As regards Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan as a running mate, I tend to agree with David’s initial reax; “Bring it on”. I look forward to the VP debates, which should be the highlight of the campaign for me. As Ace said on Twitter, the other day,
Let’s face it, no one picks Joe Biden for his brains. They pick him for his ability to casually insult different races without consequence.
Romney/Ryan
The VP debate will be a blood bath. Aside from the fact that Biden has the IQ of the average horse dropping, there’s a 27 year gap between Ryan and Biden. That’s the largest in 108 years, for VP candidates. I wonder if in the target rich environment that Obama /Biden presents, if this age difference will even come up, but it does seem a cultural curiosity. And certainly, the difference in smarts will… and has already, if we are to take the resounding approval we see from the American voters. Romney garnered something on the order of $3.5MUSD in campaign cash, in the 24 hours after the announcement.
Speaking for myself, I must admit, that my first and enduring reaction, is that the ticket is upside down…. Ryan would be more effective at shrinking government, as President than Romney left to his own devices will ever be. Ryan is in fact more presidential than his running mate. Of course, that was also my reax at Palin as a pick.
That said, I’ve been saying all along that this election will not be about how good Romney is, but how bad Obama is.
As a recent example, Axlerod on just today saying of the Romney/Ryan economic plan: “This is a prescription for economic catastrophe.” Which, of course would be downright laughable, if it weren’t so tragic, given what Obama and his enablers like Axlerod said would work … and is “working fine”. The more this administration does, the worse things get. Because, dear reader, the only trick in their bag is growing government.
Sarah Palin
As with Palin, what we have with Ryan is someone who understands what Reagan meant when he said government isn’t the solution, but the PROBLEM. As such, Ryan, clearly, has the ability to argue these points forcefully and convincingly. That can only be a plus, however, if the Romney campaign is willing to stand up and be counted as conservative.
The question seems to me open as to how seriously Romney and the remainder of the GOP leadership take that point, today.
As a measurement of that, watch with me to see if the GOP will make the same mistake with Ryan as they did with Palin; Muzzling him in an effort to appease the left, which is masquerading as “the center”. Again, speaking for myself in the suspicion that a Reagan-sized majority agrees with me, I will say my support for Romney/Ryan will be established if they do not muzzle Ryan, if they do not ignore the message the public support of Ryan shows.
Seems to me that Reagan won the center in large numbers… not by leaning left so as to look centrist but by standing up unapologetically for what he believed in.. unabashed conservatism. The left and the supposed “center” saw Reagan’s 30% tax cut, for example, as a loser. History records that their dislike didn’t stop the November landslide that swept Reagan into office. Now, we see the likes of laughable leftists like Candy Crowley, Andrea Mitchell, Brainless EJ Dionne, and Stink Progress, the NEA, MoveOn, Daily Kos, all expressing their dislike for Ryan. I’m reminded the press and the usual suspects on the left didn’t much like Reagan, either.
Ponder with me for a moment, the success of candidates these folks DO like. McCain, for example….who aimed at the mythical center. The aforementioned Mitchell, Crowley and Dionne LIKED McCain. That campaign, the GOP and McCain, got their backsides handed them, and demonstrated clearly the path not to tread.
I wonder, has the GOP learned that lesson? Our country and it’s further existence depends on it.
Bring it on, video:
Hat tip and reax, Fausta:
Can’t wait to watch the Ryan-Biden debate.
Pass the popcorn please.
I noted a post the other day on Facebook, presumably posted in the support of homosexual “marriage”. The gist of the post was that society isn’t negatively affected when “rights” are granted to homosexuals in the matter… the right to marry… as we in the rest of society have always had. This is incorrect, of course… but to explain WHY it’s wrong, is going to need some serious detail. Here’s a start;
Let’s lay down a few basics, from a post of a few years ago:
Here it is; Rights are a cultural construct, and meaningless outside that construct. As I said in the article linked above: Rights are not universal.
When Jefferson wrote that “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT” he was not speaking a universal truth at all. The operative word in that phrase is “WE”.
Rather than talking about a universal point of view, a universal truth, if you will, he was instead talking about the point of view of WE the new American culture. With this angle, many of the long-held myths about rights tend to disappear.
