Can You Make Peace With Stupid?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Erickson over at Red State has a post about “Finding Common Ground With the Occupiers“. His four suggestions toward the end are completely agreeable to about every conservative I’ve ever met. In summary, put the public sector cart behind the private sector horse, where it belongs, unless you are stupid.

And he’s even making the sort of argument I would, that we should have a go at diplomacy with the #OccupyWhipperSnappers, and try to use #OWS as a teachable moment:

But let’s presume there are some people out there who are reachable. We on the right should not be as dismissive of what is happening in this movement the way the left, to their determine, wholly dismissed the tea party movement. There is, in fact, some shared ground even beyond the superficial ground I’ve already covered.

This really boils down to a question of pedagogy, not just policy (where I really agree with Erickson’s suggestions in the post). You’ve got a park full of bratty, ignorant students who not only lack respect for you, they have had their heads filled with false and opposite things. I’ve had a couple of teaching experiences. Teaching can be fun, if there is some level of positive engagement on the part of the students. The Animal House, or Breakfast Club situations, while funny in film, are no fun for somebody behind a podium.

Or somebody dealing with a park full of petulant, overgrown children. At that point, I’m far more inclined to tough love. If the little brats really think they are making a statement, teachers such as cold and hunger should be brought in. Also, the word ‘no’. Let these knuckleheads cry ‘uncle’. Then put the little jackwagons in a Gunny Ermy situation, where they can find out what real authoritarianism is like. I have it on some authority that a boot camp environment can be a great way to go ‘cold turkey’ on stupid.

Such a stick/carrot approach, with emphasis on ‘stick’, in my opinion, is the best way to shake out the tiny few who are worth two hoots (in an economic sense: theologically, they are certainly God’s children) in the #OWS crowd. As for the rest: no more love than bread and water. Because making peace with Commie stupid is the first step toward becoming Commie stupid.

Strictly As A Thought Experiment

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Say there was a dynamic candidate with a, call it ‘reasonable’, shot at a major party nomination.

Say that candidate got the impression that a fix was in already for that nomination, and all of the debates and polls and flesh pressing were really just so much dog and pony.

Say that candidate mounted a third party run.

What is the over-under on head ‘splosions among the Ruling Class Overlords?

‘… Significantly Less Substantive, in Terms of His Words, Than He Appears …’

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Quin Hillyer not gripped by the Mitt:

The main thing I learned is that Mitt Romney is significantly less substantive, in terms of his words, than he appears to be when you watch him live.

Or Michelle:

When Bachmann isn’t as well versed on an issue, it really shows, much to her detriment. But what she does know, she explains with great skill.

Or Rick:

On paper his answers on Tuesday night were just as excruciatingly inept as the reviews have all said they looked live.

Also faring poorly, Herman:

In every other debate, watching on TV, I’ve given Cain among the highest grades. On paper on Tuesday, he merited no better than a C-minus. But I’d enjoy him, more than anybody else on that stage, as my dinner guest, and I’d trust him in a heartbeat with investing my personal finances.

Read the whole thing.

Perhaps the debates constitute good theater, but should be de-emphasized. The point they make is that there isn’t any one noggin that can personally grasp more than a fraction of the POTUS Knowledge. That’s why you have a staff, eh?

Instead of debates, maybe we should have blog wars and twitter fights. I’d like to suggest a #PCF tag for Political Cat Fights. Reeeowwwrrrr!
via The Conservatory

Cain Campaign Finished Third Quarter With $1.3 Million Cash on Hand, No Debt

Posted on Comments

Got this press release just after midnight:

Cain’s Surge Leads to Increase in Support

The Friends of Herman Cain presidential campaign committee reports total third quarter contributions of $2,813,341.52 with cash on hand of $1,333,778.56. The committee reported no debt.
The momentum from the September 22nd Fox News-Google GOP Presidential Debate in Orlando and Cain’s subsequent Florida, Kansas City, Minnesota, and Illinois straw poll victories has elevated Mr. Cain to front-runner status and has helped the committee raise an additional 2 million dollars since the close of the FEC reporting period.
“We have had a very successful quarter.  Mr. Cain’s message is spreading and attracting supporters all across the country,” said Mark Block, Chief Operating Officer for Friends of Herman Cain, Inc.
Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan to restore the economy is resonating with the general public and this surge of momentum has enabled the campaign to leverage Cain’s rise in the polls into financial resources.  The American public is eager to elect a leader with a proven record of leadership and common sense.

