A Future President of these United States

Friday, August 31, AD 2012

 Our national motto, “in God we  trust”, reminding us that faith in our creator is the most important  American value of them all.

Marco Rubio

Three predictions from this convention.  Mitt Romney will be President of the United States, Paul Ryan will be President of the United States and Marco Rubio will be President of the United States.  Here is the transcript of Senator Rubio’s introduction of Mitt Romney last evening:

Continue reading...

24 Responses to A Future President of these United States

  • I agree, Don. And those aren’t the only convention speakers who may wind up in the White House some day.

    If I were the Democrats, the prospect of “President Romney” (as leftist Michael Moore has now told Democrats to get used to saying) is far less frightening than the fact that what the GOP convention primarily displayed was the depth of the Republican bench. AT LEAST 3 future Presidents spoke during the convention, and perhaps the first Latina President or Vice-President. Not to mention possible future Presidents of East Indian descent (male and female).

    WHO do the Democrats have to put up to rival a Paul Ryan, a Marco Rubio, a Suzanna Martinez, a Bobby Jindal, a Nikki Haley, and a Rob Portman? (And I know I’ve left out some names, such as Condi Rice (yeah, I know) and that delightful and beautiful mayor from Utah, but these just seem to be the most promising.)

    When you look at the Democrat Party’s scheduled line-up, all you’ll see is a bunch of has-beens and never-wases, wallowing in their “victim” status. Who is the “future” of the Democrat Party? Hillary Clinton !!! Talk about “Back to the ‘Future'”. After that, who do they have? Debbie Wassermann Schultz? Sandra Fluke?

    Seriously, if the Democrats are smart (yeah, I know), THAT will be their take-away from this Convention. Be afraid of “President Romney” as Moore aptly warns. But be EVEN MORE afraid of what comes after, ’cause you got nothin’ to match it, and, what’s worse, you’re not even aware of it. And your strategy of going back to the “war on women” well yet again (it might’ve worked 20 years ago in ’92, but, again, we’re talking about the future) PROVES that you got nothin’ and that you’re not even trying to build a decent farm system with solid prospects for the future.

  • The disparity between the benches of the two political parties is shocking Jay. One of the problems for the Democrats is that so many of their members of Congress and Governors come from safe blue areas where they never have to develop the skills necessary to convince voters who might initially oppose them to switch to their side. Ryan and Rubio are typical of many elected Republicans, in that they have won races in areas where they needed to persuade and convert. Obama, launching his political career in an icy blue region of Chicago, is typical of the career path of a Democrat pol these days. Democrats that do come from red states, or red areas in blue states, are often not around long enough on the political scene to “rise to the top of the greasy pole”.

  • Gosh, I forgot to mention the GOP’s “keynote speaker”, which may or may not be a testament to the impression his “keynote speech” left on me. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that the Democrats don’t have anyone to match the heft of the Governor of New Jersey (pun only slightly intended). Christie could easily appear on a Presidential ticket some day, and would stand a better-than-even chance of winning election.

  • Indeed Jay, and underscores my point about Republicans running successfully in blue areas having to develop the political skills necessary to survive. Although he is too much of a Rino for my taste, Scot Brown in Massachusetts, who looks like he will keep “Ted Kennedy’s seat” is another prime example. If I were a Democrat strategist I would be greatly alarmed at the new crop of Republicans who can thrive in hostile territory, while Democrats are increasingly relying on areas that can give them an overwhelming advantage.

  • That would indeed be an example of God shedding his grace on America…

  • Totally agree! Great point. It seems the Democrat party is aging and there aren’t any young people rising up among them. Not the case with the Republicans.

  • I’ve made a few sarcastic comments lately about political predictions. Maybe it’s becaue I was convinced that George Allen would be president by now. But the thing is, parties need to constantly develop their minor league players, because a lot of them won’t make it to the majors. There’s always a word like “macaca”, or a sex scandal, or you just get unlucky and the party machine pits you against a popular incumbent. I look at the latest crop of rising stars and I see a lot of potential, though.

    As a side note, I don’t think that either party has done a good job of grooming candidates in the executive branch. Bush I was the last president to put in the effort. You always want to have two or three cabinet members who are potential future presidents, and a lot of deputy assistant secretaries who could win a seat in the House. But lately the shift has been to policy experts (who may not have the interpersonal skills to manage a government agency anyway) and people nearing retirement. The president should also be generous to the congressmen in his party and let them get some camera time. The last few presidents haven’t put much attention into this.

  • Senator Rubio will be good to go in 2028 when Ryan is finishing his second term.

    If the election goes the other way, there will be no America for Rubio or the rest of us. It recall a awfully hot day in July 1863 when Gen. Pickett said, “General, I have no division.”

    I saw a post on Instapundit saying Hillary Rodham will flee the country the week of the DNC. Let’s see.

  • It will be interesting to see if the Democrats continue their plans to focus on their whinny, “you can’t do anything for yourself, we need abortion on demand and contraception for free” agenda for the DNC. I agree that our future presidents were featured this past week. It’s wonderful seeing such talent.

  • One thing that the Democrats have yet to realize is that when it comes to their absurd “war on women” meme, time is NOT on their side. I’m 32 and before I ever converted to Catholicism I became pro-life because of science and technological advances that allow us to see our babies at their most vulnerable, inside the womb. My husband would argue with me over abortion, that is until he got to see the very first ultrasound of our son- his little limbs, his precious little heart beating- at four weeks post-conception. From that moment on he has been pro-life.

    An entire generation of women have been able to actually see inside their wombs and observe for themselves the great lie that “it’s only a clump of cells.” And as science advances, more and more women are seeing the devastating links between abortion and hormonal contraception and a myriad of health problems- both mental and physical- including cancer. It is not out of ignorance that the younger generations are becoming more and more pro-life by the year. And that will not work out in favor of the Democrat party so long as they continue to embrace the extreme “feminist” agenda.

  • And yes, they should be very, very afraid of Marco Rubio. I hitched myself to his wagon the minute he announced his run for Senate. He just GETS it.

  • Bit dubious about Mr. Rubio. He maintained a solo law practice on the side for a number of years but is close to a pure career politician. Mr. Ryan has the same problem: non-electoral and then electoral politics have been his whole life. Also, neither has held an executive position. I would hope Mr. Romney would put Mr. Ryan in charge of the Office or Management and Budget so he gets to be a boss for a while. Would much prefer someone about 60 who has had two or three careers.

  • “It seems the Democrat party is aging and there aren’t any young people rising up among them. Not the case with the Republicans.”

    Hmm, let’s see… pro-choice… smaller families… not too many young Democrats. Whereas…

  • I watched most of the speaches, and I think Rubio was the most impressive. How old is he – 38? His speach was impeccably scripted, and masterfully delivered.
    Could well be a log jam of candidates over the next couple of decades 😉

    But I thought his brief introduction of Spanish when talking about his father was a touch of genius.
    To me, it has been very enlightening how many of these people – men and women – who are only 1 or 2 generations removed from being immigrants, or are in fact immigrants when in their infancy.

  • “It seems the Democrat party is aging and there aren’t any young people rising up among them. Not the case with the Republicans.”

    The sample size is too small to say much, but it does seem you have had a secular decline in the quality of the Democratic Party’s competitive presidential candidates. The trio of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards were just the sorriest bunch to compete in either major party in forever. The contrast between them and the quintets which competed in 1972 and 1988 is depressing.

  • In any endeavor, whoever is hyped to be the next great thing rarely lives up to the hype. So I would be careful in hyping Rubio as a future president.

  • The problem I see in most of your comments is not that you are supporting one corrupt, pro-corporation, irreligious phony political mob over another mob that is equally corrupt. The problem is that many Catholics, including much of the U.S.-based leadership of the Catholic church, mislead our people into believing in a warped “patriotism” and political ideology that is completely inconsistent with proper Catholic morals and values. Most of the contributors here are also kidding themselves: Ryan, Rubio and other young “rising stars” are simply puppets of strong corporate and financial interests. Your admiration should be for the puppet-masters, the organized corporate forces that controls the Republican Party, not B-grade actors in their employ.

  • Got it GC. Everybody is corrupt except you.

  • Got it DRM: You apparently love to pretend that you are very clever. But this still does not explain why you so admire puppets of organized corporate interests, like Ryan and Rubio. Some would argue that David Koch and others, whose money and power orchestrate the direction of the Republican Party, is a far more significant player. I think as Catholics we should really love the very pious Christian David Koch!!!

  • “You apparently love to pretend that you are very clever.”

    Glib certainly, clever occasionally.

    “But this still does not explain why you so admire puppets of organized corporate interests, like Ryan and Rubio.”

    Because they aren’t “puppets of organized corporate interests” but rather politicians who have the audacity to hold beliefs that obviously differ from your own.

    “Some would argue that David Koch and others, whose money and power orchestrate the direction of the Republican Party, is a far more significant player. I think as Catholics we should really love the very pious Christian David Koch!!!”

    Now don’t say a word against David Koch!

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/08/24/don-theres-a-nut-on-the-phone/

    You GC are a prime example of a paranoid style in American politics that has become commonplace on the Left in this country. Honest, intelligent people simply couldn’t come to different conclusions from you on policy issues. They must be controlled by evil puppet masters! You are the mirror image of the John Birch Society and some of the more “ardent” supporters of Ron Paul.

  • Once again, Mr. MCClarey, let me satisfy your need for self importance: You are SOOOOOOOOOOO clever!!!! However, a personal attack on me because you assume I have political views that are very different from yours is unwarranted.

    I respect the U.S. political system for its resilience. The anti-Catholic English Protestants who originated and formed the United States are to be deeply admired for the institutional structures they constructed. This includes — of course — the U.S.’s enduring political system. However, it is a certainty that the U.S. political system was never designed to be a moral system, and a greater certainly that its politics and policies were never intended to correspond to Catholic morals and teachings. So, with that in mind, it is a stretch — I think, as I am free to do — to imply, as many people do, that to support this or that Republican person or policy makes you somehow a better Catholic.

    To me, the Catholic Church has — or should have — a higher moral standard than secular, corporate-funded institutions and individuals.

    And let’s stop the silly, groundless personal attacks, which reflect your own personal insecurities more than anything else.

  • “You are SOOOOOOOOOOO clever!!!!”

    Clever enough not to believe that shadowy puppet masters control those who disagree with me politically.

    “The anti-Catholic English Protestants who originated and formed the United States are to be deeply admired for the institutional structures they constructed.”

    Some of the Founding Fathers were quite pro-Catholic, including the greatest of them all, George Washington. Of course one can never forget Catholic signer Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

    “However, it is a certainty that the U.S. political system was never designed to be a moral system, and a greater certainly that its politics and policies were never intended to correspond to Catholic morals and teachings.”

    Nope, it had quite enough to do establishing a frame work for ordered liberty and democratic self rule that has endured for more than two centuries.

    “So, with that in mind, it is a stretch — I think, as I am free to do — to imply, as many people do, that to support this or that Republican person or policy makes you somehow a better Catholic.”

    No, it is supporting politicians who vote for abortion on demand that puts someone in the status of a poor Catholic in my opinion.

    “To me, the Catholic Church has — or should have — a higher moral standard than secular, corporate-funded institutions and individuals”

    What that has to do with your original assertion about sinister corporations and the Koch brothers controlling the Republican party is beyond me, but I assume that you are in full retreat from that assertion now, since I reminded you of just how absurd that sounds to people not wearing tin foil caps.

    “And let’s stop the silly, groundless personal attacks, which reflect your own personal insecurities more than anything else.”

    My comments about you are not ad hominem GC, but merely descriptive based on your comments.

  • Mr. Cravins is a perfect example of another group within the “a pox on both your houses” camp – the paranoid, conspiracy mongers. Frankly they’re simply not interesting or original enough to merit coverage.

  • “Who is the “future” of the Democrat Party? Hillary Clinton !!! Talk about “Back to the ‘Future’”. After that, who do they have? Debbie Wassermann Schultz? Sandra Fluke?”

    Very late for this thread, but it just occurred to me – Andrew Cuomo is on deck, not Hillary. If Mitt is elected, he’ll probably face Cuomo in 2016. And it won’t be easy, unless the economy gets a lot better by then (in which case, Cuomo might keep his powder dry for 2020).

Workmanlike, Heartfelt and Sufficient

Friday, August 31, AD 2012

But this president cannot tell us that YOU are better off today than when he took office.

Mitt Romney

 

 

Yesterday, in response to an inquiry, I offered these observations about how Romney needed to come across in his speech:

Romney needs to come across ultra competent and optimistic.  I think most of the nation understands that Obama cannot fix the economy, but they are skeptical that Romney can do better.  He needs to convince them that he can. 

