It was bound to happen. Poor Jenn. In order to get all the way to the bottom of the tank for Mitt, she has so contorted so much of what she's expressed in the past, it's finally beginning to look like torture. Reached for comment, Ron Paul is outraged that a potential nominee would engage in torture, although his supporters have very mixed emotions, as Rubin is, after all, a Jew.
Wait. Seriously? Rubin is against candidates posturing in favor of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem? Here she is last year praising the Jerusalem Embassy Act, and lauding Marco Rubio for pledging to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Oh, and you can read her here, here and here writing approvingly of the movement to pardon Pollard. You can only imagine how she would have responded if, in 2008, Obama had given the same remarks Romney made yesterday. How much more will the GOP contenders torture Rubin?
Wednesday December 14 at 10AM EST we are pleased to have with us Mr. Dan Riehl of Riehl World View as we discuss the latest news especially Glenn Becks recent hair raising remarks about Newt Gingrich supporters.
Perhaps unrestricted by a Fox News hosting contract, a reckless and ignorant Glenn Beck may be resorting to misguided hyperbole to attract attention to himself. There is no better way to ensure a second term for a Leftist Obama, than to support a third party run on the Right. Beck also recently demonstrated his gross ignorance with comments regarding the Tea Party.
Glenn Beck said this morning on his radio show that if Newt Gingrich is the nominee and Ron Paul runs third party, he’d consider voting for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich, and he hates Ron Paul’s policies on the Middle East.
“If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.”
For one thing, Newt Gingrich has pledged to appoint Supreme Court Justices with an originalist view of the Constitution. That is no small issue; it's a critical one for both Conservatives and Libertarians. In contrast with Obama's two appointees, that alone is reason enough for Tea Party voters to support Gingrich over Obama. Add in the fact that any GOP administration, even one of a so-called Progressive Republican, would be subject to significant internal and external influence from the GOP's Conservative and Libertarian wings and you can begin to appreciate just how foolish are Beck's recent ramblings.
In essence, Beck demonstrates such a shallow understanding of the realities of America's current two party system, he appears to be more of a danger to prudent Conservatives and Libertarians, than he is their friend and ally. His basically dumb musings may get him some attention, or perhaps put a few coins in his pocket, but they would be politically disastrous for the American Right.
Frankly, I think Jerry Lewis did a more informative and intelligent interpretation of a nutty professor, than does DiLorenzo. Mark Levin doesn't seem too amused, either. If we had fewer colleges and universities in America, we'd have to build more mental asylums. I'm absolutely convinced of that.
DiBozo is, in essence, a bureaucrat who lives a lie. He works for a university that is private, but which accepts students who pay for their tuition with, among other things, loans subsidized by the federal and state governments (unlike Hillsdale College). My guess is he has tenure too, which divorces him from the meritocracy of the market system.
Business Insider Takes on Ponnuru's recent NRO endorsement of Mitt Romney. While there's a case to be made for Romney, there are other issues for serious conservatives to consider here, hopefully without attacking one another too forcefully.
Mitt Romney Is A Total Disaster And There's A Simple Explanation Why
But Ponnuru misses Romney's biggest weakness - one that is fatal to his contention that Romney has achieved the prerequisite of being able to become President: Romney is utterly unlikable. If after five years of pandering to conservatives, a highly disciplined campaign that is firing rhetorical Howitzers at Obama, and a series of debate performances that looks flawless, Romney remains this weak in an uninspiring GOP field, then he has no hope in the general election.
Contrast Ponnuru's position with what Mark Levin had to say tonight, while also mentioning a preference for Newt over Mitt and saying he hasn't written Perry off, either. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; however, it's important to know what argument is being advanced by any particular pundit, publication, or editor.
Mark Levin says he’ll support the nominee no matter who it is, however when it comes down to his preferences among the current GOP candidates, if he were to vote today it would come down to two people: Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.
