Rigged Elections

Wednesday, October 19, AD 2016

 

George Will despises Donald Trump and left the Republican Party after his nomination.  However, he believes that Trump has a point about rigged elections:

GEORGE WILL: When Mr. Trump talks about it being rigged, he sweeps all his grievances into one big puddle. He talked about the media. He talked about the primaries. He talked about the polls. Talked about the Republican National Committee. I think when most persons hear that an election is rigged, they think of government action to rig the election. And there Mr. Trump has a point if he would just make it more clearly.

It is hard to think of an innocent reason why Democrats spend so much time, energy and money, scarce resources all, resisting attempts to purge the voter rolls, that is to remove people who are dead or otherwise have left the jurisdiction. It’s hard to think of an innocent reason why they fight so tremendously against Voter I.D. laws. They say, well that burdens the exercise of a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has said that travel is a fundamental right and no one thinks that showing an I.D. at the airport burdens that fundamental right.

We know — we don’t surmise — we know that the 2010, ’12 and ’14 elections were rigged by the most intrusive and potentially punitive institution of the federal government, the IRS. You can read all about it in Kim Strassel’s book Intimidation Game. She’s familiar to all Wall Street Journal readers and FOX viewers. This is not a surmise. I have talked to lawyers in a position to know they say it’s still going on. The IRS is still intolerantly delaying the granting of tax exempt to conservative advocacy groups to skew the persuasion of this campaign.

Continue reading...

50 Responses to Rigged Elections

  • Consider these facts:
    1) Bill and Hillary Clinton ask Trump to run for president
    2) Clinton campaign emails from the same time identify Trump as the weakest opponent – thank you Wikileaks
    3) The various Trump scandal tapes never appear during the primaries, even though many knew they existed – what size is Howard Stern’s audience again?
    4) Trump never wins a closed primary, but he wins open primaries in which Democratic voters can cross over
    5) The scandal tapes come out right before the election

    This is diabolical. Trump is correct, the election is rigged, but the biggest rigging is Trump himself.

  • Too clever by half Tom. What role do his hapless Republican opponents in the primaries play who couldn’t even locate the Howard Stern audios of Trump that were floating around the internet? No, Trump can be accused of many things, but I am certain that there is no collusion between Trump and the Clintons. I think Trump started this as a huge publicity stunt and was astonished when it took off.

  • The masses raised their pitchforks and lit their torches, ready to storm the Washington bastille when a well know real-estate developer happened to step in front of the protesters shouting follow me.
    George Will, in meantime, was doing the Washington cocktail circuit, trying to impress everyone with the fact that his first name and his last initial was identical to that of our first president.

  • One thing we’ve been looking at is the complete collapse of anything resembling an ethical sense among partisan Democrats born after 1927 or thereabouts. That’s true of Washington pols, and it’s true of rank-and-file partisans. What’s ethical is what gets them what they want. The discourse about voter ID is just rationalization.

  • Good that George Will knows for a fact that the last 3 national elections were rigged. So what exactly did Will and his fellows in the Conservative and/or GOP establishment do about it? To ask the question is to all but answer it. And they are shocked! shocked! and dismayed that voters are turning to an “outsider”. It’s almost funny but the consequence are too grave to allow for that.

  • “The person has no value except that he is a member of the Communist Party” Karl Marx.
    The person is endowed with self-evident truths; created equal with God-given unalienable rights and the person is self-determined. Self-determination comes from the inside of the person.
    Any individual, as a member of the Communist Party is not self-determined. A member of the Communist Party is determined from outside by dictators; dictated to by The Communist Party. from THE GLORY OF BEING AN AMERICAN by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.
    Being politically engineered by individuals above the law is communism.

  • Don McC, I would disagree a bit. I am convinced that there is no collusion between Trump and the Clintons, though I was uncertain six months ago. Trump’s display of the depths of his narcissism in the last month prove he will NEVER act on the behalf of another, even the Clintons. You were right on that one. Also, I bet the Clintons were just as surprised he took the bait. I really would have liked to have been the fly on the wall during that ego stroking session.

  • The Republican Party has long engaged in a game of pretend where it studiously ignored the fact that the other major party stole every close election that it could, often in circumstances that strongly indicated blatant vote fraud. That game of pretend is manifestly coming to an end.

    Um… Don, need I remind you of this? (which was just extended to dec 2017, another link)

    Now, you’re the lawyer so I’ll defer to your superior expertise but to me that looks like not that the GOP is playing pretend, but that it’s been ordered by the court to play pretend. And it has to keep doing so until 2017.

    This is one area I think a 3rd party could make major headway. Have the libertarian party or constitutional party (or whomever) pick up the challenges on voter fraud that the republicans are banned from and I think people would take notice.

  • “Now, you’re the lawyer so I’ll defer to your superior expertise but to me that looks like not that the GOP is playing pretend, but that it’s been ordered by the court to play pretend. And it has to keep doing so until 2017.”

    There are various ways around that order, the simplest of which is having an independent organization set up to fight vote fraud.

  • The Supreme Court has said that travel is a fundamental right and no one thinks that showing an I.D. at the airport burdens that fundamental right.
    Not sure the SC meant flying is a fundamental right. You could say certain standards must be followed by the airline industry given it is a public service.
    .
    @Donald,
    What role do his hapless Republican opponents in the primaries play who couldn’t even locate the Howard Stern audios of Trump that were floating around the internet?
    Do you think producing those tapes would have any impact on an irrational primary voter base such as Trump’s? He was compared to cancer. He said he could kill someone and still win. And on and on. Did. Not. Matter.
    The reasons the tapes did not appear:
    1) Plenty of dirty laundry out there already.
    2) Airing the dirty laundry was considered being an enemy of the party. “You’re just giving the Democrats ammunition!”
    3) Opponents were hoping to avoid lowering the primaries to National Enquirer level, which is where Trump likes to operate.
    4) Opponents put false hope in the primary voters. They believed the GOP to be “never been more conservative” and would see Trump’s campaign for the carnival act it is/was.
    .
    @chris c., The “never been more conservative” GOP was busy going along to get along. Or whining how they have no power to do anything. “Unless the stars are in perfect alignment, we can’t do anything.”

  • So we agree on my 3rd party plan.

    Now looking on Dave G’s post (where the commentators are already coming out saying “it doesn’t happen” thanks to things like the brennan center) while the Federalist and Pew seem to be saying “no it really does.” *sigh* It’s getting so tiresome having to spend time just getting people to relearn the basics.

  • “So we agree on my 3rd party plan.”

    No, I would suggest an independent organization dedicated to fighting vote fraud in the same way the NRA fights for second amendment rights.

  • “Do you think producing those tapes would have any impact on an irrational primary voter base such as Trump’s?”

    Enough to keep him to around thirty percent in most primaries? Sure. The problem was that initially he was regarded as a clown and not taken seriously. By the time he was taken seriously, the anti-Trump vote was divided between Rubio, Cruz and Kasich. (I still can’t figure what Kasich thought he was accomplishing.) Jeb Bush also flushed down the toilet a huge amount of anti-Trump money in one of the most incompetent primary runs since the late John Connally spent eleven million in 1980 and got one delegate.

  • I thought Will left the GOP a long time ago.

  • The issue about the Howard Stern tapes not appearing in the primaries is not just about the GOP.

    It is about the integrity of investigative journalism. It is about an independent Fourth Estate that knows that to side with one political party year after year would be to court corruption.

  • I had trouble following G Will’s line of reasoning about when and why he left, except that it provided an opportunity for him to be smug and superior to both Ryan and Trump.
    Maybe that kind of self righteous smugness and unwillingness to be a foot soldier for a greater good is why the highfalutin party can never seem to unify.
    We may see in the discussions tonight that Chris Wallace is also just such an independent (all by myself in a class of my own) conservative.

  • . By the time he was taken seriously, the anti-Trump vote was divided between Rubio, Cruz and Kasich.
    And his poll numbers rose when the field thinned, i.e. the anti-Trump vote less divided, and he embraced the National Enquirer, retweets disparaging photos of opponent’s wives, and floated accusations about Cruz’s father being a part of JFK’s assassination’s. His supporters were voting for him no matter what. Brexit and all. Trump being the brick in the window.

  • The Bushes (Former Republican governors, presidents, Vice President, party leaders, etc.) supporting Hillary tells us all we need to know about that national party’s leadership–and their so called “support” for life.

  • Kasich never did drop out, Rubio never really endorsed Cruz and there was never one conservative against Trump. Momentum is everything in primaries and by the time Rubio dropped out after Florida Trump had it. Once again you underplay the impact of Trump bringing Democrats and Independents out to vote in Republican primaries. Trump effectively won the nomination by beating Cruz in Indiana, an open primary state.