Romney will have the usual advantage of most Republican candidates in that much of the mainstream press has given a fairly distorted view of him.  Just showing up without horns and a tail will give him a boost, as it does most Republican presidential candidates. 

Romney should echo what Ryan said:  does anyone, outside of rabid Democrat partisans, really believe that if Obama remains in office that his economic policies will do any better in the next four years than they have in the last four?  Time for something new.

I don’t view Romney’s task as very difficult.  He has never been much of an orator, but he has improved over the campaign.  This speech doesn’t require the touch of genius that Ryan’s speech had.  A solid, workmanlike effort, obviously heartfelt, should be sufficient.

I believe that Romney’s speech last night met these goals.  The speech was a “more in sorrow than in anger” look at the abysmal stewardship of the Obama administration as to the economy, and Romney brought up what is the overriding issue in this campaign:

What is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound. It doesn’t take a special government commission to tell us what America needs.

What America needs is jobs.

Lots of jobs.

Since the 1820’s in this nation the economy, unless overshadowed briefly by a war or some great issue like slavery, has determined the outcome of almost all presidential elections.  If the economy is good the party in power is rewarded on election day.  If the economy is bad the party in power is thrown out.  The economy today is quite bad and Romney understands that this is the determining factor in this election.  Last night I think he succeeded in his task of convincing enough people that Obama had failed and that he might do a better job at getting the economy up and running.

Here is the text of the speech:

Continue reading...

One Response to Workmanlike, Heartfelt and Sufficient

  • Your title does justice to Mitt Romney’s speech and, I think, what his service as President would be.

    Workmanlike, Heartfelt, Sufficient

    ‘I do so with humility, deeply moved by the trust you have placed in me. It is a great honor. It is an even greater responsibility.’

    ‘Everywhere I go in America, there are monuments that list those who have given their lives for America. There is no mention of their race, their party affiliation, or what they did for a living. They lived and died under a single flag, fighting for a single purpose. They pledged allegiance to the UNITED States of America.’

    ‘That America, that united America, will uphold the constellation of rights that were endowed by our Creator, and codified in our Constitution.’

    ‘That united America will care for the poor and the sick, will honor and respect the elderly, and will give a helping hand to those in need.’

    ‘That America is the best within each of us. That America we want for our children.’

    It’s realistic. I feel hopeful.

    So many candidates for office just pander and promise, then their service is nothing of what their campaign was. These past almost four years were hideous with the evidence.

Absolutely Disgusting and Disgraceful: TSA Targets Paul Family

Friday, August 31, AD 2012

The details are here.

The reason for the blatant harassment?

TSA agents did not cite any specific threat, but insinuated the Paul family was a threat to Mitt Romney, claiming the nominee “might be nearby.”

If I ever needed concrete proof that what the TSA does is not only a violation of human dignity and absolutely intolerable in a country that claims to be free, but also completely unnecessary and politically-motivated (after all Paul publicly criticizes the TSA), this is it.

Love or hate his politics, the idea that Ron Paul, his wife, or anyone else in his family poses a threat to Mitt Romney or anyone else is an absolute joke. Incidents like these make me ashamed of my country, and I am more than disappointed that this is one problem that the GOP in neither able or willing to address.

There is no level of security that is worth this level of invasive and perverted government intrusion into our lives. If the price of “security” is seeing children traumatized, old and disabled people humiliated, women sexually violated, and citizens in general being treated as potential enemies and threats by a fraternity of uniformed government thugs, I will gladly do without it.

Live free or die, America.

 

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Absolutely Disgusting and Disgraceful: TSA Targets Paul Family

  • Government over-reach has a more subtle cost. It creates the conditions for “throwing the baby out with the bath-water.”

    When an agency allows an ongoing irritation to fester into an open sore, the People propose, and often eventually get, radical reforms that greatly undermine the benefits of regulation. We have seen this play out time and again and, yet, large organizations continue to stumble into the same trap:

    1. come up with a policy that appears to serve a short term need,
    2. institutionalize that policy without considering alternatives,
    3. reinforce that policy by mandating its absolute adherence, thereby eliminating flexibility on the ground,
    4. add an increasingly complicated and ever expanding set of exceptions, thereby creating the impression that the policy is arbitrary and capricious – in essence, not a policy at all,
    5. make it clear to subordinates that deviation on their part will be harshly dealt with, and
    6. refer back to the intent in step 1 to justify every over-reach.

    When agencies strip the first line supervisors of the authority to deviate from policy and procedure, what you are left with is, in fact, “arbitrary and capricious” in the sense that it doesn’t allow for the myriad of circumstances that demand deviation.

    I challenge Paul’s assertion that TSA is some rogue agency. It is not and could not be. It is badly mismanaged by high level, washingtonian, policy wonks without enough contact with the ground to know what in the hell is going on. Their reaction to every mistake is that it must be a local deviation from policy and procedure because it is impossible for them to imagine that they have made things so damned complicated that no one can effectively comply.

    The idea that Paul was targeted by an agency-wide effort to “punish” him for his public assaults on their agency is laughable. However, the Paul family’s experience is illuminating because in it we see individual agents of the TSA using the over-complicated regulatory architecture to both harass specific citizens and hide behind the underlying purpose for those byzantine regulations.

    Paul’s approach to the TSA – to scrap it as though it were a mistake from the start – is daft, short-sighted, and downright foolish. It displays a mind more accustomed to self-congratulatory rhetoric than careful consideration and it is that kind of nonsense that makes him an unpalatable choice for any executive position. He would, indeed, “throw the baby out with the bath water” and then be justly pilloried ten years from now for having set the conditions for an even more horrific terrorist attack than was perpetrated on September 11th.

    What TSA – and every other agency of our federal, state, and local governments – needs is a regulatory “scrape” – a congressionally mandated review of each and every regulation to determine its purpose, scope, and effectiveness. It can be done and is desperately needed in an age when no one can navigate government policy without the aid of counsel.

    There isn’t anything particularly “revolutionary” in seeking to wipe out government agencies. It is stupid though when those agencies are, in fact, necessary for our national security. A better approach than Paul’s would be to do something novel and farther reaching to make all federal agencies serve America better. For example, we could require that all US codes be reduced by a certain percentage – say 33% – and that all activating instructions be included in those codes. That would go a long way to forcing agencies to simplify and figure out what is actually necessary without creating chaos and risking catastrophe.

    Paul is a quack, an alarmist, and a fool.

  • For pity’s sake, the source is Lew Rockwell. Let the reader beware.

  • claiming the nominee “might be nearby.”

    Ok, so… are not the Romneys and Pauls friends? There were many electrons spilled during that little episode suggesting that Romney may ask Rand Paul to be his running mate.

  • “The idea that Paul was targeted by an agency-wide effort to “punish” him for his public assaults on their agency is laughable.”

    Right. Because governments throughout history have demonstrated that they usually almost always benevolent, standing high and loftily above ideological disputes, concerned solely with the public good, run not by petty human beings but by public-service automatons running permanently on a 10th-grade civics class programming script.

    I can’t help but think that a bunch of arrogant Brits once derided Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and the rest of the founding fathers the way people like you disparage Ron Paul.

  • I can’t help but think that a comparison between Ron Paul and Washington, Jefferson, Adams, or Madison is a joke.

    As for the conspiracy theory, it relies upon the false idea that huge, multi-tiered organizations are good at secrecy. If this tale is to be believed, someone noticed that the Pauls were leaving from the airport, routed that information to TSA’s top echelons, a bunch of secret meetings were held to decide how best to “punish” the Pauls for Ron Paul’s attacks, and then specific instructions were sent back down to the officers on the ground to act upon. No whistleblowers… Nope, because the same officers you decry as incompetent, self-serving, and mean are also clever and discrete enough to keep their mouths shut.

    THAT is laughable.

    I don’t proclaim to know any details about this incident beyond what you posted but it seems more likely to me that officers on the ground didn’t like Paul and acted unilaterally and in a mean spirited fashion, under the guise of protecting Romney.

    The reporter sees a grand conspiracy where there is no evidence of one because it fits the narrative of Ron Paul supporters. This is precisely why Ron Paul supporters are considered “fringe.”

    It is a shame. Really, it is. Libertarianism needs a voice because it has a lot to offer to our understanding of the Framers’ intent and what makes America unique and special in the world.

    Frankly, your writing on this site has been an outstanding contribution to my thinking on economics and justice. I can’t for the life of me figure out how someone as bright and articulate as you are can be swept up in this conspiracy nonsense.

    This leads me to believe that you are leading us on, that your support for this whackaloon is a private joke. You just have to be having us on.

  • ” it seems more likely to me that officers on the ground didn’t like Paul and acted unilaterally and in a mean spirited fashion, under the guise of protecting Romney.”

    That’s basically what I think happened as well, but it has happened more than once. Do I think there is some official memo sent out to all TSA agents, that it is agency policy? No. Do I think the feelings of people who work for the TSA are decidedly anti-Paul and will manifest themselves in unwarranted harassment? Absolutely.

    I’m sorry I went off on you. But I really despise the TSA and what it does to innocent people on a daily basis. It needs its Army-McCarthy moment. It needs to be publicly asked, “have you no decency?”

  • The problem is that it isn’t the TSA, it is “government” in a very general way and I believe, as I stated above, that it is driven by the regulatory environment itself.

    The latitude to make decisions on what to pursue and when and how to manage the rules in different scenarios is shrinking at every level of government from local code enforcement, through state regulators, and into every facet of federal regulation. There are too damn many lawyers, and “thinking like a lawyer” means exploiting every non-specific word of every regulation. The result is increasingly complex regulations and draconian consequences to agents who want to be reasonable and effective.

    The vast majority of civil servants – including TSA by the way – want to do a good job, want to be flexible and smart in the application of their duties, and want to be thought of as honorable. You only have to be knocked down a few times for letting someone bring a slightly too large bottle of toothpaste through a line though before you start taking out your ruler every time you see a tube.

    The problem is the regulation, not the people and, until we clear the decks like Justinian did, this is just going to get worse. We have become too much like the Eastern Roman Empire. The complaine-of behavior by government actors is a result of that reality.

  • I don’t proclaim to know any details about this incident beyond what you posted but it seems more likely to me that officers on the ground didn’t like Paul and acted unilaterally and in a mean spirited fashion, under the guise of protecting Romney.

    Or that they asked to search the plane per standing regulations and Lew Rockwell got literary in telling the tale.

  • That may be true too. I have to agree with Bonchamps though about the broader complaint. The Pauls may be overly dramatic in this tale; doing so certainly fits Ron Paul’s political agenda. However, the fact remains that TSA is constantly running afoul of the kind of limits on government intrusion that American consider normal and acceptable.

    The questions are why and what should be done about it.

  • Isn’t this SOP for how democratically elected leaders become dictators lately? You start with harassment of minor opposition political opponents. Nothing too overt, just “enforcing the law, sir.” Slowly, it escalates into harassment of bigger opponents, with the quick addition of things like ‘routine reviews’ of broadcast licenses. Cf. Venezuela, Ukraine, for example.

  • However, the fact remains that TSA is constantly running afoul of the kind of limits on government intrusion that American consider normal and acceptable.

    Constantly? In my limited experience (in Syracuse, N.Y. and Austin, Tx), TSA agents are professional and cordial. It takes more time to get through security than was once the case, but the drill is in essence an extension and elaboration of procedures which have been in place in American airports since 1973. The effort may be misdrected and misinvested, but doing something else would require a discussion of what the optimum might be, which would require a discussion of granular details. Doing so is quite alien to the way the paulbot mind seems to work. You read The American Conservative for a while and you realize its contributors and commentors have no common ideology. They are people who love to bitch.

  • AD: I love it. I have two titanium, replacement knees. Every time I fly, I get frisked. And, since the got the X-Ray machines, they really go over me. That’s because they got rid of the “wands.”

    That certainly is not optimum. I was taught in HS American History that the government interned the Japanese Americans in 1940 . . . That was wrong, too.

    PS: When was the last time a a 72 year-old Congressman or a 62-year-old white businessman crashed a jumbo jet into a tall building filled with Americans?

  • My experiences have been generally good too. Of course I’m a “yes Officer,” follow instruction kind of guy.

    Unfortunately, it takes only repetition for an agency to forge a perception of unreasonableness. Pressing on a child’s crotch is probably over the line of propriety unless there is specific information showing that it is necessary. Certainly leaving notes in luggage about peoples’ sex toys looks bad.

    There have been too many cases in which TSA officers have behaved badly to ignore. That doesn’t mean that those cases are other than the rare exception but, when your agency is under close scrutiny , you can’t afford mistakes.

