011-10-07T08:11:00.005-04:00

...and they don't speak so well. But they're beginning to grasp reality:

"The movement has matured into realizing that sometimes the “least of two evils” — as one activist put it — is necessary in a traditionally blue state like Massachusetts."

Actually, its always the lesser of two evils, even if the state is purple or red.

But the point is well taken. Us tea party folk are getting gooder and gooder at understanding stuff every day.

Breaking News: Obama is Repeating Himself!

2011-10-06T09:17:00.006-04:00

Today's BIG Newsflash (10/6/11):

President Obama is embracing the term “ObamaCare” on the campaign stump, attempting to turn the tables on critics who use it in a derogatory way.

“They call it ObamaCare?” the president told supporters at a St. Louis fundraiser Tuesday evening. “I do care! You should care, too.”

BIG Newsflash 7+ weeks ago (8/15/11):

Today the president was referring to The Afffordable Care Act, which he pointed out is "also known as Obamacare."

"By the way, I have no problem with folks saying Obama cares. I do care," Obama said. "If the other side wants to be the folks that don't care, that's fine with me.”

(emphasis added)

I guess if you're a member of Obama's Media Support Team, transcribing the words of the greatest orator of all time, there's no need to come up with actual news. Besides, I'm sure the MSM's most talented reporters are still digging under rocks somewhere in West Texas.

Hat tip: JWF

x-posted

Sarah Palin's Presidential Endorsement

2011-10-05T22:53:00.011-04:00

This topic deserves a post of its own. Now that Palin is out, pundits and political junkies want to know: Who will she endorse? What do you think?

If you'd like to share this poll at your blog, fire me an email (rightklik at gmail).

Palin Will Not Run For President ― Endorsement Pending?

2011-10-05T19:28:00.006-04:00

Read Palin’s letter:

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

Read the rest...

Now we wait for the coveted presidential endorsement.

Until then, who do you think will win the prize?

x-posted

Anti-Science: Leftists Freeze Climate Cooling Research

2011-10-04T00:01:00.011-04:00

ETC Group's merry band of luddites

If global warming ever becomes a real threat, wouldn't it be nice to have a variety of technological solutions at our disposal? Global warming fear mongers aren't sure. In fact, they've successfully shut down an important research project in the UK:

Political opposition to technologies that could artificially cool the planet is in full swing. A field test of geoengineering, planned for October in Sculthorpe, UK, has been postponed for six months. Meanwhile, the European Parliament has passed a resolution that "expresses its opposition to proposals for large scale geoengineering".

The delayed field test, led by Matthew Watson of the University of Bristol, UK, involves a kilometre-long hose that will pump water into the atmosphere. Larger versions of the device could pump sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere, creating a sunshade that would cool the Earth.

We've seen this sort of bullying before. Who shut down the science this time? Left wing activists, that's who:

The decision follows a concerted campaign by a Canadian NGO, the ETC Group. Last month they issued an open letter to the UK government calling for the project to be suspended. "We believe there should be a ban on all field experimentation until there's an international agreement," says programme manager Diana Bronson.

Could it be that global warming enviro-radicals are afraid that advances in climate cooling science will hinder their fear mongering? I think so:

Helena Paul, co-director of environment group EcoNexus, said she was "really pleased" at the latest news.

"We are certainly not ready to carry out experiments, and this project should not just be delayed, but should be cancelled immediately," she told BBC News.

"This is particularly important because while the scientists involved keep saying that reducing emissions is the primary necessity, they risk distracting attention from that necessity at a crucial moment."

Why cancel a simple science project? The plan is a very modest one: to pump 50 gallons of water droplets into the air at a level a little more than half a mile above the ground. But Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC group* believes that any progress in climate cooling research poses a grave threat to global warming puritanism:

AMY GOODMAN: What are the forces behind [climate cooling geoengineering]?

PAT MOONEY: Well, it’s a great excuse. You don’t have to do anything. If you can simply say to your populations that, “Don’t worry, folks. You can keep on driving your SUVs, you can keep on flying. We’ll take care of this through a technological fix for you” — so there’s this magic bullet that will solve the problems, and we can all go back to business as usual...

And tragically, it’s a bunch of rich guys in rich countries sitting around together, saying, “We can risk the planet. We can make the decision for everybody else. We can put our hand on the thermostat and decide for everybody else what has to be done.”

Mooney et al. make no secret of the fact that they are afraid of scientific progress in the area of geoengineering. They fear that discoveries in climate cooling will open minds to the possibility of attractive alternatives to traditional enviro-austerity:

We believe that such research is a dangerous distraction from the real need: immediate and deep emissions cuts.

Liberals have propogated the "right wing is anti-science" meme relentlessly, but left wing activists have clearly demonstrated that climate science is a threat to their agenda.

The debate rages on.

MORE:

*ETC group enjoys support from Ben & Jerry Foundation, Rockerfeller Foundation, HKH Foundation, Marin Community Foundation, CS Fund, Ford Foundation and an assortment of other left-leaning organizations.

The test would pump water droplets 1km above the ground.

x-posted

Government Finally Cracks Down on Illegals

2011-10-02T10:32:00.009-04:00

*Time for some sarcasm*

I'm so happy to see good Democrats cracking down on illegals -- and using advanced technology to do so:

In case you needed further proof of the American education system's failings, especially in poor and minority communities, consider the latest crime to spread across the country: educational theft. That's the charge that has landed several parents, such as Ohio's Kelley Williams-Bolar, in jail this year.

An African-American mother of two, Ms. Williams-Bolar last year used her father's address to enroll her two daughters in a better public school outside of theirneighborhood. After spending nine days behind bars charged with grand theft, the single mother was convicted of two felony counts. Not only did this stain her spotless record, but it threatened her ability to earn the teacher's license she had been working on.

Ms. Williams-Bolar caught a break last month when Ohio Gov. John Kasich granted her clemency, reducing her charges to misdemeanors from felonies. His decision allows her to pursue her teacher's license, and it may provide hope to parents beyond the Buckeye State. In the last year, parents in Connecticut, Kentucky and Missouri have all been arrested—and await sentencing—for enrolling their children in better public schools outside of
their districts.

Now wait a minute -- we're talking about undocumented migrant students? But aren't they American citizens? I wonder what Rick Perry would say about this. I suppose the County Prosecutor who prosecuted Ms Williams-Bolar doesn't "have a heart."

County Prosecutor Sherri Walsh charged Williams-Bolar with grand theft and
falsifying records — a third-degree felony. [Williams-Bolar] was convicted on the felony charge, and sentenced to five years in prison.

Sherry Walsh is a Democrat, by the way. Who knew Democrats could get tough on illegals who are simply looking for a better life?

You better believe this is serious business:

Other school districts use services like VerifyResidence.com, which provides
"the latest in covert video technology and digital photographic equipment to
photograph, videotape, and document" children going from their house to school. School districts can enroll in the company's rewards program, which awards anonymous tipsters $250 checks for reporting out-of-district students.

Where there's a will, there's a draconian way!

Obama's Schizophrenia on American Exceptionalism

2011-10-02T02:25:00.004-04:00

APRIL 2009:

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

Which is another way of saying America is not exceptional at all.

OCTOBER 2011:

Now Obama wants...

"...to make sure that we can out-educate and out-innovate and out-build the rest of the world."

What happened to Obama's view of American exceptionalism between April '09 and October '11?

x-posted