  • “I thought Will left the GOP a long time ago.” He was never in it. Will is an elitist who comically thinks his knowledge of baseball from reading about it and watching it makes him both an intellectual and connected to the proletariat at the same time. Will has always been too smug to be in anything other than a party of one.

  • No, Dr. Will is a lapsed academic (a 2d generation academic who grew up as aChampaign-Urbana faculty brat) who abandoned the Democratic Party as a graduate student ca. 1963. His dissertation, which he elaborated upon for general audiences in his 1981 Godkin Lectures, is certainly a challenge to liberals promoting what was once called ‘the open society’, a term you’ll notice has disappeared. After leaving academe, he was an aid to Sen. Gordon Allott (R. -Colo) for three years. After Allott left Congress, he landed a series of commentary berths and was picked up for syndication. His best work is his earliest work. (Same deal with Charles Krauthammer). He was then hired by PBS as a Republican voice on Agronsky & Company and them moved to ABC in stages beginning in 1981. He hasn’t aged well intellectually. Like Charles M. Schulz, he seemed to lose a great deal of creative juice after going through divorce proceedings. The libertarian turn in his thinking after 2000 was annoying, co-incident with scores of columns on the perfidy of campaign finance regulations. Striking attitudes over Trump isn’t impressive, either. James Neuchterlein explained his retirement in 2004 thus: he could afford to and he’d said everything he had to say. Will hasn’t needed the money in decades, and there were more serious (and less remunerative) pursuits for him to follow than topical commentary. Will would have done well to heed Neuchterlein’s argument.

  • Two things: polling undertaken in September 2015 gave the establishment lane candidates (Rubio, Bush, Christie, Kasich &c) about a quarter of the respondents. By the close of the primary campaign, the establishment lane candidates had garnered … 26% of the ballots in primaries and caucuses. That was there ceiling this year. Ted Cruz did manage to put together a base of support with organizational skill and emphasizing a signature bloc of issues quite distinct from Trump’s, but it wasn’t enough. NB, as each of the also rans dropped out, his polled support resorted between undecided voters and the remaining candidates. There’s no compelling reason to presume an earlier departure on the part of Rubio or Kasich would have given Cruz the nomination. The nexus from which Rubio and Kasich sprang is as hostile to Cruz as it is to Trump.

  • Name one so-called GOP professional and one conservative pundit that isn’t a cog in the elitist machine/oligarchy running the country for gain. Proof: they (e.g., the Bush Dynasty) support Hillary over Trump who promises to end the corrupt game.
    .
    Ruling in the White House since President Reagan:
    GHWBush – 4 years
    Slick Willie – 8 years
    GWBush – 8 years
    Zero – 8 years
    .
    Ergo, 20 of the past 28 years featured a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. If the Jeb planned coronation had succeeded, the republic-in-name-only would have been saddled with four or eight more Bush/Clinton years.
    . .
    Hillary is a corrupt, incompetent sociopath.
    .
    If there were justice in the Justice Department, Clinton, Comey, Lynch, and Obama would be in prison. The big rig is Hillary is 24/7 lying on TV and not where she should be in a prison yard.

    And besides, anybody that votes Clinton is either, or, or both an idiot and a despicable sac of human excrement.

  • Momentum is everything in primaries and by the time Rubio dropped out after Florida Trump had it.
    Another name for momentum is called voters, voters choosing to vote for a man despite the dirty laundry aired. It really doesn’t matter what affiliation the voters came from. (Ok. Except for the ones Democrats bused in to put the thumb on the scale for their preferred opponent.) The point is people stepped into polls and made a decision to select the man who himself proved to be a clown, con man, and crude mannered.
    .
    Airing the video or Stern audio would have made little to no difference. The previously referenced WP story of Trump’s comments on women in August 2015 made no difference.
    .
    Trump popular with independents and Democrats? Guess Nov 8 will be a cake walk.

  • “Trump popular with independents and Democrats? Guess Nov 8 will be a cake walk.”

    Considering how off the wall polls are currently, anything is possible. You still are in denial that Trump got the nomination largely on the strength of non-Republican votes. That, and a media willing to suppress most negative stories about him until such time as he was safely the Republican nominee. Republican elites totally out of touch with the base of the party on illegal aliens also aided Trump of course, and that largely accounted for much of the initial strength that Trump had among Republicans.

  • You still are in denial that Trump got the nomination largely on the strength of non-Republican votes. T

    Open primary states are not novel. Also, the survey research consistently showed him in the lead and gaining increments when opponents left the race. Not sure how the surveyors constructed their sampling frame, of course. Were they sampling Republican registrants, self-identified Republicans, those planning to participate?

  • Considering how off the wall polls are currently, anything is possible.
    Consistently showing Hillary ahead is not off the wall. Maybe you mean those polls showing Trump barely holding a lead in strong Republican states, like Texas and Georgia. In Texas, Trump has raised only half what Hillary has. As Trump would say, “Sad.”
    .
    My gut feeling is Trump will lose big. The largest group he’ll lose are women. Second will be Latinos. On the flip, I think he might match previous GOP presidential support with blacks if not get a little bit more support.
    You still are in denial that Trump got the nomination largely on the strength of non-Republican votes.
    That is a topic covered in another thread. Discussing it now is like discussing how hot the day is when the topic is the brightness of the sun. I provided evidence, which you dispute and is still more evidence than what you have provided showing the contrary. And please don’t send me to any Infowars article. Have mercy.
    I will leave this article with you which will certainly tickle your Brexit bone.
    http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/17/brexit-voters-and-trump-voters-are-fed-up-with-the-same-things/

  • “Consistently showing Hillary ahead is not off the wall.”

    Polls today:

    Rasmussen Trump +3
    LA Times Trump +0.6
    People Pundit Trump +1.6
    IBD Trump +1

  • The best possible outcome would be for Trump to win a close election and then have Clinton challenge it a la Gore in 2000.

  • Whoever wins, the country deserves what it’s going to get —good and hard.
    .
    Which is why I’m voting for the Constitution Party’s candidate (assuming they got onto the ballot in South Dakota)
    .
    Because I know I don’t deserve what’s coming. And neither does my family,

  • Forgot to link to what’s coming. Apologies.

  • The best possible outcome would be for Trump to win a close election and then have Clinton challenge it a la Gore in 2000.

    That’s just what George Soros thinks. Vladimir Putin too.

  • That’s just what George Soros thinks. Vladimir Putin too.

    Interesting. Can you cite sources? I’m not doubting you, I just want to know their reasoning. My reasoning is that I’d love to see Ms. “you are subverting the country when you talk about not respecting the outcome of the election” turn around and not respect the outcome of the election.

  • You really expect the media-democrat complex to drive Clinton into a disgrace filled exile for trying to steal an election, undermining public faith and confidence in the legitimacy of our system in the process, the way they did to Al Gore back in 2000?
    .
    Moreover, were the Florida 2000 debacle charade repeated this year, the counting would continue until Hillary won. Because the 5th vote to overturn the FL Supreme court isn’t there now.
    .
    And you really think this feckless bunch of Republicans controlling Congress is going to recognize the Republican slate of electors from FL as the certified slate if the Democrats can keep counting the votes until they “win?”
    .
    Because I don’t.

  • Ernst:

    No, yes, and no(and not just Florida).

    But you and I would know the truth.

  • Winston Smith knew the truth too. For all the good it did him.

  • Rasmussen Trump +3
    LA Times Trump +0.6
    People Pundit Trump +1.6
    IBD Trump +1

    LA Times is always Trump friendly. Pass.
    Is this the same Rasmussen?
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_larry_j_sabato/with_19_days_to_go_clinton_s_lead_is_bigger_than_ever
    People Pundit. Poll conducted by Internet panels. Is this like a sophsticated Matt Drudge poll?
    IBD. Hard to tell what they think. They show another poll have Clinton ahead by 2.
    3 out of nearly all polls in Trump’s favor must mean a landslide for Trump. :-\
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

  • Didn’t Will host the cocktail party so all the conservative intelleckchuals could meet Obama to see how smart he was and show off how smart they were? They were so terribly impressed- Kraut was there, Kristol, Larry Kudlow, David Brooks who isn’t really a conservative except that’s the only reason the kool kids at NYT will play with him, Peggy I don’t even like to mention her name since she voted for Obama Noonan, Gigot, & Barone. A few days later Obama met with the lefties. The big difference was that the lefties were on his speed dial from there on out and the righties were sent home with their memories.
    Will the wind bag. Smarter than thou. They all could have been a help to Trump and to the country but they are more concerned with elucidating the subtle nuances of their own beefs with him and hogging the mic to analyze oh-so-incisively his shortcomings and character flaws and ultimately- why he just can’t and shouldn’t win. Of course he has his share of flaws . But if I may: Does not Obama, while smooth and svengali like on the outside, have detestable and deceitful aspects to his personality not to mention his dangerous vision for America & policies to implement them? We now have evidence- 8 years worth of bad economy, an exploding racial divide, social engineering through legislation, breakdown of values, institutions, & traditions, breakdown of the rule of law, widespread corruption, Mid East in flames causing massive migration, Iran nuking up with our help..tell me when to stop! And ditto for Hillary who has no likability on the outside to finesse her evil plans. I would think they would be the subject(or object) of our conservative analysts and rich material there to keep them well occupied with their laser intellects breaking it down for the masses. But I am wrong again and painfully so.