    I admit that I poorly chose the word “constantly.”

  • Bonchamps,
    I quit reading this blog almost a year ago, after becoming disenchanted by the vicious personal attacks on Ron Paul by many of the writer and commenters, in the few posts that had anything to do with his candidacy or policy positions. I was heartened then, when I came across a link to one of your posts and that brought me back to TAC blog to read your writings, whatever the subject matter.

    You apparently have a significantly greater understanding about true individual freedom, liberty, and responsibility than many who frequent this blog.

    When I read this post, I was anxious to go to the comments and see how quickly Dr. Paul was referred to as a “whackaloon”, a “quack”, or even more silly and meaningless, “associated with Lew Rockwell” Gasp! (maybe Tom Woods, a knowledgeable and respected Catholic historian and writer, could give some readers insight into Mr. Rockwell and his views. I’d urge them to visit his site)

    I think the champion among the commenters for promotion of the “banality of evil” would have to go to G-Veg for his rebuttal containing this gem…”Pressing on a child’s crotch is probably over the line of propriety unless there is specific information showing that it is necessary”. Probably!!? Unless!?!

    Bonchamps, you are correct. The TSA is just one of many group of individuals who, acting as government, threaten the freedom we are so rapidly losing in this world. Please, keep up the good work. I will look forward to your posts.

  • I quit reading this blog almost a year ago, after becoming disenchanted by the vicious personal attacks on Ron Paul by many of the writer and commenters, in the few posts that had anything to do with his candidacy or policy positions.

    Mr. Bunce, expressed disrespect for a politician who holds to a portfolio of ill-considered policy prescriptions does not constitute a ‘vicious personal attack’. Michelle Bachmann’s husband, minding his own business back in Minnesota, was subject to vicious personal attacks (though not by anyone on this board). Sometimes politicians are subject both to deserved rebukes and to vicious personal attacks (Charlie Crist comes to mind). Better manners, precision, a focus on the issue rather than the person, and a resistance and reserve to offering assessments of someone’s intelligence and character are all to be desired. Of course, palaeoworld discourse would look very different if these prescriptions were observed.

  • Mr. Bunce, understating for effect is an effective way of making a point. It requires a little thought on the part of the receiver though.

    If you consider my comments in succession, I believe you will see that they naturally flow from one to the other. There is something wrong with government but it is far more serious than Ron Paul and his supporters seem to grasp. I pointed out what, from personal experience, I percieve to be the problem and offered a solution. I critiqued Paul’s approach to dealing with the TSA’s over-reach and addressed the underlying conspiracy allegation with what I believe is a more likely chain of events.

    Theses are policy matters. You addressed none of them and, in true Ron Paul supporter fashion, threw up a victim flag as a rebuttal.

    As for personal attacks, there are several possibilities here: 1. There really is a giant conspiracy and Ron Paul and his supporters are the only ones able to see the truth. Of course, I’ve worked in government for nearly 20 years and have universally found that it is nearly impossible to keep matters confidential that are required to be confidential, much less those that are unlawful. Far too many people would have to be involved and remain silent than is remotely possible. 2. Ron Paul believes really does believe this nonsense. If so, he is, indeed, a whackaloon, a quack, and a fool. Of course it is as likely that he doesn’t believe it, that the ridiculous positions and allegations that regularly flow from his inner circle and office are merely tools to stir up his base, a base that he knows is easily upset and quite vocal.

    There may be other explanations of course and we could spend all day theorizing but, in the end, Ron Paul and his supporters will continue to yell from the sidelines and, as I said before, that is a national tragedy.

    Libertarian thought is the ill-understood undercurrent that drives American politics on the Left and Right. It is the intellectual voice of that visceral response to statism, that gut sense that most Americans possess in some degree that “I just want to be left alone and would be better off if I were.” The tragedy is that Paul is the voice of Libertarianism and he is either a manipulator or an idiot but he is not up to the challenge of bringing Libertarian thought to center stage.

    There is, indeed, something wrong with American government at the local, state, and federal levels and Libertrianism is part of an authentically American response to those problems. If you agree then I urge you to outgrow Ron Paul’s conspiracy-laden fringe movement and carry your ideas into mainstream political discourse.

  • Well, I think what people are sick of are the haughty dismissals of ideas that appear to be unapproved by the mainstream and considered uncouth by politosnobs.

    Ron Paul is a decent and honorable man. And he did bring Austrian economics center stage by repeatedly and accurately predicting the collapse of the housing bubble on national television. This was primarily responsible for my own personal turn away from statist interventionism towards free market economics. It became quite evident to me who understood how economies work and who was simply blowing moralistic smoke.

    As for conspiracy theories, well – as I said above – governments are generally evil in my opinion. I see nothing insane or deranged about this belief. And in fact the people who dismiss conspiracy theories about their own governments are often eager and willing to believe that foreign governments engage in elaborate conspiracies, especially those marked as enemies by our State Department. There is no evil too dark, dastardly, and Dr. Evil-like in its complexity for Putin, Chavez, or the Ayatollah. But our own leaders, well, they have halos, wings, and harps, perpetually fighting good fight with God’s unconditional blessing.

    It’s enough to make one puke.

  • I agree on free markets and reining the Fed.

    However, get the facts out there. I recommend reading whatever you can find (on the net) by James Grant, publisher of “Grant’s Interest Rate Observer.”

    Today’s WSJ Op-ed page article, “The Federal Reserve: From Central Bank to Central Planner” by John H. Cochrane, which is a fair overview, despite his over-acceptance of most of the “other duties as assigned” that the Fed usurped since 1914.

    Simply put: The Fed was set up as the lender of last resort for banks (my definitio: an FDIC-insured bank that takes public deposits, a la Glass-Steagall – not Wall Street mega-millionaires, or “too big to fail”, etc.) as such it would lend to banks when they needed liquidity to make loans, meet unexpected deposit withdrawals, etc, with such lending collateralized by sound financial assets held in the Fed vault.

    The banks’ solvency was (should be) solely the responsibilities of owners and managements.

    The Fed’s founding legislation did not empower it to set interest rates, play with the money supply, or manage the economy. In short, it was to be the central bank, the bank for banks, not the central planner for the USA.

    In 1971, the US completed the abandonment of the gold standard and went on the PhD/central planner standard. We see the serial catastrophes that caused.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/must-read-jim-grant-crucifies-fed-explains-why-gold-standard-best-option

  • Bonchamps, you are seriously misinformed if you think a specie based currency prevents asset bubbles. It does no such thing; you had a grand-daddy bubble in the late 1920s in equities. Neither is a specie-based currency or a currency board necessary to re-stabilize prices or to maintain optimal levels of price stability. Neither can the most recent bubble in real estate prices be fairly attributed to the Federal Reserve: you had bubbles as bad or worse in Britain, Ireland, Spain, and China and the decoupling of real estate prices and nominal incomes in the Case-Shiller 10 city set was manifest five years before the Federal Reserve undertook any unusual moves vis a vis the federal funds rate.

    Maintenance of the gold standard was disastrous in this country during the years running from 1929 to 1933 and the country which attempted to institute a currency board most recently was Argentina. That is not the example you want anyone to follow.

    As for Austrian economics, why not look at the bibliographies of Robert Higgs, Hans Herman-Hoppe, Peter Boettke, Steven Horwitz, and Robert Murphy. Higgs has not published any applied research in 30 years or more and never produced much. Murphy has published one piece of hypothesis testing (in cooperation with several others). The other three have between them published a few case studies over the last 25 years. That is an atypical form to make use of in economics literature and that is really it for them. Boettke is quite verbose, publishing reams of commentary and intellectual history and what not, but few observational studies of anything. These people have not been run out of academe (bar, perhaps, Murphy) and economics is not molecular biology or anthropology: research conducted therein is pretty low overhead. Purveyors of vulgar Austrianism are bloody sure we should be making radical policy changes which have uhappy histories and behind these prescriptions is…nothing.

  • To whom are you directing your comments? I want to know whether I should be offended or not.

    I’ll own my writing but no other here. Reading again what I wrote above, there are ideas I would express differently but none I take back. I’m not the slightest bit intimidated by the unknown and believe I’ve given fair hearing to Libertarianism. A “snob” I don’t believe myself to be.

    As for Ron Paul the man, it may well be that he is a great guy: honorable, smart, a good judge, and a patriot. I don’t dismiss the idea that he is a better man than I know. However, I think many of his ideas are extreme and I fundamentally disagree with his plans, such as they are, for the TSA; which, I feel compelled to remind you, is the only of Paul’s ideas that you specifically detailed in your post.

    Finally, your conspiracy theory comment is a straw man and, given your demonstrated debating skills, you know it. I have said only that the theory that the TSA is out to get Ron Paul because of his valliant stand against them is a conspiracy theory of the firat order and is laughable. If you want to give me a list of domestic and foreign conspiracy theories to check off, I’ll be happy to own any that I hold.

  • G-Veg,

    I wasn’t speaking to anyone in particular. I was just rambling about tendencies I’ve noticed.

    Art,

    I think it is simplistic to reduce Ron Paul’s/the Austrian school’s account of the housing bubble to “blame it on the Fed.” That’s all I’m going to say for now.

  • AD: Central panning has proven catastrophic. Look at the record from 1914.

    This housing bubble-bust/CDO catastrophe/auto industry implosion/great recession could not have happened, or have been as all-devastating, without Fed and big government/do-gooder interference in the markets. They eternally cause asset and resource misallocations.

    Obama and collectivists/central planners, bless their hearts, have the gall to dishonestly blame free markets.

    Since late 2008, I’ve been, whenever I get ten minutes, trying to put together the pieces that caused this mess. Hey, no one else has!

    I misspent the past 35 years in the financial services industry. As old Navy vets would say, “I shit you not. I was there.”

    I worked through financial fiascoes since the US southwest energy and midwest agricultural crises of the early 1980’s; the lesser-developed country debt crisis of the mid-1980’s (about that time the first national bank chartered in the US failed); the S&L/RTC crisis of 1989 to 1992+; the commercial real estate bust of the early 1990’s. Throw in there a little incident concerning a certain Long-Term Capital Management, which is important to the present maelstrom as it was the Fed-arranged bail-out.

    Then, we had good ten years – no loan losses, high profits (the SEC was running amok forcing banks not to provide reserves for loan losses – “I shit you not.” I have the memos.) – and a perceived, new paradigm.

    The Fed kept rates far too low, far too long. Each time rates went down there was a wave of mortgage refinancings. And, people began to use their homes as ATM’s to buy beamers and vacation homes, with widespread tragic consequences.

    HUD capo Andrew Cuomo directed US GSE’s (FNMA/FHLMC) to rapidly expand mortgage purchases adding far too much liquidity (dollars available to lend) into the residential real estate markets. The appraisal profession refused to recognize that house prices cannot keep rising 10% – 15% a year when the numbers of households (median family incomes were stagnant from 1999). Numbers of families with incomes to support $3,000; $4,000; 5,000 a month loan payments were not increasing; and (Why don’t central planners and PhD’s look at charts? – Because it wasn’t in the central plan.) the GDP was not rising in step with house prices.

    Too many embraced the myth that real estate prices never drop (even though we had seen it ten years earlier, and several other periods).

    Everyone: I mean everyone was making money, which impeded corrective action.

    I could go on, but it gets too sad and it’s Saturday.

    Paul Ryan was one of the few to try to slow down FNMA/FHLMC. For his efforts the dirty pols/GSE employees (see 2004/5 SEC fine of $400 million for FNMA accounting lies) sent letters to his constituents charging he was out to raise home loan interest rates.

    I won’t go over the hundreds of millions of dollars (including $143,00 to neophyte senator Barry Sotoero) in political graft payments by FNMA and FHLMC. That is grist for another mill.

  • A. There is no central planning. The various levels of government interfere in markets as a matter of routine, but not in any co-ordinated way. Sometimes the intervention is a function of patron-client politics (see the tax code), sometimes an exercise in public relations (the Robert C. Byrd Center for Blah Blah Blah), and sometimes it is in response to factors very circumscribed in space and time (e.g. local land-use planning).

    B. The Federal Reserve acts as a lender of last resort. It also regulates the dimensions of the monetary base and influences the dimensions of broader measures of money. That is what central banks do. It is not some sort of American equivalent to GOSPLAN and past efforts to defend a dollar-gold parity have had most unfortunate results. That is one aspect of why we have ended up with a fiat currency on an independent float, as preferred by that arch central planner, Milton Friedman.

  • AD: Don’t let the historical record or the facts get in your way.

Clint Eastwood Interrogates Empty Chair!

Thursday, August 30, AD 2012

I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we — we own this country.

