First, let me say that I don’t have a favorite among those left. I don’t like any of them much at all. However, I have noticed a tendency in voters to forgive some character flaws over others.
Newt Gingrich comes with a lot of baggage. Everybody knows it. It has been aired for a number of years. Yet, people can’t forgive him even when he asks for forgiveness. The thing they can’t seem to forgive is his multiple marraiges. That’s okay, but it’s not the only character flaw that determines if a person will stay true to his word in other matters.
Mitt Romney has a lot of baggage; more than people realize along with a ruthlessness about how he deals with competition that looks like it might win over him. Not mention his perpetual campaign that began in 2007 and has not ceased since. In addition to that ruthlessness, he can’t seem to stay on one side of an issue; any issue. Some call him the Flipper but it’s worse than that. He often reminds me of those blow bop dolls that kids like to punch. The doll reels backward, forward, and to the sides before it finally rights itself, ready for the next punch only to repeat the cycle. Once we can finally sort out where he actually stands on an issue, there is still his ruthlessness against his opponents to consider. Remember Fred Thompson? Here’s what the Romney camp for 08 did to Fred Thompson, in Thompson’s own words:
[…] Days after I got into the presidential race in 2007, I was greeted with a website, “PhoneyFred.org,” described in the media at the time as an “anti Fred Thompson smear site.” You couldn’t really tell who was behind it, but we learned of it from the Democratic National Committee, which made ample use of it. We assumed that they had created it. However, a reporter at the Washington Post (of all people) decided to find out who was behind the site. After a lot of effort, she traced it to an executive of TTS Strategies, a South Carolina consulting firm run by J. Warren Tompkins, one of the most notorious hardball political operatives in the country.
Politicians of opposing campaigns were known to get the “Warren Treatment.” He ran Bush’s 1980 campaign, in which anonymous flyers and telephone calls accused John McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child.
In 2007, he was running Mitt Romney’s campaign in South Carolina, where Mitt was behind the rest of us in the polls. Of course, when confronted, both Tompkins and Mitt were “shocked” to learn that a rogue employee (who ran Tompkins’s office) was running such a website (out of the office), and the site was taken down immediately. One of the more benign and amusing things the site accused me of was being a “flip flopper.” I kid you not. […]
Do read the rest of the article. The part quoted is near the end of the article which is mainly about Herman Cain. Like Fred, I don’t know if Romney’s campaign was behind the torpedoing of Cain(whom I did support) but it does remind one of what Romney is capable of. Now that Gingrich has somewhat burst Romney’s bubble of inevitablitiy, it will be interesting going forward.
By the way, Santorum has a lot of baggage, too. Google Santorum scandals and you’ll see. I won’t spend a lot of time on him because he doesn’t seem to be getting much traction after Iowa. So does Ron Paul. Google him, too.
It does remind one of the old cliche about living in glass houses and throwing stones.
But character flaws should be expected. These men are only human, after all. There is no perfect human being save one who died for our sins and sins we still commit. Depending on our worldview some sins are worse than others, though God nor Christ ever differentiated between one or another.
Fred’s article about Cain does make one wonder about things when Romney chose the very same firm that torpedoed Fred to manage his campaign again this time around (emphasis mine).
[…]”We knew coming here that Romney would have a bull’s-eye on his back but now it’s the size of the Target sign,” said J. Warren Tompkins, a South Carolina GOP strategist advising Romney’s campaign. “You’ve got to worry about that. We’ve got to survive here, but if you do the probability of getting the nomination is pretty good.” […]
I’m not exactly advocating for either Gingrich, Paul, or Santorum over Romney but neither am I discounting them just because the media wants Romney. Given that the ‘inevitability bubble’ has burst, this primary season could get real interesting if we stop this selective forgiveness some their transgressions while beating up others for theirs. Hopefully, if we can manage to do that, we can have the least of the leasser evils that have been foisted upon us.
I’m referring to E.J. Dionne’s latest hit piece in which he states:
The tea party’s followers have endangered the nation’s credit rating and the GOP by pushing both House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor away from their own best instincts.
Now, we all know, at least those of us who are conservative, that E.J. Dionne is not exactly impartial in this matter. Neither is he an expert on anything he states. He’s a journalist and has always been a journalist, though I use the term loosely for what the E.J. Dionnes of this world represent in real journalism.
One of the arguments used in the last few weeks over the budget/deficit battle is the fact that Bush raised the debt ceiling 8 times during his presidency. While this is true and I won’t dispute it. But liberals are looking at the wrong numbers so, let’s look at some numbers.