Consider; if it was in fact a universal truth that all men were created equal, it wouldn’t have been such a radical idea, for the time, much less then to now. Last I checked, it is quite true that a vast majority still do not consider these as any kind of truth, universal or otherwise; they consider them to be anything BUT self-evident. Royalty still exists, as do class structures, and slavery, as well.
…
Once the culture is allowed to fall either to the law, (or, in the case of anarchy, the lawless) ….even in an attempt to impose rights where they do not exist, what happens to real rights, which are a cultural concept?
They fail.
Make no mistake, people… governments that try to over-rule the culture which gave them life, have always and forever in history, failed. A fairly recent example is the former Soviet Union.
That established, let’s look closer at the cultural angle.
Right off the bat, and regardless of your take on the Judeo-Chirtsian ethic, and it’s Biblical basis, it seems fairly clear that marriage, as such, existed as at least a cultural concept, from ancient times. Additionally, secular laws were written to parallel the already- established traditional marriage, as the proper purpose of government dictates, to accommodate in a legal sense what already existed within the culture that the government was properly supporting.
As to that, let us consider the words of George Wasington, who as General of the colonial army, when advised of there being a homosexual in his ranks…
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (“George…,” underline in orig., emp. added).
(I have the images of the original documents on file, if you have the need)
Washington saw “sodomy” (the 18th-century word for homosexual relations) “with Abhorrence and Detestation.”
I’ll bet you didn’t know that homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all… I say again, ALL of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states.
Most had quite severe penalties were quite severe, including death—in New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina Even Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect. One wonders why so many homosexuals hold him so dear, and why the Democrat Party, so wrapped up as they are with the homosexual lobby, still considers him a party icon. He wrote the Constitution. Do you suppose he’d write a law that ran directly afoul of it? I don’t.
The position of the culture as a whole is fairly clear, insofar as revolutionary times, and the intention of the founders. As to the cultue’s current position on the matter, consider thatevery time the subject is brought to a vote the response is invariably overwhelmingly negative. Those states which have legalized homosexual “marriage” have invariably done so without the benefit of a referendum, knowing full well it would never pass.
The desire, apparently is to change the culture byforce of government, in turn by beating the “equal rights” drum. The problem here, however, is a bit more complex than that. The law, as such, IS in fact equal in it’s application. Men can marry any female that will have them. No discrimination involved.
Understand the line being drawn here; The Constitution was written with an eye toward the founders desire of equal rights before the law and equal rights of the individual in matters pertaining to and involving government. Not society, not the culture. Government, and government alone.The culture, for its part, as well as the individuals within it, are free agents, and unrestricted in in matters of the culture, and it’s dictates.
I submit that while it’s true that there are laws on the books pertaining to marriage, these are, as I’ve said, a governmental tool to deal with what already exists in the culture. In other words, this wasn’t driven by government, but by culture.
The solution being sought by the social left in this matter is exactly the kind of thing to be expected from a group of people who hold government the highest entity, rather than the culture. Those seeking laws enabling homosexuals to marry, are seeking to change society with the power of government. And that, dear reader, goes well outside the purview of our government, at whatever level. At least, if we take the intentions of the founders seriously.
If we don’t, then prepare for the consequences of saying it’s the government that grants rights… because that’s what they want to happen here.
Decisions are just so difficult, especially when you lack any moral compass, from Fox News:
When it comes to gays and the Boy Scouts, President Barack Obama and the youth organization he serves as honorary president have agreed to disagree.
The White House on Wednesday said Obama opposes the youth organization’s recently reaffirmed policy of excluding gays as members and adult leaders. He has no plans to resign as honorary president, White House spokesman Shin Inouye said.
Dim Won, b/k/a President Barack Obama just can not seem to decide is supporting sodomy is a good idea or not. Dim Won must have slept through the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons on sodomy. We slept through all the others.
Well at least Bert and Ernie are funny.
What that intellectual difference between a bag a potatoes and George Stephanopoulos and Brian Ross. At least you can boil and eat the potatoes.
by Jeff Dunetz, Yid with a Lid:
After explaining the shooter Wade Page’s links to violent, bigoted groups, Good Morning America co-host George Stephanopoulos wondered how this murderer could have purchased a gun, [Brian] Ross insisted that the FBI did not have “enough evidence to open a full field investigation because of his links to these right-wing, neo-Nazi groups.”