Speaking of “resonating with the general public,” Citizens for Cain has this video of Cain’s appearance on the Steve Gill Show:

CITIZENS for CAIN
Join the Grassroots Online Army!

Soon to Be a ‘Downfall’ Video Parody: Huntsman Campaign Goes Broke!

Posted on Comments

The man I dubbed “Governor Asterisk” in August has spent more than $4 million dollars to achieve a Real Clear Politics poll average of 1.6% and is now about half a million bucks in the red:

Jon Huntsman’s presidential campaign is verging on broke after burning through more than $4 million since the former Utah governor entered the race for the Republican nomination in June.
The Huntsman campaign, which re-trenched last month by laying off staff and moving its national quarters to the must-win primary state of New Hampshire, finished the third fundraising quarter in September with just $327,000 in the bank and $890,000 in debt.
Since joining the race on June 21, Huntsman raised $2.26 million and contributed $2.25 million of his own money to the campaign for a total $4.51 million.
But a campaign official told CNN Friday that they have spent $4.18 million, leaving Huntsman with a paltry war chest as the GOP nomination fights heats up.

Wait until Hitler hears about this. He’s gonna be pissed.

UPDATE: Just checking the archives, it was while live-blogging the debate at Ames, Iowa — Aug. 11, at precisely 9:10 p.m. ET — that I wrote: “Jon Huntsman, asterisk.” And then subsequently:

9:29 p.m. ET: Question for Jon “Asterisk” Huntsman. He talks about how wonderful his record is in Utah. . . .
9:33 p.m. ET: Susan Ferrichio asks a question of Governor Asterisk, who says . . . eh, something.

The guy’s poll numbers never exceeded the statistical margin of error, and yet here he was chewing up valuable debate time as if this lightweight who had accepted an ambassadorship from Barack Obama had a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming the Republican 2012 nominee to oppose his former boss? Who could believe such a thing? So on the morning before the Sept. 12 debate in Tampa, this was how my American Spectator column began:

Governor Asterisk
Jon Huntsman doesn’t belong in the GOP debates.

TAMPA — CNN’s Wolf Blitzer should begin the Republican presidential debate tonight by asking Jon Huntsman a simple question: “Why are you here?”
The former Utah governor’s campaign has no obvious political rationale and is barely a statistical blip in national polls. Since he officially announced his 2012 presidential bid in June, Huntsman has only once (in early August) polled as high as 4 percent. Five of the six most recent national surveys show Huntsman’s support among Republican voters at a mere 1 percent — less than the margin of error. Despite the effective non-existence of his support, however, Huntsman will be among the eight candidates on stage tonight (8 p.m. ET) for the debate at the Florida State Fairgrounds sponsored by the Tea Party Express.
Of course, Blitzer would never question the legitimacy of Huntsman’s candidacy for the simple reason that the CNN anchor is a leading member of Huntsman’s most important constituency, the media. . . .

Like I said: Wait until Hitler hears about this.

UPDATE II: Jon Huntsman: I Am the 99%

UPDATE III: Hitler probably won’t take this news too well, either: Cain Campaign Finished Third Quarter With $1.3 Million Cash on Hand, No Debt

UPDATE IV: More bad headlines for Der Führer:

Huntsman Campaign $550K in the Red
— ABC News

Huntsman campaign reports nearly $1 million in
debt, even after donating $2 million to himself
— Associated Press

Jon Huntsman campaign nearly broke
— CBS News

From the Future Ambassador to Vanuatu

Posted on Comments

Feb. 17, 2010: When we first met by accident in an elevator
at CPAC, Marco Rubio said to me, ‘Hey, your camera’s pink.’

