August 30, 2010
Daniels 2012
I can be fickle -- it's still 2010!
Hat-tip: Ann Althouse who adds this photo link as an update to a bike comparison ThreeSourcers will appreciate.
LIKE!
Posted by: johngalt at August 31, 2010 2:52 PMJuly 26, 2010
Quote of the Day
One of Brother Keith's two favorite Senators gets today's honor. You know, it's like being in the military. Or firefighting. Or in Congress...
“We know that if you have veterans in one place where they can befriend each other and talk to each other. You know when you’ve gone through similar things you need to share it. I don’t care whether you are a policeman or a fireman or a veteran or by chance a member of Congress,” the California senator said. “[Democratic Rep.] Maxine [Waters] and I could look at each other and roll our eyes. We know what we are up against. And it is hard for people who are not there to understand the pressure and the great things that go along with it and the tough things that go along with it.” -- Senator Barbara Boxer
Well, that must be why Californians keep re-electing her - because we can relate to her so much. You see, every time she opens her mouth, most of us roll our eyes too.
And she is one of my favorite Senators! If it ever comes to armed resistance, Boxer is going to be one of its primary causes. If she were to get beat in November, we'd have to draw our inspiration from some lesser light - Waters, Waxman, Pelosi...
Posted by: Keith Arnold at July 26, 2010 4:28 PMJuly 20, 2010
Then Again, Let's not forget Gov Perry in 2012
Coyotes like to attack the little ones, human or otherwise. That was the case for one unfortunate coyote that attacked a puppy out for a jog with his master in Travis County, Texas, in the suburbs of Austin, where coyotes have it a little rougher than they do in suburban New York. That particular coyote had the bad luck to set his gaze on a puppy owned by Gov. Rick Perry, who produced a laser-sighted .380-caliber automatic pistol, loaded with hollowpoints, and sent it to the Happy Hunting Grounds.From a must read Kevin Williamson piece in NRO, comparing Texas to Westchester County, NY where, Williams suggests, they ask "Why do the coyotes hate us?"
Hat-tip: Instapundit
UPDATE: I undersold the column. I did not see that it streched to three pages and gets even better.
Two thumbs up. A good reminder of how full the glass of liberty is.
Posted by: johngalt at July 21, 2010 3:36 PMFor a moment I missed the "Gov."
As far as the Texas guy...to hell with him. Don't you remember that he signed a governor's order requiring young girls to be vaccinated against HPV? It's just pure coincidence that Merck, the creator of the vaccine, contributed heavily to his campaigns, of course. Just coincidence.
When I have a daughter, he can try that personally if he has the balls. He'd find himself facing much larger than a .38.
He can try to sound good all he wants, he can talk about secession, but he's no believer in real liberty. Give me Rand Paul any day. As great a name as Perry is (if I do say so myself), Rand is even better.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 22, 2010 11:20 AMI had forgotten the vaccinations. Whether precipitated by contributions or not, that's an odd damn view of proper governmental purview.
I was expecting the ThreeSources cognoscenti to chortle at the .380. Preemptively, I have a .380 and while I bought it for my wife, the old "9mm-short" is not a bad round. With hollow points a laser sight, it's certainly a match for your average KY-yote.
There are some good carry guns chambered in .380 auto. Smaller and lighter guns are good as a backup piece or, as in this case, while jogging.
One question: Did he call the coyote "punk?"
Posted by: johngalt at July 22, 2010 2:22 PMMakin' me think I better order the laser sights. I do hear the Coyotes at night yippin' across the golf course.
Posted by: jk at July 22, 2010 2:51 PMJune 23, 2010
2012
Christie-Haley! You heard it here first (Did you mean Christie Healey?)
Christie-Jindal had occurred to me. I like the way Bobby is handling the oil spill.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 23, 2010 6:32 PMGovernor J has rocked all right. What is the statute of limitations on that horrible SOTU response he gave?
Posted by: jk at June 23, 2010 6:42 PMI think both of us who watched it have already forgotten. Take his teleprompter away and he's good to go.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 23, 2010 7:16 PMI've forgiven if not forgotten. But we need to see if he can articulate the benefits of liberty. He was on my short list to GOP stardom before the speech. And I think I even tried to defend it on these pages. But time wounds al heels and I shudder at its recollection today.
The left has the option of "Hope and Change" but the forces of liberty require a Reagan. It's comical that the right keeps looking for "another Reagan" but our ideas need to be explained clearly over the media's heads. Christy can; if Bobby's learned I would be happy to have him aboard.
Let Haley govern first. We know she is smart. We do not know if she is a leader. It is not fit for us to have spent so much time two years ago criticizing Obama for his lack of experience and then turning around and talking of nominating a newbie.
I do think Jindall is a leader. He just needs create another opportunity to prove that he has the speaking skills needed to survive in media saturated Washington.
Posted by: T. Greer at June 25, 2010 1:47 AMAgree with TG. Grabbing Haley in 2012 could be Sarah Palin Part II. Jindal has shown his leadership and ability to handle a crisis and will have six years of executive experience by 2012. Remember, he would be second on the ticket, so he'd really have to be articulate for only one debate. Other than that, he simply needs to be a credible bat off the bench, if I may use a metaphor from yesterday's baseball discussion. We're learning that he's very good at addressing the media ad-lib.
Christie would not have much more executive experience than Palin did by 2012, but he's been doing it very prominantly in the harsh media frenzy of the New York area rather than the forgotten hinterlands of Juneau.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 25, 2010 10:50 AMMay 14, 2010
Dude, I Think This Might Be The Guy!
Those are the words of Allahpundit, but I am in. He says 2016, I could be talked into 2012.
