Looking for Mr. Darcy

Tim Carney likens Mitt Romney to Jane Austen's odious Mr. Collins:

So why is the GOP moving toward this man? It seems almost inexplicable.

In Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice," the dull Mr. Collins had little in his favor except that he stood to inherit the estate of Mr. Bennett. Young Lizzie Bennett, far too self-respecting and intelligent to consign herself to such a fate, spurned Mr. Collins' marriage proposal. But three days later, Lizzie was stunned to learn that her friend Charlotte Lucas had accepted a proposal from Mr. Collins.

"When you have had time to think over," Charlotte told Lizzie, "I hope you will be satisfied with what I have done. I am not romantic, you know; I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins' character, connection, and situation in life, I am convinced that chance of happiness with his is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state."

The Republicans are Charlotte Lucas, and Mitt Romney is their Mr. Collins. Republicans are serial settlers when it comes to the presidency. Almost every time, GOP primary voters pick the "respectable," connected and seemingly safe pick.

But it's not too late. We must respond firmly, as Elizabeth Bennet does to Mr. Collins, "You are too hasty, sir! You could not make me happy! My feelings forbid it in every respect!"



Read the rest. Why do conservatives think Collins is the guy to defeat the unscrupulous Wickham? It makes no sense. Carney:

Of course, the Right's case against Romney could fill a book, with transgressions in nearly every aspect of the conservative catechism. He was steadfastly pro-choice in the past. He wrote the prototype of Obamacare. He supported the bank bailouts. As governor, he favored gun control and proudly instituted greenhouse gas restraints.

And it's not as if Romney is a political natural with the campaign skills to take down Obama. He's a rich guy visibly uncomfortable around regular people and embarrassingly awkward when he tries to seem normal (search YouTube for "Romney" and "who let the dogs out"). When challenged in debates, he takes on a look of indignation. Mike Huckabee put it best four years ago: "People want a president who looks like the guy you work with and not the guy who laid you off."

It's true there's no Mr. Darcy out there. (Paul Ryan or Mike Pence might have been able to play that role.) Rick Perry may not make our hearts go pitter-pat but at least he can validly claim he's a conservative. Romney can't do that.

Hat tip: KMH

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

Into the quicksand

How does a man defend himself against charges that some of his words and gestures have "upset and offended" women he worked with more than ten years ago? With great difficulty. It must feel something like trying to claw your way out of quicksand. Politico:

The sources — which include the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

As to the mysterious gestures, Ann Coulter wants to know, "Well, what were they then?"

  

Jeffrey Lord remembers:  

The last time this kind of story was deserving of keeping somebody from high office, strangely enough that target turned out to be a black conservative man as well.

So. Do we have this right?

We can't have a conservative black man in the Oval Office because he was once accused by anonymous women of "inappropriate behavior"?

But we can give a pass and an attaboy to a liberal white man who was actually in the Oval Office when accused of infinitely worse behavior by said multiples of women? Including, say again, rape? And now everybody just has a big ole laugh about it all at said ex-president's 65th birthday when Lady Gaga shakes her booty at Bill and everybody roars?

Yes indeed. That does appear to be the game.

Alas, too many people have seen this movie. So they already know what to call this.

High Tech Lynching of an Uppity Conservative Black man.

The Sequel.

Some are contending that a conservative candidate must be behind this. If so, those damaging details will be revealed soon enough by the liberal media, who would delight in knocking out two candidates with one stone. Or perhaps the plot could get even thicker? DTG speculates:

If it turns out another campaign was pushing this story I don’t think the tea party right will forget or forgive this. There is an obvious suspect but because there is such an obvious suspect it’s not impossible that a different campaign pushed it to take out both Cain and the obvious suspect.

I'm not sure whether he means Romney or Perry. It would be an incredibly stupid thing for any of the candidates to do. Patterico:

A lot of speculation will be this was Team Perry sticking a fork in Cain’s eyeball.  Team Romney might be a less likely suspect, given concern the story might ultimately benefit Perry — but maybe the Romney camp thinks Perry is too damaged to benefit.  In that scenario, Romney could win the Iowa caucus and wrap up the nomination quick.

And then the liberal media will loose the hounds on Romney. If they can find nothing else they'll go after his religion.

***

See Michael Harlin (emphasis added):

So then, how does one "defend" himself after making a confidential settlement? Answer: you can't under these circumstances. And that's why this is a "when did you stop beating your wife?" scenario. There's no way to win and the implication is inherently prejudicial to Mr. Cain.

Attorneys settle cases all the time under confidential terms. I certainly have. The point is of settlement, instead of taking the risks of litigation which is as certain as a crap game no matter how innocent you are, a reasonable party will pay to make it "go away." Does this mean culpability? Of course not! It means that instead of paying attorneys buckets of money to defend spurious claims, you pay to settle. It is the cost of living in this litigious world. And settlements of this type are routine in this country and are happening every day.

I have not made up my mind about any Republican candidate yet. But to hear and read this insinuation of accusations makes me boil as Mr. Cain can't possibly defend. I believe his best response is, "under the terms of the settlement, I am not allow to respond." If his wife Gloria wants to, she probably can respond. And I'll bet you she says something to the effect that "I stand by my husband." And what will the liberal media do with that? As they always have done. Smirk, smile and leave Mr. Cain as another "drive by victim." This simply has to stop. It is time to address ideas and not bargained for settlements. And the only way for this to stop is for conservatives to embrace Mr. Cain, whether we will vote for him or not, and support him in this time of big splash headlines by the media for their own sake.

Right.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the Buzzworthy link.
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Music break: Where or When

Slow and gorgeous, 1958:


Swingin', 1966:


Rodgers and Hart, 1937

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

Herman Cain explains Planned Parenthood to Bob Schieffer

Herman Cain still can't make up his mind about those abortion exceptions. In case you're trying to keep score, three days ago he was okay with them; today he tells Bob Schieffer the exact opposite (video here). Sigh.

But I love what Cain tells Schieffer about Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger. Via Newsbusters:

SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you since we're on the subject of abortion, there was at one point back there when the question of Planned Parenthood came up and you said that it was not planned parenthood, it was really planned genocide because you said Planned Parenthood was trying to put all these centers into the black communities because they wanted to kill black babies before they were born.

CAIN: Yes.

SCHIEFFER: You still stand by that?

CAIN: I still standby that.

SCHIEFFER: Do you have any proof that that was the objective of Planned Parenthood?

CAIN: If people go back and look at the history and look at Margaret Sanger's own words that's exactly where that came from. Look up the history. If you go back and look up the history. Secondly, look at where most of them were built. 75 percent of those facilities were built in the black community and Margaret Sanger's own words, she didn't use the word genocide, but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born.

SCHIEFFER: So you would not see any advantage to having young mothers get counsel and advice that Planned Parenthood could give them? I mean, with so many black babies born out of wedlock?