Clint Eastwood

Truly one of the most bizarre, and entertaining, moments I have witnessed in almost fifty years of observing national political conventions.  People may forget almost all of this convention as the years roll by, but they will always remember Clint and the empty chair!  Here is the text of his unforgettable act:

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Clint Eastwood Interrogates Empty Chair!

  • HE APPEARED SOOOO OLD, IT SEEMED AS THO’ HE RAMBLED A BIT….

  • That was pretty good.

    Missed the poncho and the short stubby well chewed cigar though.

    And where was the 45 magnum when he said, “Make my Day”? 🙂

  • Did you hear Clint Eastwood say: “Politicians are employees of ours”? and “We own this country”?
    Jane A. Let him ramble

  • I thought it was great, but I love Clint Eastwood. Dry sense of humor, his Clint Eastwood grin, and the several serious, very powerful points he made….loved it.

  • Was it just me, or did Eastwood’s speech come out against the war in Afghanistan?

  • Wrote this on another board after watching the “speech” a second time.

    I thought it was a humorous break. If I thought anything needed to change, it would be him reducing the number of “uh’s.” (It’s a violation of public speaking code.) I thought that left the impression he was rambling, but he wasn’t. He knew what he wanted to say and in what order. He was even able to handle a heckler and get back on course and then work the heckler back into the closing. That’s not the work of a rambling man.

    I recommend going back and giving it another watch. Your opinion may change.

  • Blackadder, I think his point was that if you are going to be in Afghanistan, have a goal in mind. You have to aim for something or you just keep going on and on. Obama has expressed no vision of what the end game is and has basically just carried the ball disinterested fashion to and fro. It’s as if Obama’s only interest in Afghanistan was to get Osama, “Election bullet point achieved. I’m done.”

  • He gave permission to people who have never voted republican before, or those who have bought into the hope ideas, or those who were just so pumped about what a cool guy Obama is, and those concerned about wars overseas, and those who can’t just put thier finger on what is wrong, but feel uneasy…to vote for the opposition.
    Like a family member at a dying patient’s bedside, he softly said, ” it’s all right, you can just et him go”
    ” Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether you’re libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go.” it’s ok–
    I thought he was great, and the more I think about it the better he gets.
    Mitt;s speech and the whole night was good medicine for all those generational democrats who have just grown up think the R’s were the bogeyman.

  • Kyle Miller: “He was even able to handle a heckler and get back on course and then work the heckler back into the closing. That’s not the work of a rambling man.”

    For the first time in my life I was impressed with Clint Eastwood. “I DON’T SAY THAT WORD ANYMORE. WELL, MAYBE ONE LAST TIME.”

  • It was a speech, so I didn’t much care for it, but he did well. The deliberate pauses and raspy voice don’t translate into long talks so well, but… looking back, it seems like he sped up very slowly through the whole thing, so he was talking almost “climatic scene of the movie dialog” speed and emphasis at the end.

  • Well, if that is considered rambling, I am in d.e.e.p. trouble when I get to be 82.

  • If I left the impression that I did not like what he said, I am sorry….he might have rambled, but he made a lot of sense. We do own this country and they work for us….It may be tough to let someone go, but it is necessary that we do…..in this instance!!

  • What war in Afghanistan? That is a contingency operation.

    If Obama ever cuts the teleprompter cord, count the “duh’s.”

  • Actually T Shaw it’s “uh” not “duh” as seen below: from a Limbaugh show some moons ago

    Now, this next sound bite, ladies and gentlemen, is a series of uhs in one answer to a question asked of President Obama sitting with president Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama took two questions. The answer to the first question was two minutes and 30 seconds. Thirty-six seconds of the answer was this. None of these are repeated.

    OBAMA: Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh.

    RUSH: I was asked if the teleprompter was stuck. There wasn’t a teleprompter, which is one of the problems. But it doesn’t matter what the question was. That’s 36 seconds of uhs, unrepeated in an answer to two questions. The answer was two minutes and 30 seconds.

  • Inspector Callahan…..love it…

  • Unfortunately, Clint Eastwood is an atheist. Pray for him.

  • Siobhan: Many prayers for Clint Eastwood. He loves our founding principles and our country founded upon the belief in and trust in God, our “Creator”, and Endower of unalienable rights. Clint Eastwood’s love for freedom will lead him to the TRUTH. One Hail Mary.

  • Pingback: 170 Greatest Clint Eastwood Quotes | The American Catholic
  • Siobhan: Evolution only brings forth “that” and “what”. Our Creator begets “WHO”. The human being comprised of human body and human rational, immortal soul is a child of the God of LOVE. Man needed a Creator and a begetting. God created us immortal, without end. The God of LIFE created man to LIFE ETERNAL, that no human being, no man (Mankind is included in man. Mankind is woman, who is kind of like man, a human being, a sovereign person, only different, only a difference God imbues.) cannot be found in Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. “…for you are sacred to me, for I, the Lord, your God, am sacred”. “…that they may all be one, Father, as you and I are one.” The word Holy “SANCTUS” means LIFE. “a who IS a person no matter how small.” From Horton Hears A WHO. Something Clint Eastwood would be familiar with as I believe that he channeled William Buckley’s debate with Gore Vidal. “Oh, Shut up.” “No, I won’t shut up” “You shut up”. Eastwood embellished and polished and Buckley in heaven is smillinnng.

    I love the Holy Rosary: always having something to say.

Romney’s Speech: Likes & Dislikes

Thursday, August 30, AD 2012

Likes: Romney did a fine job undermining the hysterical “war on women” propaganda being shoved down our throats 24/7 by the DNC. Undecided voters in the battleground states will be less likely to accept the notion that Romney is a “dangerous extremist” who wants to send women “back to the dark ages.” He stated his willingness to defend innocent life and the institution of marriage but did not press the point.

I appreciated his emphasis on family, community, and religious faith comprising the foundation of social and economic life in the United States – this, in contrast to inefficient welfare bureaucracies and self-appointed nannies deciding what is best for us. The best social safety net is a spouse, a job, and a church.

I also appreciated his insistence that success in business is not something to be ashamed of, but something to celebrate, and that private-sector experience is an asset to the Presidency.

Dislikes: Of course my co-bloggers and half of my readers will disagree (and that’s ok), but the reassertion of America’s old foreign policy really strikes a sour note with me. I wasn’t particularly thrilled when Chris Christie called for a “second American century” either. A country with financial problems and cultural divisions as deep as ours, and with a serious and unattended crisis on its southern border, cannot afford to be the policeman of the world.

Granted I didn’t expect Romney to say anything about the broken border tonight, but in my view this is the most serious national security threat and the one that ought to be the top priority. One of the reasons I supported Ron Paul in the primaries is because I agree with his foreign policy views – and reject those of the rest of the GOP.

But since I don’t really believe that Obama’s foreign policy is significantly different, at least for my tastes, this is really a non-issue for me as far as the election itself goes.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Romney’s Speech: Likes & Dislikes

  • It was a very good speech, perhaps great given the context. I felt this way before the convention, but am doubly convinced now: Romney wins, and will net about 350 or so electoral votes.

  • I thought Romney used humor effectively and was quite good at hammering away how absymal Obama’s stewardship of the economy has been. Best line: “America needs jobs and lots of them.” This election will not be close. Romney 54-Obama 46.

  • You two are way more optimistic than I am. I think Romney has a better chance than the MSM is giving him, but the Obama campaign must be taken seriously and victory cannot be assumed.

  • Great speech, and for these days. I felt sorry that he even had to address some of the slime being thrown at him, because it’s an embarassment to this country and the mindset of the current admin.
    67 days left to find the opportunity to thank God for these two men, Romney and Ryan, and to ask for His help in the face diatribes being prepared right about now.
    Ryan’ speech was on the mark, too.

  • I think Romney’s speach was very good. For someone who according to US pudits is not a good speaker, I think he did very well. He didn’t get caried away – emphasized, as other speakers have done, the American dream, and how it has not been fulfilled in the past 4 years. The good thing was he stated their plan – broadly of course, but he enunciated it; and also did a good job of despatching – “We will stop the sea from rising…..” and kept it simple – the love of a family etc. A degree of knocking Obama’s performance, but not too much, and spoke of making America great again, instead of the decline under Obama.
    Its important – speaking as an outsider – that America remains strong militarily as well as economically. The US cannot abdicate its position as the leader of the free world – too many have done that, notably UK and Europe.
    Loved Cdl. Dolan’s final blessing. Apparently he is doing the same for the Dems – I hope he usues the same speach 🙂

  • It’s all words. It doesn’t matter who’s steering the wheel; it’s so small and the machine is so big…as a centrist it does not surprise me that approx 35-40% of the people don’t want so called obamacare, just the same percentage that did not want to go to war with a country that did not attack us. Our system is failing us and we are letting it fail us. We let this great entertainment called politics, pundits, blogging take a hold of us and we spew as many intelligently sounding negative words at the opposition as possible and think we’ve done some good for the terrible situation were in, but we haven’t done nothin. I’ve not heard one viable long term solution that a majority of the people agree on or of a solution to a wedge issue that gets buy in from both sides.
    We desperately need a viable 3rd party in our political system and I’d love to see Ron Paul run for president as he would be the best candidate and I would vote for him.

  • “but the Obama campaign must be taken seriously and victory cannot be assumed.”

    Indeed, but all the signs are there that Obama is in serious trouble. Recent polls, even with a D+7 or a D+9 sampling bias,are showing the race as tied or Obama or Romney with a one point advantage. Come election day this year the electorate in regard to party preference are likely to be dead even to D+2. I will do a post on all of this in the next week or so, but there are quite a few signs as to what is in the wind.

  • Romney did a fine job undermining the hysterical “war on women” propaganda…
    –Bonchamps

    I certainly wish for that to be so but I couldn’t tell – I’m not of the hysteria persuasion. Seems to me that that meme is getting tired and overexposed. I call it NOW WOW BOW WOW – only the first two are true acronyms. 😉 When the Democrats assemble in convention and put their Slutwalk types on stage, they’ll only be playing to their true believers and driving away many, many swing voters – that’s my opinion, take it for what it’s worth.

    The best social safety net is a spouse, a job, and a church.
    –ibid

    Truly.

    By the way, if one turns down a job – even if it’s a crummy job – most people insist one should be cut off the dole. But, if one turns down a church or an espousement nobody objects to keeping one on the dole. Why is that?

     

    I’ve not heard one viable long term solution that a majority of the people agree on…
    francodrummer

    And you won’t, as long as “a majority of the people” are spoiled children. Why? Because the “one viable long term solution” requires “sweat, toil and tears” (“blood”? – not yet) and that’s not going to be fun.

    We desperately need a viable 3rd party…
    –ibid

    If that’s not idle talk, then jump in and start helping to build one. Nobody’s stopping you.

    P.S. So you’d “love to see Ron Paul run for president”, eh? Been there, done that.

  • Reactive not proactive like the entire least watched convention. Made no case whatsoever for Romney’s economic plans because he quivers in fear from class warfare. Provided no anticipatory knockdowns of Dem talking points in this area either. Striving to make no outright mistakes I suppose it succeeded at that. Eastwood and Rubio were the only striking, hard speaking and thus memorable speechifiers, putting the very touching tributes in a separate category. Christie was a major disappointment.

    As for the election yes Mr Zummo and Mr McCleary are doing reasonable extrapolations for a “normal” campaign. Th recent CO academic analysis said the same thing. Of course in a normal campaign McCaskill loses by 10 points in Missouri. I look for October surprises by the Dems who are pretty good at them.

3 Responses to Hope, Change and an Old Poster

  • That was a great line – but there were many great lines.
    I doubt Obama can corner the youth vote with his record, and an oponemt like this guy.
    He knows all the facts and has the answers, and has the ablity to put complex things in words that the average Joe can understand.

  • I have always found the notion of “leaving home,” as an essential rite of passage a curious one.

    I am 67 years old and have always lived in the same house. It has been my family home since at least 1617, when the Register of Sasines was established and the earliest recorded title is a precept of clare constat to an incoming heir.

    The families in four of the nine neighbouring farms have been here as long.

    The Seymour family has owned land in the parish since at least Alexander III’s time (1241-1286)

    I never recall a time, when I wanted to “leave home.”

  • I left home because I had to — my parents were moving out due to my dad’s job change. My mom helped me find an apartment when I was 20 because I wanted to stick around my hometown, Grove City PA, and start a rock band with my friends. I always thought of home as a state of mind, not a physical location, and “leaving home” is euphemistic for “growing up”. I think that’s how people take Ryan’s words & that’s why they resonate.

    Besides, doesn’t Genesis use the same euphemism? “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother…” Not a Biblical scholar, but sounds close to me.

