The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

VIDEO: Was Ann Coulter Right?

Posted on | February 7, 2012 | 20 Comments

A year ago, at CPAC 2011, Ann Coulter was asked what she thought about the 2012 Republican presidential field:

“Well, I’ll put it in a nutsell: If we don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and will lose.”

Although I never shared Chairman Ann’s enthusiasm for Christie as a presidential candidate, the second half of her prediction has become rather problematic, considering how she is now an enthusiastic supporter of the candidate she previously prophesied would lose to Obama.

Miss Coulter’s prediction was cited by American Spectator columnist David Catron, in a column with an unfortunate title.

David: How am I supposed to explain this to Ann, huh? Do you want her to hate us? Given all her previous services to the conservative cause, is she not entitled to some measure of respect, even when she is demonstrably wrong?

After having examined the enormous odds against stopping Romney from getting the nomination, it occurs to me that Miss Coulter’s early endorsement of Mitt could be viewed in a gentler light. But I’m not yet prepared to argue in her defense on this specific point, and certainly she is as always her own most formidable advocate. My point is that, if we disagree with her, we should do so respectfully, in consideration of Miss Coulter’s long years of combat on behalf of conservatism.

Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, each being senior to Miss Coulter in the ranks, are entitled to chastise her as they see fit. But their criticism shouldn’t incite a dogpile reaction against her. If she’s off the ranch and out of bounds in this instance, OK. Criticize her judgment, but don’t attempt to annihilate her reputation.

Category: Ann Coulter, Mitt Romney

Mead Seeks Technical Solutions To Existential Problems

Posted on | February 7, 2012 | 1 Comment

by Smitty

I’m still waiting for Walter Russell Mead to get down to brass tacks. In this third installment, Mead sounds like he thinks shiny gadgets are going to fix everything.

Economically, the decline of the blue social model presents Americans with some urgent questions: how can we generate a rising standard of living for our citizens in a post-Fordist world? If manufacturing and stable oligopolies won’t underpin lifetime employment and rising wages for new generations of Americans, what are we going to do instead?
To start answering these questions we have to think about whether the United States enjoys any comparative advantages or can we develop some that, wisely deployed, could provide us with the kind of rising living standards that we have enjoyed in the past?
It’s clear that many such advantages exist and some are even becoming more prominent and useful. In the energy sector, homegrown shale gas and shale oil plus large new discoveries in the western hemisphere suggest that 21st century America will enjoy secure access to an abundant and varied mix of fuel from nearby and friendly neighbors. Blessed by a favorable climate and rich soil, our agricultural productivity will continue to astound. Our geographical location, which gives us access to both of the world’s greatest ocean trading basins while protecting us against invasion by other great powers, remains a tremendous advantage. The language we speak continues to develop as the global lingua franca, giving every American citizen and American business a significant boost.

Sure, I love me some technology. I took an undergraduate engineering degree, and have veered into software. Yes, it’s shiny. But can buzzing little doo-dads and social networks really forge some brave new liberal world? Put me in the doubtful column.

The crisis of our day is a moral one. The surfeit of laws to which Mead alludes has rendered a generation of spoiled brats who demand of the Nanny State, which gives with the one hand and slaps with the other. One of the lies of Progress is that we must always move ‘forward’, though the slope be negative, and reject traditional mores, which have (in the words of Postmodernists) been disproven.

What we must do to recover is reject the Postmodern idiocy, the Progressive falsehoods (global warming, abortion, welfare states, &c), and return to a traditional focus on morality and liberty. The technology, always orthogonal to human nature, will take care of itself. Trust me.

via Insty

Category: Intellectuals

Quaff That Kool-Aid!

Posted on | February 7, 2012 | 5 Comments

by Smitty

#OccupyOvalOffice would like to lament the fact that Triple-O can’t snap his fingers and make us all drink the Kool-Aid:

Listen, buddy: you can’t have it both ways: either you’re a transformational figure standing in front of the Greek columns,

Those Greek shafts have taken on unexpected meaning, no?

or you’re just a mediocre crapflooder with “Property of the Plutocrats” stamped on his forehead. There really isn’t a lot of middle ground here.

Strictly as a thought experiment, would #OccupyOvalOffice demonstrate any shred of responsibility in a second administration? Peer into the year 2015, when his refrain is “Hey, if you guys in the bread line ignore the 22nd Amendment, I swear I can fix this mess Bush left me. Third time is the charm, eh?”