[SLOW, NASTY EMBED -- CLICK AND WATCH]
From the same post:
Elsewhere today, thanks to [Gov. Chris] Christie’s support, the Jersey state senate pushed through a school voucher bill over the objections of the teachers union. Quote: “Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak, D-Union, the committee chairman, then ordered the hearing held on the Annex steps in front of hundreds of cheering private-school students who had been bused in to rally for the measure.”
President Wilson moved to the Presidency after a year as N.J. Governor. Just sayin'...
Huzzah!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at May 14, 2010 11:42 AMI've watched it three times. The Journal Ed Page has been singing his praises on tough legislation, but that clarity and courage are a sight to see.
Posted by: jk at May 14, 2010 12:12 PMFive ... TEA-Party ... Stars.
But he gave away the politicians not-so-secret decoder ring. "I think they've had enough of politicians, who make them wonder. 'Cause you know most of the time why they make them wonder, Tom? They make them wonder so they got an escape hatch." I'm not sure the GOP is ready for this sort of frankness.
Posted by: johngalt at May 14, 2010 3:24 PMIt remains my hope that, with the right State party delegates, we can cram this honesty down the GOP's throats as they kick and scream. If not, there is no second chance (well, unless Yoda knows of another...)
Posted by: jk at May 14, 2010 4:05 PMMay 6, 2010
DeMint Goes for the Pass
In the high-stakes, low-speed world of national politics few individual politicians risk bucking their party organization until it is clear they're being left behind (see "Crist.") A refreshing contradiction to this rule is South Carolina's Senator Jim DeMint.
DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund has endorsed four other candidates with contested GOP primaries, but only two of them are at odds with the national party. In Colorado, he's backing Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck instead of former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton. In California, he's endorsed Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, instead of former Rep. Tom Campbell or former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. His support is likely more likely to affect the result in Colorado.
DeMint seems to hear what the 24% of America that calls itself "TEA Party" is saying. There's a decent chance that insight will take him around the outside and past better known GOP wannabes for the 2012 presidential nomination. And the thing to watch for 2010 will be, are the GOP candidates members of the DeMint or the McCain caucus.
March 26, 2010
Very Bad Headline
And yet, Oh so very much certainly incredibly true:
Romney attacks health care law similar to his own (AP)
March 18, 2010
Not a Dealbreaker?
Blog friend Terri asks the question which perplexes me: "With Romneycare, I often wonder why he polls so high."
She links to a Mark Steyn Post that answers "He shouldn't"
According to what he's told at least a couple of NR audiences I've been among, he sought to solve a problem that doesn't exist — ie, that the uninsured are using emergency rooms as their family doctor, and supposedly the rest of the populace has to pick up the tab for that in increased health-care costs. In fact, ER use by the uninsured is in rough proportion to their percentage of the population, and the rest of the populace has to pick up a far greater tab for the under-reimbursement of doctors by Medicare. In other words, Mitt misdiagnosed the disease, and his prescription was a bigger dose of it:The result is all the problems familiar to patients in socialized systems — longer wait times, fewer doctors, overstretched emergency rooms — with the uniquely American wrinkle of dramatically increased costs. Mass. residents now pay 27 percent more than the U.S. average.
Many other things I like about the Gov, but if this isn't a dealbreaker as we watch ObamaCare®, then I really am going to have to join the Libertoids.
February 21, 2010
Barnburner
I was going to make this an "Otequay of the Ayday" post but there were too many good quotes. Glenn Beck keynoted this year's CPAC conference. It was brilliant. He told Republicans it's time to say, "I'm sorry."
"It is still morning in America, it just happens to be kind of a head pounding, hung over, vomiting for four hours kind of morning in America."
Why? Progressivism. And it's in both parties.
"I'm so sick of hearing people say, 'Oh, well, Republicans are going to solve it all.' Really? It's just Progressive Lite. (...) Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution. To 'progress past' the Constitution."(...)
"This is the cancer that is eating at America. It is big government. It's a socialist utopia. And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot coexist. And you don't cure cancer by, 'Well, I'm just gonna give you a little bit of cancer.' You must eradicate it.
(...)
"Dick Cheney, a couple of days ago, was here and he says, 'It's gonna be a good year for conservative ideas.' That's true. That's very true. It's gonna be a very good year, but it's not enough just to not suck as much as the other side."
He then played on his own battle with alcohol addiction and mocked the Republican party with the first step of the Twelve Step program: "Hello, my name is the Republican Party and I've got a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government."
Watch the video to see what he said about the Big Tent concept, and many, many other good points. Like American citizens giving ten times the charitable contributions of France ... per capita. And the depression of 1920 as compared to the "Great Depression." And Calvin Coolidge versus Woodrow Wilson.
Hat tip for the vid link to a critical Ryan Witt at examiner.com.
Some good comments there and he promises to "fact check" Beck's speech "later today."
Like a good joke, I enjoyed it the FIRST time (comment on post above).
But this thing kicks off once every hour. No wonder liberals hate Glenn Beck -- he won't shut up!!!
Without objection, tomorrow I will replace the embed with a link.
Hey, have you heard that Tiger Woods plans to legally change his name? From now on he'll be known as Cheatah Woods.
(Sorry if it's not the first time for that either. I attempted to fix the vid.)
Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2010 2:58 PMAnd my brother in law told me that Michelle Obama is pregnant!
-- of course, they're blaming George W. Bush!
Sad to say that crazy man once again tried taking over my workday. Jeez! No wonder everybody hates him...
Posted by: jk at February 22, 2010 4:51 PMFebruary 12, 2010
A Serious Critique of Governor Palin
Many have felt frustration trying to objectively assess the former Governor if Alaska.
The venom, vitriol and antipathy hurled at her from the left makes one on the right naturally defend her. As Andrew Marcus states :
Further, Progressive elites weighing in to consign Sarah to idiot status doesn’t exactly diminish her standing among the average Tea Partier, who love her almost in direct proportion to how much Progressives hate her.Progressives traffic in the politics of name-calling and character assassination. They have forfeited any goodwill presumption of credibility when it comes to objectively criticizing anyone on the Right, let alone their most vilified American citizen target, Sarah Palin.
