August 13, 2008Energy Freedom DaySign the petition created by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) calling on Congress to let the drilling bans expire on October 1, 2008. The related blog page can be accessed here. Hat Tip: Human Events via Wayne at jeremiahfilms.com
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:14 PM
| Comments (0)
July 25, 2008Obama-as-PresidentMike Littwin, a liberal columnist for the Rocky Mountain News had this Obama cheerleading piece in today's Rocky. Forget the column, which is mostly fawning pap. The nut graf says it all: If the idea of this trip was to let Americans see Obama as a would-be president, it was a grand success. And, judging by Obama's performance, his presidential proclivities can be summed in a single word: feckless. Obama took strong stands for everything over which he will do nothing: Darfur, Zimbabwe, AIDs in Africa and the unification of Jerusalem. (Does anyone think that he will really send troops to any of these places?) On issues that he must tackle, such as winning in Iraq, he turns tail and runs like hell. While simultaneously admitting that the Iraqi surge worked and maintaining that it was a mistake, he calls for a similar surge in Afghanistan. Guys like Littwin lap it up - what a country! The press also makes much of Maliki's "endorsement" of Obama and his 16 month plan. Assuming we can take this at face value, one must ask oneself why Maliki would prefer Obama in the White House. Could it be that he would rather negotiate with a relatively weak president than a relatively tough one?
Posted by Boulder Refugee at 2:00 PM
| Comments (6)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
In fact, Maliki never endorsed Obama. Not at all. But the liberal MSM here would have you believe so. Actually, what Maliki did is *agree* to a general timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. This withdrawal is possible only because of the, dum dum dum, MCCAIN "SURGE" STRATEGY! When Obama and other nutroots opposed the refocusing of U.S. fighting tactics, it was going so poorly in Iraq that any withdrawal would have been in the face of defeat. By the Obamorons' logic, Satan endorses my pre-school teacher because they both agree that 2+2=4. Goddamn liberals. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 25, 2008 2:53 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Oh, I should also add, some Iraqi government spokesman said Maliki's remarks were mistranslated and misconstrued, and that they should in no way be taken as supporting any candidate. Consider also that the "source" of Maliki's supposed endorsement is Der Spiegel, which is Germany's equivalent of the New York Times. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 25, 2008 2:55 PM
But Terri thinks:
Just like any good lobbyist, Maliki is playing both sides. IF Obama wins, Maliki looks like the whole thing was his idea. IF McCain wins, same song.
But jk thinks:
BR, you're new around here and I don't expect that you have committed the ThreeSources Style Guide to memory. But I will call your attention to page 316: Avoid redundancy and saying the same thing over again: Instead of "A liberal columnist with the Rocky Mountain News..." say "A Rocky Mountain News Columnist..." Otherwise, superb! Posted by: jk at July 25, 2008 5:56 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I don't recall Obama ever "admitting that the Iraqi surge worked." Instead he says, "Katie, as you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt." There's a world of nuance between "helped to reduce violence" and "accomplished their mission." And what exactly is this "16 month plan" of his? He can't say: "As I've said before, I am not interested in a false choice between either perfect inflexibility in which the next 16 months or the next two years I ignore anything that's happening in Iraq. Or, alternatively, that I just have an open-ended, indefinite occupation of Iraq in which we're not putting any pressure on the Iraqis to stand up and … take this burden on. What I'm gonna do is to set a vision of where we need to go, a clear and specific timeframe within which we're gonna pull our combat forces out." So what he said is, I'm gonna set a clear and specific timeframe within which we're gonna pull our combat forces out but it won't be something that's as inflexible as "within the next 16-24 months." Other than that though, it will be a clear and specific timeframe - at least, in his "vision."
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
It's also worth noting that his 16 month mantra started 20 months ago. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 28, 2008 2:48 PMJuly 22, 2008"The Obama Effect"From www.hypemovie.com: To roughly paraphrase Rush Limbaugh today, "Obama demonstrates how it is that totalitarianism can take hold. Not that Obama is a totalitarian but that he uses the same emotional appeals that bring tyrants to power." Hat tip: johngalt's dad (again)
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:04 PM
| Comments (0)
July 10, 2008Hillary endorses McCainAt least that's what it sounded like to me. Transcribed by yours truly from live coverage of this morning's address to a "women for Obama" fundraiser in New York: "The Democratic party is a family. You know, sometimes a dysfunctional family, but it's a family. (laughter) And some people wonder why there seem to be "two Americas." Once we, she says, the Democratic party, make up our minds that this is the work we will do, there's nothing beyond us - as long as the president is one of us, that is. But since I don't want to work collectively - toward a leftist fantasy in energy, healthcare, education, national defense or anything else - this is a clear warning to me to do anything I can to prevent a Democrat president from taking office. Even if that means voting for McCain. What does it sound like to you?
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:17 PM
| Comments (4)
But jk thinks:
A good McCain ad, perhaps? Show the speech, then the McCain logo and "I approved this message..." We gotta think outside the box, it's a tough year. Posted by: jk at July 10, 2008 5:46 PM
But dagny thinks:
The whole speech made me wonder why so many people in America today can't tell the difference between appropriate actions for a family and appropriate actions for a government. I have a lovely FAMILY, thank you very much, I don't need the democratic party or any other government entity to be my family! Posted by: dagny at July 11, 2008 6:58 PM
But jk thinks:
Dagny, I think it is the same people who cannot distinguish between things that would be nice to do and things that would be appropriate for government to do. Posted by: jk at July 11, 2008 7:26 PM
But dagny thinks:
JK, I've given your comment some thought. Perhaps they can't distingiush between what is, "nice," to do and what is, "appropriate," for government to do because they don't understand that everything the government does ultimately requires force. Things that are, "nice," to do should not be done by force. Think the government does things by any other means beside, "force." Try not paying your taxes, or your parking tickets for a while. Posted by: dagny at July 12, 2008 1:44 AMJune 7, 2008Why I can't vote DemocratIn the nation's most anticipated concession speech of the modern age, Hillary Clinton finally endorsed her opponent in the primary race. In doing so, she exposed exactly why Democrats are, as a group, the enemy of America's heritage of individualism and liberty: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights that belong to each of us as individuals," she said. "But our lives, our freedom, our happiness, are best enjoyed, best protected, and best advanced when we do work together." Whoa there, madam. Says who? Certainly there are situations where we benefit from the assistance of others to safeguard our lives or defend our freedom. And happiness is always greater when shared with someone you love. But the work Miss Hillary wants to do in the cause of "advancing" our lives, our freedom, our happiness will, without exception, interfere with MY life, MY freedom and MY happiness. "We all want an economy that sustains the American Dream, the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford that gas and those groceries and still have a little left over at the end of the month. An economy that lifts all of our people and ensures that our prosperity is broadly distributed and shared." Let's dwell for a moment... Ensures that OUR prosperity is ... broadly distributed... and ... shared. Hmmm, sounds vaguely familar. But the obvious question is, if prosperity is shared then how is hard work rewarded? (Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, choosing and deciding from whom to who else and by how much.) And now that Hillary has bowed out (for now at least) the 'man behind the curtain' in-waiting is Senator Obama: "That is what we will do now as we join forces with Senator Obama and his campaign. We will make history together as we write the next chapter in America's story. We will stand united for the values we hold dear, for the vision of progress we share, and for the country we love. There is nothing more American than that." And there is the reason I could never vote for a modern Democrat: The mere idea of equating Americanism with Egalitarianism is offensive to its core. My, and The Founders' ideal of Americanism is more like this: 'The American' magazine
Posted by JohnGalt at 5:20 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
Indeed -- and well said. As my magazine (and blog reading) tastes have drifted a little more toward the libertarian, I remain shocked that liberty lovers cannot express a preference for Republicans. They have their faults and an incredible capacity to disappoint, but I find their core principles far more conducive to liberty. (I recognize that you did not endorse the GOP in your post.) Little-l libs favor Republicans at the voting booth 75-25. Yet they all find it difficult to express aloud. Posted by: jk at June 8, 2008 11:26 AM
But johngalt thinks:
And as I contemplate bumper sticker ideas for the coming season a circled donkey with a line through it has more appeal than an elephant. And I am a registered Republican, mind you. Republicanism has done much to damage its "brand" as they say. Not just the profligate spending to keep up with the Democrat Joneses, but the bald-faced hypocrisy of opposing any and every abortion - even morning after pills or in cases of rape or incest - while at the same time claiming to be the party of individual liberty. They argue that the unborn has a right to life just as valid as the mother's, because without life nothing else matters. I argue that while human life does begin at conception, the mother's self-reliant life and liberty trump the unborn's in the closest of all of life's close calls; because as abominable as any abortion is, the prospect of 'the state' making these decisions for individual women is even worse. I engaged this debate respectfully with two bright young fellow delegates at last week's state GOP convention. I think I did give them some small glimmer of a reason to rethink their positions. Posted by: johngalt at June 8, 2008 12:21 PMApril 27, 2008SavedHillary and Obama were in a boat going down the river. The river was extremely rough. The boat capsized. Who got saved? CLICK 'CONTINUE READING' FOR THE ANSWER AMERICA!