Reax:
Right-wing Neo-Nazi is an oxymoron like jumbo-shrimp, living dead, dark light and apparently ABC News and Unbiased Journalism.
The full name of the Nazi Party Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei translated into English is National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Socialist? That doesn’t seem very right wing does it?
It tome for ABC to put news back into ABC News and fire Stephanopoulos and Ross.
Kudos to NASA, for landing Curiosity, despite the odds against them.
Granted, that this is a busy time, what with the Olympics and all, but I’ve noticed the coverage of this event is somewhat muted, at least insofar as the usual suspects are concerned. And I wonder a little, why. I suppose several reasons are in the telling;
Let’s recall, please that Obama and company have just about shut down NASA’s operations. So, a rare bit of success from a government agency cannot be shown to the degree it should be for fear of raising questions about why Obama shut ’em off.
Let’s also recall, that NASA is primarily a MILITARY org. Leftists tend not to like the military.
Let’s also recall, that NASA is primarily fed by private industry. The rover itself for example was built not by government, but by a private, for profit concern. Leftists tend not to like such entities.
Reports I’ve seen suggest the scientists were waving American flags and cheering when the news hit. Have you seen any pics of this? No?
Ron Atkins ?@Stratocumulus
RT @b0yle: EDL!EDL! Flag-waving team high-fives @MarsCuriosity leaders amid hoots and hollers. #MSL http://twitpic.com/ag2jc5
There’s much more in the way of such reports, but not on the lamestream news. Can’t have people being proud of America and her accomplishments, particularly when run by the military and private companies. Particularly when the current occupant of the WH is trying to convince us we didn’t build that.
Are you getting the idea, yet?
If Speaker Tablecloth, b/k/a Nancy Pelosi can be believed, we now know who told Dirty Harry Reid that Mitt Romney did not pay taxes for ten years, via Michelle:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) fired back at Republicans accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) of lying about a Bain Capital investor telling him that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes in 10 years. They don’t know what they’re talking about, Pelosi says.
“Harry Reid made a statement that is true. Somebody told him. It is a fact,” Pelosi told The Huffington Post in a Sunday interview. “Whether he did or not can easily be disposed of: Mitt Romney can release his tax returns and show whether he paid taxes.
The only way for Mrs. Pelosi to know for fact what somebody told Dirty Harry over the phone, was it was Mrs. Pelosi who phoned Dirty Harry. And that is a fact.
So Mrs. Pelosi how did gain access to Romney federal tax returns, or did you simply lie to Dirty Harry?
It is open season on the liar from Nevada, Dirty Harry Reid, from Charles Mahtesian, Politico:
Now, though, the GOP has indicated it plans to make it personal. Between the loaded language and Priebus’s pointed reference to Reid’s Ritz-Carlton abode – an issue that surfaced in the senator’s 2010 re-election campaign – Republicans just sent the clearest signal to Reid yet that he needs to either produce the evidence, stand down or prepare for an extended public discussion of his own finances.
Nancy Pelosi must be happy. In comparison to Reid, Pelosi is rational, charming, ethical and sane. Sorry, Dirty Harry, there is a price to pay to be a corrupt politician, forced to carry dirty water for the White House.
We have touched on Senate Majority Leader Dirty Harry ‘s sanity, or better lack of same before. Now Bitsblog can report, from a source with access to Senator Reid’s private, personal and confidential, medical, and mental health, records that Senator Reid is indeed insane.
Contact Senator Reid and urge him to release his medical health records. Dirty Harry’s mental state, such as it is, may well explained the wide spread stories of Reid’s pederasty. And while Dirty Harry is releasing his mental health records, he needs to release his travel records to State College, Pennsylvania.
Reax, Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit:
I think firmness is justified when responding to slurs from a man widely rumored to be guilty of pederasty.
Professor, take it easy on Dirty Harry. He is a not a well person.
It appears the liberal attack on Chick-Fil-A is another epic failure, from Anne Sorock, Legal Insurrection:
Some of you asked just what the scene’s like on Chick-fil-A appreciation day in Chicago, home to #ChicagoValues, and the city at the heart of the controversy over Chick-fil-A after our mayor congratulated an alderman in shutting the company out of opening a second location within the city limits.