This from an objective and honest appraisal of Governor Lipstick's performance at the TEA Party Convention. I don't think anything Marcus says is devastating or disqualifying -- but he makes some damned good points.
The hand note reveals something though that is worth examining in context and without the venom of the Progressive Left.Governor Palin’s need for a hand note in order to answer the questions posed reveals not so much that she is stupid, as the never-compassionate Progressive Left would have you believe, but rather that Sarah is a Tea Party Keynote speaker and not yet a Tea Party leader. (Note that we are using the term “a” instead of “the” to qualify leader. There is no central leader of this movement and that’s a good thing)
A Tea Party leader should not need a note card in order to answer the question, "What are the top three things that need to be done if the House and Senate are flipped to Conservative?"
Lastly, Marcus is concerned that Palin did not speak with media and bloggers at the convention, that she isolated herself in a bubble like Senator Clinton at the Kos Konvention.
When Hillary made her appearance, it was from within the bubble. She was whisked in through a back hallway and onto a stage in a medium-sized room. She gave her talk, answered a couple of questions, and then was whisked back out through the hallway, never to be seen again.
[..]
In contrast, when then Senator Obama made his appearance, he walked into the room through the same door everyone else did. He remained on the floor level, never taking to the stage. People were not prevented from approaching him, and approach they did. He was greeted and treated like a rock star.
Governor Palin is in no way off my list for 2012 but she is clearly not a frontrunner.
PRE-UPDATE, funny Palin-Derangement story: My moonbat brother and she share a birthday (yesterday). Sorry, Randians, perhaps there is a benevolent God.
REAL UPDATE: I asked him if it was true. He just replied "You Betcha!"
I agree with Lisa on Palin and I'd add, that the last thing we need is another snarkmeister president.
One of the beauties of W is that he kept his class even as he was constantly snarked on.
We could use a beacon on the hill sort with high expectations and good will for all of us. In her debut speech, Palin had it. It didn't last though as her complaints (many legitimate) have piled higher.
Posted by: Terri at February 13, 2010 10:33 AMIf Governor Palin has lost ThreeSources, she has indeed lost America.
Posted by: jk at February 13, 2010 1:09 PMAnd yet - she's still more qualified to be POTUS than the current office holder.
Look, no candidate is perfect. Tim Pawlenty, for example, signed Minnesota's Green Police bill in May of '07 when the alternative energy movement looked like a political winner. And no politician can carry out the entire TEA Party agenda by herself. It's going to take a strong block of like-minded people to make a sustained difference. Sarah needs to be a part of that block, even if it's only as a campaign prop for other candidates. Keep the faith sisters!
Posted by: johngalt at February 13, 2010 2:46 PMI still think she was an inspired choice for Senator McCain to pick as his running mate. And I'll give Gov Palin a pass and heap most of the disapprobation on him for leading the moronic "greed and corruption on Wall Street" campaign.
But I don't see that she has stepped up her game to jump from VP candidate to P candidate. Not yet anyway.
Yes, and that was intended to be the rest of my comment: She's only begun her crash course in national politics. It's unfair to start handing out her mid-term grade already, much less her final.
Posted by: johngalt at February 13, 2010 4:49 PMThe first woman president must be much more that just the first woman president.
I agree she is far more qualified to be POTUS than our current selection, and I agree that she was an inspired choice by McCain for Veep---in fact, her entrance into the race was what brought me on board to McCain's candidacy (prior to that, I was still actually considering not voting at all, so great is my distaste for McCain).
That all being said, there is no denying that she is already a polarizing force in politics (through no fault of her own). However, I see very little light between her supporters on the right and the Obamamaniacs on the left. Blind devotion to a leader is not healthy for a nation; indeed our nation has become a bit too enamored with the glamour behind the office of the President. It's time that America stopped putting their President on a pedestal and recognized our leaders as human.
At this point, and it is admittedly too soon to pass any final judgement, but I can't help but feel that Sarah Palin as POTUS would be little better than what we have now.
A year and a half after her debut on the national stage, I expected more progress on her behalf towards her establishment as a stateswoman.
Posted by: Lisa M at February 13, 2010 8:55 PMJanuary 21, 2010
The Black Vote and the Party of Lincoln
Thomas Sowell wants to know why Republicans haven't given more thought to winning the black vote. "If they get 20 percent of the black vote, the Democrats are in trouble-- and if they get 30 percent, the Democrats have had it in the general election."
Many of the key constituencies of the Democratic Party-- the teachers' unions, the trial lawyers, and the environmentalists, for example-- have agendas whose net effect is to inflict damage on blacks. Urban Renewal destroys mostly minority neighborhoods and environmentalist restrictions on building homes make housing prices skyrocket, forcing blacks out of many communities. The number of blacks in San Francisco has been cut in half since 1970.But, unless Republicans connect the dots and lay out the facts in plain English, these facts will be like the tree that fell in an empty forest without being heard.
He has some good practical advice. "The teachers' unions are going to be against the Republicans, whether Republicans hammer them or keep timidly quiet. Why not talk straight to black voters... Blacks have been lied to so much that straight talk can gain their respect, even if they don't agree with everything you say." Come to think of it, that last part applies to voters of any race. Just ask Scott Brown.
January 20, 2010
Brown for President!
I gotta admit I had not heard that one until Ed Morrissey shot it down. He cleverly asks "do we really need another former state Senator with next to no experience in national politics on a major-party ticket?"
But then he says the first thing that has ruined my elation and euphoria since last night's miracle:
Brown has a good sense of fiscal conservatism, but falls closer to Rudy Giuliani than to Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin on social issues, which is one of the reasons Rudy got an invite to Massachusetts and prominent social conservatives did not.
