Friday, August 31, 2012
First – Ignore Democrats and the media (As the NR staff points out, we do need a shortcut key for that phrase) and keep pounding away with the “We DID build it" theme. Those groups will continue to hector your campaign to give up what they claim is a dishonest and overused message. It aint. It is dead-on truthful and will never get old. The teleprompter-less revelation of Obama’s mind and soul is the gift that keeps on giving.
Suggested campaign T-shirts – For workout fanatics (tightly fitted) – “I Built This”.
Maternity top with arrow pointing down – "I Built This" asterisked with “with a little help from my husband /partner” (whatever the case may be).
Onesies – “My Mom and Dad Built This”
All shirts will have a Romney-Ryan logo to clarify the point.
Second – It seems that most effective among anti-Obama ads is the one showing former supporters expressing disappointment with his performance. However distasteful it is to appeal to voters whose lack of judgment has been clearly demonstrated, it's important to get their votes and is therefore necessary to treat these confused and misguided souls gently. Keep those ads coming.
Along the same line, I’d like to suggest that the recent Republican convert, Artur Davis, be made a prominent feature of the campaign. After all, he was the first congressman outside of Illinois to support the Obama campaign in 2007. And he seconded the motion to nominate Obama at the DNC in 2008. To complete the trifecta, he’s a young African-American. Davis appeals to the disillusioned Obama supporter crowd as “one of us”. That he is now an enthusiastic Romney supporter should convince a considerable cohort of fence-sitters to do the right thing.
On a different topic –
As someone who votes for Republicans and will vote for Mitt Romney, and who has an African-American son-in-law and an African-American granddaughter, I deeply resent (now former) Yahoo News’ David Chalian’s “joke” that Romney and his wife Ann were "not concerned at all" and "happy to have a party with black people drowning." More despicable than the “joke” itself was the ignorant, hateful mindset that produced it. This mindset, that Republicans are fundamentally racist, is widespread among the left. Hearing the laughter in the background to Chalian’s idiocy and reading the words of support he received from “respected” media types like Gwen Ifill, you'll understand why Jonah Goldberg has written on more than one occasion in response to similar outrages, “To hell with you people.”
Monday, August 27, 2012
In my previous post, the final link is to an item by Mark Steyn that provides a look into the true character of Barack Obama. To contrast Mitt Romney with Obama, Steyn includes the following link. You might ask yourself why virtually no one has heard this story while everyone knows the one about Mitt's dog.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Guy Benson lists and refutes the arguments being made against Romney. Aside from correcting untruths, Benson makes note of the triviality and irrelevance of most of the claims.
The always sage and sensible Theodore Dalrymple weighs in on Britain’s NHS.
Victor Davis Hanson does a good job of summarizing the gravity of the situation we will be facing over the next decade and beyond, emphasizing the difficulty in achieving a political consensus to fix it. VDH doesn’t mention any politician by name, but he implicitly invokes Paul Ryan and his willingness to look for solutions to problems when others won’t.
Holman Jenkins in today’s (8/25) WSJ –
Premium support, the heart of both the Romney and Ryan plans, is as much a Democratic idea as a Republican idea going back decades. Premium support only became “radical” when Mr. Obama - that great healer, that great avatar of partisan transcendence – anathematized the sole bipartisan idea on the table as “radical” to meet his own short-term political needs.
Along the lines of what Jenkins is saying, Deroy Murdock writes about the Ryan-Wyden Medicare plan, Premium Support, and the hypocrisy of the Democrats demagoguing the issue.
Abortion and Rape BS
Eight years of Bush-Cheney had no effect on the nation’s abortion and rape laws. Eight years of Romney-Ryan, (if we are so fortunate), will have the same non-impact. This subject shouldn’t even be a campaign issue, but with the media and the Democrats desperate to change the subject from Obama’s failures in office, it will remain in the news. So, just for the record, here are the lies and distortions corrected.
By the media’s telling, Romney’s recent foreign trip was a gaffe filled disaster. CK shows otherwise.
On the emptiness of the Obama campaign.
The Republicans are waging a "War On Women"! What a brilliant political ploy - Alienate half the electorate! Steyn redirects the focus away from this invention of the Democratic Party and towards its ongoing War On Children. That a party would exploit a group too young to vote or not yet born or, honestly, too dense to know what is being done to them, at least makes a lot more sense politically.