Bicker and argue over GOP candidates all you care to, but never lose sight of the ultimate truth that This. Joker. Must. Go.

via Red Alexandria

Category: Barack Obama

Narcisssism, Continued

Posted on | February 7, 2012 | 26 Comments

Having previously remarked on Newt Gingrich’s narcissism issues, it would be unfair for me to ignore Michele Bachmann’s comments:

The Minnesota congresswoman was asked by Bloomberg TV’s Al Hunt which of the remaining candidates was the most conservative during an interview Friday, and said none of them measured up to her conservative credentials.
“I was. I was the perfect candidate,” Bachmann said in response. . . .
Pressed by Hunt as to which of the candidates still in the race she considered most conservative, Bachmann again responded by referring to herself as the “perfect” choice.
“America had their chance with the perfect candidate,” Bachmann said.

More than a month after she quit the race, Bachmann still doesn’t have enough emotional distance from her campaign to be able to see the situation more objectively? I’m struggling to explain this.

Hunt asked whether she would endorse any of the remaining candidates, and she refused to do so: “No, not soon. I just haven’t made the decision. . . . Honestly, I don’t think endorsements make a lot of difference.”

Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman endorsed Mitt Romney. Rick Perry and Herman Cain endorsed Newt Gingrich. Yet Bachmann cannot endorse anyone? As if, by endorsing another candidate, she would be lending her saintly aura to an inferior politician?

Category: Michele Bachmann

Laughing In The Face Of Pessimism

Posted on | February 7, 2012 | 2 Comments

by Smitty

The Camp of the Saints sure had a case of the Mondays yesterday:

We have, indeed, gone mad [I like to use the term ‘A World Turned Upside Down’]. What once was considered perverse is now considered normal. Ideas are now accepted as reasonable that, had we expressed them to our ancestors, they would have had us confined in mental asylums or laughed at as childish drivel. Dare express today beliefs that a mere one hundred and fifty years ago were believed by the vast majority of people and you will either be labeled a fool or a hater or a neanderthal, not worthy of being taken seriously, only worthy of ridicule.

I blame this on the triumph of Leftist Thinking.

There was the Enlightenment, and now we have a Postmodern assault on it. Reason is under siege from hairbrained emotionalism. Your choices are join in the hedonistic/nihilistic celebration, give up and be neutral, or stand and deliver.

The lying, infantile swine who seek to destroy our culture cannot stand up to serious questioning. The Tea Party is the correct response; #Occupy is just a sad imitation. In a series of sad imitations. The Left, like all evil, can only destroy, not create.

I, for one, doubt that the Overall Basic Adjuvant Malevolence Acceptance is any greater today than it ever has been. Humanity is as evil as it ever was.

In the absence of technology like the internet, I’d be more worried. Things only seem more dire because we’re peering into the belly of the beast more thoroughly. And the dying beast flails a lot. But hold firm. With this level of pressure, the evil will retreat in a couple of election cycles. For a while.

Category: Camp of the Saints

LIVE AT FIVE – 02.07.12

Posted on | February 7, 2012 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Shelling Of Homs By Syrian Government Continues Into Fourth Day

Streets of Homs strewn with wrecked cars and rubble

Observers report loyalist forces moving into position to attack the city; PRC, Russia continue to block UN action
PRC: We’re not going to be a rubber stamp



Rick Perry Leaves Door Open To Future Presidential Bid
Could face tough re-election campaign for governor’s seat

LA Schools Head Announces Entire Miramonte ES Staff To Be PurgedReplaced
Complete staff turnover seen as necessary after abuse allegations



POLITICS
Clint Eastwood Speaks Out On “Halftime In America” Ad

Clint Eastwood in the controversial Chrysler ad

Denies political angle to ad; rejects Rove’s notion that ad is a pro-Obama valentine

Catholic Outcry Over Administration Birth Control Mandate Could Be Big Factor This Fall

Santorum Aiming To Head Romney Off At The Pass In Colorado

Romney Ties Obama To Carter

Occupiers Face Off Against Stand Up For Oakland
Oaktown is no longer amused by your Occupod shenanigans

Santorum Continues Fight To Get On Indiana Ballot

Judge Nixes Texas Redistricting Deal



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Euro Weakens Amid Greece Debt Discussions; PRC Stocks Drop
Wall Street Edges Lower After String Of Gains
Verizon, Redbox Team Up To Challenge Netflix With Video Streaming Service
Key States Move Closer To Foreclosure-Abuse Deal
Under Fire, Oil Exec Gives Up $100 Million Severance Pay
Another Green Energy Company Stumbles: Fisker Auto Lays Off Workers
North Sea Crude Over $116 On Cold Snap, Iran Sanctions
New York Crude Falls Again On Bets U.S. Demand Will Remain Weak
Gold Settles Almost 1% Lower
2012 Super Bowl’s Most Tweeted Ads
Facebook Looks To Make Mobiles Click
Microsoft To Drop Start Button From Windows 8?
ITC Staff Favors B&N In Patent Dispute With Microsoft