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:51 PM
March 6, 2008Palin Definitely Not for VPUnlikely that a new mom would be very aggressive on the campaign trail. Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday she is about seven months pregnant with her fifth child. Palin said she is due to deliver in mid-May. Let's hope they don't watch TV or read the papers.
Posted by AlexC at 1:02 AM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
She would have been great, but I don't think McCain should steal the only honest Republican politician in Alaska. Posted by: jk at March 6, 2008 11:11 AMFebruary 20, 2008Barack Obama's "New Idea"Barack Obama made a rousing speech in front of 20,000 Houston supporters last night. It went something like this: 'This is a crucial moment in the history of mankind!' Gerald Starnes [Barack Obama] yelled through the noise. 'Remember that none of us may now leave this place, for each of us belongs to all the others by the moral law which we all accept!' Well, not really. That is a passage from the collectivization of the Twentieth Century Motor Company in Part 2, Chapter X of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. We had just voted for the new plan and we were in an edgy sort of mood, making too much noise, cheering the people's victory, threatening some kind of unknown enemies and spoiling for a fight, like bullies with an uneasy conscience. There were white arclights beating down on us and we felt kind of touchy and raw, and we were an ugly, dangerous mob in that moment. This is today's Democrat party, at least amongst the Obamaniac youngsters. What he really said was more like, "We're spending nine billion dollars a month for a war in Iraq we should never have been in. (...) We are at a defining moment in our history. (...) We can't afford to wait. We cannot wait to fix our schools, we cannot wait to fix our health care system, we cannot wait to put an end to global warming, we cannot wait to bring good jobs with good benefits back to the United States, we cannot wait to end this war in Iraq, we cannot wait. (...) Every child is our child. (...) I'll do whatever it takes to defend this country." Anything? Really? What if, hypothetically of course, it really DOES take a war in Iraq to defend this country. [Everyone knows it doesn't, of course, but just "what if" - would you spend 9 billion dollars a month to do it? Yeah, OK, maybe "anything" is too strong. But this one really pissed me off... When a CEO makes more in ten minutes than a good worker makes in a year there's something wrong in this country! Because being a CEO is just another job, right Mr. Obama? And being President of the United States is just another exercise in "organizing." Listen carefully and you'll hear that Barack is asking us to accept the same moral code that Gerald Starnes did. "I am my brother's keeper," says Barack. What does that code get us? Continue reading. "Well, there was something that happened at that plant where I worked for twenty years. It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn't know. We thought it was good. No, that's not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need. We—what's the matter, ma'am? Why do you look like that?" "We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn't too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who'd oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn't we heard it all our lives—from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn't we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there's some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan—and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know, ma'am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil—plain, naked, smirking evil, isn't it? Well, that's what we saw and helped to make—and I think we're damned, every one of us, and maybe we'll never be forgiven.… "Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there's a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six—for your neighbor's supper—for his wife's operation—for his child's measles—for his mother's wheel chair—for his uncle's shirt—for his nephew's schooling—for the baby next door—for the baby to be born—for anyone anywhere around you—it's theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures—and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end.… From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.… (...) "It didn't take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel's worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary night of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn't marry, he wouldn't help his folks back home, he wouldn't put an extra burden on 'the family.' Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn't marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and the irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra 'disability allowance,' they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, 'the family' was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in 'need' than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed. "God help us, ma'am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we'd been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it—for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got. Your honesty was like a tool left at the mercy of the next man's dishonesty. The honest ones paid, the dishonest collected. The honest lost, the dishonest won. How long could men stay good under this sort of a law of goodness? We were a petty decent bunch of fellows when we started. There weren't many chiselers among us. We knew our jobs and we were proud of it and we worked for the best factory in the country, where old man Starnes hired nothing but the pick of the country's labor. Within one year under the new plan, there wasn't an honest man left among us. That was the evil, the sort of hell-horror evil that preachers used to scare you with, but you never thought to see alive. Not that the plan encouraged a few bastards, but that it turned decent people into bastards, and there was nothing else that it could do—and it was called a moral ideal! "But his sister Ivy was worse. She really did not care for material wealth. The alms she got was no bigger than ours, and she went about in scuffed, flat-heeled shoes and shirtwaists—just to show how selfless she was. She was our Director of Distribution. She was the lady in charge of our needs. She was the one who held us by the throat. Of course, distribution was supposed to be decided by voting—by the voice of the people. But when the people are six thousand howling voices, trying to decide without yardstick, rhyme or reason, when there are no rules to the game and each can demand anything, but has a right to nothing, when everybody holds power over everybody's life except his own—then it turns out, as it did, that the voice of the people is Ivy Starnes. By the end of the second year, we dropped the pretense of the 'family meetings'—in the name of 'production efficiency and time economy,' one meeting used to take ten days—and all the petitions of need were simply sent to Miss Starnes' office. No, not sent. They had to be recited to her in person by every petitioner. Then she made up a distribution list, which she read to us for our vote of approval at a meeting that lasted three-quarters of an hour. We voted approval. There was a ten-minute period on the agenda for discussion and objections. We made no objections. We knew better by that time. Nobody can divide a factory's income among thousands of people, without some sort of a gauge to measure people's value. Her gauge was bootlicking. Selfless? In her father's time, all of his money wouldn't have given him a chance to speak to his lousiest wiper and get away with it, as she spoke to our best skilled workers and their wives. She had pale eyes that looked fishy, cold and dead. And if you ever want to see pure evil, you should have seen the way her eyes glinted when she watched some man who'd talked back to her once and who'd just heard his name on the list of those getting nothing above basic pittance. And when you saw it, you saw the real motive of any person who's ever preached the slogan: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' "This was the whole secret of it. At first, I kept wondering how it could be possible that the educated, the cultured, the famous men of the world could make a mistake of this size and preach, as righteousness, this sort of abomination—when five minutes of that should have told them what would happen if somebody tried to practice what they preached. Now I know that they didn't do it by any kind of mistake. Mistakes of this size are never made innocently. If men fall for some vicious piece of insanity, when they have no way to make it work and no possible reason to explain their choice—it's because they have a reason that they do not wish to tell. And we weren't so innocent either, when we voted for the plan at the first meeting. We didn't do it just because we believed that the drippy old guff they spewed was good. We had another reason, but the guff helped us to hide it from our neighbors and from ourselves. The guff gave us a chance to pass off as virtue something that we'd be ashamed to admit otherwise. There wasn't a man voting for it who didn't think that under a setup of this kind he'd muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn't a man rich and smart enough but that he didn't think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better's wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he'd get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who'd get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who'd rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss's, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted—that was the truth of it—but we didn't like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:10 AM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