CAIN: There are a lot of centers that offer sincere counseling rather than Planned Parenthood claiming to be those centers when in fact they would rather for the young lady to come in and say they want to get an abortion and facilitate that. Plenty of centers out there genuinely do that. What I'm saying is Planned Parenthood isn't sincere about want to go try to counsel them not to have abortions.

Wow. Excellent.

Also in the interview, Schieffer, with the moral superiority granted unto him as a Cancer Survivor, demands that Cain tell American youth, seduced by the irresistible coolness of Mark Block, that smoking is bad.

The new Joe Camel.

***

Many thanks to Mark Steyn for the link. Welcome, Corner readers!

***

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

Video: Perry argues for smaller government

Talking with Chris Wallace about the flat tax, Gov. Rick Perry proposes that starving the beast is a pretty good idea:

There's nothing wrong with lower revenue. I think Americans are ready for Washington DC to quit spending money that they don't have. [. . .]

I don't want more revenue in Washington DC's hands. I want more revenue in the private sector job creators' hands and in American citizens out there. I guarantee you they'll make better decisions about how to spend that money than Washington DC will. 

It sounds like he gets it. Via The Right Scoop, here's the entire interview, which is worth watching:



Then there's Romney, whose record as governor of Massachusetts can't be called conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Conservatives who think they know how he'd behave as president are basing those assumptions, I guess, not on his record but on his rhetoric, tailored to this race and this political moment. I don't know why they believe him:

“It’s like a box of chocolates, you don’t know what you’re going to get. Frankly, there’s a bunch of people who are tired of getting a box of chocolates.”

Or maybe they don't believe him but are supporting him out of fear that he alone can beat Obama. Don't bet on it.

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

Surprisingly good posts

"Newtworld," then and now
In which Mark Steyn quotes Yours Truly on the Rush Limbaugh Show
Getting Know Where: Public school vs. homeschooling
Wanted: Candidate willing to forgo the perks
Not serious
Adulthood undermined
"Flirting" in the digital age
Culture watch: Love songs endangered
The sexualization of childhood continues
Baby-boomers failed to plant their gardens
Parenting wars: The case for unconditional love
Columnist not in the mood to celebrate
NYC: A dangerous place for the unborn
Thirty (or so) favorite quotes of 2010
Someone tell Tina Fey that some of her fans are conservatives
Obama trips over his ego in Asia
The trauma is Obama!
Kagan as Cougar?
Porn is bad
Brooks on the ignorant masses
What not to wear to a Medal of Honor award ceremony
Tuscan kale in every pot
Chappaquiddick was funny?
Disrespecting the office
Babies are potentially human
The end of men
Burnished and beautiful arms of Michelle O
Lookin' for love in all the wrong places
Maybe you should get married
O's manipulation dream team
Facing the reality of Obama
Wanted: People for 'Dirty Jobs'
Questioning the role of schools in promoting self-esteem
The Obama meltdown
Obama and Churchill, part 2
Joe Biden, punchline
CIA gives blue pills to chieftains
The first lady's assets
See the USA in your Chevrolet
Tired of Mr. Right


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

Cain on abortion: the epilogue

After considerable confusion, Herman Cain said he was "100% pro-life. End of story."

But the saga continues as Cain's views on abortion continue to evolve:

When pressed by CNN on his position, however, a campaign adviser said Cain follows the same policy used by the George W. Bush administration, which said abortions should be allowed in the instances of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at stake.

"He has learned more about the issue," including the number of women affected in those instances, the adviser told CNN, explaining Cain's view.

Ace:

The problem is that it's [---damned] scary that he's only recently "learned more about the issue" and apparently didn't bother to think about the so-called "hard case exceptions" until now.

I guess he pretty much just knows 9-9-9, because he doesn't seem to have given a moment's thought to anything else.

There is a big problem in claiming you Know What's In A Candidate's Heart when it's pretty clear the candidate himself doesn't know.

Matthew Archbold:

Learned more about the issue?! What? When? Or do they mean he's got a better chance of getting elected if he touts exceptions?

Anyone else worried about a candidate who's running to be the head of the free world and is still learning the issues? He'd never thought before about abortion in light of cases of rape or incest before? Seriously? Give me a break. I'm thinking Herman Cain saw some polling.

I'm done with this guy. I'm not even going to consider him a serious candidate. It's not just about the exceptions he's touting now, it's that he clearly hasn't thought any of it through.

The guy's a joke.

Politicaljunkie Mom:

No wonder Herman Cain says he’d be Romney’s Veep. He seems to have taken a few flip-flop lessons of his own.

Then there's his lack of knowledge on world affairs. He thinks he can cram for that exam, but I don't think so:

Addressing those who have said he lacks foreign policy knowledge, Cain told Fox News host Sean Hannity, “To those critics, I would say to them, ‘Do you think I’m dumb enough not to study up on these issues?’ I’ve been studying up on these issues for months.”

“I can now explain right of return to any reporter better than they understand right of return because if you get caught off guard, you go to school and you learn,” Cain added.

He said that he been talking to former ambassadors and national security advisers, and speaking to various experts in order “to get up to speed on some of the situations we have around the world.”

Maybe he just needs more sleep? Tina Korbe:

A couple of gaffes on the campaign trail have led Herman Cain’s campaign managers to one conclusion: He needs more sleep. Cain’s confusing comments to Piers Morgan about his stance on abortion and his quickly-retracted remark to Wolf Blitzer in support of a hypothetical exchange of Gitmo prisoners for a single American would never have happened, they say, if the candidate were better rested. [. . .]

Yet, at a recent focus group in Ohio, not a single participant raised a hand in answer to the question, “Do you think this person [Cain] could be president of the United States? Is anybody willing to raise your hand and say, ‘I would be comfortable if he became the next president of the United States?’”

It seems that, for all that potential voters like Cain and are intrigued by him, they’re still not quite sold on him as presidential material. But, from start to finish, Cain has taken his own campaign seriously — and this latest effort to adopt a more deliberate pace is yet another indication of that. Perhaps that will eventually translate into voter confidence in him as not merely an interesting, rather unprecedented frontrunner — but also as a potential president.

P.S. One thing Cain might not have to pace so conscientiously now as in the past is money. The campaign reported a respectable haul of $3 million in the month of October.

So, while he continues to surge, Americans still have serious reservations about his qualifications.

His campaign is spread thin:

He’s carving out an unorthodox — and some say impossible — path to the White House, largely eschewing early voting states to focus heavily on the South — where tea party groups, social conservatives and evangelical voters that make up the backbone of his support hold sway. It’s been weeks since Cain has set foot in Iowa or New Hampshire. Instead, he’s barnstormed through Tennessee and Alabama, states that don’t hold primaries until March.

Perhaps his support, like his organization, may not have much holding it up:

There is simply no precedent for a candidate like Mr. Cain, one with such strong polling but such weak fundamentals. We do have some basic sense that both categories are important. This evidence is probably persuasive enough to say that Mr. Cain’s chances are much less than implied by his polling alone. They may, in fact, be fairly slim.