SPORTS
Sixers Spoil Kobe’s Historic Night

Kobe Bryant makes the top 5

Bryant scores 28 points but Sixers win anyway, 95-90

Chris Paul And The Clippers Outlast Magic In OT

Coyotes Topple Red Wings, 3-1

#4 Missouri Sneaks By Oklahoma

Kessel Leads Surging Leafs Past Oilers

Lin Scores 28, Carries Short-Handed Knicks Again

Scola Leads Rockets To 99-90 Win Over Depleted Nuggets

Rudderless UConn Drifting Out Of NCAA Picture

Spurs Hit The Road, Beat Grizzlies 89-84

Court Strips Contador Of 2010 Tour De France Title

England Fails The Big Test, Falls 0-3 To Pakistan

Nationals Confirm Ankiel Signing, Announce Mark Teahen Signed To Minor League Deal



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
The Evil One Takes Over Metro For A Day

The Evil One with one of his dark minions

Strange utterances and random art from the noted fashion designer

Two Good Excuses To Watch “Smash”

If NBC Gets Fined For Her Middle Finger, Rapper M.I.A.’s Going To Be Paying It

Kate Hudson’s Amazing Post-Natal Abs


Smoking Like Her Idol

Bieber’s Bodyguard Opens Can Of Israeli Whoop-Ass On Papparazzo

Randy Travis Arrested For Public Intoxication

Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee Portrait



FOREIGNERS
U.S. Hopes Russia’s Lavrov Can Persuade Assad To Step Away
Palestinians Take Step Toward Unity
Teams Search For Philippines Quake Survivors
Obama Tightens Iran Sanctions Over Bank “Deception”
U.S. Announces Limited Easing Of Burma Sanctions
Egypt Names 19 Americans To Face Trial On NGO Funding, Including Transportation Secretary’s Son
Deadly Freeze, Heavy Snow Keep Slamming Europe
Anti-Putin Protesters Show Staying Power
Radical UK Imam To Be Released On Bail After Six Years’ Detention For Deportation
New Finnish President A “Lone Star”
Mexico’s Conservative Party Picks Josefina Mota To Run For President



BLOGS & STUFF
Pat Dollard: Eastwood Says “I Am Certainly Not Politically Affiliated With Mister Obama”
Allahpundit: Erickson Endorses Sweet Meteor Of Death
Jim Geraghty: Are We Due For A Santorum Surge?
CNN: Santorum Hits Romney As “Unqualified And Dead Wrong On Healthcare”
Weasel Zippers: Catholic League Ready For War With Administration Over Birth Control Mandate
Lonely Conservative: Fisker Automotive, Another Obama Green Cash Recipient, Laying Off Workers
Israel Matzav: It’s 1967 All Over Again
Riehl World View: Ann Coulter Naked
CNSNews: Archbishop Rips HHS Mandate As “Blow To A Freedom…For Which You Have seen Your Buddies Fall In Battle”; Chief Of Army Chaplains Tries To Block Letter, Overruled
Conservative Hideout: Constitution “Too Old, Embraces Too Few Rights”
Conservatives4Palin: Obama’s Two-Month Payroll Tax Holiday Paid For By Huge New Tax On Mortgages


SOTD: 52nd Street

Category: Live at Five

A Political Math Problem

Posted on | February 6, 2012 | 16 Comments

“The after-battle assessments in the major newspapers and newsweeklies generally agreed on the big picture: the campaign was not prepared for a lengthy fight; it had an insufficient delegate operation; it squandered vast sums of money; and the candidate herself evinced a paralyzing schizophrenia — one day a shots-’n’-beers brawler, the next a Hallmark Channel mom.”
— Joshua Green, “The Front-Runner’s Fall,” The Atlantic, September 2008

“In a meeting room at the Palazzo hotel [in Las Vegas] over the past week, Newt Gingrich mapped out a detailed strategy that would keep him in the presidential race all the way to the Republican convention in August.
“The crux of the former House speaker’s new plan is math: a complex analysis of each state’s delegates, how they’re awarded and how many, reasonably, Gingrich can expect to win.”
— Amy Gardner, “Newt Gingrich campaign offers detailed plan to carry on,” Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2002

