There are two ways of meeting difficulties:
you alter the difficulties,
or you alter yourself to meet them.
Phyllis Bottome
Fact of the Day
"A new report by the Pew Center on the States finds that more than 1.8 million dead people are currently registered to vote." - Washington Times.
[And many of them are bankers being propped up by the federal government... And you were wondering why people in the Obama Administration are so brainless...]
Political Quote of the Day
The U.S. defense budget is about 43% of the world's total military spending - more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations, many of which are U.S. allies. Are Republicans really going to warn voters that America will be imperiled if the defense budget is cut 8% from projections over the next decade? In 2017, defense spending would still be more than that of the next 10 countries. - George Will
Because I LOVE My Readers on Valentine's Day...
I was introduced to George Mason University learnliberty.org videos by MJ Perry's Carpe Diem blog. I have watched a few of their other videos (which may be embedded in future posts), and I'm favorably impressed (thumbs UP!). Their Youtube channel is available here. [General disclaimer on embedded videos: they are available on the day of the original post. Videos are subject to availability on the host servers.]
And Now, The Envelope, Please:
2011 CAGW Porker of the Year:
Both THUMBS DOWN!
 |
| "For acting as if winning a Nobel Prize in physics also magically confers the title of venture capitalist, and for frittering away taxpayers’ hard-earned money, DOE Sec. Steven Chu is CAGW’s 2011 Porker of the Year." |
On this Valentine's Day, surely Elizabeth Barrett Browning might say:
How do I loathe thee?
Let me count the ways:
Solyndra, Beacon Power, Evergreen, Ener1, SpectraWatt, Fisker Automotive, LPG,...
Apparently the only thing green about Steven Chu is his administrative competence and experience and how he feels about other Cabinet members' budgets... But that idea about recycling taxpayer greenbacks into compost? [Okay, that last comment was sarcasm, folks...]
Laura Ingraham's O'Reilly Factor Talking Point Memo:
2/13/12: Thumbs DOWN!
Disclosure: I'm not a fan of Ms. Ingraham or most media conservatives (I've also been critical of Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others). There is nothing "special" about this particular talking point, but I've been making a point in recent posts about how media conservatives are deliberately obfuscating the discussion in a knowingly biased and superficial manner. This amateurish analysis by Ms. Ingraham serves as a good example:
The conservatives think that the country has serious fiscal problems that need to be addressed right away. And they also think Obama care is a time bomb that could destroy our healthcare system while moderates think that our problems, they are big, but they are not quite that severe.
There are also differences with respect to political tactics. Most conservatives think that the GOP needs to draw clear philosophical distinctions with Obama and also debate him on first principles. Most establishment types think that the GOP should focus on issues of competence and management.
Tea Partiers need to realize that a lot of establishment people, they are patriots, too. And they are just trying to build a better country. As to the establishment types, they need to see that many Tea Partiers are sophisticated enough to understand today's political reality.
First of all, Ms. Ingraham, your disingenuous opinion presupposes a artificial dichotomy of Republicans in two different camps that I absolutely reject. And a lot goes into just what one means by a 'conservative'. I'll discuss that shortly, but we libertarian conservatives are the REAL Tea Party people. A lot of people who call themselves Tea Party members are simply Obama critics attempting to co-opt the movement, but they are for Big Defense, and they are willing to give Big Government a blank check to ride roughshod over our civil liberties. The Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves at how so-called "conservatives" or "Tea Partiers" are subverting the concepts of limited government. For example, Jefferson and Madison didn't like the notion of a standing army, and Washington warned against our meddling in international disputes. The idea that Big Government could spy on you without even a warrant flies in the face of the intent and spirit of the Fourth Amendment.
The real Tea Partiers were motivated by moral hazard issues posed by Big Government intervention--including subsidizing the mortgages of other people, many of whom did not put up a conventional 20% down payment. They are guided by principles and are critical of both parties, not just the spendthrift Democrats. They are not fooled by a Newt Gingrich whom speaks in glowing terms of government/business cooperation and find a role for government intervention on almost every issue, no better than the Democrats.