  • LA Times was the most highly accurate poll in 2012 when it was called the Rand Poll. IDB was the most accurate of the daily conventional tracking polls in 2012. However, please proceed Kyle with your defense of your statement that the polls consistently show Hillary ahead made on the same date when four polls show Trump ahead. I blog for my amusement and I found your statement smile inducing.

  • Knowing the truth, or at least knowing that you are being lied to, is usually the start of all good revolutions in the affairs of Man.

  • “Didn’t Will host the cocktail party so all the conservative intelleckchuals could meet Obama to see how smart he was and show off how smart they were?”

    I guess it didn’t work on Will, Krauthammer, Kristol, Kudlow, Gigot and Barone since they have all been harshly critical of Obama during his tenure.

  • Winston Smith knew the truth too. For all the good it did him.

    Winston Smith did not believe in God. One can wonder in what directions Orwell would have gone in 1984 had his Smith character been a believer.

  • LA Times was the most highly accurate poll in 2012 when it was called the Rand Poll.
    I researched this, and I did not find this to be true. Different sources credit different polls depending on how they measure. But Rand was not on top of any list I found.
    Latest LA Times shows a tie.
    .
    However, please proceed Kyle with your defense of your statement that the polls consistently show Hillary ahead made on the same date when four polls show Trump ahead.
    One of those polls was Indiana. If you cite that, I’ll reference GA and TX where Trump is struggling to hold on to a lead.
    .
    Polls. Polls. Polls.
    https://twitter.com/Colettod/status/790182715555475457/photo/1

  • The Rand Corporation poll in 2012 had Obama ahead by 3.8. He won by 3.9. No poll got closer. Second in line was IDB/TIPP in accuracy, the most accurate of the conventional tracking polls. Here is a link compiled by 538 on November 10, 2012 when Obama’s margin was 2.5.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

  • I saw that list. It shows IBD/TIPP is an average error of 0.9 when measuring the avg of the last 21 days. Rand comes 4th with 1.8. If you compare with pollsters conducting at least 1 poll in last 21 days, Rand drops further. (See second table.)
    538’s lists differ than the list I find most common. I think because he looks at the last 21 days. The common list looks like this, and Rand does not even make the list…
    http://www.politisite.com/2012/11/07/analysis-most-accurate-political-polls-from-2012-presidential-election/
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/the-most-accurate-polls-of-2012-148876
    .
    This article seems to confirm some of what you’re saying… sort of. Sounds more like they looked good in 2012, but could have just gotten lucky. We’ll see.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/14/why_pay_attention_to_the_la_times_poll.html

  • “Rand comes 4th with 1.8.”

    Largely because Obama’s margin was thought to be 2.50 on November 10. It swelled to 3.9 when all outstanding votes were tallied. You are correct that just because a pollster got it right in 2012, or closer to right than others, does not necessarily mean they will be right this time. It does mean that their results should not be disregarded. I am beginning to believe that the polls this year, for a number of reasons, are more unreliable than in years past. We won’t have long to wait to see if that tentative hypothesis is correct,

  • Largely because Obama’s margin was thought to be 2.50 on November 10. It swelled to 3.9 when all outstanding votes were tallied.

    When I was involved in local politics a generation ago, it was conventional wisdom that absentee votes were more favorable to Republicans than machine counts. Either we’ve had a cultural shift or that’s telling you what share of the ballots were filled out by ACORN members making use of the names of voters on the rolls which their canvassers have determined have moved away.

    My last foray into local politics was to pull votes for a candidate for mayor in a small town near Utica. I open the printout and staring me in the face is the name of a psychology professor who had registered to vote six years earlier and left town two years later when her contract was up. As late as 1959 in New York you had to register in person every year at the town clerk’s office or the county board of elections. When I was involved a generation later, they still tracked the obituaries, purged your name if you hadn’t voted in four years, and purged your name if someone tried to forward mail sent to your address (which the postal service routed back to the board). Even so, if you canvassed in neighborhoods chock-a-block with singles, you had a lot of dead entries because people who live in those neighborhoods commonly move every year (and they’re never home when they do still live there).

  • And while everyone was arguing… this was found.

    At the very least, Don’s ORIGINAL POINT (“Considering how off the wall polls are currently, anything is possible.”) has been pretty thoroughly proven.

  • They are not off the wall when the super majority of polls show Clinton ahead. I agree that +12 Clinton seems a bit much. A flawed poll does not mean all polls are flawed or off the wall.
    .
    Democrats are not cheating because Wikileaks exposed them. They’ve been cheating for decades I’m sure. Yet, Republicans have won and polls were not accused of being off the wall.
    .
    I find the IBD/TIPP the more interesting of polls. We’ll know shortly who is right or wrong.

  • UPI CV had a poll out this morning showing a 3 point Clinton advantage, down from a five point Clinton advantage last week. The CNN poll just released today shows Clinton with a 5 point advantage. If Clinton is ahead my guess is that the gap is probably three or four points. The problem with the polling is that there may be fair number of voters who are truly undecided and that the polls aren’t capturing them. The last week of the campaign should be real interesting if more of the polls narrow.

Quotes Suitable for Framing: George Will

Monday, December 28, AD 2015

4 Responses to Quotes Suitable for Framing: George Will

Quotes Suitable For Framing: George Will

Tuesday, November 17, AD 2015

11 Responses to Quotes Suitable For Framing: George Will

  • Atheistic liberal progressivism is as evil as radical Islamic terrorism. Both must be defeated and thrown into the trash bin of history. I fear, however, that neither will happen till Christ returns to Earth in the Parousia at the end of time. Indeed, while I am no theologian, in a certain way I can see the account in Revelation about the casting of the Beast and the False Prophet into the Lake of Fire being the final defeat of radical Islam and liberal progressivism (though which is the Beast and which the False Prophet is anyone’s guess). Of course, Sacred Scripture usually has meaning within meaning, so my little point of view is surely not the whole story.

  • Perpetual serenity is for livestock. Which, come to think of it, is what progressives treat people like.

  • George Will can be digested occasionally–like this time.

  • I can think of nothing less compatible with human nature than perpetual serenity. And, ironically, true progress is born of struggle – not serenity.

  • Grammy, you’re so right. Did we think he came to bring peace?

  • LQC, Ernest S, DonL and Grammy, All good comments.
    I may be wrong about George Will, but wasn’t he in the same crowd of turncoats which included Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley, and gave us President Hope and Change?That said, Will makes sense this time. I wonder if legalization of drugs in some states and the District is an attempt to have the populace, well, drugged? Mellow and addicted and pliable.

  • “I may be wrong about George Will, but wasn’t he in the same crowd of turncoats which included Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley, and gave us President Hope and Change?”

    No, Will has always had Obama’s number.

  • but wasn’t he in the same crowd of turncoats which included Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley,

    Buckley is a humor and travel writer (Editor of ForbesLife) who has written almost nothing for the starboard press other than his father’s publication. I think if you review a Reader’s Guide listing of his two dozen or so pieces he’s written for National Review, you’ll find its almost entirely composed of humor, diary, reviews of belles lettres, &c. Buckley hired Richard Brookhiser in 1978 with the idea that he might retire at some point and turn the publication over to Brookhiser because Christopher was unsuitable. CB did have a staff position in the pr apparat of the White House during the Reagan-Bush Administrations, but he worked for George Bush and did not stay long. He was much more his mother’s son than his father’s (his antagonism to his mother notwithstanding). He’s never uttered a serious word in public print and his endorsement of BO was of a piece with his usual oeuvre.