But slim (say, positing Mr. Cain’s odds at 50-to-1 against) is much different than none (infinity-to-1 against). We don’t know enough about the way these factors interact, and we can’t be sure enough that the way they’ve interacted in the past will continue on into the future, to say that Mr. Cain has no chance or effectively no chance.

But some on the left are taking him seriously enough to go after him in their usual way. Stay tuned.

***
Follow-up: Cain clarifies yet again!

***

Many thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link.
Thanks, also, to Doug Ross for same.
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Will: Romney's "blurry profile in caution"

You've probably already seen what George Will wrote about Mitt Romney:

Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable, he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate: Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the tea party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming. Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from ‘data’ ... Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for THIS?

[Edited to add the link to the entire Will column.]

It's not over yet. Rick Perry may be a lousy debater and weak in certain areas but he's arguably the most qualified and most conservative of the candidates. Here's his latest ad, featuring the voice of Rush Limbaugh, among others:



Bryan Preston has some advice for the Perry campaign:

Perry needs to go retail and talk radio/online media in a big way. Perry should forget the attacks Romney, just deliver his message and explain his record in a disciplined and relentless way. Do multiple daily appearances in Iowa explaining his plans and message to everyday voters, get those appearances captured and posted on YouTube and moved on blogs and social media. Get them in the local newscasts. Run positive issue ads in Iowa and South Carolina.  Attack Obama often, get under his skin and make him respond directly to you. Hit the president on specifics and show where, for instance, Perry’s energy plan will undo the damage Obama is doing and thereby create jobs. As for the debates, attend some, skip some, as the schedule allows, but don’t make an issue of skipping them and don’t let them control the campaign schedule.

Stay tuned.

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

Michelle Obama: "grab somebody by the shoulders and make them understand"

Our gentle first lady, taking it a step or two beyond her husband's "Argue with [your neighbors], get in their face" demands last time around:

The president is facing a very tough re-election campaign, first lady Michelle Obama told audiences at three Florida fundraisers on Thursday.

“This is going to require each of you to grab somebody by the shoulders and make them understand what’s at stake; how their self-interest is directly tied … It’s up to each of you to work like you’ve never worked before,” Mrs. Obama told an afternoon crowd of 200 people at the waterfront Tampa home of property developer Joel Cantor.

She used the same mix of threats and promises at a lunchtime fundraiser in Jacksonville. “This is not a joke. The choices are clear. We need you fired up and ready to go, working hard every minute of the day,” she said at the end of her stump speech. “We don’t have time to joke around. You got to shake people up. You got to get them ready to roll. We can do this.”

The first lady’s alarmist tone is certainly justified by the polls, which show her husband trailing in swing states, low in national surveys, disadvantaged by the national mood and nearly out of time to spur an election-saving economic recovery.

Just to make sure I understand her message: Does our "self-interest" include the well-being of the next generation or two? Or is it all about getting maximum goodies from the government today and letting the chips fall on our grandchildren?

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

Halloween: "Most sexist day"

It seemed like such a good idea, moms using Halloween and their kids to push back against those pesky traditional female roles. Janice D'Arcy of the Washington Post laments the "most sexist day on the American calendar":

Many of us parents spend the rest of the year working to offset cultural stereotypes. We make sure to present strong role models for our girls, kind role models for our sons and share messages that are, generally, gender neutral. But for several days in October (because Halloween has become a week-long extravaganza, has it not?) we dress our girls, or allow them to dress themselves, as princesses, fairies and ballerinas and our boys as soldiers, construction workers and superheroes. It’s the one day when so many of our kids revert back to what our great-grandparents expected they might be.

And that's terrible, because no one knew anything back then, or did anything right.

On Target’s Web site, we can scroll through dozens of costumes whose designers seemed to miss that whole ERA dust-up. Only under the boys section is there a costume category for “occupation.” 

Target offers what sells. They're funny that way. If you want Betty Friedan or Margaret Sanger you'll have to get more creative.

But when you're choosing from among cheapo mass-produced made-in-China designs there's not much out there for the "high-minded."

Ms. D'Arcy decided to go with Wonder Woman for her girls: "I remembered the show as a celebration of female strength and fortitude." But after the costumes arrived in the mail, she figured out that the goofy 70's show was really about Lynda Carter's Wonder-ful body:

By now Lynda Carter was wearing a costume so tight it’d take special powers to breathe. I let the girls watch as she clumsily air-kicked and bear-hugged the male villains. The whole show was a male fantasy of a really big-hearted dominatrix.

Oops.

Ms. D'Arcy lives in a world where it's considered clever to dress your daughter up as "Wise Latina" Justice Sonia Sotomayor. For real. There's no denying that's one scary costume. A bit low on the fun scale, of course, but feminism is serious business.

Suggestion to moms who really want to empower their daughters: Instead of micromanaging and politicizing their choices, why not let them choose what they want to be for Halloween? And if you really want to go retro, let them browse through the lives of the saints for ideas. It's fertile ground for strong role models. St. Joan of Arc, anyone?

Linked at CMR -- many thanks!
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

"A smelly brown residue"

What Obama leaves in his wake:

A group of several dozen “Occupy Las Vegas” protesters camping on Clark County land located under the final approach to Runway 19 at McCarran International Airport today narrowly missed being injured when a 50 lb. slab of “blue ice” reportedly landed within feet of their tents.

According to witnesses, the slab fell to earth seconds after Air Force One passed overhead while landing.

Blue ice is the frozen material formed by leaks in commercial aircraft lavatory waste tanks, a mixture of human waste and vivid blue liquid disinfectant that freezes at high altitude. The ice generally dissipates long before the aircraft lands, but there have been documented cases of blue ice clinging to aircraft surfaces until the aircraft reaches warmer air on approach to landing, then the ice may separate from the aircraft and fall to earth.

Clark County Director of Aviation Randall Walker was immediately notified and dispatched airport personnel to the campsite, but witnesses report that the blue ice had melted by the time officials arrived leaving only a smelly brown residue.

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

Broadening boys' concepts of masculinity through literature

Oh dear. American Girl books author Valerie Tripp is going to oversee the writing of a series of boys' books, but don't expect them to be anything like Little Britches, Treasure Island, or the Hardy Boys mysteries. Those kids' standbys are, like, too old:

"We found the Hardy Boys.” She makes a face. “But they’re, like, 50 years old.”

And they're so outdated, what with their narrow treatment of -- wait for it -- gender and all:

“I really think we want to say that it’s as okay for boys to be into design or dance” as they are into bugs or bicycles, she says. “No interest or passion is the sole property of any one person or gender.” [. . .]

The series will be called “Boys Camp.” It will recount the adventures of six fictional kids who meet at a summer camp, overcome obstacles and share their stories with grade-school readers in clean, middle-grade prose.