In an eight year time frame, Bush raised the debt ceiling a total of $4.915 trillion dollars. In 2 1/2 years under Obama the debt ceiling has been raised three times for a total of $3.019 trillion dollars, a mere 1 trillion less than Bush committed, in less than half the time, not to mention that the next increase, which is inevitable no matter which plan is finally used, will add another 2.4 trillion dollars, exceeding the total increases committed under Bush for 8 years, in less than 3 years.
Some other numbers that might be of interest to those of you who actually care about this country come from the deficit. It’s not the debt ceiling that’s the problem. It’s our ability to pay for those things funded only by operating in a deficit and there’s a cut-off point whether it’s a single family or a government.
In pictures from the Heritage Foundation:
Today’s government reminds me of an old Lending Tree Commercial:
Except the government doesn’t want any help as it’s hopelessly addicted to spending, even if it means total ruin. The TEA party worked to send some fiscal hawks to Washington. For that work, they’re demonized, not only by the erstwhile journalist who prompted this post but by Washington D.C., itself.
The deficit under Bush was $450 billion, give or take a billion. The left wants to blame the ’09 deficit on Bush, too, due to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, but it’s not so, at least only so in part. There was a Democratic Congress who facilitated it, so who, ultimately, is to blame? Don’t answer that because this isn’t about blame. It really no longer matters who is to blame.
The deficit for 2010 was revised to $1.5 trillion exceeding both the estimates of the CBO and the White House in the above graph. 2011 numbers are not in yet but the deficit keeps growing. In and of itself, even that isn’t a terrible thing as long as there is ability to eventually recover. And that is the crux of the matter. With a high deficit, unemployment languishing in the double digits for 15 straight weeks, and anemic economic growth, our ability to pay down debt is so severely curtailed there is no end in sight. We often, singly or collectively, operate under deficits for periods of time when life throws us screwballs, but we don’t continue to spend indiscriminately while our finances go out of control. We eventually brings ourselves back to equilibrium because to do otherwise brings us to total ruin, generally speaking, that is. There are some who have to hit bottom and below before they understand that simple fact of life.
Under the plan that passed the House, H.R._2560, the debt ceiling will increase $2.4 trillion. It’s 12 short pages and an easy read so there’s no excuse for Mr. Dionne not having done so. What’s being objected to is the requirement for a balanced budget and some cuts to discretionary spending. Some people have realized we’ve reached a limit to what we can handle financially as a nation. Others are in denial and want their “fix.”
And like any other kind of addict, they resort to promises of better behavior.
“Let’s get this [deficit and debt] problem off the table … [and] with a solid fiscal situation, we will then be in a position to make the kind of investments that I think are going to be necessary to win the future,” he told reporters gathered for a White House press conference Monday morning.
When that doesn’t work, they resort to threats.
“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on Aug. 3 if we haven’t resolved this issue. There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
Washington, D.C. needs an intervention. The TEA Party gave it one. It’s not the debt ceiling, in and of itself.
IT’S THE SPENDING, STUPIDS!
Oh, and a Constitutional Amendment that has to be ratified by the states. I forgot about that. It’s being ridiculed, too, but we’ll address that one another time.
Another day, another red herring… *Sigh*
This past week, Time magazine wrote an extremely dishonest column comparing Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan. In fact, Michael Sherer, one of the column’s co-authors, claimed on Hardball that Obama has always seen Reagan as a model, even though Sherer admitted in his column that “Reagan would come to epitomize all that Obama opposed”. That is the understatement of the millennium. Allow me to put it like this–Ronald Reagan strongly believed in American exceptionalism, and he would rather have shaved his head with a cheese grater than gone on an Apologolooza/America Sucks world tour or bow to the king of Saudi Arabia. (Maybe Time magazine is confusing President Ronald Reagan with Ron Reagan Jr.)
But enough talking. The video below, made by Citizens United, perfectly demonstrates the real contrasts between the two men better than a hundred more words of blogging ever could.
[H/T Toby Toons for the image.]