    As for the others, the Obamacon phenomenon was a mess of hype from the get go. Social survey research from exit polls demonstrate Obama was no more appealing to soi-disant Republicans than the Democratic candidate usually is, if anything a bit less; the same bloody 9% voted for him. David Friedman, Charles Fried, Kenneth Adelman, Kenneth Duberstein, Jeffrey Hart, and Douglas Kmiec, Bruce Bartlett, Richard Whalen, Scott McClellan, and Larry Hunter made very little sense while endorsing BO. If they don’t like the Republican Party as is, they can just stay home. No one was waiting with bated breath for them to weigh in. However, the media was not going to grill them about why they were doing what they were doing and offering such lousy reasons for it. (One wag offered an explanation which makes more sense than the perps did, “How many of these guys had liberal wives or girlfriends?”).

  • Art, you left off David Brooks. Speaking of whom, Brooks has always struck me as the nouveau riche version of Will’s blue-blooded variety of genteel conservatism.

  • Thank you all for setting me straight on Will. I agree on the wives and girlfriends of conservatives…often the they are not pro-life like their husbands.

  • Art, you left off David Brooks. Speaking of whom, Brooks has always struck me as the nouveau riche version of Will’s blue-blooded variety of genteel conservatism.

    George Will was a small city bourgeois from Champaign, Illinois. Non-ethnic, but not blueblood or patrician. His father was a university professor. The first Mrs. Will grew up somewhere around Hartford, Ct where her father owned a diner. The second Mrs. Will grew up in a comfortable but normal range bourgeois suburb of Chicago. Will is the nouveau riche. Brooks comes from pretty much the same social stratum as Will, just that both of his parents were professors and he grew up 2/3 of a generation later in Manhattan and Philadelphia, so better off. Brooks ‘thinks highly’ of Obama. Will knows better.

Buffoon Exposed

Saturday, November 7, AD 2015

 

Bill O’Reilly v. George Will in a battle of wits is akin to a theological debate between Mark Shea and Saint Thomas Aquinas.  Will is very full of himself and personifies the phrase “arrogant stuffed shirt” but he does a public service by stating the obvious truth  that O’Reilly is the most foolish type of fool:  one who thinks he a sage.  O’Reilly’s “Killing” books, written I assume by his co-author Martin Dugard, are the worst type of junk history:  factually weak, shabbily researched, pedestrian, at best, writing, zero historical context and always, always a conspiratorial slant.  They are fit only to serve as kindling.

 

Dugard sought research advice from former representative Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), who served in Reagan’s White House counsel’s office. Cox put Dugard in touch with former California governor Pete Wilson and several Reagan historians. Wilson and Cox warned that historians’ criticisms could hurt the book’s reception. Then O’Reilly charged on Fox News that Wilson and Cox somehow threatened him, adding gratuitously and falsely that Cox, as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, “presided over the mortgage debacle that collapsed the economy in 2007,” an explanation of the autumn 2008 collapse that is simply weird.

Cox put the book’s publisher in touch with Annelise Anderson, who, with her late husband, Marty, a longtime Reagan adviser, has authored and edited serious books about Reagan. She was offered $5,000 and given just one week to evaluate the manuscript. Having read it, she declined compensation, saying mildly, “I don’t think this manuscript is ready for publication.”

The book’s perfunctory pieties about Reagan’s greatness are inundated by its flood of regurgitated slanders about his supposed lassitude and manipulability. This book is nonsensical history and execrable citizenship, and should come with a warning: “Caution — you are about to enter a no-facts zone.”

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Buffoon Exposed

  • I was aware that Bill O’Reilly was an unwatchable television personality,
    but I had no idea he was also an unreadable author.

  • There are lots of curios about Reagan. One thing he was not was ‘manipulable’, at least not about anything he cared about. David Stockman’s main complaint was that no one could persuade him to agree to tax increases. Tax increases were a sensible policy notion at the time. The thing is, one has to take a gander at the ratio of federal debt to domestic product during the period running from 1991 to 1995, after a Republican president agreed to a tax increase. The salutary effect on federal debt loads was nil. Federal debt loads began to decline only when someone took the Congressional committees away from the Democratic Party. Reagan could seem terribly fuddled. He never served in Congress. He attended a tiny college in small town Illinois while Stockman attended Harvard. Yet, he understood something that Stockman did not about how Democratic members of Congress react to stimulus.

    And that’s the funny thing about Reagan. He hardly seemed to know what was going on half the time. He worked a nine to five schedule. He let his wife do the strangest things with his appointment calendar. And yet, he knew how to pick his subordinates and just how far to trust them. Reagan worked 40 hour weeks, generating some problems and some solutions. Jimmy Carter worked (per his account) medical resident’s hours and couldn’t stop peeing on the rug to save his life. He had some successes with the regulatory agencies and that’s it; he went from one failure to another. Lyndon Johnson worked a similar schedule and went from one catastrophe to another. We’re still facing policy dilemmas from his mistakes.

    One thing you might consider is that Reagan was a man who disliked personal confrontation (just not to the pathological degree Richard Nixon did). Some of this fuddlement may just have been a tactic in difficult interpersonal situations, much the way Eisenhower used garbled syntax to confuse reporters.

  • Between 1975-1979 Reagan gave daily radio commentaries. He wrote 679 of them himself.
    http://www.loc.gov/programs/static/national-recording-preservation-board/documents/ReaganOnRadio.pdf

    He had thought and written about most of the issues that would confront him during his Presidency. He knew what he wanted to do, could articulate it clearly and managed to accomplish quite a bit of it, without ever having control of Congress. The fact that he was widely ridiculed as an amiable dunce by many of his adversaries, probably helped him. There is a fair amount of truth in this old SNL skit:

    https://screen.yahoo.com/president-reagan-mastermind-000000075.html

  • The fact that he was widely ridiculed as an amiable dunce by many of his adversaries, probably helped him.

    Paul Johnson made a similiar point about Eisenhower in Modern Times.

    That’s probably my all time favorite SNL skit, by the way.

    I sometimes wonder what the world would look like today if Reagan could have served a third term (assuming he would have run for reelection in ’88).

  • Not having paid enough attention to Mr. Will to consider him an arrogant stuffed shirt, I withhold judgment but cannot resist appropriating the phrase for the unserious purpose of mere humor. To wit: “Stuffed Shirt versus Bear Shirt”.

  • Paul Johnson made a similiar point about Eisenhower in Modern Times.

    I remember reading a book review in The Nation ca. 1981 of some tome by Garry Wills where the author noted parenthetically that Wills ‘attempt to make Eisenhower sound bright’ was a bridge too far. Think about that for a moment. You’re one of an odd minority of the 1890 cohort with a college degree, you are one of an odd minority of soldiers who is promoted to the rank of general officer and one of only a scatter to attain the 5th star, you organize the largest amphibious invasion in history and command the whole European theatre, you serve as Army Chief of Staff, as President of Columbia University, and as President of the United States. You are the only president in the history of modern survey research who maintained the approval of the general public throughout your term of office and did so without any winner-winner-chicken-dinner gimmicks. And you get called a dope by some aged juvenile who writes for a birdcage liner opinion magazine. That’ll give you an idea of what the red-haze left is all about.

  • The fact that he was widely ridiculed as an amiable dunce by many of his adversaries,

    The term was Clark Clifford’s. R.M. Kaus once said he’d never been able to figure out where Reagan’s intelligence lay. “It must lie somewhere”. You do get the impression that a certain amount of it was a head fake. Remember his crack about Michael Dukakis when he was asked about rumors Dukakis had visited a shrink, “I’m not going to pick on an invalid”. The press conference ends at that point. Years later, political journalists like Jack Germond were puzzling over this remark. Was it just an off-hand joke? Was it a clever means of jabbing and embarrassing Dukakis without directly endorsing the rumors? No one quite knew.

  • could articulate it clearly and managed to accomplish quite a bit of it,

    Mostly in foreign affairs and re some of the regulatory agencies. No one’s managed yet to break any iron triangles. Exhibit A: the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a stew of corruption and pointless intervention in markets which are completely local. Congress is an awful institution. Gets worse every year.

  • Geez, Jack Germond, Baltimore Sun editorial page blowhard….haven’t heard that name mentioned in years.

    Ronald Reagan was far smarter than his adversaries ever gave him credit for. One of the best books written about Reagan is Paul Kengor’s The Last Crusader.

    Had Reagan been the beneficiary of a House such as the one Newt Gingrich led in 1995, we would not have had the deficits (small as they seem today).

    Reagan wanted the Iron Curtain melted for scrap and the USSR eliminated. Both happened, even though they occurred after Reagan left office. The Reagan Administration whipped inflation (they let Paul Volcker do what needed to be done), lowered income tax rates and grew the economy. Tax revenue nearly doubled in 10 years.

    I wish Reagan would have blockaded Cuba and forced Castro out.