While generally linked, the future of American conservatism and the Republican Party are not always directly aligned. Reagan knew this, seeing both himself and conservatism as a force within the GOP. He partly addressed that in his bold colors, no pale pastels speech.
Excerpt of Ronald Reagan's video address to members of the Young Americans for Freedom (1975)
Is Ponnuru genuinely interested in standing athwart history, or anything, and yelling "stop"? Or, is he simply saying, slow down, more than anything, we want to elect a Republican? Frankly, even if it's that, I'd disagree. Reagan understood the need to give American voters clear and even profound choices as a way to win the day for conservatism. I don't get the sense that today's NRO views things in that same way.
It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.
The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.
The century’s most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider “coexistence” with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory.
The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than “newness”) and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).
The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties(under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as “national unity,” “middle-of-the-road,” “progressivism,” and “bipartisanship.”) Clever intriguers are reshaping both parties in the image of Babbitt, gone Social-Democrat. When and where this political issue arises, we are, without reservations, on the side of the traditional two-party system that fights its feuds in public and honestly; and we shall advocate the restoration of the two-party system at all costs.
The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother government, but by the pressure of monopolies(including union monopolies. What is more, some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume(almost instinctively) that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and intransigence on the part of management. Sometimes they are; often they are not. NATIONAL REVIEW will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman’s side of the story.
No superstition has more effectively bewitched America’s Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, international atomic pools, etc. Perhaps the most important and readily demonstrable lesson of history is that freedom goes hand in hand with a state of political decentralization, that remote government is irresponsible government. It would make greater sense to grant independence to each of our 50 states than to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization.
Sorry for the unplanned, extended absence. I could post the boring details I've shared with friends, family and colleagues - a planned break, combined with a dental surgery, complicated by the flu and yadda, yadda. But why bother? I could simply claim to have been having an affair with Herman Cain! Regarding that topic, the woman came forward with a claim that I would imagine can either be substantiated, or debunked, by an examination of past facts - travel and dining arrangements, etc.... I'm not going to demean her for no reason and I suspect Herm's goose is cooked fwiw. I guess we'll see.
“Obviously, you’re all aware of this recent firestorm that hit the news yesterday,” Cain began, his voice somber. “First thing I want to do is say to you what I have said publicly: I deny those charges, unequivocally. Secondly, I have known this lady for a number of years. And thirdly, I have been attempting to help her financially because she was out of work and destitute, desperate. So, thinking that she was a friend — and I have helped many friends — I now know that she wasn’t the friend that I thought she was. But it was a just a friendship relationship.”
As for me, I hope to be back at it in a few days. A special thanks to friends and fans who've inquired. It means a lot.
...
Totally un-related and spotted in Stacy McCain's sidebar, while reading some Cain coverage. James has been out here as long, if not longer than I have. My thoughts and prayers go out to him given such a tragic loss.
My wife, Kimberly Webb Joyner, died this morning in her sleep from unknown causes. She was 41. She leaves behind two little girls she loved more than anything, Katie, who turns 3 on New Year’s Eve, and Ellie, who was born June 21.
After spending a week portraying Herman Cain as a sexual predator, allegations which so far have resulted in NO FACTS sustantiating(sic) the innuendo, Politico now wants to be fair and balanced and tell us that Cain actually led industry efforts to fight sexual harassment, Under Herman Cain, NRA launched Sex Harassment Fight:
Jacobson seems to entirely miss the more subtle, though still obvious, slant of the piece. They're portraying Cain as someone who mostly viewed sexual harassment charges as a threat to business, not someone more likely to be sensitive to how a woman should be treated in the workplace. They're also emphasizing the point that Cain was well aware of the issue, while not backing down from any of their reporting. Claiming some type of victory, however small, when the opposition is still on the attack isn't a sound strategy.
Industry officials saw it coming — none other than Cain himself warned as long ago as 1991 that changes in federal law resulting from the hearings could cause problems for employers.
What he does here is worse.