Closer to Hizzoner than the Huckelmeister? We can't have that!
Well, I had a fantastic 12 1/2 hours.
UPDATE: @JazzShaw tweets that "The GOP love affair with Scott Brown will be a short fling"
And another thing-
The takeaway from Brown's meteoric rise and electoral success is not that he's the new frontrunner for the '12 presidential nomination. Instead he's just the latest of the new breed of candidate who appeal not to the entrenched bureaucracy of the DNC or GOP, but to the "basic convictions that only need to be clearly stated to win a majority." Add him to the roster that started with Sarah Palin. And get ready to add more names in the coming months.
Posted by: johngalt at January 20, 2010 2:51 PMI do not think I am as optimistic as all you happen to be. Massachusetts has elected Republicans to prominent positions before -- does anybody else remember the results?
Brown won because he respected his voters. He traveled across the state of MA dozens of times while he campaigned. One of the Kos kids (I hate to give them credit, but they did bring up a good point) notes that Coakley held 12 rallies/town halls since her nomination -- Brown held 66. Brown was the only one actually running for the race. He worked like a beast to win, and win he did. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that this was a referendum on the health care bill (which doesn't really effect Mass anyway) or even Obama, who remains popular in the state.
So I congratulate Brown. I also recognize that he has one of the hardest jobs in America. The Senator-elect is from a solid blue state. Do you really think he will win reelection next time around if he alienates the better half of the state first year out?
A friend of mine told me a year or so ago (back when Romney was in the news) something rather clever -- Massachusetts Republicans are really just Democrats with red ties. I can't say that he was wrong.
Posted by: T. Greer at January 20, 2010 9:33 PMTG, you don't remember "I'll be the 41st vote against Obamacare?" You may not have read this story describing the lack of enthusiasm for Coakley among Obama supporters. "If Martha Coakley loses today, it won't be because she didn't put up enough signs on Blue Hill Ave."
When Democrat pundits claim the Brown victory wasn't a referendum on Obamacare or Obama I hear the sound of whistling ... as they walk past the graveyard of the Obama agenda.
Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2010 12:19 AMFrom the article posted:
"If Martha Coakley loses today, it won’t be because she didn’t put up enough signs on Blue Hill Ave. It’ll be because she failed to convince enough of the people who put up the Obama signs on Blue Hill Ave. and a lot of other avenues across Massachusetts that Obama’s ability to get anything done depends on her winning the election."
I agree with this entirely. It seems that Ms. Coakley did not convince anybody of anything. She was a bad candidate -- Brown was a good one. It is much the same as a few of the Blue Dogs who broke through Western California and Washington: the biggest factor in their victory was that they were the only ones who respected their voters.
This is not to discount the views Brown has on politics altogether -- they matter. I am not sure however, they matter as much as you think.
The Obamacare one in particular does not make sense to me. Mass has a universal health care system. They do not need Obamacare. What evidence is there that this was the state's biggest issue? Why that instead of, say, the unemployment rate, which still hovers around 9% in Mass?
I am just afraid that we may be thinking our own wishful thinking is reality. I am not ready to declare victory yet.
Posted by: T. Greer at January 21, 2010 1:43 AMTime for brother jk to fire up the Sanguine Machine®
The first cause for celebration in purely technical: the 41st vote. The "Byrd Rule" requires 60 votes for cloture on any policy changes when the bill comes back from conference. You are stranded on an island and you have just found a swiss army knife. My friend tg (who is stranded on an island) is complaining that it does not have GPS.
No, our liberties are not returned back to the 19th Century but we dodged a massive intrusion.
Secondly, while I cede your point about AG Coakley's disastrous candidacy, this race had huge national implications. Every other Senator will see a 31 point flip (Obama's 26% win, Coakley's 5% loss) and will be forced to seriously rethink unflagging support for a far left Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda.
Thirdly, I see it as a trophy-sized, get-that-baby-stuffed-and-mounted-and-hang-it-on-the-mantel scalp for the Tea Party movement. The RNC sent nickels, but I sent dollars. Brown raised more than a million dollars every day of the final week from folks like us.
Contra Ed Morrissey and JazzShaw (whom I follow on Twitter because of his name and his hat), I like about everything I have seen of Brown. If he's more Giuliani than Huckabee, that's fine by me. I saw an extended interview on CSPAN last night and I was extremely impressed.
Chins up, friends, we've won a game changing battle. Sure the war rages on, and we will not be blessed in November with many Democratic candidates as bad as Coakley or GOP candidates as good as Brown, but this week we won a big one. And I will allow myself to be caught smiling,
Thanks for the calm words brother. I'm sure my "hell yeah" is showing.
I don't think MA voters needed it explained to them that "Obama's ability to get anything done" depended on Martha winning. I think the explanation they were looking for was why they wanted anything that Obama is trying to get done.
TG, you keep mentioning Romneycare as an insulator from Obamacare. So they don't need the "benefits" from Obamacare? Fine. What makes you think they'd be exempted from the costs?
And finally, we may still be arguing about the wrong "most important issue."
Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2010 12:26 PMDecember 5, 2009
Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally
Having wished out loud here for a conservative candidate like Sarah Palin to advocate limited government in the economic AND the social spheres I was naturally pleased to hear evangelical Christian Kevin Miller talk about his new effort to "reestablish crucial commonality and shared success among social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians and all freedom-cherishing Americans." (Hey, that got your attention din't it!)
Christians know from the New Testament that virtue is not accomplished even by Biblical law — so how much more powerless is civil law to create virtue? No national government can achieve both freedom and virtue: neither will be accomplished ...
Hat tip: Mike Rosen's second hour today [audio file].
December 1, 2009
Huck-a-Whack!
