"Not worth getting angry about"?!

Astounding. At 3:00 in, Romney provides indisputable proof that he is the last person we should entrust with an Obamacare repeal:

 

On Twitter, Campion1581 nailed it: 

“First of all, it's not worth getting angry about.” Breathtaking. In a just world, this would finish Mitt's candidacy.

Watch the whole clip if you missed it. It's clear that Romney really doesn't have a problem with a government takeover of health care. He's a technocrat who believes government is the solution, not the problem. That's why its expansion into health care isn't "worth getting angry about." In one little sentence, he revealed himself as a patronizing, tone-deaf, establishment RINO devoid of core conservative values. He's everything the Tea Party opposes. Peter Robinson:

Liberty--liberty--"not worth getting angry about."  That would have come as news to certain residents of Massachusetts, including John Hancock, John Adams, and, come to think of it, all those who participated in the very first tea party.

Rick Santorum gets it and can articulate it. He is angry about it. Too bad Blitz cut the argument off and sent in the clown. If Michele Bachmann had been there, she would have torn Romney apart for that remark.

***

George Neumayr on Romney:

Romney continues to appear as a more handsome and taller GOP version of Michael Dukakis -- the bloodless and visionless technocrat who, as Newt suggests, just wants to "manage the decay" in Washington, D.C. [. . .]

The Republican establishment has been working overtime to hoodwink GOP voters into overlooking the ideological differences between Romney and Newt, trotting out Big Tenters with zero expertise on conservatism to claim that Newt is not "conservative." Against an immutable standard of conservatism, he is not, but next to Romney he looks like Edmund Burke.

The establishment never fails to choose the more liberal of two leading candidates. The boys from the yacht club have once again decided to lose with a semi-reformed RINO.

Read the whole thing.

***

Bonus: Busted:



***

Doug Hagin on Santorum's evisceration of Romney:

WOW! Good for Santorum! I wish he had a chance, but, again, it seems that the GOP in incapable of nominating anyone with any real principles

Technically speaking, it's impossible for a droid like Romney to be eviscerated. That would require viscera. But I get Doug's drift.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Newt fatigue

I don't much care whether Newt supported or attacked Reagan in the 80's, or what Bob Dole thinks of him. By now, Newt is a known quantity, and even his promise of a moon colony by 2020, or his admission that he made up that self-righteous claim of offering the testimony of friends to ABC to refute the "open marriage" charges, doesn't tell us anything new about him. He can act and talk like a conservative when he wants to, or he can do the opposite. He's full of himself and his multi-step "solutions." And in the debates, he alternates between the poles of the statesman who's above it all and the attack dog going for the jugular. It may be fun to watch for a while. But the drama can also be draining. How long before Newt fatigue sets in?

Linked at MichelleMalkin.com -- thanks!
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Adulthood deferred

As a follow-up to the news that the NEA endorses raising the high school "dropout age" to 21 (h/t to David Freddoso and The Future of Capitalism), thereby holding their failures hostage and keeping them from full-time employment or job training programs for three years beyond the current maximum sentence, I thought I'd post this letter from the advice columns:

DEAR AMY:

Our son came back to live with us three years ago after completing his PhD. He has living quarters on the lower level of our home. He is 30 years old and we feel he should have some privacy, so he can come and go as he pleases.

He helps his father out around the house when asked, but he does not contribute to the house fund. However, he does buy food every now and then.

We do not need his money so we are comfortable with the way things are financially. The only thing we have asked of him is that when a friend comes over we would like him to introduce the friend to us out of respect.

One solution: Go back to arranging playdates for junior. No doubt the doting parents can scare up a couple of thirty-something MAs or EdDs from the neighbors' basements.

Amy's answer, in part:

Your son may tell dates that the older couple shouting, “Yoo hoo,” from the upper window of his bachelor pad are the caretakers on his modest estate. And you are, in a way.

He might be embarrassed to reveal that he is living with Mom and Dad.

I doubt it. Anyway, what I take away from that vignette is that the "kids" and the nanny state aren't the only ones to blame for gen-whatever's loss of interest in adulthood.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Obama's school daze [updated]

It's a good thing Obama alternates between red and blue ties from year to year. Otherwise it would be almost impossible to distinguish one SOTU from another:



He always presents a laundry list of destructive government programs we have no money to pay for and that have little or no chance of coming to fruition; they're designed for the campaign trail. This year was no different. But new this time, I think, is a typically statist scheme for, er, improving public education:

We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

Problem solved! But isn't there an easier way? Why not skip the compulsory attendance, which we all know isn't the answer and would most likely be counter-productive, and simply issue an edict declaring all 18 year-olds officially "educated"?

James Joyner on Obama's bright idea:

Or, as I summarized it, “A law requiring belligerent, stupid 17-year-olds to stay in school and ruin it for everybody.” My guess is that the policy, if enacted, would have little impact on educating the segment of the population that would otherwise drop out. And I fear it will both lead to real distraction from the students motivated to be there and lead to yet more lowering of standards to ensure people “graduate.”