This past week in the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Lee Loughner (that killed six people and wounded nine others–including the congresswoman), the mainstream/liberal media instantly pounced on “the violent rhetoric” by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party as the cause of Loughner’s mad shooting spree. Oh, and they did this within half an hour of the victims being shot, before any of the facts of the case had come in. To be specific, the likes of Andrew Sullivan (he of “Trig Truther” fame), Markos Moulitsas, Matthew Yeglesias, Paul Krugman, The New York Times Editorial Board and just about everyone at MSNBC immediately implied that “right-wing rhetoric”, and specifically Sarah Palin, were accessories to this tragedy. In fact, Markos Moulitsas even went so far as to tweet out “Mission Accomplished Sarah Palin” immediately after the shooting, and blamed her based an obscure map that she had put out almost year ago on her Facebook page “targeting” certain districts for the 2010 election. To quote Alex Knepper, according to liberals, “Guns don’t kill people, Sarah Palin’s metaphors do”. (See an image of her Facebook map below.)
Except that it didn’t take conservative bloggers long to learn that the Democrats had put up a similar “target” map in 2009 (before Palin did) stating which Republicans they wanted to “target” for opposing the now infamous stimulus bill. Continue reading
For some odd reason, Sarah Palin causes liberal elites to rabidly foam at the mouth. Professor William Jacobson of the blog Legal Insurrection wrote an insightful piece about how conservatives seem to reflexively defend Palin, because liberals seem to be perpetually attacking her. Furthermore, not only do liberals seem to revel in finding weird reasons to attack Sarah Palin, but they also seem to only be happy when they are attacking her family as well (probably because they see them as little “spawns of Sarah”). Now, why is this? I haven’t a clue. However, I can state beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s not helping them.
I saw this video the other night on The O’Reilly Factor, and I just had to share it with you guys. It is a scene from the classic cartoon How The Grinch Stole Christmas with Bill O’Reilly’s voice, discussing the Wikileaks debacle, superimposed over Boris Karloff’s voice (the original voice of the Grinch). The cartoon was first played on Jimmy Kimmel’s show; however, O’Reilly then played it on his show because it is absolutely hysterical (and because he’s a good sport). So, if you don’t think that this cartoon is funny, then you must be a pinhead.
Enjoy, and have a Merry Christmas! 🙂
PS–It looks like Stacy McCain shares Bill O’Reilly’s sentiment. LOL.
Cross-posted from The Minority Report.
This past Friday night, Bill Maher broke with tradition. Instead of just having a panel composed of three Leftist yes men who hang on his every word, Maher had a panel of two conservatives (Andrew Breitbart and Amy Holmes) and one progressive (Seth MacFarlane, the creator of The Family Guy).
Things were humming along quite nicely until the topic of health care came up. Maher seemed flummoxed by the fact Americans didn’t appreciate just how much President Obama had done for them by shoving ObamaCare down their throats. Here’s what he said:
“It would be popular if the Democrats would talk about it more.”
Genius! It’s all because that Obama just hasn’t given enough speeches about health care yet. There’s no other reaction possible to such gibberish than to roll one’s eyes.
Then, when Amy Holmes explained to Maher that the Democrats had “talked endlessly” about Obamacare, and “their agenda was rejected by the American people”, Maher had the following reply:
Here we go again.
This Sunday, seven Pastors in Tennessee, 4 of which are in the Nashville area, will endorse a number of candidates for office in this district (TN-05). Among the candidates endorsed will be former Mayor Bill Haslam who is currently running for Governor of the state and David Hall, a businessman who is aiming to oust Rep. Jim Cooper from his Congressional seat.
The article linked above calls it IRS baiting. I call it reasserting our civil rights. The article author looks at this from a one sided view citing “a line between church and state.”
But many mainstream churches recoil from the idea of erasing the line between church and state.[…]
Other ministers and organizations have weighed in on the subject, including Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
Land said the church endorses many of the ADF’s initiatives, but “we think the mixing of the sacred nature of the church with the exceedingly worldly nature of politics is … unseemly.”[…]
Lewis Lavine, president of the Center for Nonprofit Management in Nashville, is familiar with the balancing act churches and other nonprofit groups must maintain when they stray near the political arena.
“We have separation of church and state in this country for a reason,” Lavine said. “There should be parameters, and there should be common sense.”[…]
The ADF’s polar opposites, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, issued a statement this week calling pulpit-based lawbreaking “the worst idea ever.”
“Clergy serve as spiritual advisers, not political bosses. Pulpit politicking violates federal tax law and offends the vast majority of church-goers,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the group’s executive director.
“The nation is already bitterly divided over politics this year. … Now, Religious Right political hacks want to haul that divisiveness into America’s houses of worship.
Of course, calling political opposition, Religious Right political hacks isn’t the least bit divisive, is it? Oh no, not divisive at all.