  • “a theological debate between Mark Shea and Saint Thomas Aquinas. ”

    Here’s a transcript of how that debate would go down.

    St. Thomas: Mr. Shea, intrinsic evil is something that is evil in it’s very object. Since torture cannot be defined in an objective way, torture cannot be intrinsically evil.

    Shea: Thomas, you’re just a bloodthirsty consequentialist! Get off my blog!

  • “Not having paid enough attention to Mr. Will to consider him an arrogant stuffed shirt, I withhold judgment but cannot resist appropriating the phrase for the unserious purpose of mere humor. To wit: ‘Stuffed Shirt versus Bear Shirt’.”

    I have read George Will’s writings widely and am more recently shocked (on a semi-regular basis) that his views are held up as “conservative.” “Conservative compared to whom” often comes to mind in re: to Mr. Will. IMHO, the turn of phrase, “a stuffed shirt,” is aptly applied to Mr. Will. I will say that a lot of his general political/societal musings in the past have made for light, enjoyable reading. I seem to be on a continual pendulum swing in re: to Mr. O’Reilly–one minute the pendulum reads, “That makes sense” extreme and the next moment the pendulum reads, “Has this guy lost his mind?” Anyone would know that it isn’t possible to churn out accurately and contextually sound historical texts as rapidly as O’Reilly has turned out the series of books under discussion.

  • Re: the use of Edmond Morris’ so-called “official” biography of Reagan that O’Reilly cites as a verifying source for the leftist claim that Reagan was considered mentally & physically unstable by some during Reagan’s presidency:

    O’Reilly shows himself to be either an ignorant fool or very shallow researcher. I have the combo fictional/nonfictional biography, “Dutch.” I have poured over it. The biography is quite the joke. O’Reilly knows that citing a “source” does not mean that source is valid. In fact, Edmond Morris includes more than one fictional character in the text of the “biography.”

    http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id386.htm

  • Another interesting viewpoint re: O’Reilly’s deceptive use of Edmond Morris’ book, “Dutch,” as verification for O’Reilly’s false historical narratives.

    http://ashbrook.org/publications/onprin-v7n6-craig/

  • No one is above criticism. But, some criticisms of Eisenhower and Reagan are Orwellian. .

    Despicable liars and rank morons, in the face of contrary data, facts, economic statistics think that Obama is a superb president. Outside being elected, Obama’s prior civilian job experience revolved around distributing propaganda leaflets, commanding sit-ins, and fronting CRA/racial discrimination litigations against banks that set precedents which contributed to the recent unhappy housing crisis and great recession. Despite going on seven years of huge monetary ($4 trillion Fed balance sheet) and fiscal (added $8 or $9 trillion to national debt) stimuli, 93 million working-age Americans can’t find adequate employment and economists pop the champagne corks if they can get a 2% GDP rise.
    .
    Eisenhower commanded the allied armed forces and won the war in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Western Europe. The American people liked Ike because they were at peace, happy and prosperous. The democrats hate all that ergo Ike wasn’t too bright.
    .

    Reagan won the Cold War. He inherited a severe recession. Then, his administration’s economic policies produced a rapid recovery and growth, something like 5% GDP p.a., which most Obama-worshipping idiot academic economists now say is impossible to attain. Obama can’t do it. They hate that and Reagan isn’t too bright.
    .

    If somehow, miraculously, America, in general, and academia, in particular, manages to reverse the trend and avoid idiocracy (it takes a special kind of stupidity to vote twice for Obama), historians will rank President Reagan on the short list with Washington and Lincoln.

Quotes Suitable for Framing: George Will

Tuesday, June 30, AD 2015

3 Responses to Quotes Suitable for Framing: George Will

  • They (academics/ideologues, media cheerleaders, politicians – essential coercion and deceit) will never learn.
    .
    Ideology trumps truth and so there can be no solution or prevention.
    .

    Becuz, socialism’z gon’ta work dis time!

  • Socialism. Coming to a country near you.

  • Democracy is Doomed to Failure
    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” This quote is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler. In 1814, John Adams said “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit

    What do the Greeks expect? Gone are the frugal and hardworking Greeks that I know – not living in Greece, of course.

Various and Sundry, 8/15/13

Thursday, August 15, AD 2013

Biblical Roots of the Teaching of the Assumption

Msgr. Pope drops some knowledge on this Feast Day.

The actual event of the Assumption is not described in Scripture. However, there are “assumptions” recorded in the Scriptures and the concept is thus biblical.

  1. It happened to Enoch in the Old Testament The Book of Genesis records: Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away (Gen. 5:24). Hebrews 11: 5 elaborates: By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.

  2. It also happened to Elijah as he walked with Elisha: And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven….And he was seen no more. (2 Kings 2:11 ).

  3. Some say Moses too was taken up since his grave is not known. As we read in yesterday’s first reading at Mass: He was buried in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is (Dt. 34:6). The text of course does not say his body was taken up and if it was, it occurred after death and burial. Jude 1:9 hints at the fact when is says, But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses….. (Jude 1:9) Some further credibility is lent to the view of him being assumed by the fact that he appears alongside Elijah in the Transfiguration account. Some of the Church Fathers held this view and there is also a Jewish work from the 6th Century AD entitled The Assumption of Moses that represents the tradition of his assumption. But in the end the Assumption of Moses only a view held by some and it not officially held by the Church.

More at the link.

Obama worse than Nixon? Well duh.

Presidential powers have been expanding almost exponentially for about a century. We have seemingly reached a point where the President can act without Congressional authority for any reason at all. George Will captures why Obama’s administration has been especially pernicious.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.”

He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Wheredoes the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.

This inspires Will to compare Obama with Nixon.

In a 1977 interview with Richard Nixon, David Frost asked: “Would you say that there are certain situations . . . where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation . . . and do something illegal?”

Nixon: “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Frost: “By definition.”

Nixon: “Exactly, exactly.”

Nixon’s claim, although constitutionally grotesque, was less so than the claim implicit in Obama’s actions regarding the ACA. Nixon’s claim was confined to matters of national security or (he said to Frost) “a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude.” Obama’s audacity is more spacious; it encompasses a right to disregard any portion of any law pertaining to any subject at any time when the political “environment” is difficult.

Wounded Warriors Unable to Eat at Dining Hall

You just sometimes have to wonder if people inside the government are capable of rational thought.

The Glories of the Arab Spring Continue Apace

Well at least the UN is on the case.

The UN Security Council is calling on both the Egyptian government and the Muslim Brotherhood to exercise “maximum restraint” and end the violence spreading across the country, which has claimed more than 600 lives.

Council members called for national reconciliation, expressed regret at the loss of life and sent sympathy to the victims.

Up next: a very strongly worded letter.

One Step Forward, One Step Back

Leave it to Major League Baseball to come to its senses regarding replay, and then ruin this moment of clarity by aping the NFL’s absurd challenge system.

Mmmmmm. Bacon.

I heartily endorse this recipe. Store bought bacon will just never suffice again.

Continue reading...

Jon Will at 40

Friday, May 4, AD 2012

 

 

 

As the father of an autistic son, who, with his brother and sister, is the light of the lives of myself and my wife, the struggle for the right to life of the unborn is a personal battle.  The contempt shown for innocent human life by abortion is magnified when the fact that a child in the womb is less than perfect is introduced into the mix.  People like my son, who lights up any room when he smiles, who is as agile and nimble as a cat in her prime,  and who likes to cook  with the microwave, would be regarded by those who prize abortion as prime candidates for elimination if their condition could be detected in the womb.  George Will has a moving column about his son Jon who has just turned 40.

Jon was born just 19 years after James Watson and Francis Crick published their discoveries concerning the structure of DNA, discoveries that would enhance understanding of the structure of Jon, whose every cell is imprinted with Down syndrome. Jon was born just as prenatal genetic testing, which can detect Down syndrome, was becoming common. And Jon was born eight months before Roe v. Wade inaugurated this era of the casual destruction of pre-born babies.

This era has coincided, not just coincidentally, with the full, garish flowering of the baby boomers’ vast sense of entitlement, which encompasses an entitlement to exemption from nature’s mishaps, and to a perfect baby. So today science enables what the ethos ratifies, the choice of killing children with Down syndrome before birth. That is what happens to 90 percent of those whose parents receive a Down syndrome diagnosis through prenatal testing.

Which is unfortunate, and not just for them. Judging by Jon, the world would be improved by more people with Down syndrome, who are quite nice, as humans go. It is said we are all born brave, trusting and greedy, and remain greedy. People with Down syndrome must remain brave in order to navigate society’s complexities. They have no choice but to be trusting because, with limited understanding, and limited abilities to communicate misunderstanding, they, like Blanche DuBois in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” always depend on the kindness of strangers. Judging by Jon’s experience, they almost always receive it.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Jon Will at 40

  • Nice post.