The desire to somehow force (through parental fines, perhaps?) unwilling teens to stay in school so that more of them will get their hands stamped is perfectly consistent with the statist push to lengthen the school day and the school year and to make state-run preschool the norm for all children. Now they're just going after the other end.

I've seen enough illiterate and near-illiterate 18 year-olds to know that thirteen years of school attendance doesn't guarantee an educated person in the end. If only it were that simple. Kids can't be forced to learn. But that's too nuanced a concept for the statist mind, which is always inclined to use force to achieve its goals.

See also:

Andrew Cline: Obama and American Greatness

We have gone from “the sacred flame of liberty” to “we get each other’s backs.” It gives new meaning to the epithet, “President Downgrade.”

Jonah Goldberg: Uh . . .

Here's the transcript of Mitch Daniels' Republican response (video here), which is getting rave reviews from conservative pundits. For the record, Daniels does reiterate his infamous "truce" on social issues with this: "Any other disagreements we have can wait."

***

From Bruce McQuain of The Conservatory, an excellent breakdown of Obama's energy claims, "a legion of contradictions, shaded truth and outright fiction."

***

Back to the drop-out issue. David Freddoso wondered why Obama would push a federal truancy law and found an answer:

More importantly, why did this come up in a State of the Union speech? As with many political proposals, Ockham's razor applies here. A crucial Obama political ally has something to gain from it. Ira Stoll notes:

Wikipedia, in an entry on "raising of school leaving age (often shortened to ROSLA)" reports that 15 states and the District of Columbia have already raised their dropout age to 18. And it has the kicker that helps explain what may be a factor motivating Mr. Obama on this one: "The National Education Association, the main teachers' union in the United States, advocates requiring students to earn a high school diploma or stay in school until age 21."

I read that sentence in Wikipedia and thought to myself, "oh, that explains it." A Bloomberg article has details, including the news that the teachers themselves estimate that the compulsory education until 21 plan would cost an additional $1 billion a year, much of which would naturally be spent on unionized teachers paying dues to unions that reliably support Democratic candidates.

21. Unreal.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Party on, America

Via Ace of Spades, a real live tweet from Team Obama:

@BarackObama Barack Obama

Are you hosting a #SOTU2012 watch party? Get your cameras ready and send us your best pics—we can’t wait to see them.

Linked by Larwin -- thanks!

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Seriously, President Obama?

Not since his minions handed out lab coats at a White House Obamacare rally has Barack Obama committed such a lame or electorate-insulting act of political theater. But it's just part of the class war he must wage if he's to get re-elected. Code word: fairness. Politico:

Billionaire Warren Buffett's longtime secretary will be joining first lady Michelle Obama in her box at tonight's State of the Union, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer announced on Twitter.

Debbie Bosanek, who has worked for Buffett for nearly two decades, has become a symbol in the White House's fight over the tax code and economic fairness. Obama is expected to renew his push for the so-called "Buffett rule" that would bring investment taxation levels into line with income taxation levels — and ensure that upper income earners pay rates as high as middle-class Americans.

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett," President Obama said in September, when he unveiled his American Jobs Act proposal. It's a trope that Buffett himself has repeated, as he has campaigned for higher taxes on investment income.

It's common practice for presidents to invite guests to sit next to the first spouse that fit with the theme of their address — and Bosanek's presence is a big hint that the address will tilt heavily towards economic issues of fairness.

Wasn't there something else about Warren Buffett in the news today? Oh yeah, here it is: Obama buddy Warren Buffett to benefit from Keystone XL pipeline cancellation

And who will not benefit? Hard-working Americans. Listen to or read what this truck driver and former Obama supporter had to say yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh show:

The tipping point for me was Newt Gingrich, what he said a few days ago, something I would have really been very angry with and almost insulted by. He said that Obama's decision regarding this pipeline was stunningly stupid. And I could not disagree with that, because this pipeline, in addition to the fact that it's automatically gonna bring a lot of jobs, without a doubt help the economy, it's gonna have an immediate impact on the price of things. Impact on the price of gas, which in my industry is enormous. People don't understand how the price of fuel affects everything that they pay for, from food to any good that they get. But the bottom line is that this man, because of what I can clearly see as politics to support these environmental people, he is willing to destroy this country, destroy the economy, it's a no-brainer in terms of getting away from dependence on the foreigners, foreign oil. And I just cannot in good conscience continue to hurt my family in the amount that I'm paying for fuel, groceries, and everything else. I cannot in good conscience support this man when this is obviously political because it would have helped this country and the economy. So I want to say that I'm finally seeing the light and I'm done with him.

My emphasis added. Read the whole thing.

I find it almost physically impossible to watch the demagogue in action so I'll stick with Netflix reruns tonight. (Things are really heating up between Andy and Helen Crump -- how will it end?)

Linked by Michelle Malkin -- thanks!
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Debate #18, plus Sarah Palin

I didn't watch it. 9:00 pm is too late a start for this early bird. (Brian Williams would have sent me to dreamland within the first five minutes, anyway.) I gather it wasn't the battle of the titans so many had hoped for. But I think Romney scored a palpable hit here:



Santorum's moment here. Of course he's right. Does it matter?