It is interesting that the Democrats are running so unabashedly collectivist this year. Senator Kerry, and VP Gore, and even Governor Dukakis shrouded their big government thoughts and forced the opposition to crawl through their votes and old speeches. All the Democratic candidates this year preached bigger government, more taxes, and bashed business. It will be fun to have a clear choice, but they obviously feel that a plurality of the electorate is ready for that. I am not at all certain that they are wrong. February 17, 2008Obama's Achilles HeelAs the "O-mentum" rolls on approaching Hillary's "firewall" states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania I'm taking this opportunity to reveal the secret to derailing Barack Hussein's support amongst the affluent white Democrats he so famously holds in his spell. While Barack shrewdly disclosed the vast majority of his personal shortcomings and past indiscretions in his own autobiographical book prior to seeking national political office, there's one important skeleton in his closet that none of his opponents has yet capitalized on. I can only conclude that they aren't aware of it for it is so completely devastating, without being a "negative personal attack," that it could make Obama's campaign literally go up in smoke. You see, Democrats pride themselves on their tolerance of the personal choices made by others but there are exceptions, and this is one of them. It is understandable that Mrs. Clinton's campaign is not yet aware of it since the story appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Should Hillary fail to secure the nomination by properly employing this critical information against Obama we can count on John McCain doing so in the general election campaign. The source of the scoop was not anonymous, it was the candidate's wife Michelle Obama. Perhaps it was her political naivete that kept her from realizing she should never let something like this slip - but she did. And now, to Barack's personal detriment but possibly also preventing an international embarassment for the United States, we know that a leading candidate for President of the United States is ... shhhhh ... a smoker. From the February 11 WSJ, page A1 (above the fold): With the Democratic presidential race wide open, Mrs. Obama, a 44-year-old Princeton- and Harvard Law-educated hospital executive, is assuming the same dominant role in Sen. Obama's public life that she has in his private life. At home, she expects a lot of every family member, from having her 6- and 9-year-old daughters set their own alarm clocks to insisting her husband pick up his dirty socks. Her most recent directive to him: Stop smoking. It's a Democrat political ad makers dream! I also found something to be personally concerned about in this article: On a conference call to prepare for a recent debate, Barack Obama brainstormed with his top advisers on the fine points of his positions. Michelle Obama had dialed in to listen, but finally couldn't stay silent any longer. AAAAAARRRGH!
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:07 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
I think I may have seen with a bottle of water once, too. Developing... Posted by: jk at February 18, 2008 4:24 PMFebruary 15, 2008VP Bloomberg?There is a lot of talk that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will run as a third-party candidate. However, I have a different theory: Bloomberg may be the vice presidential nominee of Barack Obama. They had a highly publicized meeting a couple months ago and despite his harsh criticism of the goverment's stimulus packages, Bloomberg has recently praised Obama for his plan to rebuild infrastructure. Just a thought.
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:05 AM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
That would be a clever move on his part and I do NOT underestimate Senator Obama's cleverness. (When I read the headline, I thought somebody was suggesting him on the GOP side -- ohh noooo!) But this plays into his "beyond-partisanship" narrative in that people will call Bloomberg a Republican. Brilliant. I hope they are not that smart.
But johngalt thinks:
Last night I heard Bob Beckel predict that whichever Dem candidate wins the nomination will choose the other as her (or his) running mate. "This is the only way to unite this party that is split so evenly," he surmised. That may be true but I still don't see it happening. Besides, the entire nation is split nearly evenly so my brother's theory of a McCain-Clinton co-presidency makes even more sense using that logic. Posted by: johngalt at February 15, 2008 3:52 PMFebruary 14, 2008Obama for PresidentSpeaking of Hucksterbee, here is a heartfelt essay about his "conservative principles" from my dear valentine, dagny: "This is the greatest country in the world. This is true because of IDEAS. The ideas of our founding fathers enumerating in our founding documents are the greatest invention that mankind has managed to date. Chief among these ideas is the concept of individual liberty and all else flows from that. Anybody have any questions on where I stand? Now, I have realized for all of my adult life that politicians of both parties in this country wish to infringe my individual liberties. Most of this stuff is included right in their platforms. The Democrats wish to: 1) Take my money (most people call this theft) and give it to those who haven’t earned it. The Republicans wish to: 1) Take almost as much of my money as the Democrats (this is known as compassionate conservatism) Based on the above, you will note that I am what is normally called fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In fact, my philosophy is internally consistent and based on individual Liberty and the philosophies of both the Democrats and the Republicans are a mish mash of conflicting ideas. I have always felt like the greater threats to, and successful infringements of my Liberty have come from the Democrats and working on the, “lesser of 2 evils,” theory, I have almost universally voted Republican. I find it extremely sad that I never remember having representatives that I wanted to vote FOR but always many, many, that I wanted to vote AGAINST. Under this theory I can probably cast a ballot in favor of John McCain. This year, however, the Republicans have in the race and are talking about as a possible Vice President to McCain, Governor Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is wrong on at least 12 and maybe 13 of the points I outlined above (many more than Obama.) He represents the WORST ideas of both the Republicans and the Democrats and I will not vote for any ticket that has his name on it. As I believe it is important to vote, I will go and cast a ballot for a Democrat if Huckabee is our nominee. At least if the disastrous collectivist economic policies of a Democrat throw us into a recession or a revolution, the blame will be placed on the real problem. If the collectivist economic policies of a Republican throw us into a recession, or worse, we will be told that, “capitalism doesn’t work.” And so…Obama for President." While I see where she's coming from I can't quite say I'm with her on voting for Obama (or Hillary) even in the extremely unlikely event of a McCain/Hucksterbee ticket.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:09 AM
| Comments (4)
But jk thinks:
Happy Valentines Day all around. I hope I will not have to make the choice that you describe, Dagny, and I agree it is pretty unlikely. Huckabee adds nothing to the ticket but his boyish charm. He does not bring a big home state and he does not unify the party. McCain's social conservative bona fides are pretty good. He needs to calm the economic conservatives and knows the Governor is not the choice for that. I am hoping for a VP choice that will make me happier -- I think we might get it.
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Don't forget: Democrats view government as the means to everything. Republicans (well, conservatives) will claim to believe in limited government, but only as a means to an end. Lost to both parties is that government must inherently be limited, and greatly so, and that *that* is the end. And by the way, the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist Baptist pastor. I instead pledge allegiance, to the Constitution, of the United States of America, and to the Republic, which it set up, one nation, divided into many sovereign divisions, with liberty and justice for all. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 14, 2008 11:11 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Oops, posted this under the wrong subject, sorry. Anyway, I've been dreaming since 2005 of Condi running for president herself. What a woman. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 14, 2008 11:12 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Never mind, I did post it under the right one. :D Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 14, 2008 11:13 AMJanuary 26, 2008A Serious CritiqueHugh Hewitt has made a lot of marginal complaints about Senator McCain (It's almost as if he might be pulling for Governor Romney a little bit), but I have to admit that this one is spot on. I'm glad he supported The Surge and General Petraeus, but his attacks of Secretary Rumsfeld go a little too far: Only small-minded people think Rumsfeld is other than a great American and patriot, though of course a controversial one. He continues to deserve the respect and thanks of the American people. I think Rumsfeld was right about modernizing the military and was right about smaller footprints and greater use of smart weapons. I'll concede that he facilitated the plan to wait out the increasing factional violence after the Golden Dome of Samarra bombing, but I don't know that he wasn't getting bad data and advice from the field. I do get uneasy when Senator McCain goes after a man who has given this country honorable and intelligent service.