And then you have Rick Santorum, whom supported prohibiting businesses from replacing striking workers, attempted to push "intelligent design" into the radical federal expansion into education known as No Child Left Behind, was and continues to be a strong proponent of the foreign interventionist neocon/Bush policy, Santorum pushed for a synthetic fuels tax credit (which any conservative today would denounce if Steven Chu (above) proposed it), and he tried to restrict the US Weather Service from making information available free to the public on the grounds it might undermine private-sector services. [On the latter point, I might understand privatizing the national weather service or providing user fee access, but what he was trying to do was anti-competitive and would have constituted a deadweight loss for consumers.] And don't get me started on his involvement as part of the Senate GOP leadership: where was he as the national debt nearly doubled under the Bush Administration (yes, I know he wasn't in Congress those last two years, but he was there as domestic expenditures expanded more radically than under any other administration over the previous 30 years), and he helped pave the way for the unpaid-for Medicare drug benefit, which, in my judgment, makes his attacks on ObamaCare (and RomneyCare, for that matter) hypocritical.
Now, no doubt, the anti-Romney forces will put up their usual arguments against Romney: am I not being hypocritical? What about Romney in Massachusetts. I made it clear in prior commentaries that I have issues with some of his policies as well. But, just to make a few points, here's what I know: (1) Romney has not served in the Congress and cannot be held responsible for the status quo; (2) Romney is a venture capitalist, not a community organizer and believes in the free market, while Gingrich and Santorum were professional politicians and served the better part of two decades in Congress; (3) Romney was vetoing spending bills from a heavily Democratic Massachusetts legislature and balancing state budgets, while the federal government grew in size and resources significantly under the Congressional "leadership" of Gingrich and Santorum and only achieved a balanced budget for a small percentage of the time under their tenure; (4) Gingrich and Santorum have been taking Politics of Envy talking points from Obama and the unions and griping about Romney's campaign spending, while at the same time they denounce class warfare politics and have talked about the unconstitutionality of campaign finance reforms!
I see Romney's notorious flip-flops on policies as manifestly inconsequential; I thought what he said in his 1994 and 2002 election campaigns was more tactical than substantive in nature: he did not want to be tagged as a right-wing ideologue in a state that does not elect strident conservatives to office (with registered Democrats outnumbering Republicans almost 3 to 1). Let's take abortion; I've made no secret of my pro-life views in this blog. The indisputable fact is that the Ted Kennedy campaign in 1994 ran a campaign ad against Romney because as a Mormon elder, he counseled a disgruntled woman from having an abortion. And when push came to shove, Romney vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill in Massachusetts, which is far more substantive than anything the other 3 candidates have done in Washington. The fact is, the President of the United States has very little say on the abortion issue. However, we are drowning in red ink, and I would rather put my trust in a governor whom has actually balanced a budget than lip service from professional Beltway politicians. As a famous hamburger commercial which made its way into the 1984 Presidential campaign asked, "Where's the beef?" from Gingrich and Santorum?