Back by popular demand!
The Gov of my nightmares has been showing up in GOP 2012 polls and even did a health care stint with Gov. Howard Dean on FOX News Sunday last week (the solution is for all of us to eat better).
He also showed up as commuting the sentence of Cop Killer Maurice Clemmons. I don't know that I would rush to make a stink (you've heard me keeping quiet). But this has bubbled a bit as he's started to lash out at his detractors. Jim Geraghty has some disturbing background from his former campaign manager.
Joe Carter, probably the best part of Huckabee's presidential campaign, notes that the candidate really saw this issue differently from almost everyone else in the political world, for better or worse: "The governor seemed genuinely surprised that he was held responsible for the criminal acts committed by those whose sentences he had commuted as governor. It was as if he believed that simply having noble intentions and a willingness to make tough decisions would provide political cover."
That's a good Huck-a-Whack there, James. You caught his disturbing sanctimony, that his personal intrinsic purity supersedes judgment and beliefs.
Jason Lewis said this should just about put a fork in any presidential ambitions for Huck. Ned, I hope so. While I like the governor and have enjoyed most of what I've seen on his TV show his policy ideas are just W-R-O-N-G. In the contemporary vernacular, Republicans like Mike Huckabee are "dangerous" and "scary."
Posted by: johngalt at December 2, 2009 8:51 AMOctober 12, 2009
Another pat on the back for candidate Palin
Investor's Business Daily editorial board tells John McCain to "exit the stage" and says his failed campaign's one positive legacy was "It made Sarah Palin a national figure."
Biegun, who helped with Palin's Hong Kong speech last month and was her chief foreign policy aide during last year's campaign, told Investor's Business Daily that the former governor showed "great passion for foreign policy and national security" during the campaign, calling it "an area on which she has great instincts."She's "free-trade oriented," he says, with "a strong sense of the importance of American leadership in the world."
Merciful Zeus! Mark Zandi was on FOXNews Sunday yesterday. Billed as Senator McCain's top economic advisor, a couple minutes listening to this guy and I was singing the Obama song!
He went on and on about how effective have been the stimulus and cash for clunkers. I had flashbacks of the second debate. He called for more help -- extend unemployment benefits, help the housing sector, more aid to the states...
Zandi is such a state-worshipping fool.
All you need to hear to dismiss him is that he credits the stimulus and wants more government intervention in the economy. (With a "stimulus" like this, who needs a recession?) I've mentioned him a time or two on my own blog, pointing out that he constantly predicts recession (he has since at least 1997), then pats himself on the back when one happens.
July 20, 2009
Republican Purity
My On a New Conservatism post elicited concern from JK that kicking the big government conservatives out of the Republican Party would be an electoral mistake. I think we've discussed that quite a bit around here with no consensus opinion, but consider this historic quote that Hayek placed at the very top of his 'Why I am Not a Conservative' essay:
"At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition." - Lord Acton
Is this not an accurate description of what happens when big government conservatives are running the party?
I'd like to offer a few quick points:
- Kasich is a good man. Palin is a good woman. Neither is a savior. The focus needs to be on the principle of limited government power and not on any particular individual.
- Grassroots involvement is important but remember to advocate for limited government first, particular candidates second.
- With all due respect to the "People's Front of Judea" I believe they are the ones with some decidin' to do: Resign to leaving their moral priorities in the private sphere where they belong or watch the Progressives/socialists run wild in the public sphere for lack of sufficient opposition.
- How is it possible to teach more Americans that they really are better off when government is less involved? An excellent start would be to teach more of them how many millions are in a trillion. (See the comments there.)
Posted by: johngalt at July 21, 2009 12:18 PMHuzzah, everybody is right. It could only happen here at Three Sources. Let's purge the party, though being the simpleton that I am, I didn't get who exactly is going to be purged. The Three Sources hostility towards social conservatives and bible thumpers leads me to believe that we'll toss them under the bus, or as our friend JG suggests, perhaps they will leave their moral priorities in the private sphere and this won't be necessary. I'll bet that's what they'll do. Starting with Sarah Palin, they'll take abortion, gay issues and border security off of the table so we can all come together in a secular tsunami and wipe Progressive/socialists off of the playing field before they commence with any more of their wild rumpus.
But what if they don't... what if they decide they are not going to let any minority fringe of the Republican party tell them what to do and further more, what if they decide that minority fringe better check their morals at the door if they want to defeat Obama and the Democrats. Just asking.
I almost get the feelin' that pointy headed guy in the suitcoat is makin' fun o' me... I can't speak for the vast confederacy of ThreeSourcers, but I'll happily identify my prospective purgees.
I remain the pragmatist and fusionist 'round these parts. I am happy to share a big successful political party with social conservatives. I think the animating idea of the party, however, needs to be "limited government/enumerated powers." Live and share the Ten Commandments. Donate a plaque or a poster to a school through your Lion's Club or church, I'm in.
But when you say, in a presidential debate, that you want to have the Federal Government purchase and distribute (and force to display?) them. I am not too far off in thinking you have misread your Madison.
Still not purgeworthy, though it does disqualify my support.
My only purge is what I hope to be a small group that uses social issues as a campaign tactic to get elected and then to promote more government. I think that Rep. Tom DeLay and Senator Trent Lott are examples of this breed. "Vote for me to stop gay marriage," they say. And then in office they do not champion any limits on government power.
I think those people are counter-productive because they undermine a robust and attractive message of limited government.
Once again, my appreciation of Governor Palin was her veto (first as guv, I b'lieve) of a bill proscribing benefits for same sex partners of Alaska state workers. Her belief in enumerated powers -- she felt it violated the AK Constitution -- superseded what I imagine to be her personal beliefs about a social issue.
I don't think we have a Palin purger in our midst. Now that bass player guy from Arkansaw...
