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.
[…]”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.
[This diary is my reporting on Tim Scott’s Tuesday night victory party. I’m sorry that it’s so late, but I had a medical board exam on Thursday and Friday that I had to travel to Atlanta, GA to take, and I just got back late Saturday night.]
As many of you are aware, I recently wrote a diary titled, “Tim Scott MUST Win–This Is Not Negotiable!”. In this diary, I explained that if Tim Scott lost to Paul Thurmond (in the SC District 1 Republican Primary), it would be disastrous for the state of South Carolina, and for the Republican Party. Why? Because the spectacle of a more qualified, more conservative, more charismatic African-American candidate losing to an unqualified guy named “Thurmond” (and I realize that this might not be entirely fair to Paul Thurmond, but who said that life was fair?) would be just too big of a spectacle for us to overcome. Furthermore, in this diary, I explained that, the MSM was closely watching this race. Also, I mentioned that the mocking and humiliation that SC received with regard to the Nikki Haley circus, via Jon Stewart and the rest of the MSM, would be cubed if Tim Scott lost to Paul Thurmond. (See embed below–go to 4:30 in to see SC bit. H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air.)
So, now that we are are down to the wire, I thought that I would play a little game of compare and contrast with the resumes of the final two candidates.
Tim Scott has served thirteen years on the Charleston County Council–and, he has been in the SC House of Representatives for the last two years where he is currently the first black Republican state legislator since Reconstruction. Mr. Scott has impeccable conservative credentials, because he is just one of eleven candidates to have been endorsed by The Club for Growth (who also endorsed Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey). Michael Barone also acknowledged that Tim Scott was the most conservative candidate in the SC District One race, when he wrote the following–
“Interestingly, Haley is the daughter of Sikh immigrants from India. If elected governor she would be the second Republican governor of a Southern state, after Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, to be the child of immigrants from South Asia. Who’d a thunk it? And when you’re putting your mind around that, consider that the leader in the Republican primary for the open South Carolina 1 seat relinquished by retiree Henry Brown is Tim Scott, who may be the most conservative and assuredly is the only black Republican in the South Carolina legislature. He led Paul Thurmond, son of the late Governor and Senator Strom Thurmond, by a 31%-16% margin; in third place with 14% was Carroll Campbell, son of the late Congressman and Governor Carroll Campbell.”
Actually, Tim Scott won by 32%, but the rest is correct.
Now, as far as charisma goes, Tim Scott has it to spare–in fact, he has it oozing out of every pore. I have embedded two videos below of Tim Scott. The first one is his excellent advertisement that points out that he wrote the anti-Obamacare legislation in the SC House of Representatives. The second video is of a speech that Mr. Scott made before RNC members in Myrtle Beach, SC–and it is just made of awesome (watch the first 12 minutes of it if you don’t have time to watch the entire thing–that should be enough to give you an idea of who Mr. Scott is and what he is about).
“Why did the White House let this whole Sestak affair become such a large scandal?” That is the million dollar question that I’ve heard on the lips of every major pundit on Fox News–from Charles Krauthammer, to Megyn Kelly, to Juan Williams (not to mention, Redstate’s Moe Lane as well–see his comment in the diary that I linked to). In other words, why didn’t the Obama Administration immediately leap out in front of this story months ago and smack down Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, by calmly explaining that he was offered a particular job that he was highly qualified for (like for instance, Undersecretary of the Navy or some position in the Department of Homeland Security or Defense)–and that there is “nothing to see here”? And then, they could have further stated that, “Hey, the Congressman is mistaken. We offered him this job, because he was the one most qualified for it, and we needed the position filled–not because we were trying to bribe him.” At most, this would have been a two day story because it would have been a “he said-she said”–not to mention, it would have been extremely difficult to prove. Furthermore, politicians have been engaging in this type of quid pro quo since the time of the Caesars, so none of this is really very shocking to anyone (at the very worst, it undercuts Obama’s whole message of “not doing politics as usual”, but I think that train left the station a while ago). So, what gives?
Well, a couple of days ago, I read a fascinating column in The Washington Post that compared Bill Clinton to Michael Clayton, and referred to him as Obama’s “Mr. Fix-it”. Now, for those of you who don’t get this analogy, “Michael Clayton” was an excellent movie (see the trailer below) about a slightly shady guy who cleaned up messes for a law firm–he was their roving, perpetually on-call “Mr. Fix-it”. Oh, and in my opinion, “Michale Clayton” has one of the top ten best lines in recent movie history when the title character (brilliantly played by George Clooney) says to the evil, murdering trial lawyer (played perfectly by Tilda Swinton)—
“I’m not the guy that you kill, I’m the guy that you buy!”