And in a prophetic statement, Cain also warned of the consequences of frivolous suits:
Industry officials saw it coming — none other than Cain himself warned as far back as 1991 that changes in federal law resulting from the hearings could cause problems for employers.
“This bill opens the door for opportunists who will use the legislation to make some money,” Cain, then CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, told Nation’s Restaurant News. “I’m certainly for civil rights, but I don’t know if this bill is fair because of what we’ll have to spend to defend ourselves in unwarranted cases.”
Indeed. But at least you didn’t have Politico in 1991.
Ace was pointing this out on Twitter last night. It's possible that the sexual harassment charges Cain faced were frivolous but we simply don't know that. I'm not interested in taking up Cain's, or the woman's, cause in that regard. I'm just looking at the facts. The old claims against Cain have never much figured into my judgement of him as an unsuitable nominee.
Unfortunately, what Jacobson is doing is akin to what Clinton's Bimbo Eruption managers did. Nothing in Politico's copious reporting on the topic tells me the woman is the one who raised this issue. I suspect someone leaked it to Politico, she may have confirmed the complaints existence and validity when approached; however, at least so far, she hasn't been seeking the limelight, or a payday.
Now, if she turns around tomorrow and takes money to go on the record, we'll know more upon which to judge her. But for now, we don't know that. If, as she does assert, she had a legitimate claim back then, she's now been further harassed by Politico because of their dredging it all back up - assuming she wasn't the original leaker.
If that's how this played out - and I believe it may well be - Politico highlighted the old charges, Cain said they were baseless and, on principle, the woman wanted to refute that without becoming some next Monica Lewinsky. Without knowing more, I'm not going to rush to judgement in her case, anymore than I have regarding Cain in the whole harassment fracas.
If Cain has lady problems, it would be one more mark against him as a potential nominee. I don't know if that's the case. Still, given his poor temperament and bad judgment when under pressure from the media, along with his seemingly weak grasp of issues and dodgy positions, I've seen more than enough to know he's not someone I'd want to support for the nomination.
What's interesting is that the text showing up on Memeorandum is from the first comment on the item, not the item itself. Interesting. How did this happen?
In response to Stacy, who posts on it here - not really. When arrogance fights with ignorance, no one wins, most especially when they're voices this, or that, institution have elevated to speak for conservatism. I will add, however, my sense is that the antisemitism charge is totally unfounded and says more about Rubin's mindset, than it does Erickson's. Memeorandum thread here.
"You want a Washington Post journalist to comment on an anti-Semitic screed by some blogger?" Rubin asked. "My arms are not long enough to punch down that far."
UPDATE: A CNN spokeswoman, Edie Emery, referred me to a second Erickson post, in which he writes:
My initial reaction was that I must have hit close to home for her to cry foul in that way. But after a friend explained to me the implication — that it suggested a loyalty to Israel above a loyalty to the United States among other things — that’s absolutely not what I meant and certainly do apologize for leaving anyone, including Jenn, with that impression.
UPDATE: Most perceptive email so far: “Mr Kristol: Please remind Chris Christie that IF HE CHANGES HIS BEHAVIOR AND GETS IN THIS RACE, THE FEELINGS WILL FOLLOW. This, courtesy of the Jesuits and solid Catholic psychology.
N.J. Stat. § 2C:12-10. Definitions; stalking designated a crime; degrees. (2009)As used in this act:(1) "Course of conduct" means repeatedly maintaining a visual or physical proximity to a person; directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, following, monitoring, observing, surveilling, threatening, or communicating to or about, a person, or interfering with a person's property; repeatedly committing harassment against a person; or repeatedly conveying, or causing to be conveyed, verbal or written threats or threats conveyed by any other means of communication or threats implied by conduct or a combination thereof directed at or toward a person.(2) "Repeatedly" means on two or more occasions.(3) "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering or distress.(4) "Cause a reasonable person to fear" means to cause fear which a reasonable victim, similarly situated, would have under the circumstances.