Yes, yes and yes, jk. You said it well. I don't advocate purging any "folks" from the party, just the ideas that keep it from succeeding in the modern world. Some of those ideas cause electoral failure and some cause faulty governance. People can learn and grow and I fully believe they'll embrace the ideals of liberty with just a little help to recognize what they are. (Would immigration limits really be necessary without the welfare state?)
I'm still waiting for Keith to chime in on why, if, or how the ol' "moral majority" will play along as we suggest. Brother Keith, where art thou?
["Wild rumpus." Awesome!]
Posted by: johngalt at July 21, 2009 3:18 PMI must take minor issue with JG on one point. That is, I subscribe to the Rosen philosophy that party trumps person. The ability of a party to control the legislative agenda via committee heads is an enormous advantage. Even when Republicans are on one of their "big" sprees, it's still smaller than any vision of the Dems. I will vote for almost any Republican before almost any Democrat.
Beyond that, it is as the grass roots level where you can influence the selection of the candidate. I can't remember which leftist dictator said, "I don't care who gets to vote as long as I get to pick the candidates," but it applies in a democracy as well.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 21, 2009 5:00 PM
Y'all are on the wrong track; no purging is necessary. It's only necessary to stand for what we know is right (even Huckabee has noted this), firmly resolutely, and let the weak-minded follow this newest (and very old) strong horse.
July 19, 2009
On a New Conservatism
No, not "Neo-Conservatism."
Brother Russ sent me 'A growing disconnect?' by Frank Wilson, retired editor of books for the Philadelphia Inquirer. The author notes the surge in popularity of Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and F.A. Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom’ in the wake of last year’s election. Wilson also refers to Hayek’s 1960 essay ‘Why I Am Not a Conservative.’ Though many around here surely have, I'd never read it and I encourage everyone to do so. Wilson refers to Hayek's argument that "the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists" and draws this conclusion:
"Of course, Hayek uses liberal in its classic sense, referring to someone whose aim is "to free the process of spontaneous growth from the obstacles and encumbrances that human folly has erected." (John Galt couldn't have put it better.)"
While the American electorate clearly tired of the dominant form of conservatism over the past 8 years it's developing the same regard for progressivism at a far greater rate. The climate is nearly ripe for a resurgence of classic liberalism. That is what I lobbied for in 'Defending (and Counseling) Sarah Palin' where I wrote that "I would like to see Sarah Palin campaign for President on the platform that "abortion is abominable, but government prohibition of it is worse." And it was the theme behind a comment on 'Ayn Rand's Revenge' where I said, "Defend capitalism and liberty in secular terms and watch the healthy growth of a new political movement: Americanism."
"Americanism" was my attempt at a modern name for classic liberalism. Hayek also thought it important to rename the movement that started in seventeenth century England and came to be known as the Whig Party, of which Lord Acton wrote "...the notion of a higher law above municipal codes, with which Whiggism began, is the supreme achievement of Englishmen and their bequest to the nation" and, Hayek adds, "to the world." The best he could come up with was "Old Whigs" but I don't see that gaining traction with the iPod generation, nor do I think a reincarnation of it would be more lasting than the original. But Hayek also explains that liberalism did not begin or even thrive exclusively in America - my patriotism was clearly showing. Nor is "republican" really the answer, as Hayek also explained that unlimited government, not democracy, is the enemy of freedom.
I continue to find liberty's best defense in the Constitution and its explicit limitations on government, to the extent that those limitations are observed. The U.S. Constitution with its liberal foundation best represents the ideals of Hayek and Rand as interpreted by James Madison. Ronald Reagan knew all of this and his efforts to limit governmental power suggest the renaming of George Orwell's novel '1984' to '2009'. But the Old Whig tradition needs more than what Reagan gave us if it is to succeed in practice for more than a generation.
Awesome post, jg. Hayek's "Why I am Not a Conservative" is for me what John Galt's 42 page soliloquy is to you. I know it as the last chapter in his Magnum Opus, The Constitution Of Liberty.
I agree with every word in your post, yet I suspect you're laying a foundation for an assault on Frank Meyers's Fusionism and calling for a "more pure" political movement. I do not think "the marriage is over" to use Ryan Sager's phrase. I still believe that a coalition of those who appreciate the limited Constitutional government you advocate can be mobilized against a seemingly homogeneous polity seeking more government.
Apologies if I am starting an argument by agreeing; it is truly a great post: Hayek, Madison, Rand -- nice.
Thank you for the props JK. It means a lot to me. I spent most of the day yesterday reading and integrating thoughts and writing this. I hope readers can take even a fraction of the positive outlook I found in this topic.
Also, don't overlook mentions of Reagan and Orwell!
Posted by: johngalt at July 20, 2009 1:05 PMI toast your post as well, JG. Excellent treatise.
I don't share your optimism, however, that the body politic is quickly tiring of our Socialist drift. Like a drunk, we seem to take two steps left and only one step right. Nothing will change until we have a cataclysmic event, such as bankrupt Social Security.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 20, 2009 1:16 PMI find optimism necessary to my mental health, br. In addition to bankrupt SS I can envision other events that might provoke a sea change in American politics and governance. Nobody has a crystal ball so it makes no sense trying to predict which will do the trick. Instead, I'll try to reassure you with, as I am wont to do, a Heinlein quote. "Don't ever become a pessimist, Ira; a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events." (from Time Enough for Love)
Posted by: johngalt at July 20, 2009 1:51 PMJuly 9, 2009
Bullcrap of the Day
Bullcrap of the Day would be an easy feature to fill. The name does homage to South Park, avoids trademark infringement with Penn & Teller, and seems a bit more family friendly.
But I have to call it on Steve Chapman today. Chapman says, and Insty links, that the conservative base I accepted Sarah Palin as VP nominee and not Harriet Meirs for SCOTUS because of "Sex Appeal."
