Seventy Five Minutes of Krauthammer

Perhaps our most insightful pundit on the right, Charles Krauthammer, recently gave a long talk at the NRO, recorded by CSPAN, on modern liberalism and a host of other topics. It is great to hear him speak in longer than a 1 to 2 minute soundbyte on Special Report. Unfortunately his talk cannot be embeded. You can find it here

His points paraphrased:

- The 2008 election reflected the desire of America to withdraw from the world stage, both as a function of economics and national will. The problem is that while we can freely ignore our enemies, they will not ignore us.

- Obama wants us to emulate European social democratic nations, with a much reduced military and far more spending on social welfare. Europe was able to do this after WWII because they were protected by the U.S. military. We do not have that option. If we reduce our military, we create a power vacuum.

- The end result of Obama's policies will be unmistakably negative for our country, and because of that, we will see a return to conservatism.

- 2010 was a pure ideological election on the relationship between citizen and state - between the big government leftism versus small government conservatism. That is why it was a wave election. The 2012 election was not a campaign based on ideology. Romney eschewed the ideological arguments and tried to run just on the state of the economy. That is why he lost.

- "Romney spoke conservatism as a second language."

- Krauthammer was once a communist. It only lasted a weekend during college, but it was "one hell of a weekend."

- Republicans should make no suicidal charges during the next two years. We can't govern from the House. We can and should block, as well as make small advances.

- Obama is going to use the regulatory bureaucracy to go around Congress because they would never approve his radical agenda. Moreover, some of Obama's executive orders have been lawless. The House should highlight these facts through hearings.

- Conservatism is not dead, and the Democratic theories of demographic Republican decline are not believable. The one troubling spot is that the Republicans have lost a natural constituency in Hispanics. We need to neutralize the immigration issue. Step one, stop illegals crossing our border by building a fence just like the Israelis did to stop the violence of the Second Intafada. Step two, then grant limited amnesty with a path to naturalization.

- Single women, the youth, and urban dwellers are natural liberal constituencies. So what. Conservatives have larger natural constituencies.

- Is our society devolving? The rise in births to unmarried women under 30 is troubling, but on the flip side, there has been a huge decrease in crime. We are in the midst of adapting to new social relationships that inevitably work themselves out in the end.

- Krauthammer, once a speech writer for Walter Mondale, moved to the right in the 1980's for two reasons. On foreign policy, the left became incredibly irresponsible, advocating such things as a nuclear freeze. On social policy, Krauthammer came to the realization that the social policies of the left were doing great damage to the constituencies they were put in place to help.

- A crime of American liberalism is consigning inner city children to a life of desperation because of the influence of teachers' unions. It is failing for lack of competition. There are a host of intractable problems troubling the inner city youths, but changing public education is simple and key.

- Affirmative action actually hurts more than it helps. It takes away the life chances of a large number of Americans by setting them up for failure.

- It is improper to call Obama a "socialist." Socialism is too broad a term. Obama is not a socialist in the totalitarian sense. He is in the ilk of a social Democrat in the post-WWII European sense.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Jonah Goldberg Humorously Misses The Mark

Jonah Goldberg has quite a humorous column up at the LA Times describing the rebellion in Republican grass roots ranks against the "conservative establishment." Ultimately, Goldberg concludes that the problem is a general dissatisfaction with the field of Republican candidates and whether they can win against Obama. He was good up to that point, but I think he misdiagnoses the angst among the electorate. I feel pretty confident that Romney or Gingrich could win against Obama. I am less certain about the second tier candidates, but they are second tier and not likely to win the nomination. It is not the weakness of the field that is the problem, its the acts of the Republican "establishment," the punditry as well as current and former lawmakers, that are causing the angst. Not since 1964 have we seen the "establishment" engage in such a grossly unfair slash and burn campaign against our own Republican candidates. As I wrote in a post below, Are These NRO People Nuts:

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.

In that sense, the actions of the "Republican establishment" have been disgusting and unforgivable. Mr. Goldberg humorously gets the angst, but misdiagnoses its genesis:

've made a disturbing discovery: I am a member of the conservative "establishment." I felt like Michael Douglas at the end of "Falling Down": "I'm the bad guy?"

For the last few years, the rank and file of the GOP and the conservative movement have become deeply disenchanted with what they see as the rubber-spined, foot-dragging quislings drinking from a trough of chablis at some Georgetown party. The term "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) has become an epithet of ideological enforcement, spit out in much the same way Mao cursed "running dog capitalists." . . .

Though he never intended any of this, Mitt Romney is largely to blame for the anti-establishment tumult. Somehow, he has managed to become the Arlen Specter of the 2012 field. (Specter is conservative-speak for "demon RINO from hell." You're supposed to spit on the ground after you say "Arlen Specter." Ptooey.)

In 2008, Romney was the conservative alternative to John McCain, earning endorsements not just from National Review magazine but from the titans of right-wing talk radio — Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Now Limbaugh insists that support for Romney proves that "the Republican establishment does not want a conservative getting the nomination." Erick Erickson, a CNN contributor and editor of the conservative site Red State, says that if Romney is the nominee, "Conservatism dies and Barack Obama wins."