Posted by jk at 7:41 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Rumsfeld was made the tacit administration scapegoat for everything bad that happened in pre-Surge Iraq. I think he knows and accepts that, and I think McCain uses the man's name to complete his own image as the "war fightin' expert" amongst the candidates. I believe Mac was right that more troops were required for the job but to assert that he had some kind of crystal ball is ridiculous. And for anyone to blame Rumsfeld for how long it took to passify Iraq without first considering the State Department's role is myopic at best. January 25, 2008Uh oh!Hopefully, this isn't true:
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:38 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
That will cheer up Art Laffer... Posted by: jk at January 26, 2008 7:52 PMReject the EndorsementI mentioned yesterday that the New York Times had graced John McCain with an
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:26 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
I agree. It would be comparable to Rudy!s bold rejection of Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal's $10M "donation" to 9/11 relief when the self-serving oil looter said the United States "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack." The Times' "praise" that "Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe" is analogous to the Prince's strategy of criticizing his supposed beneficiary. Posted by: johngalt at January 26, 2008 5:46 PM
But jk thinks:
He was pushing that on his show Friday night. It would be an awesome move. It would heal some wounds with conservatives and yet it would still be there for any miniscule good it could do. Posted by: jk at January 26, 2008 7:32 PMJanuary 24, 2008The Kiss of DeathThe New York Times has endorsed John McCain for the Republican nomination. Well, if you can call it that. The editorial begins:
What discredited economic theories? Free markets? Low taxes? These are not discredited in the least. I would also point out that contrary to popular belief the Democrats have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq and that is one of their stated goals. Regardless of the content, this isn't likely to play well with conservatives who are already disheartened by Sen. McCain.
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:35 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
I'd hate to see what they said about the ones they did not endorse. Posted by: jk at January 25, 2008 11:37 AM
But jk thinks:
Hugh Hewitt sez: "I hope very [sic] GOP voter with a ballot left to cast reads this telegram from today's left wing elite" It's not clear from Hewitt's website whether one of the current GOP field has attracted his support. Johngalt wonders why I read Hewitt. Hugh represents -- intelligently -- a faction of the GOP which, whether I like it or not, has the numbers and energy to sway debate and elections. January 23, 2008I have to askI do not understand how candidates do so poorly in state primaries that they do not contest or work toward. I can see your average Iowan or New Hampshireman getting teed off if you don't "work every county." But why did the whole pack do so poorly in Nevada? Why, when Mayor Giuliani was leading the national polls, did he rack up so many single digit finishes? I know I am hopeless, but it seems that anybody who would bother to vote in a primary would look over all the candidates. Every four years, the masses vote for the tallest guy or the best hair. But primary voters? I know I am showing naiveté, and I've no doubt Bryan Caplan's book will soon be suggested (read it, thanks!) But I am stupefied. It comes up in a comment thread debate on Samizdata. Dale Amon is happy to see Rep. Paul come in second. From his home in Belfast, Dale sees a glorious awakening of the Libertarians! NED be praised! The commenters swiftly point out that there were only two men in the race, and that Paul actually came in last. The Paulistas, and some Samizdats (Sounds like a Lerner and Lowe Musical...) rejoin that the debates are televised in Nevada and that several members were on the ballot. How can I explain to furreners why a guy who doesn't run ads will not get any votes -- I really don't understand it myself.
Posted by jk at 5:01 PM
"Genuine Front Runners"I certainly don't object to advocacy for a primary candidate on a blog, but Hugh Hewitt has gone from driving me nuts on immigration to driving me nuts with his being so in the tank for Governor Romney. I've admitted flaws with my candidate. Grown up politicking to me is finding the best match on your most important issues, then tempering that with pragmatic concerns. It's not the height of idealism, but it keeps me out of the Kucinich caucus. Hewitt posts three to six rah-rah puff pieces a day on Saint Romney from the Commonwealth. I'd have to concede that it has turned me less favorable to Mitt!, whom I admire and have much common ground. Today, Hugh links to an article on McCain's money woes with the line "Genuine front-runners don't have to crisscross the country with a tin cup days before a crucial primary." Nope, "genuine" front runners write themselves a check for a bazillion dollars. Of course, others could find interested parties to fund their campaigns if it weren't for campaign finance reform. Whose fault is that? Oh, yeah...
Posted by jk at 2:28 PM
| Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:
Who's Hugh Hewitt? Seriously though, if he's turning you off to Romney then stop reading him. I'm going to try blog.electromneyin2008.com instead (now that Fred has pulled into the veep rest area.) Posted by: johngalt at January 23, 2008 2:45 PM
But jk thinks:
I've softened to the Governor (The Northern one, that is) but he still trails Hizzoner and Senator McCain. Do you disagree with my comment -- not my original thought -- that Mitt is a data-driven manager and not a visionary leader? He seems a good guy, but President GHW Bush was a good guy. I fear Governor Romney would participate in some bad ideas in the name of "getting things done."
But Terri thinks:
I'm with you JK I used to listen to Hugh on the way home, but his constant rah rah for Mitt was too much for me.
But johngalt thinks:
I still want to look closer at Mitt (and won't let either of your ad hominems dissuade me for now) because I'm desperately searching for a small government candidate who won't try to take American's guns from them. Damn Rudy and his subjective application of the Second Amendment! Were he not an "it depends" guy on guns he'd probably still have me in his camp (where I started out months ago). Posted by: johngalt at January 23, 2008 7:36 PM
But jk thinks:
I believe my suggestion is pretty well supported by "RomneyCare." Fair and balanced: I was intrigued to see that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has come out for Governor Romney. (You should follow the link just to see the horse). Posted by: jk at January 24, 2008 2:33 PMJanuary 22, 2008Persuadin'The vultures strike! I seriously feel for the Fred!heads around here. One invests in a candidate (unless one's name rhymes with "Schmergeron") and I know your disappointment. My fondest hope is that it dissipates as quickly for you as my support of Rep. John Kasich did in 2000. I hope Senator Thompson's policy proposals carry on and I'd be happy to see him talked into a second spot on the ticket. But super-duper-most-awesome-primary-tueday-ever Tuesday is on the way, and I would like to pitch Hizzoner as a fallback.
On the bad side, Rudy is squishy on guns. Reading the WSJ today, it looks like Bush messed up badly. I think Hizzoner would nominate conservative, constructionist judges (he told Larry that he would have been proud to come up with Alito and Roberts as picks -- that's a good sign) and hope he does a good job on Solicitor General. I don't see Romney, Huckabee, or McCain doing any better. I know he's considered authoritarian by some folks. If you're an ACLU-er maybe he's not your guy. I'm comfortable with strong defense and intelligence. It is hard for me to see any of the others stacking up in security. You can chuckle or chortle. I'm put at ease at ease by the fact that he is not a moralist. I don't think we'll see Faith Based Initiatives, or abstinence programs, or a marriage amendment out of Rudy. He's not going to throw stones out of his house. All the same, he's not a man who lacks integrity like a President Clinton. Good foreign policy, good economics. decent on the proper role of government. Likable, electable, hard for his opposition to pigeonhole. UPDATE: I don't link to Dennis Prager everyday but he has a nice endorsement for Rudy! on Townhall.com.