After the events of this afternoon, I e-mailed my American Spectator story (about Marco Rubio denying my Thursday exclusive) to a fellow journalist. He replied, “My guess is that you were right about the story, too.” And this seemed to require an explanation on my part:

Well, whether or not I was “right” — that is, whether my source was correct about the actions and motives of Cesar Conda — the facts are that (a) my sources said what my sources said, (b) [redacted description of key source], (c) Cesar was named specifically, (d) this story just “fell in my lap” and (e) both Rubio’s advocacy for an early primary and Conda’s Romney connection had been previously reported elsewhere.
The dots were already forming a pattern. My sources just named Conda as the glue connecting the dots. Maybe they were mistaken, who knows? But I didn’t “make it up out of thin air,” and the fact that my sources don’t want to fall afoul of Conda (or Rubio or Romney) was something I knew before I reported it. Ergo, I’m on the hook for a story I can’t prove but which a lot of people vow is the real explanation behind all this.
Also, glancing at my notes, I now see that the name “Jeb Bush” appears for some reason, reminding me that the phrase “the Jeb Bush people” was used by one of my sources to describe the forces arrayed behind the (alleged, but officially denied) Conda/ Rubio/ Romney push. But I can’t remember now which source used that phrase, and I also don’t remember whether this was characterized as a known fact or just speculation.
Well, just another day on the beat, eh? I was sitting here Thursday minding my own business when the phone rang, and the tip struck me as heavy enough to make some calls and turn it into a story, so I’ll take whatever blowback I get. As I said in an update to my blog just now, I plan to be laughing about this over beers in Tampa in August, and by then maybe it will be sufficiently safe to tell the truth. Cesar Conda will come into the hotel bar, offer to buy me a beer and say, “Hey, Stace, can you get me in with the Cain people? Because ever since the Romney campaign imploded after that Vegas debate last October, I’ve been trying to get through to them, and they won’t talk to me. And now that Paul Ryan is Herman’s VP pick …”
Eh, forgive and forget, y’know? Let bygones be bygones, I always say. It’s the Christian thing to do.
— Robert Stacy McCain
Future U.S. Ambassador to Vanuatu

 





 

 
PREVIOUSLY:

‘Troubling Similarities’: Politico Reporter Kendra Marr Fired for Plagiarism

Posted on Comments

A New York Times reporter raised hell when he saw his work recycled at Politico:

Late in the evening of Wednesday, October 12, the writer of a  piece about transportation policy published in the New York Times e-mailed one of our senior editors about potential problems with a piece on the same subject  that was published in POLITICO. Early Thursday morning, editors here compared  the pieces, and did see some similarities in phrasing. These were troubling  enough to warrant further examination of reporter Kendra Marr’s work.
This examination produced other examples of stories on transportation issues  that bore troubling similarities to work earlier published by others. Some of  these examples involved specific turns of phrase or passages that bore close  resemblance to work published elsewhere. Others involved similarities in the way  stories were organized to present their findings. . . .
Material published in our pages borrowed from the  work of others, without attribution, in ways which we cannot defend and will not  tolerate.

Marr actually was asked to resign, but “fired” fit better in the headline. Betsy Rothstein at Fishbowl DC gives the background:

The news is weighing hard on Politico executives. Marr was a beloved reporter in the newsroom. Even in their Editor’s note they refer to her as a “friend.” She was conscientious, solid. She wasn’t known to be among Politico‘s rock stars, but as a former reporter for WaPo whose work has appeared in The Orange County Register, San Jose Mercury News and The Miami Herald, she had a bright future. Now, we’re told, her career in Washington journalism is effectively over.

She was “beloved.” Thief. She was a “friend.” Thief. She was “conscientious.” Thief. “She had a bright future.” Thief.