After National Review issued a stinging anti-Newt Gingrich editorial, many of the same voices insisted that the magazine (where I work, though I didn't write the editorial) has, in the words of one right-wing blogger, lived long enough "to become the villain." Fox News, Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, George Will and even pro-Romney columnist Ann Coulter are routinely denounced as part of some RINO cabal. . . .

The mere fact that there's something one can meaningfully describe as a conservative establishment today is a victory, never mind that it is more conservative than it has ever been. But a conservative establishment is useless if it doesn't bring the nation with it. The frustration on the right stems from the fact that none of the candidates seems up to that task.

Read More...

Summary only...

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...

Levin On The Right-Wing Pundits' Insane War On Gingrich

This from Mark Levin, writing at the Right Scoop:

While Mark Levin is on vacation, he’s taken a little time to pen his thoughts on the ongoing disgusting attacks aimed at Newt Gingrich by those on the right, including Ann Coulter, George Will, and the NRO:
-----------------------------

Is Newt really Satan?

If you read the comments on some conservative sites you might think so.

Newt Gingrich is not my first choice for the GOP nomination. I have said if I were voting today, I would vote for either Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum. But I don’t feel the need to smear Newt, either.

My friend Ann Coulter says she would vote for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich. Really? Despite his racism, anti-Semiticism, hate-America first pronouncements, 9/11 truther nuttiness, etc., etc.? What about this?

http://www.jbs.org/birchtube/viewvideo/1007/constitution/ron-paul-at-the-50th-anniversary-of-jbs

What about this?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1

What about this?

http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/nutbag-ron-paul-bush-administration-reacted-with-glee-after-911/

What about this?

http://www.textfiles.com/politics/ron_paul.txt

The list goes on and on. Coulter is undoubtedly aware of all of this. How can she or any sensible person, let alone conservative, advocate for or defend this? She backed Chris Christie, telling me that if Mitt Romney is nominated he will lose as John McCain did, and it will be my fault (along with Rush’s and Sean’s). Now, she insists that only Romney can win and the conservatives in the field cannot. Perplexing.

George Will is slamming away at Newt again today, having previously suggested he was a Marxist. A Marxist? Is this the same Will who supported George H. W. Bush and Howard Baker over Ronald Reagan in 1979? Somehow he not only missed the Reagan Revolution, but he initially doubted it and opposed it. Your judgment, George, does not match your conceit, with all due respect.

Over at NR, the hits keep coming. My friend Ramesh Ponnuru is waxing on priest-like about Newt and his Catholic faith. It’s a very odd piece. But Ramesh backs Romney, not Rick Santorum, who is not only Catholic but is clearly a more reliable conservative than Romney. Perplexing.

Most of Newt’s attackers have announced for Romney or are at least fronting for him, overlooking or excusing most of Romney’s deceits — which continue to this day and most recently involve his flip-flopping on the Iraq War. Moreover, Will has not said who he supports, having previously backed Mitch Daniels. No doubt Michelle Bachmann is just too wacky and inexperienced for his tastes, much as Reagan was too old and unsteady back in 1979.

Having consulted a number of friends and colleagues from the Reagan era, they agree with me that we’ve not seen this kind of daily attack on a legitimate Republican primary candidate in modern times, despite Newt’s weaknesses and faults. And most are disgusted by it.

Boy, does Levin have this one right. To call this disgusting is an understatement. In truth, these attacks are more vitriolic than what we saw directed at Sarah Palin by the left. If you haven't seen George Will's column today at WaPo - I am not going to link such trash - it is insanity on steroids. He proclaims that Gingrich is the "anti-conservative" (I assume that is a play on the "anti-Christ") because Gingrich wants to put an end to judicial activism. If Will's name wasn't at the top, I would have thought it written by Paul Krugman or Glen Greenwald.

I e-mailed the following to Will this afternoon:

Your hatred of Gingrich has been palpable from the start of the campaign. It has clearly clouded your judgment.

Conservatives have been shaking their fists impotently at the Courts for their judicial activism - their Politburo like unilateral amendments to the Constitution working fundamental changes to our nation - for the past fifty years. Heretofore, the only solution to the problem was thought to be electing Presidents who will appoint judges grounded in originalism. That has been less than successful. Enter Newt Gingrich, who has completely changed the paradigm on this critical issue. He wants to make a systemic fix that will permanently restore the Constitutional balance between the three branches of our government as such balance was envisioned by the Founders. Andrew McCarthy and Judge Mukasey certainly support that. Yet you would label the effort anti-conservative merely because it comes from Gingrich?

I've lost all respect for you at this point Mr. Will. Your determination to excoriate Gingrich at all cost has descended into farce with your most recent column.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any respect for the 11th Commandment?.

A hat tip to Daily Gator for this post, as well as a congrats for being cited by Levin. Visit the Daily Gator's site for some additional videos detailing the pundit's war on Gingrich.