Posted by jk at 5:15 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Full disclosure: the other bad side, the worse bad side is Hizzoner's belief in an Apollo program for energy independence. How many levels of yuck is that? But an R&D boondoggle is far less dangerous than a carbon cap and trade (Senator McCain) or a heath care mandate (Governor Romney) or rewriting the Constitution to accommodate God's Law (Governor Huckabee) or a gold Peg (Rep. Paul). Yup, still with Rudy! Posted by: jk at January 23, 2008 11:38 AMSay it ain't so, Fred!So much for my general election prediction. From Fred08.com, a Statement from Sen. Fred Thompson: McLean, VA - Senator Fred Thompson today issued the following statement about his campaign for President: I guess $50 bucks each from dagny and I wasn't enough to keep that ol' red truck rolling into Florida. UPDATE: 14:44 EST - 850 KOA Radio, Denver: UPDATE: 14:50 EST - WSJ NEWS ALERT: Jan. 22, 2008 Fred Thompson dropped out of the Republican presidential race this afternoon after a third-place finish over the weekend in South Carolina's primary and poor performances in other early caucus and primary states. The former Tennessee senator did not say whether he would endorse any of his rivals. Thompson's departure leaves behind a still-crowded Republican field, with John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee battling for the lead in Florida ahead of that state's Jan. 29 primary. FOR MORE INFORMATION, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120103011452907237.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:34 PM
| Comments (3)
But AlexC thinks:
Damn! I've been split between Thompson & Romney.... now I'm with Romney. Posted by: AlexC at January 22, 2008 2:41 PM
But jk thinks:
Sorry, jg. I know the disappointment. All the same, I'd like to invite you and ac to join Team Rudy. Posted by: jk at January 22, 2008 3:02 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Let the persuasion period begin! ;) Rudy is on my list .... somewhere. He isn't last though, at least while Shuckabee keeps hanging around. Posted by: johngalt at January 22, 2008 3:45 PMJanuary 21, 2008Bill Clinton Honors MLK with a Nap
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 9:44 PM
President Clinton Lied?Say it ain't so, Senator. “This has become a habit, and one of the things that we’re going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements that are not factually accurate,” Obama said. Video.
Posted by jk at 1:50 PM
| Comments (5)
But tuesday thinks:
I think Barack hit the nail on the head. I'm glad he's choosing to set the record straight. The Clintons are using their long-established political machine to attempt to intimidate Obama. The man has much more fight in him than they anticipated. I think Hill and Bill are both in for a rude awakening--their words and actions will likely come back to haunt them, and rightfully so. Posted by: tuesday at January 21, 2008 2:03 PM
But johngalt thinks:
"It depends what your definition of the words 'I'm not making this up' is. If my wife made it up and I just repeat it then I am not, in fact, misleading anybody. This is just hypothetical, of course. Hillary didn't make it up either. If she repeated what she heard from ..." Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2008 2:38 PM
But Tony Iovino thinks:
If he is going to confront Bill (the disbarred lawyer) Clinton every time Bill lies, Obama will be the busiest person in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of watching Magic Johnson and Larry Bird and Michael Jordan play basketball, Wayne Gretzky play hockey, Muhammed Ali box, Tom Seaver pitch, Tiger Woods golf. And I've heard the Clintons lie. Greatness comes in many forms . Posted by: Tony Iovino at January 21, 2008 6:01 PM
But jk thinks:
Don't stop believing, Tony! Posted by: jk at January 21, 2008 7:12 PM
But AtTheWaterCooler thinks:
In short an attack on Bill is an attack on Hillary's experience. Honesty is what voters did not believe Kerry had in 2004. How can Hillary claim to know everything Bill did in the White house except for the lies? More can be read on my blog. Looks like I'm first in google for the words: clinton issue honesty. Posted by: AtTheWaterCooler at January 22, 2008 4:07 PMJanuary 20, 2008McCain Victory Speech
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 9:20 AM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
John! sounded like Fred! last night. If elected, I hope he retains his speechwriters to help formulate policy. Posted by: johngalt at January 20, 2008 11:43 AM
But HB thinks:
Posted by: HB at January 20, 2008 4:56 PM
January 19, 2008Random Thoughts
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:43 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
I have obviously not made myself clear. I have no policy preferences for Senator Clinton. I find Senator Obama to be a better politician and without question more charismatic. Both are bad bad bad, but I fear Obama would have better chances at enacting his bad ideas. (Notwithstanding Senator Clinton's 35 years of experience.) I agree 100% on President Clinton. I had been lulled into liking him a little while he was gone (Art Laffer voted for him twice, how bad could he be?) but now that he is back, my visceral internal antipathy generator has locked on. I watch the video of his accosting the Nevada reporter and it is 1998 all over again (although President Clinton looks about 40 years older). There is enough "there there" with Senator McCain that I will happily support him if he gets the nod. I think Senator Thompson is in deep Tennessee kimchee after SC and that Hizzoner has but a single chance for a "hail mary" in FL. McCain towers above Governor Romney in my book and I think our pal from Arkansas is dead as well. I've already quoted Gertrude Stein and used a sports metaphor, I'll close with a little John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" The Colorado Caucus might be in the context of a McCain-Romney race. I'll not think twice. January 18, 2008Huck-a-Whack, Other Candidate EditionFred! is right: This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.” Hat-tip; Insty
Posted by jk at 5:34 PM
Obama: He'll Be Here All Week!Obama is getting laughs on the campaign trail about the ridiculous statements made by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton at Tuesday's debate:
I didn't watch the debate, but I saw some highlights and Hillary was particularly nauseating, invoking some of her husband's notorious double-speak tactics. jk may be on board for the Hillary presidency, but I am not, nor will I ever be.
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 1:25 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Do you refute that an Obama presidency would be more effective at spreading collectivist ideas? Senator Clinton's "nauseating" personality is my exact reason for championing her. She'll get the least bad done. (The last sentence is pragmatism in a nutshell.) Posted by: jk at January 18, 2008 2:00 PMJanuary 17, 2008Huck A Whack, January 17, 2008Take it away, Mister Leader: UPDATE: Stephrn Bainbridge takes a few whacks today as well.
Posted by jk at 4:01 PM
jk Comes Out for Hillary!In the Democratic Primary, I have changed my hopes and fears. I had said that for no other than personal reasons, I would prefer to hear good speeches while the last light of civilization and freedom was extinguished. On a more serious note, I saw Senator Obama as malleable -- that he would accept centrist positions once his ambition was sated. Watching the debates the other night changed that. Senator Clinton was awful, Senator Edwards was frightening. Yet Senator Obama was no safe port. His ability to retain his smug pride at opposing the war in Iraq is not a cause for optimism. He loves to talk about uniting the country, but it is clear from his voting record and his rhetoric that it will be united on the left. He ain't crossing over. The final nail was Kim Strassel's editorial yesterday (free, free, free, in Rupert's Wall-less Street Journal Ed Page). That eloquence I think I'd enjoy would be in the service of collectivism. The Obama downside: He's an unknown, a change, a mental shift, for Republicans who'd been gearing up for Mrs. Clinton. He's skillfully tapped into a bitterness with the status quo, and his optimistic message of hope is tough to counter (just ask the tearful Mrs. Clinton). Is Obama-mania at its start, or its peak? The great fear of Republicans is that it's the former. If a Democrat is elected and they keep both houses, it will be all out war to keep any economic freedoms (I never claimed I was a uniter). President Hillary Clinton would be easier to oppose. Yaay Hillary! You go, girl!
Posted by jk at 12:24 PM
January 16, 2008Huck-a-Whack, January 16, 2008Kerry Howley writes:
Enough said.