On one or two occasions in the past, I've gone into what we mean by "conservative". Let me point out in one sense, it has been used to signify resistance to significant changes from status quo because of concerns over unintended consequences. Thus, the radical suggestions that Ms. Ingraham is attributing to "conservatives" could be seen as intrinsically not conservative at all. Let me edit some relevant discussion from a Wikipedia essay on conservatism:
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism. Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.Liberal conservatism in the United States is a variant of conservatism that combines liberal economic ideas [the economic individualism of the classical liberals, which have been the tradition, and are thus considered conservative] with a Burkean form of conservative values and policies. Conservatism in the United States includes a variety of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, supply-side economics, social conservatism, libertarian conservatism, bioconservatism and religious conservatism, as well as support for a strong military.And what about libertarian conservatives, like myself? A good summary:
Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies within the United States and Canada which combine libertarian economic issues with aspects of conservatism. In contrast to paleoconservatives [protectionist conservatives like Pat Buchanan], libertarian conservatives support strict laissez-faire policies such as free trade, opposition to any national bank and opposition to business regulations. They are vehemently opposed to environmental regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic intervention. Many of them have views in accord to Ludwig von Mises [And Frederick Hayek: the Austrian School of Economics]. However, many of them oppose abortion, as they see it as a positive liberty and violates the non-aggression principle because abortion is aggression towards the fetus.By any objective standard, Laura Ingraham's discussion regarding conservatives is, at best, superficial and absolutely misleading and arbitrary. For example, Mitt Romney's position on abortion was never one of advocacy; at the time, he was arguing that he wouldn't let his personal opposition to abortion influence public policy. One could argue that a Burkean conservative wouldn't want to open Pandora's box by reversing four decades of Roe v Wade (in fact, progressives have argued as much, arguing that conservative jurists should respect liberal/progressive precedents).
So how is Romney, a one-term governor, part of the "establishment"? We know he's a committed capitalist, he vigorously fought the tax-and-spend policies of the REAL Massachusetts liberal/progressives. We know that Democrats in Massachusetts were mobilizing for a far more radical health care reform: Romney was motivated to reform by budgetary concerns in Massachusetts, and the key aspects to his reform had been backed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and included elements of the mid-1990's GOP counter-proposal to HillaryCare.
But I argue that Romney is a pragmatist, which is not the same thing as an independent or moderate; his positions are not arbitrary. I have said before--I don't care what a politician says as much as what he does. Words are cheap. Romney has had some message problems, but we've seen the problem of electing someone without administrative experience but whom is personable and knows how to give a good speech.
No, I submit that what Laura Ingrahan really means by "conservatives" are clueless individuals on a political suicide mission whom are more interested in rubbing Obama's nose in it with polarizing red meat political one-liners by the likes of failed politicians like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich than in winning an election, in the constructive solutions by "moderate/establishment" Mitt Romney, whom has administrative experience in both the private and public sectors and prefers to have his actions speak instead of "words, just words" like Gingirch and Santorum, whom squandered their tenure in Washington, being rejected by their colleagues and/or voters. When did they do something significant, like saving a Winter Olympics? What the heck did these manipulated voters, whom eagerly snap up vacuous, gratuitous one-liners in the same way Palin hands out doggie treats, learn from the fall 2010 elections, when they threw away sure-thing Senate seat pickups from Nevada and Delaware? "We know that a vote for Santorum or Gingrich is a vote for a second Obama term, but we would rather see Obama win than have Romney get the nomination." Are they INSANE? What part of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see do you folks not get?
What Romney can do as President depends on what hand he is dealt this fall. Maybe all these "conservative" pundits and voters feel cathartic about putting Romney in his place, but as Dr. Phil might say, it's time to get real. For us to defeat an incompetent but highly likable President, we need a pragmatic but principled, experienced, accomplished candidate like Mitt Romney. I'm a libertarian conservative; I can tell you at least a dozen things where I disagree with Romney on the issues--but he's the best man for the job, and I have had no contacts whatsoever with the Romney campaign. (Well, someone from the campaign tried to hit me up for a donation, which they didn't get.)
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Guess Who member Randy Bachman: BTO, "Ain't Seen Nothing Yet". I distinctly remember this song playing overhead when I went to my college cafeteria for lunch one day. This song is famous for its stuttered vocals; I never knew the reason behind the stuttering but found a wonderful webpage that tells the story. (I love stories about how songs artists think have no commercial appeal turn out to become their biggest hits, like Bob Carlisle's "Butterfly Kisses".) Randy Bachman decided to poke fun at brother Gary, the first BTO manager whom had recently stepped down, in a for-his-ears-only BTO track. The record company was looking for hit material for the upcoming new album, and Randy reluctantly let them hear the track. The company loved the song, but Randy wanted to rerecord the song without stuttering. The record company preferred the original stuttering version, and BTO soon thereafter had a #1 hit.