Maybe the books will be better than they sound and not so much like a chick flick?

Tripp and her partners in revolution hope that the books will help unbookish boys discover a love of reading and help even the bookish ones broaden their concepts of masculinity.

Methinks someone has an agenda. My favorite part, with emphasis added, from Post writer Monica Hesse:

The question of why (some) boys don’t read is part of the much thornier question of who (some) boys want to be: You can give a boy a tutu — and please do — but some of them are going to whip it off their waists and turn it into a frilly pink war headdress.

Free to be you and me!

The book series is the brainchild of two mothers of boys. It's a hopelessly old-fashioned idea, but I always thought it was a mother's job to civilize her sons and a father's job to make sure she doesn't go too far. Maybe the dads need to get involved in this process? There is such a thing as too much feminine influence.

It may be that the adults quoted in the article are a little too conscious of gender as they search for good kids' fiction. Some girls I know prefer (though only slightly) the Hardy Boys to Nancy Drew. And I've known little boys whose interest was easily held by the first few Little House books, which feature monster blizzards, wild bears, panthers, hostile Indians, and a strong father figure in Pa, who can build a house from scratch and play a mean fiddle at the end of the day.

For some good children's books suggestions, see this list.

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

Rick Perry's good day

Contrary to what others are saying, I think Rick Perry had a pretty good day yesterday.

James Pethokoukis:

Bottom line: If a President Perry could balance the federal budget by 2020 and cap spending at 18 percent of GDP — and if you buy the JDA analysis — the result would be a more financially stable America and a richer America than the current economic and budgetary trajectory would indicate.

Kevin Williamson:

But here’s the thing that gets my attention: Governor Perry has some pretty serious entitlement-reform measures in here: Raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare benefits, changing the indexing formula to CPI rather than wages, giving younger workers at least a partial opt-out into private accounts, block-granting Medicaid, putting Medicare recipients directly in control of their own spending—this would be huge. A Republican president who got nothing else done in a four-year term would be a smashing success in my book if he achieved that kind of entitlement reform. I expect Perry to emphasize taxes, but the entitlement measures are the meat of the Perry proposal, in my view, though there’s a lot of good gravy: repealing Dodd-Frank, procedural reform for spending and regulating, repealing section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, expanding the “Galveston model” (another Social Security opt-out) to most government employees, etc.

Yes, I, too am inclined to scoff at promises to cut $100 billion in non-defense discretionary spending, as though that were something to call an achievement, and I doubt very much that Governor Perry’s proposal would produce an actual balanced budget in the foreseeable future. But getting a big piece of entitlement reform done would be a major victory that would set the fiscal Armageddon clock back significantly. And beginning the process of flattening and simplifying the tax code is worthwhile as well, though the Perry plan does less along those lines than I would like.

Rush Limbaugh: "I, El Rushbo, think is great. It's fabulous. I like it."

Mark Levin: "a great program"

Club for Growth: “massively pro-growth”

Perry's inept joking about the birther issue has provoked some serious negative responses -- "Perry fatally beclowns himself" -- but placed in context, I believe that's an overreaction. See Bryan Preston's Perry didn't "wade into birtherism" and Video: Perry rips reporter on live TV for bringing up birther nonsense.

Perry is hitting Romney exactly where he should be, on his lack of core conservative principles. Mr. Preston again: And Romney re-earns his flipper cred and Perry hits Romney: You can't change from one election to another


And Perry acquitted himself well on Bill O'Reilly's show:



I think the Cain bubble is going to burst soon, through sheer ineptitude, and it will ultimately come down to Romney or Perry. Mitt Romney is a liberal. That leaves Rick Perry.

So enjoy some Perry propaganda. Here's his first TV ad.

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

“The term has broad application and is understood differently.”

The father who cold-bloodedly killed his three daughters and spare wife for compromising his "honor" is on trial in Canada and has no regrets, no tears goodbye:

“I say to myself, ‘You did well.’ Were they to come to life, I would do it again.” 

Mark Steyn:

Think about it: This is a world in which a father and mother sit around the kitchen table with their son plotting how to kill their three daughters. At a certain level, such people are not fully human. 

Embracing evil has that effect. Read Steyn's column and Christie Blatchford's heartbreaking report on the crime and the trial.

Interesting that the very first decision to come out of the Libyan "spring" is the  embrace of sharia law and a lifting of the ban on polygamy:

"The law of divorce and marriage... This law is contrary to sharia and it is stopped," Abdel Jalil said.

His comments have provoked criticism and calls for restraint both in Libya and in Europe, amid fears that the Arab Spring may give rise to a potentially intolerant Islamist resurgence.

Potentially intolerant?

"It's shocking and insulting to state, after thousands of Libyans have paid for freedom with their lives, that the priority of the new leadership is to allow men to marry in secret," said Rim, 40, a Libyan feminist who requested anonymity.

Notice that the "calls for restraint" aren't coming from the Obama administration.  No surprise there:

The Obama administration on Monday treaded carefully around the announcement that Sharia law will be enforced in post-Muammar Qadhafi Libya, refraining from expressing disapproval of Islamic law as the foundation of the country’s new legal system.

“We’ve seen various Islamic-based democracies wrestle with the issue of establishing rule of law within an appropriate cultural context,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters on Monday when quizzed about Libya’s National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil’s declaration on Sunday that Sharia law will shape the country’s legal system.

Nuland added that the “number one” priority for the U.S. was that universal human rights, as well as rights for women, minorities, due process and transparency, be fully respected in Libya.

Pressed on whether this meant the administration had no objections to Libya’s new government using the Sharia law as a basis for the country’s legal system, Nuland responded: “The term has broad application and is understood differently.”

Yes, by the Obama administration; everyone else seems to know exactly what is  meant by "sharia law."

Frankly, the Obama administration doesn't give a damn about human rights. There's something inhuman about that, too.


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

Oakland is no longer occupied; London and New York continue to suffer

It was a dirty job but someone had to do it:

Before dawn Tuesday, at least 200 police, many in riot gear, tore down the Occupy Oakland encampment in front of City Hall and arrested dozens of people. A smaller camp near Lake Merritt was also dismantled.

Early reports from police say the raids went smoothly, with all protesters cleared out of the downtown Frank H. Ogawa Plaza in less than 30 minutes.

After police surrounded the plaza about 4:45 a.m., they began moving in and taking down tents and barricades erected by the group, which had been camped there since Oct. 10 in support of the Occupy Wall Street effort.

Many protesters were handcuffed and led away by police from the camp at 14th Street and Broadway. Many others left on their own.