It's hard to exaggerate how valuable a pleasing appearance can be. Numerous studies show that people rated good-looking make more money than those who are not so easy on the eyes. In the modern media age, the same effect holds in politics.Good looks are a big advantage to male politicians as well. No one would have given the time of day to John Edwards or Mitt Romney if they were short, paunchy, and bald. When Texas Republican Sen. Phil Gramm ran for president in 1996, he said, "The real question is whether someone as ugly as I am can be elected." He got his answer.
I'll not quibble that it is an advantage to be attractive, it has been great for me. But I'll argue with everything else in the excerpt, and I did not pick it for fiskworthiness.
Back to front: Senator Phil Gramm did not lose over looks. He lost because he tells the truth. He led the polls in New Hampshire and had the most money when he told a religious convention "I'm not running for National Pastor -- I'm running to be President." I don't think any Reason authors forget this history -- but it didn't fit his thesis.
Gov. Mitt Romney was a Republican Governor of one of the five bluest states in the country. He had executive cred from the Salt Lake Olympics and let's see, was there something else? Oh, yeah -- he had a bazillion dollars to float his own campaign and avoid the rules that the Handsome lad that won the nomination had enacted.
Senator Edwards is not my cup of tea, but he is a credible candidate beyond the expressive locks. He is Southern, which got him the 2004 VP nod, and he had 2004 experience in 2008. He is a skilled if oleaginous orator and represents the populist southern liberal tradition of guys who want to be Atticus Finch.
Back to his thesis, I would suggest that an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and a Vice President are different roles (Earl Warren missed his Veep shot and rose to Chief Justice, but this is a different world.)
My appreciation for Governor Palin is NOT physical. Blog Brother ac posted a photo from her interview in Running Magazine and I thought "oh, she is cute." If I loved her, it was because she was the only one of the four candidates in the General (Obanma,Biden,McCain,Palin) that discussed or displayed a whiff of belief in limited government. In a good year, I'd expect the folks at Reason to notice this. Or, like David Harsanyi, to notice that she had vetoed a ban on benefits for same-sex partners of State workers because it was proscribed by the Alaska Constitution.
Chapman is dead wrong on all his examples. Sure it helps to be pretty (again, I did not rise to my blogging prominence based on SAT scores) but it does not work in this application.
Superficial pricks like Letterman and *insert name of ass who replaced Leno here* still think of women as either beautiful OR smart. Is this Chapman fellow in that camp as well?
And as jk also knows, good looks always make you less popular with the vain amongst your peers, hence the cold shoulder Palin gets from other GOP hopefuls (and jk gets from lead singers of hair metal bands.)
Posted by: johngalt at July 9, 2009 11:32 PM
She was my gal before I ever saw the first image: the stories of her rise, over the bones (oohh, what a satisfying crunch they made!) of Alaska's cupidinous class and I was in Luuuve.
She's since proven to be complex enough to warrant more than the space I can take right now.
I think JG nailed Chapman. I find Reason very hit'n miss... one of the few that's better OdT than OnLine.
Posted by: nanobrewer at July 12, 2009 9:40 PMJuly 3, 2009
Governor Palin Steps Dowm
I think Scrappleface nails it:
(2009-07-03) — Sarah Palin today announced she would step down as Governor of Alaska in order to spend more time with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson and several unnamed former staffers from John McCain’s presidential campaign.“We all have our priorities in life,” said the former Republican vice presidential candidate. “I met so many interesting people during the presidential race and many of them still have the same commitment toward me that they had during the campaign.”
Gov. Palin said she looks forward to “relaxing, fishing, hunting and just generally giving people something to Twitter about.”
Please pardon my language on this momentous holiday but I am compelled to call "bullshit" on this belittling attitude toward Governor Palin. After initial surprise Bill Kristol called it a "shrewd political move" and I agree. In their haste to read between the lines and figure out what sort of hidden scandal could have prompted the unconventional resignation nobody that I've read or heard has reported what the woman actually SAID in the first few minutes of her press conference-
"And so, as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what that means for Alaska I thought about, well, how much fun some governors have as lame ducks. They, maybe travel around their states, travel to other states, maybe take their overseas international trade missions - so many politicians do that. And then I thought, that's what's wrong - many just accept that lame-duck status and they hit the road, they draw a paycheck, they kinda milk it, and I'm not gonna put Alaskans through that. I promised efficiencies and effectiveness. That's not how I'm wired. I'm not wired to operate under the same old politics as usual. I promised that four years ago and I meant it."
She then alluded to her intentions in the coming months-
"Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time on another scale and actually make a difference for our priorities and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans. (...) And that's what I am doing, keepin' our eye on the ball. That represents sound priorities. Remember they include energy independence and smaller government and national security and freedom, and I know when it's time to pass the ball for victory."
Democrats, "go along to get along" republicans, media types and other redistributionists ... underestimate her at your own risk.
Posted by: johngalt at July 4, 2009 1:37 PMJG, The Refugee is going to have to take that risk in this case. He has been a Palin supporter from the beginning, but if this is a political strategy, then it's clever by half. The counter argument, "She couldn't even make it through one term as governor, and she wants to be President?" is a pretty powerful one. Moreover, the correct response to lame duck status would to outline a aggressive agenda and take the fight to the Democrats, not throw in the towel 16 months early.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 6, 2009 4:15 PM...leaving me wondering which group the Refugee is in:
a) Democrats,
b) "go along to get along" republicans,
c) media types
d) other redistributionists
I'm leaning toward accepting The Taranto Hypothesis (sounds like a Ludlum book) that a life outside of politics has to look pretty good right now.
Whatever the case, it portends poorly for our ever attracting anything but "lifer" politicians to public office. Buckley's dream of being governed by the first 535 names in the phonebook has become even more distant.