As soon as I read the article about Newt Gingrich’s weeklong Vegas strategy sessions, my mind clicked back to Josh Green’s fascinating article about Hillary Clinton’s doomstruck 2008 campaign. How had such an overwhelming front-runner, with so many built-in advantages over her rivals, managed to fumble away the nomination? Green’s article describes the basic error in about 170 words, summarizing the strategic assumptions contained in a March 2007 campaign memo written by Clinton adviser Harold Ickes:

Ickes believed that Iowa and New Hampshire could determine Clinton’s fate, and that the February 5 Super Tuesday primaries would determine the nominee. No mention was made of the delegates or the later-caucus states that actually figured so decisively.
Ickes seemed attuned to the asymmetric risk that accompanies overwhelming front-runner status: the collapse of momentum that would accompany an unexpected loss. He posited that Edwards and Obama could sustain losing Iowa and New Hampshire but worried that Clinton could not; he urged that she spend “substantial” time in Iowa; and he recommended a contingency plan that would haunt the campaign when his own budget team didn’t fulfill it. Noting the difficulty of raising more than $75 million before Iowa, Ickes stressed the need to maintain a $25 million reserve, presumably as insurance against a setback. The campaign wound up raising more than $100 million—but, according to The New York Times, by the time Iowa was lost, $106 million had been spent. The $25 million reserve had vanished, and the campaign was effectively insolvent.

This was a stunning revelation: The Clinton campaign burned through more than $100 million before it ever got to New Hampshire, didn’t think in terms of delegate counts, and did not bother to plan beyond the Super Tuesday primaries.

There are obvious parallels to the Gingrich campaign, on a smaller scale. Consider the matter of money: Gingrich spent more than $10 million before the end of 2011, entering 2012 with about $2 million cash on hand. By comparison, Mitt Romney spent about $36 million by the end of last year, entering 2012 with about $20 million cash on hand.

Yet the winner of the Iowa caucuses was neither Romney nor Gingrich, but rather Rick Santorum, who spent less than $2 million and had less than $300,000 cash on hand to begin 2012.

And it was not until last week — after the Florida primary — that Gingrich’s campaign staff sat down and calculated the remaining campaign schedule in terms of delegate counts.

There are obvious differences between the Democratic race in 2008 and the Republican campaign in 2012, of course: Going into 2008, the Democrats were fired up, having taken back Congress in 2006, and eager to recapture the White House they’d narrowly lost in 2000. John Edwards, John Kerry’s 2004 running mate, was a contender who’d spent four years building his campaign, especially in Iowa. And none of the GOP 2012 candidates, not even Romney, have the kind of fund-raising resources that enabled Hillary to raise $100 million in 2007.

Another glaring difference: The three-candidate race between Clinton, Edwards and Barack Obama that defined the early campaign for Democrats in 2007-08 was fairly stable. In 2011-2012, the “flavor of the month” cycles in the GOP campaign saw five major candidates flame out before the third contest of the race, the Jan. 21 primary in South Carolina. Here is a helpful chart:

Candidate ……. Money Raised (12/31/11) … Quit
Tim Pawlenty ………….. $5.1 million …………….. Aug. 14
Herman Cain ………… $16.8 million ……………… Dec. 3
Michelle Bachmann … $9.2 million ……………… Jan. 4
Jon Huntsman ……….. $5.9 million …………….. Jan. 16
Rick Perry ……………… $19.8 million ……………. Jan. 19

(Source: Center for Responsive Politics)

Between them, these five candidates raised a total of $56.8 million, a sum greater than Romney’s $56.4 million, yet two — Pawlenty and Cain — quit before any votes were cast, and three more quit in a 15-day span between the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses and the South Carolina primary. Both Cain and Perry have given Gingrich their endorsements, but he would surely rather have the $36.6 million that their campaigns raised (and mostly spent) in 2011.

It is remarkable that Santorum’s low-budget campaign out-performed all five of the candidates who quit before South Carolina, each of whom raised at least twice his 2011 total. It is furthermore remarkable that Gingrich, despite his vast fundraising advantage over Santorum, is trailing Santorum in polls of both Colorado and Minnesota, which hold caucuses Tuesday.

And yet, as Amy Gardner points out in her Washington Post article, the Gingrich campaign’s need for more money is now so desperate that the candidate’s time is being spent on fundraising efforts: “Gingrich . . . barely appeared in public during nearly a full week in Las Vegas to concentrate on raising money.”