Plagiarism is an attempt to take credit for someone else’s work. It is an act of selfishness and sloth, because nothing is easier than the act of basic courtesy involved in giving credit where credit is due. (Thanks to Jeff Quinton for the tip, by the way.)

Somewhere along the way to becoming “a beloved reporter” at Politico, Kendra Marr started getting away with thievery. It is quite likely she committed minor acts of plagiarism while at the Washington Post and didn’t caught, so that dishonesty became a habit, and she continued doing it until she did get caught.

And now her “bright future” is spoken of in the past tense.

Herman Cain: The Back Story

Posted on Comments

Herman Cain at the Value Voters Summit, Oct. 7 (Photo: Robert Stacy McCain)

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) is one of the most conservative members of the Senate. But being a native of Georgia, I remember Isakson’s reputation as a “squish” — damned near a RINO — among the hard-core conservatives of my acquaintance. It is therefore a rather ironic fact that the first time I heard of Herman Cain was in 2004 when my older brother Kirby, who still lives in Douglas County, Ga., called me while I was working at The Washington Times to tell me about this guy he’d heard on the radio who was, he assured me, “the real deal.” (If you knew Kirby, you’d understand why that got my attention.)

Cain was then a candidate in the 2004 Georgia Republican primary for Senate and, after Kirby called, I urged one of our reporters to investigate this insurgent candidate. Whatever ended up in the paper as a result of my editorial suggestion, what I learned from my own research was that the GOP Establishment had anointed Isakson as their candidate — and by “GOP Establishment” of course I mean Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman.

Back during the Bush years, Rove and Mehlman were the chief puppeteers pulling strings in DC to manipulate Republican primary contests across the country. This sort of top-down intervention was simultaneously (a) notorious among grassroots conservatives and (b) nearly impossible to prove, so that anyone who mentioned it publicly could be dismissed as a paranoid kook. But everybody knew what was really going on, and the most infamous example was in the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate primary where the conservative grassroots spported Pat Toomey, while the Rove/Mehlman axis put the fix in for the RINO incumbent, Arlen Specter.

You can ask Rick Santorum about this: Santorum was more or less forced to walk the plank for Specter’s re-election but — two years later, when Santorum faced a tough re-election contest in a bad year for Republicans — Specter and the GOP Establishment were MIA. What the Rove/Mehlman axis did to Santorum is fairly well-known, but how they conspired to beat Herman Cain in the 2004 Georgia Senate primary is less well-known. It is therefore helpful to read a recap of Cain’s 2004 campaign by Atlantic‘s Molly Ball:

Cain came out of nowhere: a virtual unknown banking on his business background, his message and his ability — honed as a paid motivational speaker — to hold audiences in thrall. And he very nearly forced Isakson, who was supposed to have it in the bag, into a humbling runoff.
“Had he understood politics a little bit more, had he started a little bit earlier and done things a little bit differently, he would be the United States senator from Georgia now,” said Atlanta-based Republican strategist Tom Perdue, who supported Cain in 2004 but didn’t work on his campaign.
Perdue believes the 2004 race was a vital political education for Cain.
The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO went into that race “naive about politics,” thinking he could command the political arena like he did the world of business. He came out of it with a better understanding, Perdue said.
“He learned from his mistakes,” Perdue said. “That doesn’t mean he’s going to be president of the United States. But he learned, and that in itself tells you that he’s a smart man.”

Read the whole thing, and maybe you’ll understand why I grit my teeth whenever some critic of Cain blames him for never having held elective office before. And maybe you’ll also understand why, despite my fanatical support for Herman Cain professional journalistic neutral objectivity, I have a soft spot for Rick Santorum. Both he and Cain are, in a sense, victims of the same kind of shady “party insider” machinations that are now being used to try to orchestrate the nomination of Mitt Romney.

As Michelle Malkin said yesterday: “Damn, I hate politics.” And every time I see Karl Rove on Fox News badmouthing Herman Cain, I tremble in fury, wishing they’d stick a “Mitt Romney Stooge” disclaimer on Rove.