This morning on ABC’s “This Week”, Obama lackey David Plouffe faced off against Karl Rove in the ongoing health care debate. Ladies and gentlemen, it was vicious—Plouffe didn’t stand a chance against Rove. In fact, Rove ate his lunch—and that’s putting it politely. For every campaign talking point that David Plouffe regurgitated, Karl Rove swung back hard with actual facts, figures, statistics and calculations. Plouffe was basically reduced to a rubble of transparent Obamaisms. Rove must have sensed that he had Plouffe backed into a corner, because he went so far as to demand that Plouffe “stop throwing around epithets and deal with the facts”. I guess the moral of the story is that when all is said and done, pixie dust and unicorn farts are no match for real knowledge, facts and cojones.
PS—I don’t know about you all, but after watching that train-wreck of a debate (for Plouffe anyway), I’m currently having visions of President Obama nervously pacing around the Oval Office and chain smoking while Rham Emanuel is simultaneously uttering creative and never before heard profanities. Have a happy Sunday! 🙂
Richard Cohen seems to be experiencing some buyer’s remorse in regard to Barack Obama. Last week in a column, Mr. Cohen lamented that Barack Obama has lost much of the “moral clarity” that he had when he was running for president. To be specific, Mr. Cohen wrote the following—
“But to reread the speech is also to come face to face with an Obama of keen moral clarity. Here was a man who knew why he was running for president and knew, also precisely, what he personified. He could talk to America both as a black man and a white man — having lived in both worlds. He could — and he did — explain to America what it is like to have been a black man of Wright’s age and what it is like even now to be a black man of any age.”
Gee—I didn’t think that was a qualification to run for president (maybe a qualification to be a motivational speaker), but I digress.
Then, after admitting that he had been the one “In my set” to have some reservations about Barack Obama (even though he wrote nothing but glowing columns about Obama pre-election), Mr. Cohen wrote the following—
“Somehow, though, that moral clarity has been dissipated. The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conference and appearances — and having his remarks sometimes censored. When I saw him in that picture alone on the Great Wall, he seemed to be saying, “What the hell am I doing here?” If so, it was a good question.
The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other 9/11 defendants in criminal court, as if this was a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. Where is the principle in that — what works, works? Try putting that one on the Liberty Bell.”
Furthermore, Maureen Dowd also seems to be experiencing some buyer’s remorse in regard to vigorously supporting Barack Obama. In a recent column (where she actually has some nice things to say about Sarah Palin), Ms. Dowd writes the following—
Three days ago, Glenn Beck ran the following story about a video that is currently being shown in schools across the country (see embeds below). The video is straight up liberal propaganda. For instance, the narrator uses a tank to symbolize our government, lies about how much of our tax dollars are going to the military, implies that capitalism is evil, lies about how much of our original forests are left, tells the children watching that, “We douse our pillows in neurotoxins”, and then states the following doozy—
“It’s the government’s job to watch out for us…to take care us us. That’s their job.”
OK—now, I realize that liberals will reply to all of this information with the following retort—“Yes, this may all be true, but we can play this six degrees of Kevin Bacon game with any of the past presidents—all politicians have some sketchy friends.” To which I would reply, yes, most past presidents have had some sketchy friends (and I think that Beck can sometimes go too far with his conspiracy theories). However, no past president that I’m aware of has ever had any of their degenerate friends disperse propagandistic videos throughout the tax-payer funded public schools, have they?
However folks—this story about the above videos circulating in the schools is a big deal for several additional reasons (besides the obvious ones that I just laid out), the first of which is the Skool-Aid (H/T to our own $peciallist for the creative name)—i.e., the Obama Administration’s recent foray into public education. Our own Steve Foley and Caleb Howe have both reported extensively on this subject, and Michelle Malkin has as well.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan dispatched letters to principals nationwide boasting that “This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school.” But the goal is not merely morale-boosting. According to White House event-related guides developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Teaching Fellows, grade-school students will be told to “listen to the speech” and “could think about the following:”
*What is the President trying to tell me?
*What is the President asking me to do?
*What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?
After the speech, teachers will ask students:
*What do you think the President wants us to do?
*Does the speech make you want to do anything?
*Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
Now, in a vacuum, the Skool-Aid wouldn’t look all that bad—well I take that back. It wouldn’t look great, but it wouldn’t have been ghastly either. However, let’s not forget that the Obama Administration, and their sycophants in the MSM, actively bragged about Barack Obama’s youth outreach program. In fact, in a 2007 WSJ article, Elizabeth Holmes wrote the following about the Obama campaign’s youth outreach program (H/T Sourcewatch)—-
“Many of you can caucus in Iowa,” Mr. Obama told scores of high-school students, via conference call, from around [Iowa in September 2007] for the kickoff of the weekly ‘BarackStar’ nights held for teens at the campaign’s 31 field offices. ‘I hope you realize how much power you have, potentially, to change the world.’”
The Obama campaign is also actively cultivating teachers, along with high-school principals, using them for entree to the youngest voters. Sometimes Obama aides try to hunt the adults down at home, begging for classroom time.”
Obama, “driven both by necessity, and his particular appeal … has a proverbial seat at the cool kids’ lunch table, with his appearance on the cover of Vibe and having met with the likes of rapper Ludacris. …
“So Rachel Haltom-Irwin, the campaign’s 25-year-old Iowa Youth Vote director, attends many of Sen. Obama’s appearances, building the campaign’s email database. At a stop in the tiny town of Guthrie Center, she approached the student band and passed around a sign-up clipboard.
“Under the heading of ‘BarackStars,’ the field offices hold weekly gatherings tailored toward teens and hand out information packets to be distributed back at school. …
“In Storm Lake, a picturesque town in northwestern Iowa, Sen. Obama’s team invited high-school teachers to bring students to a midweek event. The district accepted the invitation and provided a bus to transport 60 students. … ”
Teachers Elise Walz and Jenna Broghamer of West Lake High School in Iowa City “recently hopped one of many campaign-hired school buses to the Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola — an annual event sponsored by the state’s veteran Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. In presidential campaign season, the event draws the top Democratic contenders.”
Furthermore, during the Democratic primary, several Democratic senators and high level Democratic politicians actively bragged about how their teenage children browbeat them into supporting Obama (in fact, I remember Claire McCaskill admitting on MSNBC that her seventeen year old daughter told her that she was a “slug” if she didn’t support Obama). At the time, The Washington Post wrote the following about this matter—
The youth movement behind Obama isn’t just bringing 18-year-olds to the polls — it’s also providing cover for their parents.
When Claire McCaskill, the Missouri senator, endorsed Obama earlier this month, she said it was the urging of her 18-year-old daughter that got her over the hump. When Caroline Kennedy announced her endorsement on Sunday, she also invoked her children as a reason: “I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own,” she wrote in her New York Times op-ed. “As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.”
Tuesday came Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas, who offered the most detailed attribution of all when she endorsed Obama during a visit to his grandfather’s hometown of El Dorado, Kansas — and which she then repeated during a big rally in Kansas City, Mo. She said that her two sons had been after her for a long time to endorse Obama, but for different reasons. Her elder, in law school, likes Obama for his message, “because he could bring people together”; her younger one likes Obama because he likes Michelle Obama. “He says that anyone who can get Michelle to marry him has to have something going for him.”
And finally, The AP recently wrote about how a political science professor from LaSalle University, named Mary Ellen Balchunis, thought that Obama should re-mobilize his youth support in order to pass his healthcare bill. The AP wrote the following about Balchunis’ thoughts with regard to young people below—-
Balchunis thinks the president could boost youth support on these and other issues — and get them influencing their parents, as they did in the election — if he mobilized and spoke directly to them, the way he did during the campaign. He could for instance, make use of the well-organized student groups that campaigned for him to push the issues of the day.
If he doesn’t, Balchunis thinks that also could have negative ramifications for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections, because those young voters will lose interest and won’t bother to show up at the polls. That’s what happened, she says, after her own young generation was initially excited about Bill Clinton when he was first elected president in 1992. Then, just two years later, Democrats lost control of Congress.
So anyway, my point is that it’s ridiculously unfair for the Obama campaign to actively recruit high school students and bus them in for caucuses, for Democratic bigwigs to wax ecstatic about how their children nagged them into voting for Obama, and for political science professors to imply that Obama could get his mojo back if he started recruiting high school and college kids again (many kids in high school will be in college in 2012)—but then, for those same liberals to turn around an yell “Raaacist!” when parents are upset about their children having to write an essay, after the President’s speech, about what they and their parents can do to help President Obama. (Translation—“Kiddies, you can vote for me when you turn eighteen, and be sure to nag your poor parents into submission until then”.)
Moreover, the above propaganda video circulating through the schools that Glenn Beck recently played on his show further compounds people’s fear that the public schools are becoming a hotbed of liberal indoctrination for their kids—especially when teachers are making the children that they teach draw pro-Obama campaign art and sing in propaganda videos that would make Hugo Chavez proud (H/T Hot Air—see embed below).
Now, a second reason why the video (involving liberal propaganda in the schools) that Beck recently played on his show is a big deal is because of the recent scandal involving The National Endowment for the Arts. Glenn Beck also covered the NEA scandal in depth and I wrote about it in more detail in a diary here. The NEA scandal initially involved Yosi Sargent, the director of communications for the NEA, making a conference call to various artists encouraging them to participate in propaganda for the Obama Administration (the NEA is a tax-payer funded entity). Patrick Courrielche, a blogger for BigHollywood.com., told Beck that the NEA had sent out mass emails to many artists and bloggers, and that he had participated in a conference call with the NEA (that he recorded and that Beck played on his show) in which Yosi Sargent of the NEA said the following (see embed below)—
“We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally.”