Ryan’s Speech at the GOP Convention

Thursday, August 30, AD 2012

College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.

Paul Ryan

 

 

 

I have been a connoisseur of oratory, especially political oratory, since I became old enough to understand that a speech was being given.  Last night’s speech by Paul Ryan was truly remarkable.   How was it remarkable?  Let me count the ways.

1.  It is difficult to deliver an attack speech with pleasant good humor, and Ryan did just that, and the good nature in which the indictment of the Obama administration was delivered made it all the more effective.

2.  The speech was delivered in a low-key style with Ryan hardly raising his voice.  The temptation, when you get in front of a vast live audience, like a convention, full of partisans, is to go “hot” and deliver a full-throated roaring speech.  Ryan did not make that mistake.  He understood who his real audience was:  uncommitted voters watching on television or the internet, and he presented his arguments coolly and non-confrontationally.

3.  He allowed his personal affability to shine through.  Many politicians find this difficult to do.  Rick Santorum, who I supported in the primaries, is a very likable and witty man off the stump.  He often found this hard to convey in his speeches.  Ryan does this effortlessly.

4.  Ryan dealt deftly with the issue of Romney being a Mormon:

Mitt and I also go to different churches. But in any church, the best kind of preaching is done by example. And I’ve been watching that example. The man who will accept your nomination tomorrow is prayerful and faithful and honorable. Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best. Not only a fine businessman, he’s a fine man, worthy of leading this optimistic and good-hearted country.

Our different faiths come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and likeness of the Lord of Life.

Note the reference to “Lord of Life”.  This is not a man who is a sunshine pro-lifer.

5.  Ryan got nicely to what this election is truly about on a philosophical level:   sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government.

6.   Ryan hammered away at the poor economy and asked a question that Obama simply can’t answer:  Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?

 

 

Here is the text of the speech:

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Ryan’s Speech at the GOP Convention

  • I am anxious to see how Romney follows Ryan and Christie. What, in your opinion, does he need to say and how does he need to deliver it?

  • Romney needs to come across ultra competent and optimistic. I think most of the nation understands that Obama cannot fix the economy, but they are skeptical that Romney can do better. He needs to convince them that he can.

    Romney will have the usual advantage of most Republican candidates in that much of the mainstream press has given a fairly distorted view of him. Just showing up without horns and a tail will give him a boost, as it does most Republican presidential candidates.

    Romney should echo what Ryan said: does anyone, outside of rabid Democrat partisans, really believe that if Obama remains in office that his economic policies will do any better in the next four years than they have in the last four? Time for something new.

    I don’t view Romney’s task as very difficult. He has never been much of an orator, but he has improved over the campaign. This speech doesn’t require the touch of genius that Ryan’s speech had. A solid, workmanlike effort, obviously heartfelt, should be sufficient.

  • It was amazing and it made me cry (in a good way). It had everything in it that I needed to hear. It made me proud to be an American and a Catholic. For here is a man who speaks to my heart and shares in the same values that are important to me as an American and as a Catholic. At no time in recent history is an election so important. May God bless Paul Ryan and bring to completion what He has began.

  • I agree with your assessment of Ryan’s speech last night. I was impressed with most of it, and I did appreciate the “Lord of life” paragraph, but I was hoping for something a little more explicit about the life issues. It seems that all the big speeches so far have really downplayed the life issues. I noted particularly Rice’s line about school choice for underprivileged neighborhoods being THE social justice issue of our generation. (I’m completely in favor of school choice, and I think vouchers are the way to do it, but c’mon, this issue, important as it is, is not on the same level of significance as abortion, ESCR, and same-sex “marriage.”)

  • The atheist has removed God’s name “I AM” from the vocabulary of American citizens but the atheist has not and cannot remove God’s Name from “WE, the people…”
    Paul Ryan did emphasize “our founding principles”
    Now, I am weeping tears of joy.

  • I liked the comment “This is not a man who is a sundhine pro-lifer”. I agree with the comment. I wish it also applied to the man at the top of the ticket, but it doesn’t. Romney was not pro-life prior to 2008. I would be happy if only half the things the NARAL crowd were accusing him of were true. I will be voting for a third party this election.

  • “I will be voting for a third party this election.”

    I have called Romney the weathervane for his switches on issues. However, I have no doubt that if he is elected he will oppose abortion in his actions. To do otherwise would be political suicide. Additionally, he will likely have a Congress that will be controlled by the Republicans. This will ensure any deviation from the pro-life cause would be met with legislative death in Congress. Plus electing Romney puts Paul Ryan on the path to the White House and I think every pro-lifer should find that a cheerful prospect.

  • Good speech by Paul Ryan. Pity the third party purist voters – just like the Abolitionists of yester-century, they won’t work for the common good no matter what.

  • Don – I don’t know if that last sentence is true. Being nominated increased his profile already, but would it be raised more by a win than a loss? My bet is yes, but I wouldn’t bet too much. Anyway, at his age, he could be VP for two terms, head of the RNC for four years, go back and get his law degree, then put in six years in the Senate and he’d still be younger than Biden is today. Of course by then we’ll be governed by telepathic dolphins and a giant computer. I hate making political predictions.

  • 5. Ryan got nicely to what this election is truly about on a philosophical level: sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government.

    Something you would think every American would embrace. It’s right there in the Declaration! Would you believe there are some who are actually offended by such a notion?
    http://www.therightscoop.com/toure-paul-ryans-comment-that-our-rights-come-from-god-and-nature-is-offensive/

    Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

  • We are certain that Obama will nominate abortion-fanatic justices.

    If Obama is re-elected it could be by third party votes, which will have proven equivalent to voting for abortion and Obama.

    I am not convinced that Romney is lying. Let’s give him a chance. He won’t get a second term if he, uncertain, stabs us in the back.

    Again, why are we making the perfect the enemy of the good? There is nobody that is perfect in the World. God alone is good and perfect. Jesus says as much in the Gospels. [Matt. 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:19-30.]

    Eight years for Romney; eight years for Ryan!

  • “Of course by then we’ll be governed by telepathic dolphins and a giant computer.”

    They could hardly do a worse job than Obama! 🙂

  • “Pity the third party purist voters – just like the Abolitionists of yester-century, they won’t work for the common good no matter what.”

    Absolutely untrue.

    Unless you’d like to explain to me how my decision this year not to support Mitt Romney is translated into a an overall refusal on my part to “work for the common good no matter what.” Be prepared to discuss the entirety of my 25+ year political history, including the time I served in elective office.

    I’m anxious to hear all about my falure to work for the common good “no matter what”.

  • I suppose there’s that one adjective in your assessment – “purist” – that might exclude me from your calculus. I don’t believe myself to be a “purist” voter, although I consider myself “pure” enough that I’m not about to vote for Mitt Romney.

    I will give that reading to your statement and assume that it therefore doesn’t apply to my decision to vote 3rd party this year.

  • Jay, I know nothing about you and so won’t judge. But the fact that you got so offended says much about the truth of my statement. And I won’t argue the point other than to say that if Obama wins, it will be because of purists like you. But maybe that has to happen in order to teach this country a lesson.

  • BTW, interesting focus on alcohol in the right side margin of Pro Ecclessia.

  • Don,

    “I have called Romney the weathervane for his switches on issues. However, I have no doubt that if he is elected he will oppose abortion in his actions. To do otherwise would be political suicide.”

    I concur with this analysis. Romney has no choice but to govern as a pro-life president. He would stand no chance of reelection if he failed to do so.

    I wish more people would realize that personal feelings and even personal positions must always take a backseat to broader political considerations.

  • How does allowing Obama to wield four more years advance the “common good”?

    If Obama wins because of third party votes splitting away from Romney, Obama will have four years to destroy everything. Do you think he is inept? No. This economic malaise is part of the conscious wrecking of the private economy.

    Because desperate, hungry people are easier to control.

    Is that this what mean by “common good”? Equality of destitution.

  • “Jay, I know nothing about you and so won’t judge”

    That is enough back and forth with Jay Paul. Jay is an old friend of mine and of this blog, and he is a firm pro-lifer. He and I differ regarding voting for Romney, but I know he is motivated by the highest principle and I respect his decision.

  • I wish that this convention had been more pro-life too. But Romney is a moderate on the issue, so the convention probably reflects him accurately. Moderates don’t like to talk about abortion. Now, the interesting thing is that the Democratic convention is going to talk about abortion a lot, from the looks of the speakers. That’s probably going to scare off moderates, who don’t like any strong views about the subject. A chant of “my body, my choice” led by a NARAL representative would only make Obama look extreme, and it would turn off some of the very people who wouldn’t vote for an “extreme” pro-lifer. The Republican convention makes the “war on women” a harder sell.

    Yeah, I know, in a better world pro-lifers wouldn’t have to worry about such tactics.

  • Completely agree with your summation Don.
    The last few afternoons around 2 pm. our time, I have been going around to a mate’s place (also a staunch catholic) and watching the RNC – he has Sky TV, I don’t :-).
    Ryan was very impressive – he continued with his style that I have come to recognise in the few speaches I have seen him make. Just can’t wait till he debates with Joe “the clown” Biden – Ryan will wipe the floor with him.
    I have been very impressed with all the speaches i have watched – the strong oratory of Chris Christie, and the beauty and eloquence of Anne Romney. Also watched Condaleeza Rice yesterday – what a woman. In fact all the women have been most impressive, including the Hispanic govenor? from New Mexico, and just watched Mia Love’s video clip. What a way to defeat Obama’s claim that the Repubs hate women.
    So I’m off to Chas Kirkham’s place in an hour or so – I believe Clint Eastwood is speaking (have always like Clint) and then for Mitt Romney to give his speach. I haven’t heard enough of him to make a comment on his oratorical skills, but he certainly has that resonating type of voice which tends to demand attention. Hope he does well.
    Also hope he romps into the White House, with Ryan to keep him on the right path. 🙂

  • I guess I most be a third party purist. I voted for Mccain in ’08 and had an overwhelming urge to take a long, hot shower when I got home from the poll.
    Seriously, though, I get the whole lesser of two evils, perfect the enemy of the good, thing. Living in Wisconsin, an evenly split swing state, makes my decision that much more important.
    I think that abortion is the great evil of our time. I could handle a “moderate” on the issue (how you hold a moderate view on the killing of children is beyond my ken) like Mccain who at least has been consistant over time. I could handle a candidate who has had a true change of heart. Reagan was such a man. He changed his tune on economic issues and would gladly tell all who would listen why he changed them. What I can’t tolerate is a candidate and a party that plays lip service to the pro-life community because they know that we won’t vote for the alternative.
    Romney has given no explanation for his changing abortion views other than “I made a mistake”. I have changed my views on abortion, and I could talk to you till your ears fell off about that and the other changes that Christ has wrought in my life.
    I will vote Republican for the state and local officials this election, but not for Romney.
    The re-election of Obama is a very bad thing, but it is not the worst thing. The changes that this country needs will not come from its politicians. It must come from God, through the people.
    May God raise a Wilburforce to lead our nation to true repentance, not the politically expedient kind.

  • “May God raise a Wilburforce to lead our nation to true repentance, not the politically expedient kind.”

    Actually Wilberforce was a grandmaster at parliamentary chess and was ever ready to engage in political alliances with fairly unsavory members of parliament in order to reach his reform goals. He understood both the innocence of doves and the wiliness of serpents.

  • JA and Tony H,

    The crowd in control is destroying everything.

    I plan to act accordingly: drink heavily and fire up a stinky, cheap cigar.

    Your nation is about to feel the wrath of the gods of the copy book. Forget repentance. It ain’t happening if you don’t vote Romney/Ryan.

    I’m emigrating to Chile. Pinochet saved Chile in 1973. Nothing can save America if Obama gets re-elected.

  • Concerning Wilberforce (sorry about the spelling earlier):
    It would be one thing if Romney’s problem was cutting deals with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to further the pro-life cause. In some atlernate universe where Romney reaches a compromise with Democrats to allow abortions only in the case of rape and incest, I would sing his praises. I would keep fighting for complete abolition, but it would be a great victory won.
    But this isn’t my problem with Romney. I can’t square his stance when he signed a pro-abort pledge to Planned Parenthood, or gave them a personal check, to the timing of his switch to pro-life. This doesn’t even take into consideration all his other stances on social and economic issues on which he has done an about-face.
    I didn’t read anything in the Wilberforce bios about a sudden switch in his stance on slavery when it was politically advantagious. He did start off with the abolition of the slave trade before he won the final victory of abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

  • “I can’t square his stance when he signed a pro-abort pledge to Planned Parenthood, or gave them a personal check, to the timing of his switch to pro-life. This doesn’t even take into consideration all his other stances on social and economic issues on which he has done an about-face.”