Meanwhile, St. Paul's Cathedral in London has had to close its doors for the first time since WWII, because the Right Reverend Graeme Knowles naively allowed the rabble to get their collective foot in the door. Charles C. W. Cooke reports:

Never mind that St. Paul’s is not the London Stock Exchange, and that its management is supportive of OLSX’s goals. (The same goes for Zuccotti Park; as one lower-Manhattan resident told me, “They aren’t occupying Wall Street!”) Never mind that the cathedral is one of Britain’s national treasures and is desperately in need of money for maintenance. Never mind that for many of the 99 percent that the “Occupy” movement claims holistically to represent, St. Paul’s is a place of pilgrimage and sanctuary and keen historical significance. As long as the performance continues, all is well. The show must go on!

As it does in NYC, where some local businesspeople employers capitalist pigs get what they deserve:

“If this doesn’t stop soon I will be out of business,” said Marc Epstein, 53, president of Milk Street Cafe on Wall Street, less than a block from the New York Stock Exchange. Sales have dropped about 20 percent since the protests began last month and the 103 jobs created by the cafe’s opening in June are now at risk, said Epstein, who’s not alone. Caroline Anderson, general manager of Boutique Tourbillon, a Wall Street jewelry store, said customer traffic is down about 20 percent, and Vincent Alessi, a managing partner at Bobby Van’s Steakhouse on Broad Street, said his lunch business has been cut in half.

They just "don't understand"?

“These protesters don’t understand the consequences of their actions,” Epstein said. “Who’s going to create the jobs they’re banging their drums for?”

I'm sure some of them certainly do understand. But most of them probably don't give a darn. Mayor Bloomberg's criminally negligent, open-ended tolerance for the OWSers is a business-killer:

“Not only is it affecting my general trade, it’s also affecting my future business,” Jacobs said. “We’ve got inquiries for weddings and exclusive hirings who are now considering taking their business to other restaurants because of the uncertainty of how long this may carry on.”

At what point, if ever, will the mayor decide it's time to do his duty? If I were a New Yorker (heaven forbid) I'd be calling for his impeachment.

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

Occupied minds

As I watch videos of the Occupy encampments and hear the nonsense that flows so freely from the mouths of the "protesters," I think of the gross failure of our public education system and of parents who so eagerly hand their precious young charges over to the schools.

Victor Davis Hanson, in writing about the roots of Occupier angst, supplies a pretty good definition of what it once meant to be educated:

The [college] curriculum was designed to instill inductive thinking. It prepared the student to write well, think, and have a corpus of dates, events, people, and places at his fingertips for reference and elucidation.

But that's all changed:

In other words, for much of the 20th century, college was not that exorbitantly expensive (my hardscrabble grandfather farmer sent all three of his daughters to college, two to Stanford, on the meager profits from 100 acres of raisins in the midst of the Depression). Students emerged literate and mostly disinterested and inductive. The most impressive degrees, of course, were not history or English (much less environmental studies). Instead the palm went to engineering, physics, mathematics, and biology. These were the hard sciences and skills that few of us could master. Social sciences were relatively small enclaves. And while science majors got As in their gut GE anthropology, sociology, and psychology courses, the opposite was not true: the latter majors panicked when forced to take a basic physics or physiology class to graduate.

I note in passing that not only were there no black, Latino, gender, green, film, gay, peace, or leisure studies courses, programs, and empires, but also a general impression that no one would wish to pay for such classes that imparted little real knowledge about the inductive method or the necessary referents of literature, history, and science. So many of these classes were therapeutic. Some were downright accusatory: go back through history and as melodrama point out the bad and good guys (based on present-day liberal standards), or study how modern capitalism should be replaced by a more humane model — in environmental, financial, religious, racial, class, and gender terms.

So here is where the last thirty years all led: to too many students who are indebted, poorly educated, and without skills like high-tech engineering, sophisticated medicine, or computer design that the country needs. They are consumed with contemporary furor as the education bubble of nearly a trillion dollars in debt is about to burst. They are mad at the system that they were taught oppresses them, but also at themselves. Who would not be after spending so much money for something of so little value? Nothing is more embarrassing to watch than arrogance coupled with ignorance — and spiced with occasional glibness and the slow realization that they’ve been had.

Yes, they should be angry. But as Mark Steyn points out, "the great advantage of mass moronization is that it leaves you too dumb to figure out who to be mad at."

They want Santa Claus to pay their tuition and the government to forgive their loans but they fail to direct any anger at the "greedy fat-cats" of academia. Why is that? To use Prof. Hanson's word, it's taboo:

So how, then, can students question the utility of their educations? They don’t dare object to the university’s manner of operations, or how their loans underwrote the need for a six-figured assistant provost of internal development or associate vice president for diversity awareness — or a vast number of new hip professors who just thirty or forty years ago would not be seen as professors at all.

I think in over twenty years of teaching I received about 5,000 memos warning me about insidious practices of sexism, racism, classism, or other sorts of oppression, what the chair, dean, provost, president was doing about it (usually setting up a watchdog faculty committee) — and not a single one wondering how we could bring rigor to the curriculum and real learning to the students.

The same process of over-bureaucraticization, politicization, and watered-down content has taken place in the public schools. When the K-12 system has finished with them and killed off anything resembling intellectual curiosity or initiative, the kids passively ride the conveyor belt to the next institution, where, if they're lucky, the amenities will be a lot more awesome. Oddly enough, families often fail to give much thought to the enormous cost or the questionable value of the credential. But then, they've been told for decades that this is the only path to prosperity.

That's all changing. At some point it will dawn on even the most inside-the-box drones that something is wrong with this picture:



This is just sad. Please consider homeschooling. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Picture above taken by Zombie, who has done a massive Occupy Oakland photo essay.

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

Incoherent

RS McCain declares Herman Cain's recent stumble into the abortion-rights twilight zone over. Cain's pro-life bona fides have been confirmed and that's the end of the story for McCain, who diagnoses the controversy (a word McCain places in quotes, but I don't) as more a result of Cain's failure to recognize "gotcha" questions than of the substance of his answers:

The actual problem, as I see it, is that Cain wants to seem thoughtful and engaged during interviews like this, and so he responds to questions with something more than talking points, without stopping to think: “Hey, this guy’s trying to push me into a corner and get me in trouble.” 

Well, yes. But what bothered me about Cain's various statements about possible exceptions to the unborn's right to life was the incoherence of his answers to easy questions. This is a problem, regardless of his stand on abortion, hostage crises, or tax reform. It strongly implies incoherence of thought.

Now Mr. Cain agrees, when asked, that abortion "should not be a part of the political discussion." Really? So he agrees with Mitch Daniels that we ought to declare a truce on social issues? Or does he (most likely) believe something entirely different? It's getting hard to take his words seriously, but not because he's insincere or deliberately deceptive. He's just incoherent.

***

Mark Steyn on what's behind the incoherence: apathy:

But the ‘stan shtick is a glimpse of the greater truth – that there are whole areas of public policy in which he simply has no interest. None. You ask him a question and from the recesses of his mind swim up half-recalled phrases from some panel discussion he caught once long ago, and he hopes he grabs the conservative line (“I’m proud to stand by Israel”, “we don’t negotiate with terrorists”, “life begins at conception”, whatever) but just as often he doesn’t (with Gretchen Carlson this morning: “No, abortion should not be a part of the political discussion”).