The Adams and Andersons would definitely support Buckley's proposal, but the the Jeffersons - not to mention the Washingtons - would be screwed.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 6, 2009 7:12 PMApril 17, 2009
Defending (and Counseling) Sarah Palin
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's comments at an Indiana right-to-life event yesterday are making a lot of news. And naturally most of it is slanted to portray her as an extreme pro-lifer who wants the government to eventually outlaw all abortions. But the comment I found most interesting isn't even being reported. While plenty of left-stream outlets are covering her candid admission that she considered aborting her son Trig when she learned he would likely be a Down's baby, I have yet to find an account that includes her conclusion that she was "happy with the choice she made." [When I find a video clip of this I'll link it here.]
UPDATE: Embedded below are parts 5 and 6 of the seven part account on YouTube, and I must admit that I misinterpreted her remarks. I think the part I paraphrased was this, from 2:47 into part 6-
"So I prayed that my heart would be filled up - what else did I have - I had to call upon my faith and ask that my heart be filled up, and I'll tell ya the moment that he was born I knew for sure that my prayer was answered, and my heart overflowed with joy."
But in making her own case for every pregnant woman to choose life for her unborn child, she did talk about how she enjoyed the freedoms of privacy and choice in the matter of her own pregnancy. Freedoms that some in the pro-life cause would take away.
Part 5, (2:50) On why she didn't tell anyone she was pregnant -
"It was just really though too, at the sweet sacred time, a secret between Todd and God and me. I figured that's all who needs to know."
Later Palin said she considered abortion when she first learned she was pregnant, while out of town "at an oil and gas conference" and again at 13 weeks when she learned that Trig had an extra chromosome and would likely be a Downs baby. She knew this because of the results of amniocentesis, an elective procedure, of which "only my doctor knew the results. Todd didn't even know."
Part 6 (0:28) -
"And friends here tonight, that faith was built on what I hear from you, Vandenburg Right to Life. The seeds that you plant in a heart with your kind and your adamant efforts that can grow into a good decision to choose life."
The significance of this is not what her choice was, but that SHE made the choice.
I expounded on this in a comment [or click on "continue reading"] to a Bonnie Erbe blog on the opportunity that Palin's remarks present to the Republican Party.
And as long as the GOP continues to let itself be dominated by atavist religious conservatives, it will keep its title as minority party for a long, long time.
In a specific way I agreed with this remark, and ended with an exhortation to the Alaska governor- I would like to see Sarah Palin campaign for President on the platform that "abortion is abominable, but government prohibition of it is worse."
My concern is that if she in particular doesn't stake out this position then nobody will be able to defend her as a viable presidential candidate. Any other Republican would do well to take the same approach, but for Palin I view it as essential.
- 3SourcesJG's complete Bonnie Erbe blog comment:
While listening to Governor Palin's live remarks I heard her say that after considering abortion briefly she, and I'm paraphrasing, "is happy with the choice that she made." But if Roe v. Wade is ever reversed and a single state outlaws abortion then women in that state won't have the right to MAKE that choice. Even Governor Palin, who I greatly admire and respect, might feel differently about her child if the state had forced her to give birth under force of law.
Abortion is the thorniest moral issue in contemporary politics, with the grayest of gray areas in dispute. Human life does not mean merely the physical act of breathing - it includes the rational thought process of self-determination. A human being who is not free to make his own choices in life is nothing more than an animal.
The choice to abort DOES result in the death of a human being but the right to life belongs first and foremost to the pregnant woman because she is an independent, self-sufficient individual. An unborn child with a parasitic relationship to that individual has no moral claim upon its host. It is a brutal fact of nature (whether you believe that nature was created by God or not) but without it we are not citizens, but subjects. The line to draw is not between when life begins and when it has not, but between whose rights take precedence.
And to this extent I believe Bonnie Erbe is right: To be a genuine majority party the GOP needs to "get out of people's bedrooms." Advocate for morality, yes, but do not attempt to use the power of government to enforce it. I would like to see Sarah Palin campaign for President on the platform that "abortion is abominable, but government prohibition of it is worse."
Other than in philosophy books, that is the most reasoned argument I have heard in years. I'd definitely vote for that position. Are you running?
Posted by: Terri at April 17, 2009 7:14 PMI'm on board as well, jg. But trust me, Terri, the writings on this blog are virtual guarantees against any of us ever getting elected dog catcher. (Though oppo-research could be great publicity...)
Posted by: jk at April 18, 2009 11:26 AMNovember 12, 2008
Bobby!
A good friend of this blog sends a link to this, in hopes it will temper the Palin '12 crowd:
I like Governor Jindal a lot and have not closed the door on him by any means. He is impressive here, although David Schuster is so amazingly annoying I can hardly pay attention to the Governor. It reflects a lot more poorly on MSNBC that well on Jindal. Although I must admit the Governor does a great job at not taking the bait.
What The Refugee reads into this is that Jindal was smart enough to know a losing ticket when he saw one, and recovering politically from such a loss is extremely difficult (Richard Nixon being an interesting exception). Jindal definitely has potential.
The Refugee is still a Palin fan, but will admit that her folksy style wears thin and he desparately wishes that she would learn to hang a "g" on the end of the gerand verb form. Nevertheless, she is smart, loyal and honest - attributes often not found in politicians. So, here's The Refugee's lastest conspiracy theory: Ted Stevens hangs on to his seat, resigns, and Palin appoints herself to his Senate seat. (The Refugee vows to lay off of the caffeine - starting minana.)
Rumors abound that Michael Steele is gunning for the GOP chairmanship. The Refugee votes an enthusiastic "Aye!"
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 12, 2008 5:42 PMSchuster's voice reminds me of the guys who read the traffic reports on AM radio.
Posted by: HB at November 13, 2008 12:18 AM