The following appeared on the NRO blogsite, The Corner. I recently wrote about the discrepancy between the public perception of Obama’s “likability” and the reality. Here’s some insight into the latter.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
I don’t defer to anyone when it comes to enthusiastically supporting Republicans for public office. I know it’s crazy, but much of my happiness in the next few years will be predicated on the Republicans taking back the White House, and to a lesser extent, the Senate (and holding the House). I say this not to put my rather peculiar state of mind on exhibit, (though maybe it’s not so peculiar considering I have kids and grandkids), but to make the point that I believe I am a highly effective barometer of conservative sentiment. If a Republican candidate loses my support, he loses. Period.
You’ve already refused to withdraw from the Missouri Senate race despite being urged to do so by the party leadership (Romney, Ryan, Cornyn, et al). And I know that even if you read this, my views will move you not one iota. But know this – You will not win. You have no chance. Zero. If I lived in Missouri, I would not vote for you. That makes your defeat as certain as the sunrise. If I support you, as a Republican, you may or may not win. But if I don’t support you, as a Republican, you cannot win.
As Jonah Goldberg said, you’ve certainly proven yourself stupid enough to be a senator. Unfortunately for you, you did it before being elected – by saying this,
"From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare (pregnancy resulting from rape). If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Trying to undo the damage, you claimed,
“I used the wrong words in the wrong way. What I said was ill-conceived and it was wrong.”
Really? How can the words be possibly changed or rearranged to make your statement anything but abhorrent? To ask is to answer. There is no way. You said what you did because you believed it.
You also claim, correctly, that elected officials have done worse.
"I hadn't done anything that was morally or ethically wrong, as sometimes people in politics do.”
I know it’s not fair. (Like life). Being Republican, you must meet a higher standard. A Robert Byrd can be a past Exalted Cyclops of the KKK and still be held in high esteem by Democrats, elected and re-elected as House Speaker for umpteen years. A Ted Kennedy, while drunk, can drive a woman off a bridge, leave her to drown and still be recognized as “The Lion” of the Senate. A Bill Clinton can (allegedly) rape a woman and still be championed by left wing feminists.
These are actions and activities, going beyond mere words. (And words are all it takes to get Republicans in hot water. Trent Lott's ouster as Senate Minority Leader for expressing admiration for segregationist Strom Thurmond is one example.) But Democrats are also masters of idiotic, mendacious commentary. Just this past week, the current Vice-President of the United States, next in line to the presidency, doing his best to spread racial animosity, spoke a malicious slander every bit as reprehensible as yours when he warned blacks with a faux Southern drawl, “They’re (Republicans) gonna put y’all back in chains.”
No matter. I don’t want you in public office any more than I want them there.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Eager for a “gotcha” moment, ABC News “reporter” Brian Ross tried to link the Aurora, Colorado massacre suspect James Holmes with the Tea Party.
“There is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site...talking about him joining the Tea Party last year," Ross reported.
"Now we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes, but it's Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colo."
The implication, of course, was that if the shooter was a Tea Party member, it confirms the contention of leftists that the group is by nature violent. (Racist too, but the opportunity to prove that hasn’t yet presented itself).
It turned out that the shooter and the Tea Party member were two different people. (Here’s hoping that the Tea Party Holmes, who was besieged with hate e-mail, sues the stuffing out of Ross and ABC). The main criticism of Ross and ABC News, voiced even by conservatives, was that Ross went ahead with his Holmes-Tea Party connection before fact-checking his information. While a valid point, this misses the larger one - that the shooter’s political affiliation is irrelevant, especially since he (apparently) didn’t commit the crime for political reasons. What does it matter if the shooter was a Tea Partier? If he was a Democrat, (as he might well be) would that vilify all Democrats?
Now we have Floyd Lee Corkins, a gay activist, who allegedly shot a security guard at the conservative Family Research Council, (FRC) an organization which is supportive of traditional marriage. Corkins chose his target explicitly for political reasons.
I’m going to go way out on a limb and speculate that Corkins is a left wing partisan Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and planned to do so in 2012. Does this mean that all gay activists/Democrats/Obama voters are homicidal maniacs?
Violence has long been a characteristic of the left. Within living memory we’ve had large scale acts of destruction - the Vietnam protests in the 60s, the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle, the “Occupy movement” today. Some revel in this tradition. President Obama's buddy and associate Bill Ayres reflected on his past Weather Underground activity in a 2001 interview with the NY Times. The Times quoted him saying, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough". In contrast, conservative political movements are rarely violent. Tea Party demonstrations are reliably peaceful. Violence and destruction are inconsistent with its belief in individual liberty, equal treatment under the law and respect for public and private property. (With regard to the latter - need trash pickup? Just hold a Tea Party demonstration. Want to provide taxpayer supported work for sanitation crews? Celebrate the Obama inauguration on the D.C. Mall). The Occupy “movement” is synonymous with rioting, rape and vandalism. Riots in Oakland cost the cash strapped city millions of dollars. Pardon my Schadenfreude, but I hope Oakland residents are pleased with their choice for Mayor, OWS supporter Jean Quan.