    As I have noted, I have called Romney a weathervane for his switching of positions. That bothers me. However, it does not bother me a fraction as much as a second Obama term would. As I have also noted, I have no doubt that Romney would govern as a pro-life president, for his own political advantage if for no better reason. I was also not comparing Romney to Wilberforce. My argument is that the pro-life cause should emulate the ideals, the persistence and the political shrewdness of Wilberforce in his fight against slavery.

  • T. Shaw-
    Despite what the man himself may think, God is bigger than Obama.
    I fully expect the copybook heading gods to have their way with us eventually. If past administrations are a guide, voting in Republicans only slows the rush to doom, it doesn’t stop it.
    Don-
    I totally agree with the last sentence you wrote. I disagree as to how to go about that. Think of the hard left turn the democratic party took after Nader kept Gore from winning in 2000. I think the GOP needs a Nader moment. If pro-lifers keep giving auto-allegience to the Republicans, they will keep the boiler-plate pro-life platform statements while not doing anything of substance to actually force change.
    This may be a cynical viewpoint, but I believe it’s true: The GOP, like the Democratic Party, are election machines. They each have the goal of getting as many of their guys elected as possible. The platforms are the means to an end, not the end themselves. Each panders to constituencies. The worst thing in this system is to be a constituency that your political party thinks is totally in the bag for them. The best thing is to be a constituency that could go either way. Think hispanics and how both parties actively woo them and how this has made immigration enforcement a non-issue.
    If the Republicans win the WH in November, no thanks to me, they will be stuck in “economy, stupid” mode and my prediction is that little head way will be made in the pro-life fight. The repeal of Obamacare is not a sure thing barring a supermajority sweep in the Senate, which I think is very unlikely. After the Roberts fiasco I’ve just about written off the Supreme Court. That laid the ax to the last great argument for voting in Republican presidents, no matter what.

  • What Tony H has said above speaks for me as well. I couldn’t have expressed my views any more eloquently.

    And Tony H has it exactly right re: Roberts. His flip in the ObamaCare decision has single-handedly destroyed the Supreme Court argument in favor of voting for Republican presidents.

  • Well, one thing is certain: the abortion status quo isn’t going to improve if the election is handed to Obama. And it is pretty pessimistic in my view to write off what may be accomplished with a GOP-controlled White House, Congress and possibly Supreme Court. Of course the party machine and the politicians themselves will not – and will never, ever, on any important issue – move quickly enough. But with the GOP in power, the government is far more sensitive to and receptive to grassroots pro-life efforts. It is far more susceptible to intense pressure tactics. The Democrats don’t have to placate pro-life voters; the Republicans do. How far the Republicans go depends entirely upon how far and how hard we are willing to push them.

    Abortion is not a political issue, in the end. It is a cultural issue. Change comes from the war of ideas and feelings on the ground, fought out between groups of activists. The most government will do is respond to the tectonic shifts we create. So I would suggest that some people revise their understanding of what governments and political parties are and do.

  • “Think of the hard left turn the democratic party took after Nader kept Gore from winning in 2000. I think the GOP needs a Nader moment.”

    Complete and total rubbish. Pro-lifers effectively control the GOP now. That is why we have a tidal wave of pro-life legislation since the Republicans took control of so many state legislatures in 2010. Pro-lifers are not some ever disgruntled faction within the GOP. We ‘ve converted the Republican party into the vehicle for the pro-life causes. Fortunately the vast majority of pro-lifers do not agree with you, and your example will have little impact. If your idea were followed it would send the pro-life cause into the political wilderness for a generation and effectively destroy the voice of the unborn in either of the two major parties, while giving the cause freak show status on the third-party-waste-of-time-circuit.

  • “Abandon all hope, . . . ” Dante

  • And Tony H has it exactly right re: Roberts. His flip in the ObamaCare decision has single-handedly destroyed the Supreme Court argument in favor of voting for Republican presidents.
    Roberts claimed that it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s job to judge legislation from Congress, so he abdicated his job. Obama told the Department of Justice to enforce his-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President. Roberts turned Obama on us and refused to judge the Affordable Healthcare Act and did as he was told by Obama. Vote Republican and Hope for FREEDOM and Change tyranny.

Did John Pope Claim that His Headquarters Was in the Saddle?

Thursday, August 30, AD 2012

 

One hundred and fifty years ago today General John Pope was busily engaged in having his Union Army of Virginia thrashed by the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia at the Second Battle of Bull Run.  In the 1880’s Pope wrote an article for Century Magazine, one of its many articles by Civil War commanders which would later come out in the four volume set Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, in which Pope did his unconvincing best to defend his conduct in this fiasco.  Go here to read it.  At the end of the article Pope claimed that he never said that his headquarters was in the saddle.

There are other matters which, although not important, seem not out of place in this paper. A good deal of cheap wit has been expended upon a fanciful story that I published an order or wrote a letter or made a remark that my “headquarters would be in the saddle.” It is an expression harmless and innocent enough, but it is even stated that it furnished General Lee with the basis for the only joke of his life. I think it due to army tradition, and to the comfort of those who have so often repeated this ancient joke in the days long before the civil war, that these later wits should not be allowed with impunity to poach on this well-tilled manor. This venerable joke I first heard when a cadet at West Point, and it was then told of that gallant soldier and gentleman, General W. J. Worth, and I presume it could be easily traced back to the Crusades and beyond. Certainly I never used this expression or wrote or dictated it, nor does any such expression occur in any order of mine; and as it was perhaps served its time and effected its purpose, it ought to be retired.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Did John Pope Claim that His Headquarters Was in the Saddle?

The Dark Side of Ideological Inconsistency

Wednesday, August 29, AD 2012

A couple of days ago I was listening to a radio show on Sirius. The hosts were playing audio of a woman who had spent six hours waiting in line at the welfare office. The woman did not sound particularly old, and she had six kids.

There were several disconcerting elements to the story. The fact that this woman waited so long highlights the inefficiencies of government bureaucracies. More importantly, it was clear that this woman not only depended on the welfare checks to get by, the attitude expressed in the soundbite revealed how deeply she felt entitled to the government benefits.

No one should begrudge those who truly need government assistance. I know nothing of this woman’s history, so I won’t comment on her situation specifically. But I was saddened as I listened to this woman speak, and I thought of how welfare has turned many people into truly helpless individuals – not because they are so by nature, but because that is what the welfare state does to people.

The radio hosts who played this story have what can be described as a libertarian bent, and they decried the welfare state’s tendency to breed dependency. Yet I couldn’t help but laugh at their willful blindness, for they are certainly the types who would mock social conservatives. So many libertarians, or socially liberal and economically conservative individuals, fail to appreciate the nexus between social and economic issues. The breakdown of the family contributes to the rise of the welfare state. More and more children are born out of wedlock, and single mothers must turn to the state to provide financial support to their families. Yet these social libertarians (indeed some of them are libertines) see no contradiction in promoting lax cultural mores while decrying ever-increasing government dependency.

Yet libertarians are not the only ones who fail to connect economic and social issues. Looking at it from a different perspective, those who consider themselves socially conservative but who advocate enhanced government intervention in economic affairs do not see how the welfare state itself leads to the breakdown of the family. The welfare state has practically displaced the family in many situations, fostering the sense of independence from family life. The family hasn’t been wholly displaced as the primary means of financial support, but many people have been brought up to expect that the government will be there to bail them out of poor life choices. Therefore, just as the breakdown of the family contributes to the rise of the welfare state, the welfare state itself contributes to the breakdown of the family. It is a vicious cycle, and those who insist that we can separate economic and social issues perpetuate that cycle.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to The Dark Side of Ideological Inconsistency

  • “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    John Adams

  • Evil people cannot be free. Their embrace of the seven deadly sins forges their chains.

  • [J]ust as the breakdown of the family contributes to the rise of the welfare state, the welfare state itself contributes to the breakdown of the family. It is a vicious cycle…
    –Paul Zummo

    The welfare came first. And that has made all the difference.

    More and more children are born out of wedlock, and single mothers must turn to the state to provide financial support to their families.

    Shame on all who misuse the phrase “single mothers” in order to cloak females who choose to put baby-making before marriage. And what she’s doing outside of marriage isn’t making a family, it’s making a brood. Or a primate troop. But no way is what she has a ‘family’.

    <blockquoteIt is a vicious cycle, and those who insist that we can separate economic and social issues perpetuate that cycle.

    Those who invert initial cause (welfare) and effect (social breakdown) also “perpetuate that cycle.”

  • “what she’s doing outside of marriage isn’t making a family, it’s making a brood. Or a primate troop.”

    So it’s OK to call her children “primates” after they’re born but not OK to call them “fetuses” before they’re born? I get your point, and I agree that women should not be wilfully having children outside of marriage, but that sounds a bit too much like something a pro-abort would say.

    As I’ve written before, the question of whether the welfare state or family breakdown came first is a chicken-and-egg type of question. Personally I think family breakdown, or more precisely the sexual revolution, came before the welfare state, but the welfare state continues to feed off of it and perpetuate it.

    However, there are other factors besides family breakdown that are contributing to dependence upon government, such as the high cost of college education, the need for both parents in two-parent families to work outside the home, and the fact that many people have to move away from their families of origin to find work, leaving them with no one to turn to in time of crisis.

  • First, please don’t blame Libertarianism for the break down of the family and other problems of the welfare state. You want to preserve marriage then get marriage out of the marriage business. It is a Sacrament and not something the State should be involved in or regulate any more than Holy Orders or Extreme Unction – it should be the sole purview of the Church. Marriage has become weakened over the past 500 years because we have allowed the State to define, regulate and administer marriage. Any State strong enough to define marriage as a relationship between a “man and a woman” is also strong enough to define marriage as a relationship between a “man and man”, “woman and cat”, “man and woman and woman”. If left to various denominations you may still get those that allow “marriages” in the above combinations but I won’t be legally compelled to recognize it as a marriage. Get the State out of the Marriage business. (But then fine Catholic lawyers who make money off of divorce would loose a large source of income.)

    Secondly, Ms. Krewer, sexual promiscuity, illegitimacy, drug abuse have always been with us. If you listen to Protestants licentiousness has always been a major characteristic of Catholic countries and cultures. Legal prohibitions and restraints on drugs, alcohol, prostitution are extremely recent innovations, i.e. the last 100 years. Look at their success! No, when you subsidize something you get more of it. When you give immigrants rights to government entitlements you get more immigration (legal or otherwise). If you subsidize woman who have children outside of a traditional family – then you will get more women having children outside of a traditional family.

    Finally, Mr. Zummo, when you have people who make their living inside the beltway working for lobbying organizations you end up with people (even allegedly conservative individuals) with a vested interest in a Government which is dedicated to the regulation of every aspect of our existence.

  • I agree with much of the above but I do not agree that it is a “fact that many people have to move away from their families of origin to find work, leaving them with no one to turn to in time of crisis.”

    It is not a “fact,” it is a choice. It is similar to putting off marriage until one’s career is “established.” It has no more validity than that.

    Having to “strike out on our own” and establish a “nuclear” (or, “nucular” if you will. Dear God I miss GW.) family… “the two of us against the world” – is a zero sum gain for most people. We do it for careers that leave us no better off financially, no more satisfied with our lives than if we had stayed at home, and, usually, considerably poorer for those lost family connections.

    My wife and I have had numerous opportunities to advance our careers that would have required our leaving home. However, having her parents only an half an hour away and mine five blocks from our home has been a tremendous blessing. It has allowed us to maintain perspective and family life. It allows my wife and I to have time alone, knowing the children are well cared for. Most importantly, it maintains continuity between the generations, enriching our lives through constant interaction between three generations and across an extended family of parents, grand-parents, siblings, cousins, aunts, and uncles.

    We are blessed and not everyone benefits from living in close proximity to their families but I suspect many more would than do and that most who move away for their careers gave up far more than they gained.

  • That should be “get the State out of the marriage business”.

  • “You want to preserve marriage then get the state out of the marriage business.”

    I can presume then Mr. Tiden that you are not an attorney and represent people fighting over custody of kids and property after a marriage goes south? “Get the state out of the marriage business” may make a great libertarian bumper sticker, but as long as there are divorces, inheritances, adoptions, etc, in short as long as humans remain humans, the state will be in the “marriage business”.

  • “Yet these social libertarians (indeed some of them are libertines) see no contradiction in promoting lax cultural mores while decrying ever-increasing government dependency.”

    Correct. In fact, I would call all of them libertines.

    However, many Libertarians, few if none of which are libertines, see no contradiction in allowing the consequences of immoral behavior, allowed by lax cultural mores, to play themsleves out with no molly-coddling “assistance” from taxpayer-funded (read: extorted) government agencies.