But if you want real entertainment, watch Sarah Palin cut Chris Christie off at the knees, mom-style:



Poor Chris!

(The Right Scoop has the entire Palin interview here.)

***

Update: I just read some of the transcript of the Palin interview. She was quite serious about that "rookie mistake":

I think if Chris were asked about some of his past actions, taking a state helicopter to his kid’s baseball game, some people may say, well, that sort of embarrassed your party, Chris. And he would then be on the receiving end of a comment that maybe he wished that somebody kept as an inside thought and not blasting that to the rest of the nation. He’s been in office a year or two is all, and he’ll learn that the media goad you.  They want you to say things like that in order to boost ratings and make it more of a reality show-type scenario that we’re watching in the GOP primary.  And a comment like that just kind of played right on into that narrative.”

He just produced an ad for the Democrats.

She goes on to defend Newt's record, back in the day, of conservative action. At least he's got something to point to, which is more than you can say for Romney.

***

See comments on whether Newt has actually embarrassed the Republican party, assuming it's capable of being embarrassed.

***

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Video: Steyn with Michael Coren

Two clips:

On the GOP primary debacle:


On 'women and children first':


Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

39 years of "fulfilling our dreams" through abortion

Barack Obama on the glorious anniversary of Roe v Wade:

And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

This Gary Graham column from 2009 will provide a reminder of how abortion has made some men's dreams come true.

As for our daughters, Elizabeth Scalia writes:

In Obama’s world, our daughter’s happiness depends upon having these options at their disposal, literally and figuratively. Because love, and the sneaky way it has of showing up whenever a baby is born and then complicating everything, (because it is meaningful and real) is an insufficient vehicle for the fulfillment of women, and their self-actualization.

Arise, daughters of America, and build your dreams upon the slaughter of your progeny; some say the fullness of our humanity was built upon the flesh and blood of one woman who said “yes” to a daunting and difficult proposal, but I say your fulfillment, your dreams and your future are better built upon the garbage heaps of “no” we’ve encouraged you to form out of your own flesh-and-blood in the empty landfills of government compassion, hope and change.

Because “yes we can,” is all about the hope and change that’s built on our emphatic “noes”. No, to life. No, to conscience. No, to compassion that is not mandated. No, to assistance given by any but government. No, to any power greater than ourselves and our glorious government.

“I don’t want them punished with a baby”

Moloch couldn’t have said it more cunningly.

Read the whole thing.

As for how that safe-n-legal thing is working out for everyone, see Mark Steyn's column from a year ago, Big Government's Back Alley; more recent news of butchers who collect baby parts and let women bleed out; and just a couple of days ago, Jill Stanek's coverage of two more botched abortions. Oremus.

My husband and two three of the kids (forgot about my oldest who's there with friends) are at the March for Life on this cold, rainy day. If they brought the camera, and if they took pictures, and if they got any good ones, I'll post them here. 

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

A much bigger 'oops'

Philip Klein comments on the sad state of the Republican race:

Over the next few weeks, or months, Gingrich will argue that Romney isn't conservative and isn't as electable as the establishment will have you believe, while Romney will argue that Gingrich isn't electable and isn't as conservative as he'd have you believe. And they'll both be right.

Rick Santorum, the newly-minted Iowa victor will try to find a seam between the two of them by arguing that he is the choice for consistent conservatism. But he'll run into problems making that argument.

Of course, President Obama is looming in the background in all of this. If he wins, he won't repeal Obamacare or sign real entitlement reform to rein in our debt. He'll raise taxes, expand regulations on businesses, appoint a new wave of liberal judges to the bench and union-friendly appointees to key posts.

One of the miracles of America's founding was that so many great men emerged at once and complemented each other with unique skills. But now, in a time of great crisis, we're stuck with painfully bad choices.

Yup. But it's impossible to compare the process of electing a president now to what it was two centuries ago, or even to fifty years ago when television changed everything. Huge piles of money are now crucial to success, and media scrutiny is so intense that not many persons, even great ones, are willing to subject themselves or their families to its pitiless glare.

Now for a bit of dead-horse-beating. As for the might-have-runs who chose not to offer themselves as candidates this time around, none of them had the complete Rick Perry package: genuine conservative principles, a long record of successful leadership, and a temperament suited to the office. And none of them was without his own negatives. To name a few: Mitch Daniels: "truce," bald, family problems; Bobby Jindal: dull; Chris Christie: too fat, RINO-esque, arrogant; even Paul Ryan: inexperienced. And who knows how the fickle at-home viewers would have rated their debate performances? Perry's notorious oops (and the resultant disproportionate, magnifying spin) was the biggest factor in his failure to attract support. Amid all the attention, little serious discussion was given to what kind of president he was likely to have been, based on his extensive record. His flop was an enormous win for Obama.

Now we're looking at a couple of guys with towering negatives, some of which may constitute deal-breakers for some conservative voters. Come November and beyond, when this American Idol-esque nomination process has borne its strange fruit, Perry's "oops" may look very tiny in comparison to the one uttered by the rest of us.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.