The line at 12:10pm extended down the city block from the entrance, full of Chicagoans who, it would seem, don’t share Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s definition of “Chicago Values.”
Evidently many in Chicago take their morality from the Bible, appreciate good freedom and like their chicken.
Barack Obama, on white voters, via Ben Smith, Politico:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations
Cokie Roberts on Mitt Romney’s trip to Poland, via Ed Dristcoll, PJ Media:
Well, I think part of it was a desire to portray President Obama as something of a wimp, and say he’s abandoned Eastern Europe. But look, you remember well the Reagan Democrats. Those ethnic white voters who had been Democrats for many years; turned out for Ronald Reagan, and have been fairly predictable Republicans since then. Now it’s a smaller percentage of the population — of the voting population — than it used to be, but white voters are still much more Republican than any other group in the electorate. They went for McCain in 2008 by 55%. And I think that getting those ethnic voters excited is really what Romney has in mind here. It’s more for the folks at home — the descendents of the people that he will be speaking to — in Poland.
Both quotes refer to the same voting bloc. Whereas Roberts and the the entire LSM see no racism in dismissing any entire bloc of voter, Roberts see racism in attempting to appear to them.
Obama has gone the extra mile to make a concerted effort to alienate the Poles. Then, Obmaa just isn’t very smart. On the other mitt, it is smart politics to try pick up support from voting blocs, you opponent alienates.
The late, great, Milton Friedman would have been one hundred today, from the present, and great himself, Thomas Sowell, Real Clear Politcs:
If Milton Friedman were alive today — and there was never a time when he was more needed — he would be one hundred years old. He was born on July 31, 1912. But Professor Friedman’s death at age 94 deprived the nation of one of those rare thinkers who had both genius and common sense.
Most people would not be able to understand the complex economic analysis that won him a Nobel Prize, but people with no knowledge of economics had no trouble understanding his popular books like “Free to Choose” or the TV series of the same name
Well said, Mr. Sowell.
And who the Hell is Valerie Jarrett, a corrupt slum lord, that she should have what appears to be a deciding voice on military operations?
Next time, President Obama Short Pants, just let Jarrett handle the press conferences. She’s clearly the one in charge.
By Sister Toldjah.
…. Even at the New York Times.… And it’s amazing when it happens… such as today, with Ross Douthat
It may seem strange that anyone could look around the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West and see a society menaced by a repressive puritanism. But it’s clear that this perspective is widely and sincerely held.
It would be refreshing, though, if it were expressed honestly, without the “of course we respect religious freedom” facade.
If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching, or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, then don’t tell religious people that you respect our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our religion threatens all that’s good and decent, and that you’re going to use the levers of power to bend us to your will.
There, didn’t that feel better? Now we can get on with the fight.
I’m amazed, frankly that something that hits so close to hokme made it to print in the Times. I can’t imagine the Calling-out carpet isn’t going to get used by the time most of you read this comment.
That said, however, let’s consider; Can anyone imagine the kind of disrespect for one’s religious beliefs being tolerated by the Times, and other leftist outlets as we’ve seen, as well as by the Democrats in the various cities, were the Chc-fil-A places being run by a Muslim?
Oh, and as an aside, I find this laughable:
I cannot improve upon the way the first lady of the United States explained this issue, speaking recently to a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. “Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday,” Michelle Obama said. “It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well … Jesus didn’t limit his ministry to the four walls of the church. He was out there fighting injustice and speaking truth to power every single day.”
But Mrs. Obama’s words notwithstanding, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about this point in the Western leadership class today.
Hey, Ross, ol’ buddy, of COURSE they’re confused. Remember, Ross, this is the same woman who sat in Jerimiah Wright’s church for 30 years and claimed to have never heard the racist, socialist and just downright hateful crap he coughs up every time he opens his mouth, seemingly.
And the confusion is deeper than that, as well, since Obama and his wife apparently do not recognize that they themselves are the power so bereft of truth.
“It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.”
Mitt Romney, via Karen, the Lonely Conservative.
Karen has more, but Jerusalem is where Barack Obama dare not go.