  • I first read this G. Will piece elsewhere, and the first comment there is, (I think), worth reading. I dare not repost it without permission, but possibly I can give this link for those interested.
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51223#disqus_thread
    (OTOH, I found the comments at the WaPo site rather upsetting.)

  • “(OTOH, I found the comments at the WaPo site rather upsetting.)”

    The readers of the Washington Post and the New York Times, at least those who choose to comment, usually have the compassion of a shark when the sacred rite of abortion is challenged.

  • I have a cousin who had Downe’s. Although my aunt found it difficult raising her for her first few years, form the age of about 8 Mary became a joy to be with – always happy and loving. She lived with her parents until she was about 20, then went into a home with several others and a house parent. She died when she was about 50.
    I have a neice who is intellectually disabled – my daughter-in-law was suffering from hypoglycemia during her pregnancy, and Nicole (Nicky) was deprived of oxygen at birth. Again, the early years were difficult for Tina (sister-in-law) but as Nicky grew and became cognisant at around 5 or 6, she became a fun kid. She has the intellectual age of about a 4 year old, and is now coming up 30. She has been living with ,again, 2 or 3 other IHC people in their own house, and have caregivers helping them during the day, and a live-in carer full time.
    She has her own independence , comes to all the family functions and really enjoys being part of the falmily, and above all, of being fully alive.
    People who pre-judge that partly disabled people – physically or mentally – do not want to live, do not know anyone in that situation. They should look around and learn.

  • “They should look around and learn.”

    And love.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY MID-DAY EXTRA | The Pulpit
  • Is George Will still an Episcopalian? You know, that most aggressively ‘pro-choice’ and incredibly shrinking liturgical imitation of Catholicism.

  • Will’s an agnostic. That does not prevent him from also being an ardent foe of abortion:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/31/barbara-boxer-in-context.html

  • One of my nephews has an autistic son. One of my nieces is a special ed teacher who has worked with autistic children since her college days.

    One of the most satisfying experiences of my life was when I volunteered for a day the Plymouth Center for Human Development, an institution that cared for people with mental and physical handicaps in the Detroit area when I was 12. I remember helping a seven year old child who was both rather seriously mentally retarded (I don’t think he had Downs) as well as being physically handicaps. Almost 35 years later I still remember his name and what he looked like. I also remember we both took a liking to each other.

    You know, quality of life is a hard thing to define clearly when it is so subjective. But if cheerfulness is a standard to define quality of life most people with mental handicaps have a quality of life much better than I will ever have.

    One of the many mentally handicapped children murdered by the Nazis was one of Pope Benedict’s cousins.

George Will: This Is What Liberalism Looks Like

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2012

George Will on ABC’s This Week last Sunday made three points in regard to the HHS Mandate “compromise” that are undeniably true:

 

 

Three points.

As Paul Ryan said to you, this is an accounting gimmick that they’ve done that in no way ends the complicity of Catholic institutions and individuals in delivering services they consider morally abhorrent.
Second. You asked the question, ‘How did this come about?’ George, this is what liberalism looks like. This is what the progressive state does. It tries to break all the institutions of civil society, all the institutions that mediate between the individual and the state. They have to break them to the saddle of the state.
Third. The Catholic Bishops, it serves them right. They’re the ones who were really hot for Obamacare, with a few exceptions. But they were all in favor of this. And this is what it looks like when the government decides it’s going to make your healthcare choices for you.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to George Will: This Is What Liberalism Looks Like

  • I hope the Bishops have learned a lesson now about the dangers of the Church getting into bed with the Welfare State, but I doubt it….What the Obama administration has done in regard to contraceptives and abortifacients was as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

    C’mon, Donald. Thomas E. Dewey did not institute this policy. Edmund Muskie did not institute this policy. Jimmy Carter did not institute this policy. It is a decision local to the current cohorts of soi-disant social reformers. We have had federally financed medical care for 46 years and had a network of municipal and veterans’ hospitals for decades prior to that. The sort of arrogance incorporated into the Administrations latest crime is not a structural feature of common provision of medical services.

  • C’mon Art. Modern liberalism, since the 1990’s, as feminists and gay rights advocates became increasingly influential, has had a hostility to Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, that was not overtly present in earlier manifestations of that creed. What the Obama administration did was not only predictable, but inevitable. Increase the power of the State, and the Church is always at peril that individuals who bear the Church undying animosity will eventually control that power.

  • Yes. I’m glad Will called the bishops on their support for “universal health care.” I suppose I should admire their lack of guile, but honestly. Why would anyone think that any state which sets itself up as the sole proprietor of your healthcare would do otherwise? The land of nice, Canada, prohibits people from paying for their own healthcare. Why would the U.S. do differently, if given the chance? I sincerely hope the bishops have learned that freedom is best preserved in smaller, more local institutions.

  • What the Obama administration did was not only predictable, but inevitable.

    No, it was not. It was a clear policy choice and a bad one.

    Modern liberalism, since the 1990?s, as feminists and gay rights advocates became increasingly influential, has had a hostility to Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, that was not overtly present in earlier manifestations of that creed.

    True, but that is a cultural factor, not a structural one.

  • A mythic committee set out to improve on the race horse. They invented a camel.

    You can’t have a committee deciding on objective truth. What you get are loose interpretations and inconsistent applications.

    The USBBC (conference/committee) set out to improve health care. The salvation of souls is so yesterday. They invented Obamacare and abortion/birth control mandates.

    That is why we have the Pope.

    If in 2008 the majority of US bishops (supposed to be our shepherds) had preached the Pope’s “Four Non-negotiables”, they might not be in their current embarrassing fix.

    Will is right. When the shepherds gave the state the corporal works of mercy, they ceded their moral authority in that area.

    They subordinated the salvation of souls to peace, justice, and aiding and abetting cynical political posturing.

  • “No, it was not. It was a clear policy choice and a bad one. ”

    And a policy choice that was inevitable Art given those who were going to make it. Obama didn’t put Sebelius in charge of HHS by accident.

  • Like I said before, until the bishops take responsibility for their part in bringing this about all their cassock ruffling over teh HHS mandate is not going to have the crtedibility it needs to have.

  • The principle of Subsidiarity is too easily abandonned.
    That’s what western societies have been doing for the past 100 years or so – of course secularists will grasp the opportunity to impose more and more control over the people.

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

  • The Bishops forgot this:
    “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    Here’s another article on this very subject:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/02/well-heres-another-nice-mess-youve-gotten-me-into/

  • Let’s talk about the root of the problem: “Faithful Citizenship” from the USCCB which
    listed multiple issues worthy of consideration.

    It did say that a person could not vote for a pro-abort IF they were doing so to promote
    abortion. It should have said a Catholic could NOT vote for a pro-abort/choice candidate
    period – St. Louis Bishop Robert Hermann told Catholics to vote pro-life and after the
    2008 election wrote that if one made the mistake of voting for a pro-abort they should go to Confession. “FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP” needs to withdrawn yesterday. Bishops should tell priests and laity to vote pro-life in the Primaries. Their silence is deafening!

George Will: Historians Will Marvel

Tuesday, February 7, AD 2012

On This Week on ABC last Sunday, George Will gave a concise, and devastating, explanation of what modern liberalism in this country is all about:

This is not about women’s health. This is about providing 300,000 abortions a year. Planned Parenthood cleverly cast this saying, ‘We are in the mammogram business.’ They’re not in the mammogram business — they are in the referral of mammograms. This showed two extraordinary things, George. First, the American left cares about ending wars and they care about poverty and they care about the environment, but they really care about — when they’re not perfunctory — is when you touch abortions. And historians will marvel that American liberalism in the first part of the 21st century is defined as defense of abortion.

Second, all these people describing themselves as pro-choice said it is illegitimate to choose not to be involved in abortion. And a much more important decision politically that was taken this week was the Obama administration saying that Catholic institutions have no choice — and this was applauded by pro-choice people — have no choice but to provide contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to George Will: Historians Will Marvel

  • I think historians will also marvel at the fact that many Catholic leftists, who really do care about stopping wars, the poor, the environment and so on are willing to turn a blind eye to what their secular counterparts REALLY care about. My experience with leftists Catholics has been that they are acutely uncomfortable with the whole topic of and act as if you’ve committed a serious breach of etiquette by even mentioning the topic. They want to forget about that and focus on social justice (which they of course equate with raising taxes).