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 11:17 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
At least he's pro-gun. That's more than I can say for Rudy! Posted by: johngalt at January 16, 2008 11:27 PMA New Third-Party Candidate260 idiots. . . and counting (presumably).
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 11:09 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
He could tap into that 1% of the electorate that Rep. Tacredo had. Pick O'Reilly as his veep. I'm more worried about having a GOP nominee with a Lou Dobbs immigration position than I am worried about Mr. Dobbs. Posted by: jk at January 17, 2008 11:13 AMHuck-a-Whack, Push Poll Edition, Part 2I announced here on Three Sources last week that I had received a push poll phone call that was pro-Huckabee and anti-Romney. It now appears that the Huckster is up to his old tricks elsewhere.
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 11:03 PM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
I'm on thin ice 'round these parts and should be careful about defending Men from Hope. But still... Push polling is pretty obnoxious; I hate all things which lower the level of discourse in politics. Yet it seems to be attaining a mythical level of disapprobation where I suspect candidates will soon be faking push polling against themselves to attack their opponents. I suspect this has already happened somewhere. Also the McCain-Thompson-Feingold bill [Whack my guy, will ya jg?] has forced so much of campaigning into unaccountable 527s, I don't know how much to blame the candidate. To be fair, if I got a push poll that seemed to favor my candidate, I would not change my mind.
But johngalt thinks:
Tomato fights are always more fun when the other guy fights back. Posted by: johngalt at January 17, 2008 2:34 PM
But jk thinks:
'deed they are! Posted by: jk at January 17, 2008 2:42 PMVictory!In the Michigan Primary, Johngalt's candidate (Fred Thompson 4%) plus my candidate (Rudy Giuliani 3%) beat the fringe, libertarian, come-home America candidate (Ron Paul 6%). Yaay Team! Results:
Posted by jk at 10:48 AM
January 14, 2008Rudy! on Guns, Flex-fuel, and PharmaThe Glenn and Helen Show interviews Hizzoner by phone on the campaign trail and gets some good answers for gun rights, against flex-fuel mandates (which Glenn is pretty high on), for private health care, not bashing pharmaceutical (or other) corporations. Good stuff! The first eight minutes are Rudy! and the rest features Clinton-advisor Gene Sperling's Pro-growth, progressive economics (on which I am less keen).
Posted by jk at 11:45 AM
January 11, 2008Persuading jkHere is Fred!: Here is Rudy.
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 2:53 PM
| Comments (4)
But Terri thinks:
I have to say, the more I see them both, the more I lean towards Thompson myself. Posted by: Terri at January 11, 2008 6:49 PM
But jk thinks:
I'll crawl over broken glass for Fred if he is indeed the nominee. He is awesome. I still feel that Hizzoner might be the better candidate and that he has my kind of economic vision hardwired. Here's my response to the video
But johngalt thinks:
Rudy for Secretary of HHS! But the following is too important to overlook: Rudy's fatal flaw. Posted by: johngalt at January 12, 2008 10:51 AM
But jk thinks:
I have admitted that Rudy!'s weakness on the Second Amendment is my biggest concern. I can't ignore the video but I feel it is mitigated by the change in responsibilities. Hizzoner was pushing an übertough law enforcement policy and had some fiduciary responsibility to his constituents. It's still ill-advised, but I don't know that it is a precursor to weakness in a Giuliani Administration. I would contrast it with Fred!'s cosponsoring McCain-Feingold (I am told it was once McCain-Thompson-Feingold). They each take a mulligan and we move on. When the perfect candidate shows up, let me know. Pragmatism be damnedFour days ago I wondered aloud if conservatives should hold their nose and support McCain as the best hope of defeating the Democrat nominee (Obama in particular.) I questioned my assertion the day before that "only Thompson has the charisma to challenge Obama." Today Human Events revealed their belief that the best GOP primary candidate to face the Democrat nominee would be - Fred Thompson. Tell us how you -- rather than your opponents -- would be better able to beat either New York Sen. Hillary Clinton or Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the fall. You told the Iowans you were, but you need to tell us all now. Why you, and not Mitt or Mike or Rudy or John? Preview your fall campaign by attacking the centers of liberalism as you did in Iowa, and connect each one of them to the liberals you’ll be running against. Even before reading this I realized I should not be guided in my choice by fear of losing to the Democrat. If there's a candidate who nearly completely shares my principles he must receive my support. Human Events agrees: We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats. Fred doesn't just agree with these principles, he's not ashamed of them or afraid to defend them. Liberalism is, in large measure, in retreat. Now is the time to go for the philosophical jugular. If he loses and we get a Democrat instead then we can run around for four years with bumper stickers that say, THOMPSON TOLD YOU SO.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:27 PM
Fred! Landslide?Holman Jenkins has some kind words for Senator Fred Thompson in today's Political Diary, though he couches them (fairly) in concern for the campaign: Fred Thompson is emerging as the policy intellectual of the Republican race, making all the sadder his lack of financing and organization. I was surprised at how firmly Thompson went after Gov. Huckabee last night. I'll agree he did well, but I do not see the landslide. He cemented his #2 spot on my list last night with a strong performance. But Hizzoner showed some of the ideals that attracted me to him in the first place. To grow the economy by (he always counts on his fingers) "Reducing Taxes, Reducing Regulation, and Reducing Litigation." The debate went a little over, and my TiVo cut out when he was giving his immigration answer. I'll assume it was bad, but my only choices are McCain and the Democrats. Thompson's "high fence and wide gates" is a good line -- I like the wide gates and the rest of ThreeSourcers like the high fence. The South Carolinians wanted red meat on immigration. My train has left the GOP station. In the end, I see Mayor Giuliani and Senator Thompson as having supply-side economics sufficiently hard wired to ensure my support, Senator McCain doesn't get it. But he would be a great Commander in Chief, is a man of great integrity, and most closely matches me on trade and immigration. Governors Romney and Huckabee continue to slip. Both have too much faith in government, and now Governor Romney is responding to Huckabee's success by becoming "Huck Lite," letting populism creep in to his rhetoric. Huckabee is hopeless, but got the biggest applause lines out of the crowd in Myrtle Beach. I commented below about Rep. Paul. Who cares about the newsletters. I will be happy not voting for him because he is ready to throw Israel to the wolves. Yet he can't muster a libertarian position in immigration and thinks we are broke because we borrow.
Posted by jk at 12:59 PM
| Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:
I'm on record in these pages as favoring both "high fences and wide gates" just like brother JK. And if Fred! is too (he said it, after all) then why isn't he your #1 JK, instead of #2? What's Rudy got on him but a dwindling front runner status and more money? Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2008 2:10 PM
But jk thinks:
I don't know about "more money" if he's not paying his staff. To be honest, Fred! has closed the policy gap with me, they're pretty much tied. Now the pragmatist bug rears its ugly, scaly head. Who would be more likely to win a general? We can both cite polls or pundits, but my belief is that Rudy! would do better because: -- The Democrats could paint Thompson as "Four More Years of W." It's not true and it is not fair, but they tied Bob Dole to Newt Gingrich in 1996 when the Speaker was in a popularity trough. Another laid-back, plainspoken Southerner is not in the electoral cards. If it were, I'd've drafted Jeb! Rudy! is the anti-W: Northern, cosmopolitan, socially moderate. The people want change say the polls. If the GOP doesn't offer it, they will find it in the Democrats.