And, Mr. Sergant also said this little gem—
“Take photos. Take video. Post it on your blogs. Get the word out. Like I said, this is a community that knows how to make a stink. Do it.”
However, this was not the end of th NEA scandal. Patrick Courrielche has now reported that Buffy Wicks, from the White House Office of Public Engagement, was the one who actually hosted the conference call, and that Yosi Sargent gave his little pep talk after she spoke. Mr. Courrielche recorded Ms. Wicks saying the following—
” I just first of all want to thank everyone for being on the call and just a deep deep appreciation for all the work you all put into the campaign for the 2+ years we all worked together.” “We won.” “I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda.” “We’re going to come at you with some specific asks here.” “I hope you guys are ready.”
And then, Glenn Beck ran the story about the updated NEA scandal where he explained that Buffy Wicks used to be a union astroturfer who funneled hundreds and thousands of dollars to ACORN (see embed below).
Furthermore, Beck also added that Ms. Wicks is the lead White House official on Serve.Gov (an organization that is supposed to “encourage” volunteer work, though The Washington Times easily dispels that myth) which made that creepy “I Pledge” video (see embed below).
Now you ask, how does the NEA scandal tie into the Skool-Aid and the recent school propaganda videos (that I embedded at the top of this blog)? Simple. All three are prime examples of how the Obama Administration, and far-left liberals in general, don’t really mind using propaganda and indoctrination—whether in the schools or using tax-payer funded organizations like the NEA—to push their agenda. Simply put, this is the same song, third verse.
And finally, there is one more reason why this propaganda video dispersed throughout the schools (along with the Skool-Aid and the NEA scandal) is a big deal. Several days ago, Glenn Beck did a story about Mark Lloyd, Barack Obama’s chief diversity czar for the FCC (I can’t quite figure out why the FCC needs a diversity czar). In the video that I’m about to show you, Mr. Lloyd is heard openly praising Hugo Chavez (but then again, Sean Penn routinely praises Hugo Chavez so this is really nothing new for the far-left), stating The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t go far enough (that’s the bill that Nancy Pelosi wants to pass in order to curtail the conservative media), and finally, Mr. Lloyd states that, “We’re in a position to say who is going to step down so that someone else will get power”. Seriously, between Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, Van Jones, and now, Mark Lloyd, has Obama ever met a nutter that he doesn’t like? But, I digress.
So, now we are singing the same song, fourth verse. In a nutshell, this song basically states that the government and its allies can engage in open propaganda and indoctrination in our public schools, manipulate our tax-payer funded institutions for political purposes (such as the NEA), while simultaneously curtailing our freedom of speech and deciding who gets hired and fired. I don’t know about you, but I think that this song sucks. I say that we stop singing it. In fact, what’s so scary about the tune that the Obama Administration, and its buddies, seem to be humming, is that when I, and honest people on both sides of the aisle read about the details, we can’t all help but exclaim, “This doesn’t happen in America! This kind of stuff only happens in other countries—like Venezuela.” Well you know what, this shouldn’t happen in America—not if we have anything to say about it. I say that it’s high time that we, the sane people of America, start making our voices heard, and start singing louder than the bozos behind the the Skool-Aid, the NEA scandal, and all of these propagandistic videos. Enough is enough. It is time to make our voices heard. Here is where I take my stand.
Last night, I was watching the following exchange on The O’Reilly Factor with Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly, when Chris Wallace blasted the Obama Administration so hard that it made my jaw hit the floor. The reason why this surprised me so, is because Chris Wallace runs a very “fair and balanced” show and he usually keeps his personal opinions to himself—i.e., he is no partisan hack. Below is a list of criticisms that Wallace hurls toward the Obama administration:
—Both Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace call out Barack Obama for going on all of the other Sunday talk shows this weekend EXCEPT Fox News Sunday, which has the highest ratings. Wallace further points out that he has always been fair to the Obama Administration, that they “refuse to take yes for an answer”, and that “there is a certain childishness or pettiness” about their behavior.
—Chris Wallace also calls out David Axelrod for going on Face the Nation and denigrating the 9/12 tea party demonstrators by stating that, “They are not representative.” Wallace then adds, “This from the President who said that he wanted to reach out to all Americans?”
—Chris Wallace even hilariously points out that Bertha Lewis, the CEO of ACORN, will go on Fox News Sunday, but Barack Obama won’t.
—However, Wallace really burns the Obama Administration when he offers up the following zinger—
“These guys…everything is personal…everything. They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.” (See embed below).