Contrary to the media narrative, hate filled invective is far, far more prevalent on the left than the right. Sarah Palin is a c--- according to Bill Maher (and numerous other self-proclaimed feminists). “I don’t want to satirize George W. Bush but to ‘vaporize' him". (Comedian Tom Lehrer). Demon-du-jour Paul Ryan is a “zombie-eyed granny-starver,” and a “murderer of opportunity.” (Esquire’s Charles Pierce). Republicans? “They’re gonna put y’all back in chains.” says our illustrious Vice-President speaking to a predominately black audience. The FRC? It rates a "hate group" listing from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
That is the language of incitement.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Credit for Mitt Romney's bracing VP pick goes in part to Mark Steyn and other conservative critics of Romney's heretofore vapid campaign. The latest of "Mark's-never-to-be-missed-weekend-columns" (as former federal prosecutor, now estimable commentator Andrew McCarthy put it), likened Romney's campaign to, among other banalities, a Purina pet food commercial.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Some years ago I was on a plane ride from hell, being seated between two older women pontificating (to each other) about the G. W. Bush initiative to reform (and save) Social Security. One lady stated that she wanted "those folks in Washington to stay out of my personal affairs". Unsaid (by her or me) was that "her personal affairs" involved "my personal affairs" and those of my kids and grandkids. But putting that aside, these ladies seemed ignorant of the fact that the Bush proposal did not affect them at all. Bush wanted to give workers under the age of 55 (which didn't include my travel companions) the option of putting a portion of their SS contributions into private accounts.
There's the same widespread ignorance about Republican proposals to save Medicare. And it's not like the impending collapse of Medicare is a controversial issue. Here is Barack Obama on the subject last July.
“...if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up.”
Naturally, our cojone-free president is doing nothing about this. Nor are his equally gutless congressional colleagues. (Ron Wyden being the notable exception). As Nancy Pelosi put it, "We have a plan for Medicare. It's called Medicare." Placing the two quotes side by side reveals the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. The task to fix the program is left to politically courageous statesmen like Paul Ryan.
Since Democrats are readying ads showing Ryan wheeling a crippled grandma in front of an onrushing locomotive or into a cauldron of boiling oil*, it is necessary to present his actual prescription for Medicare reform. Here is a nice, concise explanation from the editors of National Review.
The Romney-Ryan proposal — which has the support of liberal Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon — would let senior citizens choose a coverage plan provided either by the federal government or by a private company. The government would defray the cost of purchasing the plan selected. The providers would submit bids showing the premiums they would charge to cover the benefits Medicare has traditionally offered. The second-lowest bid would set the amount the government would provide for each beneficiary.
Seniors who picked the second-cheapest provider would have their entire premium paid by the government, and seniors who picked the cheapest would get a check for the difference. Seniors who picked a more expensive plan would have to pay the difference out of pocket.
The NR editors don't mention it here, but again, those over the age of 55 (darn it, that's me) will be stuck with the same lousy system. Also, the private plans would have to meet government standards. It's not like the government is going to hand over some money and tell seniors, "You're on your own."
Repeatedly faced with the weakness of their positions on issues, liberals do not bother making persuasive arguments. Instead they lie, cheat, misrepresent or just change the subject.** That they get away with this to a disappointingly large extent doesn't reflect well on the uninformed electorate they are targeting. For his part, Ryan believes that treating constituents like children will backfire and that they can be engaged in an intelligent discussion of the issues. I'm not so sure.
*He's already been shown throwing her off a cliff.
Leftist propaganda is tending increasingly toward self-parody as indicated by this ad and the more recent production, "The Life of Julia", a celebration of enfeeblement.
**For an example of the latter, there's Obama's non-response to Ryan's now famous evisceration of Obamacare. (You Tube link below - Unfortunately the video doesn't show Obama refusing to address Ryan's talking points).
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Mark Steyn has a grand time dissecting the Olympics opening ceremony, Britain and (among other dysfunctions) its National Health Service.
"Years ago, in London’s Daily Telegraph, I carelessly remarked that, while one might be able to find a Bhutanese yak farmer somewhere upcountry who envied Britons the NHS, nobody else on the planet did. A couple of days later, the paper printed a letter from Mr. Sonam Chhoki, a Bhutanese gentleman who, while not a yak farmer himself, came from generations of sturdy yak-farming stock. He reported that his British in-laws were still waiting for their operations after two years, and that based on his experience Bhutan’s health service was superior."