RTR.

Welcome, Corner readers, and many thanks to Mark Steyn for the link.

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

Biden visits future Dem voters in York, PA

Yet another reason to homeschool: Notorious liberal liars will never be able to interrupt your school day to brainwash your kids with their leftist propaganda. Progressives know, better than most parents, that they've got to get to them when they're young. Enter Joe "Don't Screw Around With Me" Biden, delivering his Class Envy 101 lecture to York, PA fourth graders:

Here in this school, your school, you've had a lot of teachers who used to work here, but because there's no money for them in the city, they're not working. And so what happens is, when that occurs, each of the teachers that stays have more kids to teach. And they don't get to spend as much time with you as they did when your classes were smaller. We think the federal government in Washington, D.C., should say to the cities and states, look, we're going to give you some money so that you can hire back all those people. And the way we're going to do it, we're going to ask people who have a lot of money to pay just a little bit more in taxes.

(By the way, what self-respecting fourth-grader wants to spend more time with his teachers?) I hope the kids were as tuned-out to Biden's unctuous pitch as they appeared, because the odds are slim that dear teacher (who has trained them well in the art of the drone, if the beginning of the video is any indication) will explain, after the sage giver-of-gifts has zoomed away in his thirty-car motorcade, why the York school district has no money, or why soaking -- er, asking -- the rich to throw more dollars at them will never, ever, ever make their schools better.

Mark Steyn learned his arithmetic (which is more than you can say for the average graduate of the York City School district, but more on that later):

No problem, says the vice president. We're going to "ask" people who have "a lot of money" to "pay just a little bit more" in taxes.

Where are these people? Evidently, not in York, Pennsylvania. But they're out there somewhere. Who has "a lot of money"? According to President Obama, if your combined household income is over $250,000 a year you have "a lot of money." Back in March, my National Review colleague Kevin Williamson pointed out that, in order to balance the budget of the United States, you would have to increase the taxes of people earning more than $250,000 a year by $500,000 a year.

OK, OK, maybe that $250K definition of "bloated plutocrat" is a bit off. After all, the quarter-mil-a-year category includes not only bankers and other mustache-twirling robber barons, but also at least 50 school superintendents in the state of New York and many other mustache-twirling selfless public servants.

So how about people earning a million dollars a year? That's "a lot of money" by anybody's definition. As Kevin Williamson also pointed out, to balance the budget of the United States on the backs of millionaires you would have to increase the taxes of those earning more than $1 million a year by $6 million a year.

Read the whole thing. Our bureaucrat-heavy schools are collapsing under their own weight and the kids are the ones getting crushed.

Seeing these poor kids sitting passively in their government classroom learning to mindlessly swallow the wonders of entitlement and class envy is positively nauseating. What's being done to them in the name of "education" is a crime. If you doubt that, take a look at the York City School District's numbers, courtesy of its Wikipedia page:

11th Grade Reading

• 2010 – 31% on grade level, In Pennsylvania, 67% of 11th graders on grade level.^[14]
• 2009 – 35%, State – 65%^[15]
• 2008 – 32%, State – 65%^[16]

11th Grade Math

• 2010 – 27% on grade level, In Pennsylvania, 59% of 11th graders on grade level.
• 2009 – 24.8%, State – 56%^[17]
• 2008 – 32%, State – 55%^[18]

11th Grade Science:

• 2010 – 10% on grade level. State: 39% of 11th graders were on grade level.
• 2009 – 9.6%, State – 40%
• 2008 – 8%, State – 39%^[19]

How is a marginal decrease in class size going to turn that around? (Of course, if the district really wanted to hire more teachers it could slash a few bureaucrat jobs. But then what would even be the point of having a school district?)

Overall:

In 2009, the academic achievement of the students of School DIstrict of York City was in the 1st percentile among 500 Pennsylvania School Districts. Scale – (0–99; 100 is state best)^[6]

So most of the kids are poor readers and can't do much math. This is how liberalism perpetuates itself.

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

Priorities: Mom leaves family to sort laundry for OWSers

I'm feeIing a bit low-energy today, which is a pity, because I'd love to heap torrents of molten scorn on this woman. But her story speaks for itself:

A married mother of four from Florida ditched her family to become part of the raggedy mob in Zuccotti Park -- keeping the park clean by day and keeping herself warm at night with the help of a young waiter from Brooklyn.

“I’m not planning on going home,” an unapologetic Stacey Hessler, 38, told The Post yesterday.

“I have no idea what the future holds, but I’m here indefinitely. Forever,” said Hessler, whose home in DeLand sits 911 miles from the tarp she’s been sleeping under.

Hessler -- who ironically is married to a banker -- arrived 12 days ago and planned to stay for a week, but changed her plans after cozying up to some like-minded radicals, including Rami Shamir, 30, a waiter at a French bistro in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn.

She swears she’s not romantically involved with her new friend.

Yesterday was a typical day for the pair, who woke up at 8 a.m. on their little patch of paving stone near the communal kitchen and dashed off to Trinity Church to wash up.

Hessler emerged an hour later, her brown hair in dreadlocks, wearing a T-shirt depicting Han Solo and Princess Leia kissing, and bearing the slogan “Make Love Not War.”

She got coffee and a granola bar from the protest kitchen before sorting laundry for two hours.

The unemployed Long Island native compared her decision to abandon her family to Americans serving in the armed forces.

“Military people leave their families all the time, so why should I feel bad?” a defiant Hessler said. “I’m fighting for a better world.”

She said she had been following the movement on Facebook, and the more she learned, the more obsessed she became with joining the demonstrators. [. . .]

Hessler has spoken with her family -- husband Curtiss, 42; son Peyton, 17; and daughters Kennedy 15, Sullivan, 13, and Veda, 7 -- just three times since leaving them. “Friends are taking care of them,” she said.

Not everyone has supported her decision. “My mother told me I was being very selfish,” she admitted.

And her husband, a former Bank of America financial adviser who now works at a local Florida bank, is perplexed. “He says he’s working for ‘the Man,’ and I’m fighting against him,” she said.

Let me get this straight. She traveled a thousand miles from her husband and kids so she could sort laundry and clean up after the fine folk of the Occupy movement. And she likens what she's doing to what our men and women in the military do. [Insert your own outrage here.]

My youngest daughter said it could be worse: this mom of the year could have brought her kids along with her. And considering that rapists, thieves, drug addicts, union thugs, and literal rats are common features of these lounge-ins, I think she has a point. 

Horror stories abound. Via Verum Serum: Occupy Oakland devolves into "Lord of the Flies"

About 3:30 Tuesday afternoon, a group of roughly 50 people gathered by the man’s tent and told him he had to leave. Some were speaking calmly. Others weren’t. It was then that the man pulled out a large kitchen knife and threatened the whole group…It was only when someone picked up a piece of wood and cracked him across the head that the ordeal ended.