  • Donna, the problem here is that Catholic leftists are like most leftists in supporting foreign policy/national security policies that necessitate bigger and bloodier wars under the guise of peace and economic policies that actually increase the plight of the poor. And they are blinded by their own arrogance and self-righteousness.

    As far as environmental issues are concerned, the myth of man-made global warming as being harmful to the environment is just that, a myth.

  • Greg, I wholly agree with your take on global warming, defense and economics. My point was not that the leftist stances on those issues are correct, but that I think most leftist Catholics good-heartedly and genuinely believe they are.

  • Lying through her teeth, Nancy Pelosi spoke of: ” quality of thinking”, and “of giving women the right to choose how they (women) will live their children’s lives”…or end their children’s lives. Redecorating the gates of hell, Pelosi, co-opted the most beautiful words and corrupted the words to distort the truth and make them into lies to feed the uniformed minds and hungry souls who listen to hear what they want to hear. I am amazed, I have never heard such grizzly militantcy, absent any form of truth. And when government contraception in Obamacare fails, these women will sue the government for wrongful life and the tax payers will pay and pay…and pay. Pay for your own abortion. Pay for your own contraception. Who gave you the power to take my wallet and penalize me for not handing it over willingly? “the quality of thinking” will not include treason and betrayal to the devil.

  • Romans 1:28-30

    “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil.”

    Future historians will marvel at how the American people gave up their liberty and property at the prattlings of a man and movement so dull and illogical as are Obama and liberalism.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY U.S. POLITICS EXTRA I | ThePulp.it

Santorum: The Galvanizing Candidate

Wednesday, January 4, AD 2012

George Will has a first-rate column about Rick Santorum:

He can, of course, be tenaciously serious. On Sept. 26, 1996, the Senate was debating whether to ban partial-birth abortion, the procedure whereby the baby to be killed is almost delivered, feet first, until only a few inches of its skull remain in the birth canal, and then the skull is punctured, emptied and collapsed. Santorum asked two pro-choice senators opposed to the ban, Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), this: Suppose the baby slips out of the birth canal before it can be killed. Should killing it even then be a permissible choice? Neither senator would say no.

On Oct. 20, 1999, during another such debate, Santorum had a colloquy with pro-choice Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.):

Santorum: “You agree that, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you agree with that?”

Boxer: “I think that when you bring your baby home .?.?. .”

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Santorum: The Galvanizing Candidate

  • Great post here Donald. I’ve wanted to say this in about every blog I’ve seen this video, but did anybody else notice that this man just did a 20 minute speech without notes or teleprompters! Seems like the Democrats aren’t the only one with a public speaker! This man’s speech gives me chills. When he speaks about God, you can just tell it is real. When he speaks about caring for the dignity of every worker, he’s sincere. There is something very genuine about this man that will be hard to miss if people give him the time of day. Let’s just keep on the positive Rick and show America who you really are!

  • Look, I admire Santorum’s pro-life work tremendously. I think he is, essentially, a decent man. But I fear that he is basically a Catholic Huckabee – a statist social conservative.

    That said, I will vote him if he is the GOP nominee. The only GOP contender I really don’t think I could bring myself to vote for is Paul. So I’m not going to get into a pitched battle fighting about the pros and cons of Santorum, Romney, etc. when I’m really not nuts about any of them. (I initially favored Perry, but Perry has pretty much destroyed his own candidacy.) The important thing is to beat Obama.

    It would be nice to vote for someone with enthusiasm, rather than voting against someone. But the conservative “A Team” (Jindal, Rubio, Walker, Ryan) isn’t running. *Sigh*

  • Oh, and I’m also aware that my criticism of Santorum for being a statist also applies to Romney. Darn it, every single candidate has big minuses. We have a serious crisis in leadership at a time when we need great leaders more than ever. I disagree with the Instapundit on certain issues, but I certainly agree with him when he says that today’s political class has to be the worst in the nation’s history.

    Still, Obama is the worst of the worst.

  • His backdoor protectionism in that video made me cringe. It’s the type of stuff I debate liberals who think the US needs China-style industrial policy on.

  • I don’t understand why so called conservatives are ideological free traders. But, regardless, how is Santorum saying we should lower taxes on manufacturers protectionist, while I doubt anyone would say lowering regulations on manufacturers is protectionist. The fact is that both are or neither are.

    We ought to do what’s in the public interest, rather than what might fit some economists’ neat vision of global efficiency. We are less competitive than our competitors when it comes to manufacturing. Should we not seek to remedy that? Or should we continue to let middle incomes stagnate? I think this policy fits excellently into Santorum’s broader pro-family vision.

  • Thus we have had candidates like Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 who ran lifeless campaigns and seemed to be concentrating on being good losers instead of fighting to win. I think Mitt Romney is such a candidate.

    Whatever the merits or demerits of any of these men are if one aspires to a political economy congenial to a Catholic society, the first two have faced political circumstances which reduce certain outcomes to decidedly improbable events. (It is in the interest of professional campaign hacks to pretend otherwise, but we do not have to pay attention to their self-promotion).

    Previous presidential candidates who faced circumstances the most similar to John McCain’s were Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey (the notable differences being that the economy had been much more bouyant, the running sore of a war was a great deal bloodier, and there was no banking crisis).

    As for Dole’s situation, consider: the economy is vigorous, a portion of your constituency has been sheared off by a 3d party candidate, and most of the public is curiously unconcerned (in and out of season) that the incumbent and his minions are forever concealing the muck by hiding it behind a bigger pile of muck.

    Now consider Romney. What is he doing in electoral politics and why has he abased himself? You think it might be because he is a competitive (or ambitious) man?

  • I don’t understand why so called conservatives are ideological free traders.

    Students of economics of a variety of descriptions tend to oppose impediments to foreign trade for the following reasons:

    1. Tariffs induce efficiency losses;
    2. You can through international treaty effect mutual reductions in tariffs.
    3. Trade restrictions generate politically determined rents which induce a mobilization of constituency groups to defend them.
    4. Countries with a vigorous civil service and extensive record-keeping do not need them to obtain revenue.

  • “I don’t understand why so called conservatives are ideological free traders.”

    Everyone should be a free trader regardless of ideology. Thinking liberals (Bill Clinton, President Obama, and even Paul Krugman) are also free traders.

    “But, regardless, how is Santorum saying we should lower taxes on manufacturers protectionist, while I doubt anyone would say lowering regulations on manufacturers is protectionist. The fact is that both are or neither are.”

    There’s a big difference. Reducing many regulations saves money for all parties. Subsidies (which is what special tax breaks are) cost money. We just got rid of the ethanol subsidy but now Santorum wants to add a manufacturing subsidy.

    Maybe you believe the Keynesian notion that the subsidies will create so many jobs that it’ll be worth the price. Maybe you believe that Santorum can multiply fish just as Democrats believe Obama can. Maybe it’ll work, maybe it won’t. That’s the risk of central planning. Better to apply the same taxes across the board and let the free market allocate. Santorum says he’s picking manufacturing because other industries can’t move overseas. First, that’s not even true. But more importantly, why does that even matter? If under a fair tax system, China still has a comparative advantage in manufacturing, let it move. This is Wealth of Nations 101.

  • They tell us the army is always fighting the last war. I wonder if that can be applied to the political system for 2012 and beyond. The Congress has stymied any progress on the debt reduction and has made no serious effort to create the jobs, re-boot the tax and economic system to help the US out of the hole that was dug, not really an issue by whom or how back then but what about now. The control of Congress by statesmen, not a continuation of the current session’s “nah nah nah nah” spooked by the Soros and Co Tea Bagger too-powerful lobbying interest. As I look back at the nation I just left after 47.5 years, I do not see the POTUS as being the real need for reform, although 44 is a bust given all that faced him and how he set priorities and rammed the dubious health bill through with no understanding of its almost 3000 page detail. I wish there were the same opportunity Europe had by getting technocrats to fix the Greek and Italian economic crises, booting their two PMs so that some of the nasty is off the table. As to longing for “good old days” humans have a natural tendency to see it as bright and rosy while iignoring the dark side, nor not even knowing how weak, flawed human nature was also at work there also!

  • RR, I’ll give you credit for being honest. You don’t mind those jobs going to China.

    I simply think it’s common sense to encourage manufacturing at a time when our trade deficit is so deep and the middle class is shrinking. It’s a sound conservative policy goal.

    And a tax break for manuf. is hardly central planning in the sense we think of central planning. It’s no more central planning than this country has ever engaged in.

  • “If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not therby be diminished… but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage.”

    – Wealth of Nations

    Another way of looking at tax breaks for manufacturing is as tax disadvantages for non-manufacturing. There will be more investment in manufacturing and less in non-manufacturing. It’s a centrally planned allocation of resources into a less efficient configuration.