    The consequences of drug use, sexual irresponsibility and profligate sloth, etc. are self-evident. The promotion of those behaviors comes not from Libertarians, but from State-sponsored “protections” against those natural consequences. Remove those protections, and the examples thus provided would soon do quite an efficient job of discouraging those behaviors, libertines be damned.

    “Sink or swim” does not equal “It’s OK to pee in the pool.”

  • When Bill Clinton popularized that tidy little phrase “it’s the economy, stupid” people applauded that clear -spoken delineation of what’s wrong, and what seems a sticky mass of overlapping and knotted thread.
    But let’s don’t take that (“economy”) to mean Just Job Numbers. The economy turns on mutual respect, dignity and love, despite earnest beliefs otherwise/with efforts to separate moral precepts and government.

    In Christian writings “economy” is seen in the overview; in the connectedness of all the parts; in how all things work together… not Necessarily in a financial sense but indicating God’s plan, providence, and also Order.

    In the bible the word in Greek mean something like household management. Anyone who has had a part in managing a household ( the famous “kitchen table” conversations ) knows that love and mutual respect can carry people through.

  • I just re-read, and see that I wasn’t very clear. To re-phrase: Clinton was identifying the problem to be addressed as the “economy.” I say, the economy is more than that whole ball of knotted problem, more than just as economic indicators, and let’s address cultural underpinnings of what makes it all work.
    I have heard people say that abortion, for instance, is not an economic issue. I say that it is, and I would like more national talk about that.

  • I could not agree more!

    We don’t hear enough about people being “industrious” about how they apply themselves… about risk-taking and earning rewards. I think there are a lot of people out there doing all kinds of cool things but the image that is presented is that of a stagnant and dying people, fighting for scraps from the government’s table.

    Hard work is a virtue that is essential to our national well-being, to the broader “economy” that you are talking about. It isn’t anomalous but it sure is made out to be.

    One of the reasons I love country music is that it talks about things that aren’t mentioned in the rest of popular culture: hard work, God, patriotism, duty, etc. We hear enough about the mean streets and licentious lives. Country music provides a safe harbor for the America that I love.

  • WK, I have two problems with that. First, the consequences of bad actions don’t just fall on those who commit them, but on their family and neighbors as well. Secondly, there’s got to be some finite government role in steering people toward better behavior and helping those who stumble. God created us as societal beings, not just as individuals or families. There is a role for government in supporting the common good. I don’t see much in the writings of libertarians that acknowledges it.

    Are we anywhere near the proper balance between individual, family, community, and government? Of course not. But libertarians would be more persuasive if they could argue for what the right balance is. I can’t think of libertarianism as anything more than a critique until it does.

  • Donald Mc Cleary: I agree with your assessment of marriage and the state. I must think on the rest.

  • Anzlyne: ” In the bible the word in Greek mean something like household management. Anyone who has had a part in managing a household ( the famous “kitchen table” conversations ) knows that love and mutual respect can carry people through.”

    Love and mutual respect is called good will.

  • Don:

    People who are not married (sacramentally or otherwise) fight over the custody of kids, inheritances and property everyday, and the courts have jurisdiction over those disputes. Likewise, people who are not married adopt children.

    People enter into legal agreements all the time in which they share real and personal property and enter into agreements giving each other the right to act on their behalf, i.e. powers of attorney. It has always been the argument of those opposing Gay Marriage that these legal tools are available to gay couples; therefore, gay marriage is not needed.

    I just carry this one step further and say heterosexual couples can enter into the same type of legal civil contracts – again with or without marriage – and the courts (if necessary) can administer and oversee the division of assets if the parties wish to dissolve the partnership (just as they can for business partnerships); and, if there are children the courts can determine custody just as they presently do for unmarried couples.

    Let’s just keep the State’s hands off the “sacramental contract” of marriage and the definition of marriage. Don’t worry small town lawyers will still be able to make money off of broken relationships!

  • Chas, the state is involved in marriage because it is the building block of society. Calling marriage something else does not alter that reality. Additionally I think the explosion of shack up or hook up relationships have been devastating to society and usually detrimental to the children produced by such transient “unions”. Weakening marriage by passing it off as no different than any other type of partnership is completely wrongheaded. As for the homosexual aspect of this, “marriage equality” is simply pretextual. The goal of most homosexual activists is for society to give a big stamp of approval to what they do in their bedrooms. Playing semantic games with marriage will do nothing to alter that goal.

  • There is no liberty without virtue. The Founding Fathers knew it, and many of the Austrian school philosophers also understand it. This is how “paleo-libertarianism” came about and is the school of thought I most identify with.

    The whole “keep the state out of marriage” line sounds appealing at first, I must admit. The problem is that the radical homosexuals and the radical left in general will never cease their attempts to force the issue upon the state. A federal definition of marriage, therefore, appears necessary to protect the institution from total disintegration.

    I don’t only support this for moral reasons, but for the reasons Paul and Don have brought up as well. Marriage is one of the most important predictors of household income and poverty status. People who get married are far less likely to become dependent upon government programs. A society of married people with religious values will do more to eradicate the practical arguments made by leftists than all of the liberty rhetoric we could ever produce.

    At this point there is no greater act of rebellion against the established order than to marry, have kids, and take them all to Church every Sunday.

  • “At this point there is no greater act of rebellion against the established order than to marry, have kids, and take them all to Church every Sunday.”

    Tragically true.

  • Thanks for the great discussion. I would have commented but spent much of the day in a feverish haze.

    As I’ve written before, the question of whether the welfare state or family breakdown came first is a chicken-and-egg type of question. Personally I think family breakdown, or more precisely the sexual revolution, came before the welfare state, but the welfare state continues to feed off of it and perpetuate it.

    This more or less sums up how I feel. I would say, though, that the advent of the welfare state unleashed the worst aspects of the sexual revolution. So while I think we saw fractures in the family before the Great Society, it was one of the prime forces if not the prime force in speeding up the process of societal decay.

    All right, now I am off to see if I can stay awake to at least watch Clint speak.

  • The Dark Side of Ideological Inconsistency:
    It seems that the aid, which was a bright spot for families in financial trouble before the 60’s revolution of sex and drugs as recreation, has become the dark side for those here and now; as the partiers denied existence of God and virtue and tradition, they paved a way of life with nothing but material benefits for half the people to look to for underpinning their lives. A poverty worse than material, and driven to the edge by this admin.
    Insane Vocabulary: baby daddy, baby mamma, flash mob, occupier, war on women, legalizing infanticide, are you in, …

    Lack of Manners: Waiting room at Dr. Ofc.: Baby daddy on cell to reception 6 feet away busily demanding more supervisors to cancel the 30 min. wait as atrocious, then arrogantly gathering mamma, baby in carriage, infant in carrier and toddler in quest of a better dr. leaving a wake of elderly and youngsters observing without pity. Healthcare benefits on demand.
    Elder teen boy at Soc. Security Ofc. stopping by for a check to take him to a hotel and restaurants due to spat at home until his regular check comes.
    Teen mom sneering at her substitute teacher for low pay, advising same to have babies for money and a nice place and sire, who can make as much in an hour on the street.

    Voodoo Math: Doubling national debt for benefit of political backers, but not the ‘poor’ political backers, who are set up for betrayal by Obama’s lack of economy. Their only hope is Paul Ryan’s budget and Mitt Romney’s encompassing capability to lead them from total darkness of the edge they are on now.

    Division of citizens by acrimony and mocking: After attacking their religious conscience and causing an angry reaction, belittling them as bigots and racists and only excepting Islam for fear.

    Waste of time, money, and hopes. A government not working. Agenda of fund raising.

    Allowing people freedom of religion is the restart button, if only people wake up to see good and evil. Meanwhile, I hope people see that Romney and Ryan are there now wanting to work for the return of good to their lives.

Mia Love

Wednesday, August 29, AD 2012

Keep your eye on Mia Love, the Republican candidate in Utah’s 4th Congressional District.  Pro-life and endorsed by the Susan B. Anthony List, she is a passionate conservative and gives a great stump speech.  Bright and articulate, she is a formidable campaigner and a hard fighter.  If she is elected in the fall I expect her to have an impact on Congress rare for a freshman member.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Mia Love

  • I was impressed. My RINO-radar isn’t detecting anything, so I threw some money to her campaign.

  • I hope she wins her district.

    This is not unusual, she comes from hard-working Haitian parents who believe in working hard to make ends meet. Like many immigrants and children of immigrants, they are naturally more conservative, but unfortunately brainwashed by tv, movies, and then public school system.

    On a side-not, I’m assuming she converted to Mormonism since the vast majority of Haitians are Catholic.

4 Responses to Stay Absurd, My Friends

Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth

Wednesday, August 29, AD 2012

2 Responses to Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth

Josephus on the Beheading of John the Baptist

Wednesday, August 29, AD 2012

Today is the feast of the beheading of Saint John the Baptist, an event which is mentioned in a source other than the Gospels.  Here is the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote circa 93-94 AD  regarding the death of the Baptist in his Jewish Antiquities:

About this time Aretas, the king of  Petra, and Herod the Tetrarch had a quarrel on account of the following. Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas and had lived with her a great while; but once when he was on his way to Rome he lodged with  his half-brother, also named Herod but who had a different mother,  the high priest Simon’s daughter.  There he fell in love with Herodias, this latter Herod’s wife, who was the daughter of their brother Aristobulus and the sister of Agrippa the Great.     This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; she accepted, and an agreement was made for her to come to him as soon as he should return from Rome, one condition of this marriage being that he should divorce Aretas’s daughter. So when he had made this agreement, he sailed to Rome; but when he had finished there and returned again, his wife, having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and before he knew that she knew of the plan, asked him to send her to Machaerus, a place on the border between the territories of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions.     Accordingly Herod sent her there, thinking his wife had not perceived anything. But she had sent messages a good while before to Machaerus, which had been under the control of her father, and so all things necessary for her escape were made ready for her by the general of Aretas’s army.  By that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and soon she came to her father and told him of Herod’s intentions.     Aretas made this the start of his enmity toward Herod. He also had a quarrel with him about their boundaries in the area of Gabalis. So they raised armies on both sides and prepared for war, sending their generals to fight instead of themselves. And when they had joined battle, all Herod’s army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip and joined the army, betrayed him.  So Herod wrote about these affairs to Emperor Tiberius, who was very angry at the attempt made by Aretas and wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him and either to take him alive, and bring him in chains, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the command that Tiberius gave to the governor of Syria.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Josephus on the Beheading of John the Baptist

  • John was not saved from prison miraculously as were others. Both Peter in Acts 12 and Paul in Acts 16 are saved from prison; Peter by an angel after great prayer by the Church and Paul by an earthquake after he and Silas prayed and sang hymns in prison after being beaten with rods. Paul didn’t flee though but converted the jailer and his whole household and went back to his cell in the AM by choice and was released by the Romans.
    But John was not saved miraculously from prison like Peter and Paul. But since all three were martyred in the long run, therefore Peter and Paul eventually experienced the inescapable custody of John that led to Heaven. And yes….Paul sang hymns after being beaten with rods by Roman soldiers and being put in chains; and last week I cursed as I got a flat tire.

  • How many more St.Johns and St. Thomas Moores do we need to wake up? How many more Henrys and Herods will there be before we come to understand that a wrong is a wrong and a good is a good and there is no “in-between”?
    Henry the VIIIth destroyed England and Herods of these times are destroying the world at large – and we let them!

7 Responses to Mr. Obama, Meet an Abortion Survivor

Miles From Bristol

Tuesday, August 28, AD 2012

Attention sports fans: there is a brand spanking new sports blog titled Miles from Bristol. We’re just getting started, but head on over for some scintillating discussion about all things sports (and even sports entertainment). As you can tell from the glitzy design we’re more about content than style.

If you would like to be a contributor to the blog, leave a comment here.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Miles From Bristol

How Not To Be A Racist

Tuesday, August 28, AD 2012

 

 

I wish I could say  the above video is an exaggeration, but it really isn’t.  Timothy Noah demonstrates this in The New Republic in a charming article entitled, Romney Cribs from the GOP’s Willie Horton Playbook.  In the article Noah somehow fails to note that in 1988 the first candidate to bring up the fact that Michael Dukakis as governor of Massachusetts defended a furlough policy for prisoners, including convicted first degree murderers serving a life sentence, was Al Gore.  Willie Horton, a first degree murderer serving a life sentence, received a weekend furlough, did not come back, and committed the crimes of rape, assault and auto theft.  Horton was sentenced to two life sentences plus 85 years in Maryland.  The Maryland judge refused to return him to Massachusetts, saying, “I’m not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released. This man should never draw a breath of free air again.”  Michael Dukakis as governor of Massachusetts thought that such furloughs were a great idea and defended the policy.  Bush is accused by Noah of racism for bringing up these very inconvenient facts against Dukakis.