Similar scenarios are playing out in Boston, Baltimore, Cleveland, and elsewhere, but no one will do much of anything to put an end to these public nuisances. How can this not come back to bite Mayor Bloomberg and his ilk? On Wall Street, residents are not happy:

"They are defecating on our doorsteps," fumed Catherine Hughes, a member of Community Board 1 and a stay at home mom who has the misfortune of living one block from the chaos. "A lot of people are very frustrated. A lot of people are concerned about the safety of our kids."

Real children come in a distant second to the pseudo-adult occupiers.

***

Occupy Oakland has been given an eviction notice. Stay tuned.

***

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

New anti-Romney ad from Perry campaign: "Misleading"

Romney put up an attack ad that was so bad he pulled it before most of us got a chance to see it. Bryan Preston:

 “Disgusting” isn’t too strong a word to use here. The ad isn’t a hit on policy or another candidate’s record in office. It’s a very personal hit, meant to suggest without saying outright that the other candidate is a blithering idiot, by using selective video editing. That kind of treatment can literally be done to anyone who has ever spent any amount of time in the public eye over the past half century. It’s funny when Conan O’Brien does it as a comedy bit. Not so much, when a candidate does it to a competitor to suggest that another candidate is a fool.

Here's Perry's new ad:




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

After Qaddafi?

Robert Spencer: 

No further obstacles remain to a hardline Sharia regime in Libya. 

Thomas Lifson: Editors everywhere rejoice:

The future of Libya remains an open question. The Muslim Brotherhood has tentacles throughout the Middle East, and organizational power that should not be underestimated.

But a horrible tyrant is reported dead, the murderer of a Pan Am 747-worth of Americans and other innocents. This is not bad news.

For my part, as an editor, I will be happy if I never again have to deal with the multiple spellings of his name, each as valid as the other, that come in: Gaddafi, Gadaffi, Qadafi, Qaddafi, Qadaffi, and all the rest.

Mark Steyn: "The queen is dead." (No, he didn't really write that. Yet.)

***

Steyn's take, here.

***

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

We love you, Herman, but . . . [updated]

Ace asks: Herman Cain Really Doesn't Know A Damn Thing About Foreign or Military Policy, Does He?

He literally seems to be making it all up on the fly, and I mean all, so when he's asked a question like this, all he knows about the situation is literally just that which was contained in the question. [. . .]

He was literally guessing what the "Right Answer" was, and guessed, incorrectly, that the "Right Answer" would always involve saying "Israel did the right thing.'

This is so jaw-droppingly uninformed I don't know what the hell else to say about it.

Cain cannot keep telling us he'll have "experts" brief him on the stuff that a reasonably well-informed sixth-grader should already know. Like, no need to know any of this beforehand, I guess. "Experts" will fill him in on an as-needed basis, I guess.

Yeah. Awful. RS McCain on above:

It’s pretty brutal, and this is the kind of situation — a blunder that exposes him to lacerating criticism from conservatives — that Cain must avoid henceforth if he wants to be taken seriously as a contender.

Jennifer Rubin thinks that will not be possible:

Without a working knowledge of some critical details, it is hard to fake competency on matters of war and peace. For those with zero interest in and prior knowledge of national security, it simply won’t be possible to fake it through an entire debate.

I agree. Cain's utter lack of knowledge disqualifies him for the office of president. And vice president, too, really. (Sure, he's vastly superior to the vile buffoon currently holding the office, but who isn't?)

And now Cain has muddied the waters on his views on abortion. From a conversation with Piers Morgan, who asks him about his opposition to abortion in cases of rape:

No, it comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.

I think he just tossed away his "no exception for rape or incest" stand. I don't know how else to read that.

Granted, the rape and incest exception is one held by many, even most, pro-life politicians. It's an unprincipled stand that undercuts the proponent's claim that he believes the unborn child is a person and therefore should be protected by law. (Rick Santorum explained that in an August debate.) But it's a common political position, held, I suppose, out of weak-mindedness, or just to take the edge off what they fear will be seen as a scary, extreme view.

Thing is, if that's your stance, you state it upfront instead of going around proclaiming that you're opposed to abortion under all circumstances, with no exceptions. Personal opposition doesn't count here. Sorry. That's the refuge of mealy-mouthed pseudo-Catholics like Kennedy, Pelosi, and Biden, to name just a few.

I do believe Cain's opposition to abortion (with exceptions) is sincere. But he's confusing us with the rhetoric, which, as is inevitable when trying to defend this indefensible position, sounds exactly like that used by supporters of abortion on demand, who argue that abortion is always a sensitive decision that should be made by the mother.

But maybe he misspoke and will take it all back tomorrow?

***

The plot thickens. Katrina Trinko:

I’ve reached out to his campaign to see if they can clarify what he meant. But it’s worth mentioning that, as I noted the other day, Cain chose not to run for Senate in 1998 partially because he was unsure his views on abortion would be compatible with the most ardent pro-life voters. ”[W]ith the pro-life and pro-abortion debate, the most vocal people are on the ends. I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing,” Cain told Nation’s Restaurant News, adding that he was “not a social-issue crusader” but a “free-enterprise crusader.” However, whatever his concerns were in 1998, he did run as pro-life (no exceptions in cases of rape and incest — the only exception he ran on was for the mother’s life) in the 2004 Georgia senate race, and won an endorsement from Georgia Right to Life that election cycle.

***

Santorum and Perry respond.

***

This story is getting a lot of reaction. Though it's a little unclear, I believe Cain in the clip was referring to cases of rape and incest. Key words: "you’re not talking about that big a number."

Trying to clear it all up, Cain has tweeted: “I’m 100% pro-life. End of story.” If only we knew what he meant by "100%." It usually means without exception. But that's obviously not what he means. As for "end of story," good luck with that.

This didn't have to happen. Lots of pro-life candidates hang on to those exceptions, in spite of the fact that it makes no sense morally or logically. Cain could have identified himself as one of those and avoided this whole mess.

***

Most incoherent explanation ever here. Watch the video with John Stossel.

***

Many thanks to Michelle Malkin for the Buzzworthy link.

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

Charmless

A "stiff, stilted, scold":

To one man, Obama said: “Now, you ate all your vegetables before you had dessert,” noting his wife’s focus on healthy eating.

He greeted another couple, one of whom is an outgoing Reidsville City Council member. They told the president how long they’d been married.

“Michelle and I have been married 19 – We’ve got 44 to go to catch up with you.”

Leaving the restaurant, the president worked a rope line.

“You’ve got to work hard,” he said to one pair of community college students.

One woman handed Obama a phone, telling him that her grandmother was on the line. “Hey grandma — boy this is an old style phone … I appreciate you.”

He and his nagging wife are well-matched.