More alarming than that, however, is the revelation that after just five contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada — Gingrich is already at such a disadvantage in terms of delegate count that even by his own estimate, he cannot hope to regain the lead before the Texas primary scheduled for April 3: “Our commitment is to find a series of victories which, by the end of the Texas primary, will leave us at parity with Governor Romney. And by that point forward, we’ll see if we can’t actually win the nomination.”

“We’ll see”?

Newt is dialing-for-dollars, trying to raise money to continue his campaign on the basis of “we’ll see”? And in point of fact, a pending lawsuit over re-districting means that the Texas primary is likely to be delayed well past the scheduled April 3 date.

The Gingrich campaign is faced with a math problem involving not merely delegate counts, but also time and money. An apparently high “burn rate” of funds means that Gingrich must raise large sums merely to keep his campaign going, and he must keep going for at least two months if he hopes to catch up with Romney, a hope contingent on his successes in the meantime.

The math problem is even tougher for Santorum — who got the bad news today that he failed to qualify for the ballot in Indiana’s May primary — but Santorum’s low-budget underdog campaign has a far lower “burn rate” compared to Gingrich, and can more plausibly maintain a “we’ll see” approach. Between now and Super Tuesday on March 6, the calendar looks like this:

Feb. 7
Colorado (caucus) ……………………. 36 delegates
Minnesota (caucus) ………………….. 40 delegates
Missouri (non-binding primary) … 0 delegates

Feb. 11
Maine (caucus) …………………………. 24 delegates

Feb. 22 — Arizona Debate (CNN)

Feb. 28
Arizona (primary) ……………………… 29 delegates
Michigan (primary) …………………… 30 delegates

March 1 — Georgia Debate (CNN)

March 3
Washington (caucus) …………………. 43 delegates

So there will be 202 delegates awarded before Super Tuesday, 100 of which will be awarded before the next debate on Feb. 22. It is possible that the debates could dramatically alter the race, shifting the momentum against Romney. But unless that happens, it’s difficult to see Gingrich winning any of those states, so that Romney’s advantage is likely to increase between now and Super Tuesday, when the primaries in Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma represent likely or possibly wins. Yet other states on the Super Tuesday calendar, including Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia, look to be big wins for Romney, and it’s entirely possible that Romney will win more of the total 437 delegates at stake on March 6, increasing his margin still further.

By the morning of March 7, then, Gingrich could very well be in a worse position than he is now. And while unexpected developments in the next 30 days could shift the momentum against Romney, as of today, Gingrich is facing a very difficult political math problem.

Category: Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum

FreedomWorks Conference Call On H.R. 3551 With Rep. Jeff Landry

Posted on | February 6, 2012 | Comments Off on FreedomWorks Conference Call On H.R. 3551 With Rep. Jeff Landry

by Smitty

Freedom Works sponsored a conference call with Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA) on H.R. 3551, a bill that would create an opt-in measure for the Payroll Tax Holiday. Landry is Iraq veteran, and a former Army Sergeant. A genuine Tea Party representative.

HR 3551 Summary:
12/2/2011–Introduced.
Social Security Preservation through Individual Choice Enhancement Act – Amends the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 to allow individual taxpayers an election to claim the 2% reduction in employment taxes under such Act in any calendar year beginning in or after 2012. Amends title II (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits) of the Social Security Act to increase the applicable social security retirement age by one month for each calendar year that a taxpayer elects a reduction in employment taxes under this Act.

The payroll tax holiday:
Bad policy, good politics. $120 billion/year out of Social Security. Landry noted that the Federal government has created programs such that people can’t understand them. The SSPICE was quantified by the Social Security actuary, not Landry.

Balanced budget amendment:
During the debt ceiling fight last year, he and about 15 others pushed a balanced budget amendment during the budget ceiling fight. So the will of the people does matter.

What is the next big thing this year?
The payroll tax holiday, the budget. Senator Reid remains a chokepoint.

They used my question: ‘Does John Boehner have a strategy, and could you help him articulate what that is?’
Landry reports that he is kept in the dark. He likened Congress to a baby: “When the toddler is silent, you know they are up to no good.”

Props to FreedomWorks for hosting this call. This is precisely what we need more of in this country: concise, substantive discussion of issues. Request you link, Tweet, and call your Congresscritter with instructions to co-sign.

This silly Landry guy: doesn’t he understand that Washington DC redistributes wealth, not power.

Category: Freedom Works, Louisiana
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin