These NRO People Are Nuts

I didn't think it possible that the right could lose to Obama in 2012, even with all the dark forces of the MSM arrayed against us and awaiting their marching orders. But the last two months of flame throwing against Gingrich, and indeed, to a lesser extent, any candidate not named Romney has left me wondering whether we can yet pull defeat from the jaws of victory. Precious little of what is coming from the right leaning pundits has been reasoned criticism. To the contrary, its largely been overheated hyperbole of the ilk used by the left to demonize and delegitimize Sarah Palin.

I mean, NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru is telling me today how I, as a Catholic, should see Gingrich's extra-marital affairs. It's bullshit dressed up as a papal bull. It really has to be read to be believed.

According to Father Ramesh, as Christians, we should vote against Gringrich to spare him from the temptation of bimbo eruptions in high office. Further, if we vote for Gingrich, it will mean we condone adultery. And lastly, we should pick somebody other than Gingrich because his affairs could well doom him in a general election against the morally superior Obama. Morally superior Obama? Really????

Hey Ramesh, how about doing a quick calculation on Obama's sins. By my count, he violates the 1st Commandment every time he looks in the mirror. He lives to violate the 8th Commandment with his class warfare rhetoric and his focus on stealing the wealth of anyone who is moderately successful. With his disingenuous army of straw men and his habit of projecting on Republicans the absolute worst of motives, he violates the 9th Commandment. And he has spent the entire last year not as Commander-in-Chief, but as Campaigner in Chief. This joker has taken actions that solely benefit his reelection bid at the cost to our the country (Iraq, Afghanistan, Keystone Pipeline, etc.) He covets power and the Presidency the way a fat kid covets twinkies. Worse, his entire campaign hinges on him being able to get enough Americans to so covet the money of the "wealthy" that, on that basis alone, they will vote for him in November. Now that is insidious. Weighing all of that on Ramesh's exquisitely tuned scales of morality, give me a former adulterer any day. Oh, and somebody better go dig up former PRESIDENT Grover Cleveland and warn him that people just won't vote for a Republican with adultery known to be in his background.

Can any of these pundits-turned-hit-men just stop for a moment, take a deep breath - and then HOLD IT UNTIL AFTER THE F****** CONVENTION. Has a single one of these crap-for-brains people ever read up on the 1964 election?

The NRO, but for Jonah Goldberg and Andrew McCarthy, has been dead in the middle of this pack of right wing cannibals. Now the NRO has two of its authors - Brian Bolduc and Conrad Black - waxing lyrical about a brokered convention where the delegates get to nominate a Republican not among the burned and broken bodies of the current aspirants. Really, are these people bat-shit insane? Do they realize how splintered and mortally wounded the Republican Party would be if their favored scenario plays out? Are their heads so deeply implanted in their own asses that they have lost all touch with reality? The last time Republicans were so split that they had a brokered convention, they ended up with Thomas Dewey as the nominee to go up against the then incredibly unpopular Harry Truman in 1948. Hey guys, how did that one work out?

If we manage to lose this election - and every day, thanks to the NRO and their ilk, I come to believe more and more that we can - then America is toast. I agree with Krauthammer on this one - "[i]f Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return . . ."

That said, and regardless of whether we win or lose, I really think that we of a conservative bent need to consider trading the NRO, George Will, Ann Coulter, Kathleen Parker and Jennifer Rubin to the Democrats for a couple of first and second round draft choices to be named. Hell, let's see if we can get a good deal for them from MSNBC. Gingrich may have broken the 7th Commandment, but these vipers in our midst have made a cottage industry of violating the 11th Commandment - and they have done so with all the vitriol and intellectual dishonesty that we can expect from the left wing MSM. That really is an unforgivable sin.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why I Support Gingrich - & Utterly Abhor The Total War Being Waged Against Him From The Right

Hey, right leaning Pundits - here's a plan.  If you want to unleash vociferous, one-sided, intellectually dishonest attacks, how about aiming them away from Republican candidates for President.  This is disgusting and suicidal on a level I did think possible for the right.  And it is unforgivable.

I am so tired of listening to right wing pundits attack Gingrich with all of the vociferousness and intellectual dishonesty that the left used on Sarah Palin.  Indeed, I would bet that you would have to go back to the Republican country club elite's attack on Barry Goldwater to find anything similar.  And just as a reminder - they succeeded in getting LBJ elected.  The U.S. has been saddled with the massive welfare state of the "Great Society" ever since.  Indeed, it is actions like we see today that led to the articulation of Reagan's 11th Commandment.

I am absolutely livid at pundits telling me that I am an idiot (Ann Coulter, Kathleen Parker) or a racist (Glenn Beck completely off his meds) for supporting Gingrich.  I am utterly disgusted at pundits giving me a one sided whisper campaign based on a jaded view of history as articulated by people with knives out for Gingrich (Jennifer Rubin, Brian Bouldoc, George Will).  Really, what the hell is wrong with these people?

Indeed, visit Right Scoop to listen to Mark Levin making the same points.

Do you want to know why I support Gingrich.  Briefly:

1.  Record of Achievement -  Gingrich is the only person running who has actually succeeded in moving the nation rightward.  He was the principal architect of the Contract With America.  He got our economy in working order and balanced the budget.

2.  Demonization and The Speakership - I remember Gingrich's speakership and downfall vividly.  Indeed, that was my introduction to the left wing / MSM partnership in the politics of demonization and demgagougery.  Gingrich was painted quite literally by the left as the personificaiton of evil and, eventually, Republicans in Congress largely went along with that.  Yeah, Gingrich failed in his showdowns with  Clinton.  But the MSM at the time were the true victors in that fight.  Anyone remember the "Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" campaign?  The MSM was every bit as leftist back then, but they also had an advantage.  There was no alternative media.  The MSM completely controlled the flow of information - and virtually all of it was skewed hard left.

The ugly truth is that many on the right back then read the MSM handwriting on the wall and happily went along with it for their own aggrandizement.  There was a coup led by Denny Hastert and the roach killer, Tom DeLay.  Boy they were great replacements for Gingrich, weren't they.  Is there anyone - and I do mean anyone - who, with the benefit of hindsight, can say the coup did anything other than end the conservative surge and return us to the bad old days of Nelson Rockefeller's Republican Party?

What it comes down to is this - the first thing to remember with all the hit pieces coming out today on the right aimed at Gingrich - there are a whole lot of people trying to justify their actions during the mid-90's.  They turned their back on Gingrich when it was politically expedient to do so.  With that in mind, when Brian Boulac or Ann Coulter or any of these other low rent bomb throwers writes another hit piece centered on Gingrich's speakership, look to see if they bother to run it by Gingrich for his response before publishing.  I am done reading any of these intellectually dishonest "pundits."    

3.  We face immense problems.  When I look at the domestic agenda of Gingrich, it is economically more far reaching than Romney's (don't take my word for it, take Larry Kudlow's) and I trust Gingrich to take on the leviathan regulatory bureaucracy that continues to grow in our nation like kudzu.  I expect Romney to try and co-opt that bureaucracy and for his economic plan to be far more accommodating to the existing paradigm and the wishes of Democrats.

When I look at foreign policy, the biggest challenge to Western civilization arises out of the spread of Wahhabi Islam and the expansion of the terrorist state animated by the soon to be nuclear Khomeinist state.  We have yet to have a single person in government to join in a Reagenesque war of ideas to shine the light on this and join, finally, the war of ideas.  Gingrich is the only person with both the knowledge and testicular fortitude to do it.

4.  Electability:  I look upon Gingrich as far more electable than Romney.  Anyone who is the Republican nominee is going to be demonized by the left on a scale not heretofore seen.  Gingrich is far more likely to be able to effectively counterattack and keep focusing the nation on what really matters - the horrid economic record of our neo-Keynsian President.  Indeed, recalling how petulant Obama became during the last general election when he was truly challenged, I expect Gingrich to be far more effecting in getting under Obama's skin and exposing him for the shallow radical left wing narcissistic that he is.

When Romney gets attacked - or feels that he is getting attacked by, say, Bret Baier, he doesn't do so well.  Indeed, I see parallels between Obama and Romney in that regard.  An Obama Romney campaign would be dirty - and even.  A Gingrich Obama campaign would be dirty - but Gingrich would be much more effective.  

Read More...

Summary only...

Kathleen Parker - If You Don't Support Mitt, You Are An Idiot

Hey, did you know that if you don't support Mitt Romney, you are an idiot? That is what Kathleen Parker tells us in her Washington Post column today, The GOP's Death Wish:

. . . Republicans apparently want to nominate anyone except the one person [Romney] who can defeat Barack Obama. And for all the strangest reasons:

One: He’s changed his mind. True. He changed his mind, thus becoming more conservative.

Two: He’s too perfect.

Three: You can’t drink beer with him. Whatever.

The result of these petty obsessions has been a pathological flirtation with a parade of lesser candidates who could replace Romney.

And here I thought my decision to support someone other than Romney was based on my assessment of who could best deal with the massive systemic problems of our government, our economy in the tank and hemorrhaging jobs, the existential threat posed by nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the continuing advancement of Salafism, and the efforts of the UN to redistribute the wealth of the West under the canard of global warming, just to name a few. I never realized that it was only because I had "petty obsessions." Thanks Ms. Parker, for giving us the benefit of your keen analytical skills.

Ms. Parker than goes on to pronounce that:

. . . no one other than Callista Gingrich thinks her husband can prevail in a general election. No. One.

Perhaps Ms. Parker missed the following in the Weekly Standard:

The latest Rasmussen survey of likely voters — which shows Newt Gingrich beating Barack Obama, 45 to 43 percent — also shows Gingrich beating Obama among independents for the first time. In fact, the poll shows that Gingrich is now clobbering Obama among independents — 50 to 32 percent.

I think Gingrich could beat Obama, as apparently do the majority of Republicans and independents. But Ms. Parker, rather than disagree with us on an intellectual level, has gone to the extreme of simply striking us from the rolls of humanity.

Ms. Parker then explains to us why Newt is so unpopular with the Washington elite.

And there’s a reason for his unpopularity. It isn’t because of his marriages or his Tiffany’s expense account. It is because his erratic behavior and his inability to resist the sound of his own voice have caused Republicans to lose too many fights.

Of all of Ms. Parker's disingenuous statements, this one takes the cake. Gingrich led the greatest conservative revolution of the last half century - for which he was demonized by the MSM with all the fervor they would later turn on Sarah Palin, and for which he was ultimately sacrificed by many in the Republican Party. But let's take a look at what he did accomplish. To pull a quote from Rush Limbaugh out of Peggy Noonan's recent column in the WSJ:

Who was the last person to actually cut government? Who was the last person who actually led a movement that balanced the federal budget? . . . The last time there was true welfare reform, the last time government was cut, Gingrich did it.

Ms. Parker makes no mention of those accomplishments. Nor does she tell us which fights Gingrich caused us to lose. I guess the there is no reason to list them as obviously any attempt at rational discussion would be wasted on people consumed with petty obsessions. I am sure all of the inside the beltway elites Ms. Parker interacts with on a daily basis will understand precisely what she means. Then Ms. Parker concludes with this admonition:

. . . if Republicans want to make Democrats happy, Gingrich is their man.

What possible excuse can there be for this gross violation of the 11th Commandment? I think Ms. Parker, like apparently many elites in the Republican Party, would prefer anyone - including Obama - over Newt Gingrich. I struggle to think why. They cite to his "lack of leadership," but the reality of his accomplishments objectively belies that argument. Is it because he would lead the Republican party to make major changes that go beyond Ms. Parker's comfort zone? I just can't fathom the pathology at work here.

At any rate, I think Ms. Parker has missed her calling. If she can write a column this condescending, this arrogant, and this intellectually dishonest, she should be doing an unpaid daily diary gig over at Kos, not collecting a check for posing as a right of center columnist at WaPo.

Update: Christian Whiton, writing at Fox, takes a good stab at explaining the horror of Ms. Parker and her ilk as they ponder Gingrich ascendent over Romney:

The answer lies in the nature of the Beltway Republican establishment. The problem is that most of what Gingrich proposes runs counter to what they have been conditioned to accept.

After all, this basically remains the Republican establishment that ran both of the federal government’s political branches for the better part of the last decade and managed to achieve essentially no conservative goals. The establishment Republicans didn’t merely acquiesce to big government implications of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” – they insisted on it. More than a few Bush officials who visited Capitol Hill lamented that it was difficult to tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats on spending issues. While President Obama has normalized trillion-dollar deficits, establishment Republicans got us halfway there during the previous decade.

Do not suppose Beltway Republicans have found religion since. . . .

Now reenter Newt Gingrich, the man whom Republican Washington just knows failed as Speaker of the House, despite the welfare, capital gains tax and balanced budget reforms that bear his fingerprints.

On EPA replacement, for example, Gingrich says: “I don’t think you can train the current bureaucrats. I think their bias against capitalism, their bias against local government, their bias against economic rationality, is just amazing.”

Here, Gingrich is revealing his reverence for Andrew Jackson, who in his presidency succeeded in replacing fully one-fifth of the federal bureaucracy, seeing this as a requirement for radical change.

Most Washingtonian Republicans view desires like this as hopelessly naive. During their careers, they have seen modest changes, but nothing like the major shifts in Washington that have occurred at turning points in American history. Those with historical knowledge of them tend to know only of times the bureaucracy grew as opposed to those where it was actually tamed.

The idea of reversing federal growth is fine to keep on the wish list, but those who advocate it seriously are seen as rubes — either new arrivals in Washington who just fell off a turnip truck or unsophisticated congressmen from ‘flyover country.’ To be a true Beltway Republican is to have accepted the assumption that the scope of government cannot be radically altered. And they think it is politically foolish to try.

Thus the establishment just knows that you run a moderate like Mitt Romney for president. Conservatives have no place else to go and independents will be attracted—historical evidence to the contrary be damned. . .

Update: Welcome Larwyn's Linx readers.

Read More...

Summary only...