But johngalt thinks:
Naah, I don't think so. American voters often see through b***s*** when it's pointed out to them. Do you recall the infamous Reagan phrase, "There you go again?" Fred! could put his own spin on that one liner and reshape the electorate's desires. I discuss Fred!'s electability above in Pragmatism be damned. A pretty strong endorsement from a respected conservative publication, yet no comments have been made to that post. (Must be 'cause I didn't mention NATALIE HOLLOWAY PICTURES.) And believe me, Bob Dole's biggest problem wasn't Newt Gingrich, it was Bob Dole. Posted by: johngalt at January 14, 2008 4:01 PM
But jk thinks:
Did somebody say "NATALEE HOLLOWAY...?" Oh, yeah, Fred Thompson. It's hard to argue with you about Fred! because I do think highly of him. The Human Events endorsement doesn't grab me because I do not align myself very closely with that publication. The National Review endorsed Governor Romney and I took it more as further proof of my estrangement from the NR Editorial Board than as a call to support Mitt! Their knock on Hizzoner is that "[T]he mayor’s pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights social views are more liberal than conservative." Hmmm, maybe I'm more liberal than conservative -- by Human Events standards, certainly. Not many guys will agree to still fight the Dole '96 fight, and I'll admit that he was a flawed candidate against a popular incumbent. But if you remember, union groups flooded the airwaves for a month before the campaign with "Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole want to cook and eat your children" spots. Each had a huge picture of Speaker Gingrich and a small picture of Leader Dole. It was comical in a way. But when the campaign got off the ground, a crafty politician and war hero, who also features a good wit, started 20 points down. Parry Thompson might (now he thinks he's Yoda!) but if Letterman says it and Leno says it, a plurality will never hear the Senator's response. More on Ron PaulRon Paul vehemently distances himself from the newsletters on CNN: Based on this appearance, I am more inclined to believe that he, indeed, did not write them. Nevertheless, he should still be condemned for allowing this stuff to be published in his name. Meanwhile, Virginia Postrel writes:
Also, respected Austrian economist Steve Horwitz's opinion is here. It is a fair and comprehensive take on this discovery.
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:08 AM
| Comments (3)
But Scott M. thinks:
What do I think? I think that the GOP establishment has been trying to take Ron Paul down since he backed Reagan against Ford and the Rockefellars (who are the REAL racists.) I think they managed to get someone on to the newsletter staff, wrote some great things, built some trust, found Ron Paul really wasn't involved in the newsletter (a company approached HIM to create the newsletters and Ron Paul authored NOTHING in the newsletters at all) and took advantage of that and put this stuff in ONE newsletter. See, the originator of this crap IMPLIES that it happened for decades, but the only proof he offers is from ONE newsletter. You cannot find anything before or after that sounds even remotely like this. I mean, seriously, just look at it. It is almost satire. Too perfect. It hits on every single category of racism. It is a charicture of a racist. It sounds like neocon writing. The name-calling, for example. Does that even sound like Ron Paul? When have you heard him talk like that? As far fetched as it might sound, somebody set Ron Paul up, plain and simple. Now they are spreading rumors that it was Lew Rockwell. These people are the only ones that know who it really was. It doesn't matter though. It will either be a successful smear attempt or it won't. I don't see the media covering Obama's endorsement by Farrakhan or Hillary hiring the La Raza chairman. It is obvious to anyone that knows what is at stake if Ron Paul gets elected that there is an extrmely concerted effort to take him down. It will either work or it won't. You either believe it or you don't. Ask yourself this: If Ron Paul is telling the truth, what else can he possibly do? What if he really DOESN'T know who wrote this? How would YOU be able to defend yourself if someone did this to you? It isn't the first smear campaign against Dr. Paul, and it won't be the last. Billions of dollars of taxpayers money and unbelievable power is as at stake for those he opposes. What did you expect; that they were just going to give up? Posted by: Scott M. at January 11, 2008 11:20 AM
But Scott M. thinks:
Not to mention that this newsletter was so obscure that only someone that already KNEW it existed would be able to find it. Did you read where it was found? In a library in Kansas. The TNR author isn't even IN Kansas. What are the chances that he simply stumbled on this without someone telling him what to look for? Exactly... The question is this: do you believe in saving this country from the real evil enough? War isn't pretty and make no mistake, this is war. You are going to have to chose a side and stick with it to the very end. Posted by: Scott M. at January 11, 2008 11:25 AM
But jk thinks:
Libertarians are incapable of racism? 67% of blacks are in prison? I'm not sure. I agree on the Drug War and I agree that he did not write them. And I agree that he is not a racist. But to not care what the Ron Paul Newsletter says, to have no idea who was the editor, who wrote them and to not care is disturbing. But put me down with the blogger (sorry, can’t find who) who would rather not vote for Rep. Paul because of his positions rather than not vote for Paul because of perceived racism. Paul's assertion in the debate last night that Israel can take care of itself without an implicit American is specious. It is a legitimate position to call for the US to abdicate our involvement in “World Policing” but I strongly disagree. I also dispute his assertion that "we're broke, and can't do it anymore” that “we have to borrow billion from the Chinese to keep up 'The Empire.'" Did he perhaps take out a loan to go to Medical School, or to buy a house? I have some strong libertarian leanings, but this guy has failed to excite me at all. Posted by: jk at January 11, 2008 12:16 PMJanuary 10, 2008Huck-a-Whack, Push Poll EditionWednesday night I received a phone call. It was an automated poll regarding the Republican primary in my home state. The poll first asked my opinion of President Bush. Then, the call asked which issue I thought was more important, taxes or abortion? I answered taxes and heard the following:
I promptly hung up the phone. I was "push polled" by the Huckabee campaign. I am sure that when the local newspapers get wind of this, he will disavow any knowledge, but this is of little solace to me. Huckabee has run a sneaky, dirty, and populist campaign and it disgusts me. He pretends that his message is the future vision of the Republican Party and perhaps that is true, but that is not party that I will be a part of. While these Huck-a-Whacks began in playful jest, his campaign has successfully removed me from the sidelines to vote against him.
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 8:57 PM
January 9, 2008The Generic Edwards SpeechRandom Thought: Every John Edwards speech has the same theme:
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 5:40 PM
Ron Paul ApologistThe Ron Paul Newsletter story fascinates. My first interest is in how little interest it has generated. I read it on ThreeSources (way to scoop, hb!) and did not see another word about until Glenn Reynolds linked to Ann Althouse at 3:21 PM. In an immediate gratification blogosphere, a story this big about the Internet's favorite candidate lies dormant for 15 hours? I thought it might be lack of credibility of TNR, but Brian Doherty suggests it might be Ron Paul. This whole scandal is, for one thing, a sobering reminder to Paul fans exactly how little any of his opponents cared about him up until now, given that none of their opposition research brought any of this to serious public attention Yeah, that Sen. Chris Dodd sex-with-turnips thing didn't attract a lot of press either... Doherty’s post disappoints me with his readiness to defend something that seems pretty indefensible: It is certainly worth remembering on this tense day for those who have admired Paul as a politician and as a voice in this campaign that, as his clear to anyone paying close attention to either his presidential campaign message (or his message through most of his congressional career) or to the concerns of the bulk of his current fans, that racial or anti-gay animus has zero to do with Ron Paul's campaign or its appeal [..] It is also worth remembering that every single other candidate is a fervent believer in policies that cause far more harm to far more innocent black people (the drug war) than old ghostwritten words that insult Martin Luther King, or insult rioters in racial terms, ever could. He's sellin' but I'm not buyin'. I'd suggest that Doherty read an excellent book by [wait for it...] Brian Doherty. Radicals For Capitalism has 700 pages of this story -- and he doesn't get it. The liberty movement is a sequence of brave visionaries who had great ideas. But almost all of them had such extreme character flaws or communication deficiencies. They inspired a hundred cults, but not one of them inspired a movement. Compare William F. Buckley to Lew Rockwell. I think the liberty movement can lay claim to great thinkers: I'll take Mises and Hayek and Bastiat against anybody in a Philosophy cage match. But, to go back to the Buckley example, Buckley chased the loonies out of the Conservative movement. Once the John Birchers were gone, there was comfort for a much larger group of less marginal thinkers. I have zero invested in Rep. Paul and know he has some fans around here. But this really is the same story. He doesn't chase the 9/11 thruthers out of his "movement," he doesn't disavow the Nazis. Sounds pretty consistent with a guy named Ron Paul who doesn't bother to read what's said in the "Ron Paul Newsletter." Hat-tip: Instapundit, who has a nice roundup.