So much for history.  How is Romney guilty of racism according to Noah?

Edsall sees the Romney campaign using race in two ways. Most overtly, the Romney campaign is accusing President Obama by of gutting welfare reform by dropping the work requirement—a gross distortion of an unexceptional waiver Obama granted several states allowing them to experiment with alternative ways to meet the work requirement. Two of the five governors requesting the waivers were Republicans, and among those who have denounced the workfare accusation as flat-out untrue is the Republican former congressman and current talk-show host Joe Scarborough. The second way Edsall sees the Romney campaign using race is more subtle. According to Edsall, Romney is conveying a racially-charged message in accusing Obama of taking money away from (mainly white recipients of) Medicare to fund (majority non-white recipients of) Obamacare.

According to Edsall, Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have so far been leaving the race-baiting to ads on TV and the Internet while taking the high road in their own appearances. That isn’t quite right, as TNR’s Alec MacGillis has shown; Romney is not above integrating the welfare-based attack into his speeches. Now Romney has taken the game to a new level in an interview published today in USA Today. Romney tells USA Today’s Susan Page that Obama issued the welfare waivers to “shore up his base.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to How Not To Be A Racist

  • I believe it was Newt who earlier today said something to the effect that if you can hear a dog whistle, that must mean you are a dog yourself. Res ipsa loquitur, Mr. Noah.

  • The Democrats have to play up race, since that is the only way they’ll win. They cannot run on their record. It is not racist for blacks to break 90% for a supposed black man, but any white voting for Romney is definitely KKK at heart, I mean just look at the man’s family. The Democrat propagandists have mastered the highest art of totalitarianism – how to commit any crime, but make the victims bear the guilt.

  • More racism uncovered at the RNC:

    “She said America’s narrative has never been one ‘of grievance and entitlement.’”

    That “she” is Ms. Condi Rice.

    Seems the race card may not trump massive unemployment and expansive poverty.

    “For the very first time, the favorable/unfavorable ratios are now higher for the Republican Party than for the Democratic Party. For the first time ever, the Democratic favorability ratio, which has always been within the range of 1.20 to 1.56, is now below 1. It is a stunningly low .83, which is 31% lower than the prior Democratic Party low of 1.20, which was reached in 2004. . . . Under President Obama, there has been an unprecedentedly sharp and first-ever switch to preferring the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. In fact, the damage that has been done to the Democratic brand under the Obama Presidency, going from a historically normal Democratic ratio of 1.38 in 2008, down 39% to the present .83, compares with the Republican fall-offs under George W. Bush’s Presidency, which declined from the Republican ratio of 1.41 in 2000, down 18% to 1.16 in 2004, and then down yet another 31% to .80 in 2008, when the Republican Party hit its all-time (back until 1992) pre-convention low – which virtually doomed the campaign of Presidential candidate John McCain and made Obama’s win almost inevitable. The Democratic brand has thus suffered more (down 39%) under Obama than the Republican brand suffered under either of George W. Bush’s two terms (-16%, then -31%).”

Devastating: Charlie Crist Endorses Obama, Will Speak at Democratic Convention

Tuesday, August 28, AD 2012

Devastating to Barack Obama, that is.

Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist says he’s backing Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race.

The former Republican made the announcement in an op-ed piece published in Sunday’s Tampa Bay Times. The endorsement came as Republicans are gathering in the Tampa Bay area for the GOP convention. It also came amid preparations statewide for Tropical Storm Isaac.

Crist left the Republican Party during his unsuccessful bid for a U.S. Senate seat in 2010 and is currently registered as having no party affiliation. He was elected governor of Florida as a Republican in 2006.

Yes, that “unsuccesful” bid, where as a sitting governor he netted a whopping 30% of the vote and lost by 18% to Marco Rubio.

So after being humiliated in the general election by Rubio, Crist has decided to take his marbles and endorse President Obama. Hmm, where have we seen this act before? A person’s ambitions for greater glory are thwarted, and he decides to simply switch allegiances in an effort to suck up to Barack Obama. I really feel like I’ve seen this play out before. Hmmm.

Crist will be speaking at the Democratic convention in Charlotte. I’m sure the Democrats are excited that a former Republican governor will be addressing their convention. Actually, they’re probably excited that anyone is speaking at their convention at this point.

As for Crist’s endorsement, it is interesting that the man who once claimed that Sarah Palin was more qualified to be president than Barack Obama is now endorsing the latter. What changed Crist’s mind? Well, let’s look at his op-ed

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Devastating: Charlie Crist Endorses Obama, Will Speak at Democratic Convention

  • I’m not sure who the DNC thinks this will sway. Here in Florida folks on the right (and a lot in the center) dislike Crist because he was a sore loser, and folks on the left dislike him because his refusal to get out of the race in 2010 effectively torpedoed Kendrick Meek’s campaign. Until that point Meek was considered an up-and-coming star in the Florida Dem party and his loss to both Rubio *and* Crist tainted him here. Sorry Charlie has stepped on a lot of toes here.

  • Oh, and I should mention that he now works for the local ambulance chasers, so he’s not exactly done anything stellar recently to endear himself to the public.

  • In 2008, Charlie said that Sarah Palin is more qualified han barry Soetoro to be president. And, he was right.

    What’s Charlie gonna say now?

    Roger Kimball: “High up along one wall at the Forum is a huge digital display on which the federal debt ticks its way toward $16 trillion. That by itself ought to be enough to assure the defeat of Barack Obama, but in really it is merely one data point in a litany of failure. . . . By any factual measure, I said, Obama’s administration had been an extraordinary failure. Median household income had plummeted nearly 5 percent since 2009, the year Obama promised that, if only Congress would approve the stimulus package, he would have the unemployment rate down to 5.6 percent by now, the summer of 2012, by which time he would also have halved the annual deficit. Et very much cetera. The only promise I can think of that Obama has kept is to make energy prices ‘skyrocket.’ That he has well and truly accomplished.”

  • I hadn’t thought about Charlie Crist in years, so my mind read that headline as “Chris Christie Endorses…”. *That* was confusing.

  • A person’s ambitions for greater glory are thwarted, and he decides to simply switch allegiances in an effort to suck up to Barack Obama. I really feel like I’ve seen this play out before. Hmmm.

    I had to process this for a moment to get it, but it also reminded me of that wife-killing Schiavo guy who campaigned with various Dems in the mid-terms and he was like the kiss of death and people asked him to stay home.

  • I was an EMHC at a funeral for a Tampa cop a few years ago. The Governor was there with other political luminaries and was in the communion line of one of my friends. He approached and tried to grab the Precious Body from the ciboria. My friend covered the ciboria and stepped back. She said “Governor, only Catholics can partake.” He became quite indignant and offended and said, “Is that so?!” and hurriedly walked away. Now as a politician you know he’s been to Catholic funerals, but I suppose perhaps he’s never been refused before and didn’t know better, but his reaction was quite telling.

  • Yes, a simple, “Oh I’m very sorry, I didn’t know,” would have been sufficient and sensible, but pride prevents such things.

  • Crist gives two faced opportunistic weasel politicians a bad name.

  • I see others already commented on the comparison Crist had made once upon a time between Sarah Palin and Barack Hussein Obama. Indeed, Gov Palin would have made a far better President that the Teflon coated jerk who currently sits in the Oval Office.

  • Devastating: Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, the national average price of gasoline was $1.87 per gallon. Today, it’s near $4.00 per gallon.

  • it’s upsetting that Obama got Crists’ endorsement but I’ve never really liked Crist because he doesn’t listen to the people. back in high school i wrote a letter to him about some laws that needed to be reviewed. (and still do i might add) and i had called his office three times. with the letter i got a mailed-out response basically saying ‘thanks for your concern but your underage you can’t do anything about it.’ in truth i was fifteen. but i had a problem with the Florida school system so if i didn’t talk to him when i was STILL IN SCHOOL then i would’ve gotten a letter stating ‘thanks for your concern but where are you in relation to this?’ i called his office three times in one week and each and every time he couldn’t take a call from me. okay; he’s a politician he’s gotta be a busy guy right? well i left my name and number for them and i didn’t get a call about my problem. but i did get a call next week from his office telling me not to call them ever again because i was bothering them. i didn’t call- but i did send an e-mail to the man telling him what i thought about that as a citizen. i got a call two days later from the legislator of Reading in Florida telling me Crist went to his office and told him personally to call me and he read my original letter to the senator, and my e-mail. he was nice about it but he told me that at the moment there was just nothing in his power to do.i have nothing against the legislator of reading (as i had already KNEW he could not help me which is why i went to Crist.) so knowing this- yes- THIS is the type of man I’m going to trust and follow who I’m going to vote for. 😛

  • thank you for writing this

    honestly, this is part of why the phony Democratic nostalgia for dead Republicans (to paraphrase Jonah Goldberg) is so annoying to me: the two parties, to my knowledge, have generally been ideologically consistent since the ’80s. sure, new issues have come up (even certain liberal Democrats may’ve looked at you funny if you’d suggested same-sex marriage to them in the ’80s) and old issues have died (Cold War) but the general themes are the same. and the rewriting of Reagan as someone who’d be too “moderate” for today’s GOP, when if you look back at it he was villified for the same nefarious Southern strategy/not caring about blacks/not caring about poor people/not caring about AIDS/etc. etc. stuff libs still hurl at the Republicans today (well OK, maybe not AIDS,) is just dumb, also considering he was the most conservative Republican president of the post-WWII era.

    i’ll admit, conservatives play this game too sometimes, but at least they reach back as far as JFK so it makes marginally more sense (Rachel Maddow saying she agrees with the “Eisenhower platform,” while goofy-sounding/silly since if she lived then she’d likely consider him an Evil ’50s Conformist, similarly i can at least take a little more seriously since he’s a relatively nonideological president in the scheme of things.) well i suppose Bubba Clinton gets props for his compromises sometimes too, not a sentiment i really share though.

    sry, rambling.

  • i suppose you could say the _emphasis_ on certain issues has changed — i don’t recall a Reagan speech like the one Buchanan gave at the 1992 Convention for instance. but changing emphases is a bit different than changing substance.

  • i agree that the GOP has been pretty consistent since the 1980s. The only example regarding a more rigid GOP might be the loathsome Grover Norquist’s pledge. Reagan appreciated the art of compromise, even if he never lost sight of the ideal. People like Norquist make it impossible. A budget deal that includes massive entitlement cuts combined with a small tax increase would likely not secure GOP support because of Norquist.

  • While I was never remotely a member of “Buchanan’s Brigade,” I have long thought that the conventional wisdom surrounding his 1992 convention speech was inaccurate and unfair. Here is the text. Decide for yourselves.

    http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/federal/1992/campaign.92/buchanan-RNC-.txt

  • I dislike the Grover Norquist pledge for a different reason. It enabled congressional Republicans during the Bush administration to offer their constituents a “best of both worlds” approach to governance: federal-funded pork without a tax increase.

    We can’t do this forever. We can’t keep passing the bill on to future taxpayers on the premise that growth and economic recovery will flood the federal coffers with enough money to pay off the debt. I don’t doubt that works for small, manageable debts, but there has to be limit, some point of no return. Our nation’s workforce is growing with the population, but I suspect not enough to keep up with the debts.

    So, as Mike P. suggests, perhaps small tax increases might be one way toward fiscal responsibility, but that is not what I am not after right now. Right now, I would like the threat of a tax increase to use against any Republican who refuses to abstain pork barrel spending for his or her own district. Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge stands in the way of that.

    The problem with my approach (sorry for the run on), is that this is viewed by many voters as the equivalent of “unilateral disarmament” against Democrats who promise spending (within the district) and taxes (on other people). That’s just tough. If you are not principled, that is, you are not preprared to lose, then don’t run for office.

  • i actually love Buchanan’s speech as a piece of rhetoric for how brutal it is (contrast with the relatively generic Romney speech…of course he’s the nominee and you obviously don’t expect speeches like that from them,) wasn’t critiquing it. i have no idea if the CW was right about it being a net negative for Bush-Quayle cuz i was five at the time lol.

  • Mary, I did delete your comment. Not only was it not germane at all to this thread, it was based on something that is simply not true.

  • So, the Dems got Orange Crist. The GOP got Artur Davis, the co-chair of the 2008 Obama campaign.

    Since I had CSPAN and not MSNBC or CNN on, I got to watch Artur Davis speak at the RNC.

    I know who came out ahead in that trade.