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

Temperament: Romney loses his cool

Early in the debate, Perry brought up Romney's past use of a landscaping company that employed illegal aliens. Though Perry's charge was accurate, I groaned as he carried it way too far. But I think it was worth it. Perry's attack tested the Romney temperament and we got to see what Mr. Smooth looks like when crossed. Do you like him when he's angry?

 

I give Perry credit here for great self-control. He somehow managed to ignore Romney's hand-on-the-shoulder restraint, an effort by Romney to get Perry to shut up and listen to daddy. It was a clear power move if ever there was one.

Judging from their cheers, the Romney fans apparently liked the snippy, patronizing side of Mitt. But I found his overdone bwa-ha-ha laugh, the condescending touching, his anger at being talked over, and the snide comment about Perry's previous debate performances very unattractive.

Santorum nailed Romney on the travesty of Romneycare:

The final point I would make to Governor Romney, you just don't have credibility, Mitt, when it comes to repealing Obamacare. You are -- you are -- your plan was the basis for Obamacare. Your consultants helped Obama craft Obamacare. And to say that you're going to repeal it, you just -- you have no track record on that that -- that we can trust you that you're going to do that.

And kudos to Newt for bringing up this shining example of how Romneycare is "right" for Massachusetts.

As for the approaching precipice, the only guy who seems to feel the urgency of our dire fiscal condition and who talked about making real cuts in government was . . . Ron Paul. Sigh.  

***

Byron York on Perry's "rattling" of Romney (emphasis added):

Romney tried to laugh it off and to deny the story. "I don't think I've ever hired an illegal in my life," he said. Romney tried to explain, but Perry kept pushing, leaving Romney protesting that Perry was ignoring the rules -- just as Perry had planned.

"Rick, again, Rick, I'm speaking," Romney said.  "I'm speaking, I'm speaking, I'm speaking.  You get 30 seconds. This is the way the rules work here…Anderson?"

By the time Romney appealed to CNN moderator Anderson Cooper for help, Romney seemed flustered, almost frantic.  "Would you please wait?" he said to Perry.  "Are you just going to keep talking?"

When Perry finally told Romney to "have at it," Romney explained that he had hired a company to do lawn work and had no idea the company hired illegals until it was reported in the paper.  But in the course of that explanation, Romney dropped his guard for a moment and uttered a few words he will likely hear again in the coming campaign.

"We went to the company, and we said, 'Look, you can't have any illegals working on our property,'" Romney said.  "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals."  It wasn't clear whether Romney thought hiring illegals was bad in itself or whether he just thought it would look bad for a candidate pursuing the Republican nomination for president.

Heh. That comes near the end of the clip at the top.

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

What Romneycare hath wrought

Via Bryan Preston, this is what happens when a government can order persons to buy insurance policies.

A Massachusetts couple who lost their business when the economy tanked were good do-bees, purchasing a health insurance policy for $750/month. But the almighty state isn't satisfied. It believes it has the right to examine every facet of the couple's finances before it gives the seal of approval to the policy. Not only can the state mandate that its citizens carry a policy; it can force them to buy a better (that is, more expensive) one if, in its infinite wisdom, it finds that they can afford to do so. Oh yeah, and it can slap a hefty four-figure fine on them, as well. (Emphasis is mine.)

“I would just like to say that we did make the effort and purchased a plan,” Destito told Herman. “I don’t understand why we’re in this situation at all.”

Because, Herman explained, the state must establish if her family could afford other, better insurance, and that affordability is determined “not, unfortunately, from your perspective but from the state agency’s view.”

In other words, the state decides how much health insurance you can afford — not you.

After that stunner, Herman asked Destito detailed questions about her income and expenses right down to costs of clothing, heat, food, phones. She also said the state would need documentation on her mortgage and medical bill arrears as well as what her insurance does and does not covers.

“This is outrageous,” Winslow interjected. “Bankruptcy isn’t enough? Unemployment isn’t enough? Buying insurance isn’t enough when it’s bought from a licensed broker in Massachusetts? They should go after the broker, not the people.”

Lauren Destito said her family’s financial reverses have been devastating.

During bankruptcy proceedings on the tree business, which employed both her and her husband, the bank auctioned off all their heavy equipment and then tacked its remaining losses onto the couple’s mortgage, which zoomed from $2,000 to $3,200 a month. They now owe $385,000 on a home they bought for $193,000, and efforts to restructure payments were rebuffed.

Now Lauren is back working part-time as a nurse and Nick is working as an equipment operator. The family is insured through his union. “But it’s hard to dig out when the hole is so deep,” she said, “even though my husband works six and seven days a week. It’s really very sad.”

A decision is expected in a month on the Destitos’ fine, which stems from 2010, when unemployment forced them to find cheaper insurance. That same year taxpayers paid $35.7 million in Massachusetts to cover free emergency room visits for illegal immigrants.

Something is very, very wrong with this picture.

Gee, maybe state-run healthcare isn't so "right" for Massachusetts after all.

Shame on Mitt Romney and anyone who thinks he's a conservative. Romneycare is indefensible. 

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

No confidence in Obama's policies

A CNN poll asked Americans:

"And in general, do you think it is more likely that Obama's policies will succeed or more likely that his policies will fail?"

59% said they believed his policies would fail.

Tip to GOP candidates: Make sure voters can distinguish your policies from Obama's.


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

Socialists and communists dominate at Occupy sites

I'm feeling a little queasy after reading this --

Almost every organization present at OWS is explicitly communist or socialist. Almost every piece of literature being handed out is explicitly communist or socialist. I don’t mean half, and I don’t mean the overwhelming majority — I mean almost all of it.  

and watching this --



(Hat tip to Jonah Goldberg.)

Zero Hedge asks: Is Anyone Dumb Enough to Believe that Obama Supports the 99%? Oh yes. 

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

Crowd at non-campaign rally chants "Four more years!"

I'm not sure which is more disturbing -- the demagoguing liar in the front or the morons behind him chanting "Four More Years!"



Four more years? Really?

More footage from Obama's not-a-campaign-trip here:

"My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classrooms, construction workers back to work," President Obama said at a campaign event today. "Tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your workers a raise –- that’s my plan."

"The Republicans plan, Obama says, boils down to this: 'Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.'"

And here:

"We've decided, let's let them do the right thing one more time. We're going to give them another chance to do their jobs by looking after your jobs. So this week, I'm asking members of Congress to vote. What we're going to do is we're going to break up my jobs bill. Maybe they just couldn't understand the whole thing all at once. So we're going to break it up into bite-size pieces so they can take a thoughtful approach to this legislation,"

Get used to this kind of unpresidential smearing, distorting, and mocking. It's likely to get a lot worse as Obama fights for his political life.

If you can bear to watch the clips, note the props in the background -- fire trucks, rescue vehicles, etc. You see, we are all idiots who need kindergarten-style visual clues to understand what he's trying to tell us.

Linket by Michelle Malkin and Doug Ross -- thank you.
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.