Posted by jk at 11:06 AM
| Comments (8)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I don't know about Ron Paul, but Tom DiLorenzo is hardly racist. I've heard him speak, and I've had the pleasure of corresponding with him about "that tyrant" -- Abraham Lincoln. "The Real Lincoln" is required reading for anyone who wants to know the full story of that time period. It really opened my eyes to who's often called the greatest president, making me realize he was among the worst. DiLorenzo believes, as I've come to as well, that the South *did* have the right to secede. As Lew Rockwell has put it, "The very principle of the American Revolution was the right of secession against tyrannical government. The founders understood that even the threat of secession would hold would-be governmental tyrants in check." That's why the national government in Washington had to tread so carefully in inter-state matters, as illustrated by U.S. history until the War of Southern Secession. And I don't consider Rockwell a "crackpot" in the least. While we're at it, here's another "crackpot" quote: "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Ah yes, that Tom Jefferson dude was a nut, wasn't he? The context was that the Federalists, fearing the national government was too weak, had begun a secessionist movement of *New England*. Jefferson and other Republicans (not today's GOP, but the party at that time which believed in a weaker central government) believed that secession would be wrong, but only as a specific action. Jefferson and other believers in liberty knew that, after all, we'd fought our own *secessionist movement* just two decades before. Ironically, it was the Republicans' belief in "states' rights" that allowed them to support the principle of such dissent. Had the Federalists won, they wouldn't have tolerated Republicans' plotting secession. Another irony is that Lincoln's desire, but not his methods, to keep the Union together saved it from being reconquered by Great Britain. This is where I disagree with DiLorenzo that the South would have peaceably reconciled with the North. The South became very friendly with Great Britain and might have eventually established peace treaties. If it didn't actually rejoin the British Empire, Southern cotton and agriculture would have strengthened GB's position to where the latter might have attacked the North. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 10, 2008 9:47 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I should add, believing in "states' rights" does not mean racism. DiLorenzo and I don't support the notion of slavery, not in the least. But we believe in *real* federalism, with individual states left free to govern their own internal matters. Slavery was simply not something over which the federal government had jurisdiction. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 10, 2008 9:50 AM
But jk thinks:
I'm not familiar with Tom DiLorenzo and I agreed that he seems to be getting a bad deal. Plus, I cede to no one in my enjoyment of seeing the post-Peretz TNR get whacked about. A bunch of adolescents claiming to be taken seriously because they have taken over a once respected American periodical. I also share a lot of your concerns about our Sixteenth President. I'm researching a book on Chief Justice Taney (another man with a complex relationship to race in the United States, but I digress). Taney had a full time job convincing Lincoln to honor the Constitution at some level. I've always admired much about President Lincoln but I am definitely reassessing his tenure. I do not, however, share your admiration for Lew Rockwell. I don't know how much you admire him but you say "he is not a crackpot" and I don't think I'll go that far. After I discovered the writings of Ludwig von Mises, I was excited to find the Mises Institute -- and then disappointed at the "crackpot density" I encountered. I have ruffled feathers around here because I feel the same about Leonard Piekoff and the Objectivists. If you only knew Mises through Rockwell and only knew Ayn Rand through Piekoff, I think you'd be in a world of hurt. Arnold Kling has a great column on TCS today about Politics and Cults. I would offer Rockwell and Piekoff as Exhibit A and B of cult leaders.
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I'd lend you my "Real Lincoln" copy, but I lent it to a friend who similarly reacted, "Whoa, Lincoln did *that*!" People think Bush today is "the worst president ever" and "stifles dissent," but Bush hasn't thrown 300 newspaper editors into God-awful prisons just for opposition editorials. Lincoln did. And as I pointed out a while ago in a comment elsewhere, Lincoln was the first president to institute a draft. And a national income tax. He was also a mercantilist, believing the Republican Party should follow its Whig tradition of supporting "a high protective tariff." That's in fact what I heard DiLorenzo speak on. I bought his book but didn't want to stand in line to talk to him, and I regret that. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 10, 2008 12:57 PM
But jk thinks:
Life is complex. Lincoln expanded Federal government and rode pretty roughshod over civil liberties (those who can generate a heartfelt caterwaul over The Patriot Act should bone up on their history). But he preserved the Union, which I am going to have to put in the unalloyed good column, together with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Like FDR's instituting horrible collectivist economics which we still bridle under -- and fighting for much more. Yet the same President defeated fascism and led the USA to military dominance. And President Clinton signed NAFTA.
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
In line with my Protestant theology, I don't believe that good works can make up for a person's sins. A few good things might come about from an administration, but I won't give it a pass on the rest, or say "It was more good than bad." Yes, I demand a lot from elected officials and their appointed bureaucrats, but that's because they wield so much power over others' lives. When you have that kind of authority, there's no room for error. I didn't notice what you said about Lew Rockwell. My only disagreement with him is his extreme anti-war stance. War in some cases is the only option (like with Saddam, I maintain). Other than that, where do you find him wrong? I'm not the most well-versed in his writings, granted, but things like his "30 days" are fantastic. A pipe dream, yeah, so "fantastic" in both senses of the word, but he believes in raw freedom. Oh, I did stop linking to Mises.org and ceased reading it a while back, because a couple of their blog contributors are self-righteous putzes. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 11, 2008 1:47 PMJanuary 8, 2008The Granite StateHillary! Who woulda thunk? But it's good. It's now a race between Hillary and Obama, and Hillary & crew have the long knives out for the candidate of change. So it's sure to get messy. The GOP is wide open with McCain's victory over Romney. Romney should have won New Hampshire easily, being from a neighboring state and spending as much as everyone else combined there. I wonder if the Obama loss is not due to the media hype of his lead. In New Hampshire's open primary, independents might have said, "f*ck it, he's gonna win, I'll vote for McCain instead." I've been split between Romney and Thompson, (who didn't even come to play in NH), so it's disappointing to see neither pull it out.
Posted by AlexC at 11:53 PM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
I try to stay rational, but I really don't know how many more of Senator Clinton's victory speeches I can stand. I didn't know Terry McAuliffe was her campaign chair -- having him on TV was a pretty unwelcome sight. Tactically, you're dead right, ac, let them both bloody each other up and spend their war chests on each other. But please, please, please, don't let her win...
But johngalt thinks:
Don't let her win indeed, but Obama would be worse yet. At least Hillary said last night she would, "End the Iraq war the *right* way." B. Hussein O. said he would, "End the war immediately and bring our troops home where they belong." I found it interesting that Edwards didn't mention Iraq at all in his speech: "There's no question about our goals. We need to work with the other nations of the world to address our common threats - terrorism and nuclear weapons, global warming and the environment, poverty and homelessness, and good paying jobs for every American." I'm paraphrasing slightly but it's frightening that terrorism and nuclear weapons didn't even rate their own sentence, without being lumped with the *horror* of hobos and hillbillies. Posted by: johngalt at January 9, 2008 3:16 PM
But jk thinks:
There are a thousand quotes which support your point, jg. But here is where I leave the company of the "Rational Voter" (Bryan Caplan, |