  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Thursday Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • In March of last year the Boston Globe quoted Rick Santorum telling a group of right-wing Catholics that he was “frankly appalled” that America’s first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, once said “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” In characterization, Santorum went further by saying “That was a radical statement,” and did “great damage.” And Santorum concluded, “We’re seeing how Catholic politicians, following the first Catholic president, have followed his lead, and have divorced faith not just from the public square, but from their own decision-making process.”

    Santorum may insist that he is a better Catholic then I am and a better man to be president than John F. Kennedy, but just as freely I view him as a religious bigot that neither speaks for me in matters or conscience nor political affairs. And further, were he to gain the power of the presidency by successfully painting the people’s consideration with his brand of religious fanaticism, it would do “great damage” to our land.

    And frankly, in words of comparative disparagement that Lloyd Bentsen directed at Dan Quayle in their 1988 vice-presidential debate, “Rick Santorum, you’re no John F. Kennedy.”

  • Considering that JFK was a serial adulterer Sam, I’d say that JFK didn’t even impose his religious beliefs on himself. The idea that a leader can, or should, not allow his religious beliefs to help guide him in regard to policy decisions is simple rubbish. Look at Lincoln’s magisterial Second Inaugural Address. Are you seriously going to argue that Lincoln was not influenced by his religious beliefs when he wrote that, or that it was a bad thing that he was? The beliefs of a president can be good or bad, but the idea that he can wall off his religious beliefs and that they will have no impact on what he does as President is simply both impossible and rubbish. As for your calling Santorum a bigot, that is merely your way of saying that you have beliefs that do not coincide with his. Welcome to the wonderful world of political disagreement!

  • I believe those who attack true conservatives like Rick Santorum for daring to say the US needs to have a manufacturing base. Claiming it’s ‘protectionist’ or ‘statist’? Yet these same types are silent when it comes to China, India, Latin America, Canada and all other countries subsidize their manufacturers, hit US goods with high tariffs, and act in ways that are truly protectionist. I have to say, I believe those who do so, are NOT conservatives, nor are they Catholic or conservative in any way. They sound like the Marxists who demand the US economy be ransacked, bled dry, it’s citizen’s be rendered into third world poverty, and looted of their rights and freedoms. Rick Santorum’s plan is to eliminate the US manufacturing corporate tax, cut other corporate taxes by 50%, reduce other tax rates, including personal income tax to the pro-growth Reagan era taxes of 10% & 28%, eliminate the marriage penalty taxes, provide research and development incentives, and so on. Santorum’s Made in America jobs plan is very in depth and on his campaign web site.

    As Catholics, we know Christ’s teachings, and it is in NO way Christian to rationalize the economic genocide being imposed upon US citizens, and it is in no way Christian or conservative to insist that the US be deprived of it’s own economic independence, and it’s citizens ability to live instead of starving and becoming homeless.

  • I never contributed a dime to a political campaign in my life. I just send money to Rick Santorum’s campaign. Just a good feeling.

  • Wayne – the Democrats have a public speaker? Who’s that? I’m mean someone who can speak without the aid of a teleprompter telling him what to say.

  • Mary, LOL free traders are Marxists? LOL.
    Capitalism is “economic genocide?” LOL.

    You guys need your own party.

  • Talking to liberals I found that without exception they all believe Santorum wants to ban sodomy, contraception, and masturbation despite the fact that he’s said just the opposite. They confuse his statements against Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut to mean that he’s for bans. It’s a failure of education. People seem to think the Supreme Court is another legislature. I do think Santorum can make his position clearer though. Sometimes he gets so confrontational that he’s more concerned with making a philosophical point than campaigning.

  • Talking to liberals I found that without exception they all believe Santorum wants to ban sodomy, contraception, and masturbation despite the fact that he’s said just the opposite. They confuse his statements against Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut to mean that he’s for bans. It’s a failure of education.

    It is not a failure of education. Something John Leo said about reporters some time ago applies here: they think with templates. No amount of education is going to penetrate in most cases.

  • Do the liberals believe President Santorum will deploy black helicopters to enforce his tyrannical bans on nose-picking, farting, and belching?

    Here is a paraphrase of a Twain quote on congressmen. Suppose you were an idiot. And, suppose you were a liberal. But, I repeat myself.

    Twain also knew reporters: “If you don’t read the papers, you are uniformed. If you read the papers, you are misinformed.” Truth.

  • Outside of pro-life issues, what has Rick Santorum done? What is his executive experience? What has he lead?
    He was elected to Congress at 32 and has spent all that time in Washington. When he was defeated he remained Washington at a policy think.
    Santorum has clearly demonstrated he is Pro-Life. That is a good first step. But to be the natnion’s chief executive, he needs some executive experience. If he were elected Governor, then he would obtain that experience.
    Also[, we followed the logic that the longest running candidate should be President, then it would belong to Ron Paul.

  • If you feel that way, I’m sure you didn’t vote for the Obama,did you?!

  • Show’s over, folks. Any candidate who favors cutting Social Security benefits is simply unelectable. And as a Pennsylvanian I can tell you, this is his style – in a few days one of his aides will get to him and explain how dumb that position is, and he’ll reverse himself.

  • “Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, says changes should include a higher eligibility age to qualify for Social Security benefits, and tighter restrictions on benefits for upper-income people. Americans now qualify for reduced Social Security benefits at age 62 and full benefits at 66, soon to rise to 67.

    Social Security pays proportionately higher benefits to low-income people. But Santorum says wealthy retirees’ proportionate benefits should be trimmed further. He did not offer details.

    This week, he told New Hampshire audiences that Americans over 65 were society’s poorest age group in 1937, when Social Security was created. Now that group is the wealthiest, he said.

    He also noted that Americans now live much longer, putting far bigger demands on the government retirement program.

    Santorum offers only modest details on how he would implement his proposed changes. He has not said how much money he hopes to save.

    In a brief interview Friday as he plowed his way through a crowd after the Keene event, he was asked if the nation should make the changes now.

    “I think we should, yeah,” Santorum said. “Obviously we’re going to have to go through a debate next year and figure out ways in which to make the revenues meet the expenditures.”

    He tells voters he would rule out higher taxes or more deficit spending to help the Social Security program. That leaves benefit cuts as the only way to match revenues and costs, he notes.

    Santorum’s call for immediate benefit cuts puts him at odds with his Republican rivals.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who came under fire for calling Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme,” tried to recover in part by emphasizing that any changes in benefits would not affect current or soon-to-be retirees.

    Rep. Ron Paul of Texas says younger workers should be able to opt out of Social Security taxes and retirement benefits. “My plan explicitly protects the elderly and the sick in the transition,” he says.

    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has said in a statement, “We must keep the promises made to our current retirees: their Social Security and Medicare benefits should not be affected.”

    Like Santorum, Romney has called for increasing the eligibility age for Social Security and slowing benefits to high-income recipients. His aides have said the pace of change has yet to be decided, but soon-to-be beneficiaries would not be affected.

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls for giving younger workers the option of diverting Social Security taxes to private retirement accounts. Some independent groups say his proposal, which is based on a Chilean program and does not anticipate automatic benefit cuts, is unduly optimistic.

    President Barack Obama last year discussed possible reductions in Social Security benefits as part of a large debt-reduction deal with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. The talks collapsed, however.

    The Romney and Gingrich campaigns had no immediate comment Friday on Santorum’s proposals.

    A House Republican budget-cutting plan, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would exempt everyone now over 55 from proposed reductions in Social Security benefits.

    Ryan and others have said a phased-in change would give Americans time to plan their retirements without surprises. But Santorum says those officials are seeking political cover by delaying their proposed changes.

    “That’s why you see Paul Ryan saying, ‘Oh, I’m going to fix Social Security, I’m going to fix Medicare in 10 years,'” Santorum told a crowd Thursday in Northfield, N.H.

    He said Ryan assumes, “well, if you’re under 55, you won’t be paying much attention, right? Well, the problem is, this is not a problem that we can wait 10 years to solve.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7O34Bpp42k-IlMMNiOLBkYF2zNw?docId=b1cff9ecefe24ca6ae1764a09761e361

    Santorum rises in my esteem as to bluntly honesty. Only the willfully blind or the terminally obtuse can look at the numbers and not realize that social security will have to be adjusted, and sooner rather than later.

  • Show’s over, folks. Any candidate who favors cutting Social Security benefits is simply unelectable.

    Well, Mary Elizabeth, you unelectors are in for a rude surprise when the sovereign default hits.

  • Romney now trading at his highest point ever on Intrade, including in South Carolina where he’s given an 80% chance of winning.