Read More...

Summary only...

Andrew McCarthy: Gingrich Has It Right On Our 'Imperial' Courts

This is the absurdity: The Constitution says it cannot be amended absent an elaborate process involving supermajorities of Congress and the states — but the courts have somehow convinced us that a 5–4 shakeout from nine unelected lawyers can do the trick.

Andrew McCarthy, Gingrich & The Courts, NRO, 21 Dec. 2011

Conservatives have been shaking their fists impotently at the Courts for their judicial activism - their Poliburo like unilateral amendments to the Constitution working fundamental changes to our nation - for the past fifty years. Heretofore, the only solution to the problem was thought to be electing Presidents who will appoint judges grounded in originalism. That has been less than successful. Enter Newt Gingrich, who has completely changed the paradigm on this critical issue. He wants to make a systemic fix that will permanently restore the Constitutional balance between the three branches of our government as such balance was envisioned by the Founders.

Noted lawyer and now columnist at NRO, Andrew McCarthy, reviews Newt Gingrich's plan to redress the balance. Mr. McCarthy first describes the underlying reasons that support Gingrich's focus on this critical issue. First up is a case that I previously described as "a vast expansion of the power of the Court" into the enumerated powers of Congress and the President, opining that it "may turn out to be the most costly decision ever to our nation." That case of judicial activism run amok was Boumediene v. Bush. This from Mr. McCarthy:

In a ruling that defied both logic and centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence, the Court [in Boumediene] held that aliens captured outside the United States — aliens whose only connection to our body politic was to wage a terrorist war against us — were somehow vested with a constitutional right of access to our courts to challenge their detention.

These rulings are not simply legal outrages. They deny the sovereign power of the American people to enforce their natural right of self-defense — all for the benefit of foreign jihadists who target civilians for mass murder. Nor are they singular excesses. In the last three-quarters of a century, there has been an explosion of juristocracy, of politically unaccountable judges’ nullifying the American people’s democratically enacted choices. The courts have not merely been an advocate for our wartime enemies but a partisan in the culture wars — inventing abortion rights; eroding the bedrock principle of equal protection before the law; cossetting heinous criminals; banning public expressions of religious reverence; protecting the publication of child pornography while curbing political speech; cherry-picking international law as needed to reverse popular self-determination; and so on.

Having enumerated the assaults on our Constitution by the Courts, McCarthy notes that both he and former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey embrace Gringrich's plan to right the Constituional balance, even though neither agrees with all of Gingrich's proposed fixes. This from Mr. McCarthy:

In the real world, there are many steps between the extreme we have now — sheep-like acquiescence to a continuing usurpation of power — and the extreme of making the offending judges disappear.

For example, the political branches may enact laws that deny the courts jurisdiction to hear certain kinds of cases. If the courts ignore these bars (as they did in the detainee cases), the political branches may enact laws reversing those decisions. If the courts persist in their obstinacy, theorizing that they are vested with the final power to divine the Constitution’s meaning (a power found nowhere in the Constitution), the political branches could enact a law, or propose a constitutional amendment, that explicitly empowers them to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court. Or they could simply refuse to enforce court rulings — the courts’ impotence in unilaterally imposing their judgments having been the principal reason Hamilton presumed the judiciary to be “the least dangerous” branch. Congress, moreover, could revisit the dubious tradition that judges can be impeached only for personal corruption, and not for persistently, egregiously overstepping their authority.

That last is a suggestion I raised in a post here. Mr. McCarthy concludes:

Gingrich deserves credit for forcing the vital issue beneath all of this, an issue that every GOP candidate ought to address. The Supreme Court has long purported to be the final authority on what the law is. It was one thing to take that position when the judges had a modest understanding of their role: namely, to resolve cases between litigants, without the grandiosity that would impose those rulings on every American. As Gingrich points out, however, for the last half-century, the Court has regarded itself as a permanent constitutional convention. This is the absurdity: The Constitution says it cannot be amended absent an elaborate process involving supermajorities of Congress and the states — but the courts have somehow convinced us that a 5–4 shakeout from nine unelected lawyers can do the trick. So the question for the candidates is, who is the sovereign? Who gets the final word on what the law is? Hint: The first three words of the Constitution are not, “We the Judges . . . ”

Mr. McCarthy's analysis tracks with my own on this issue. Correcting this vast overreach by our Courts over the past half century, restoring the balance to that envisioned by our Founders, is crucial for the future of our nation. That Gingrich has the courage to bring this up - against what will surely be withering attack from the left - is one of the primary reasons why I support him for President.

Read More...

Summary only...

Michael Rubin at NRO With An Iranian Roundup

Michael Rubin, with the help of Ali Alfoneh, has posted a great roundup of Iranian news at NRO. This from their site:

Economy and Trade

Bread prices increase between 200-700% in northern Iran; bread shortages in Tehran as the governments transfers bread from Tehran to the north.

German Handelsblatt discusses the role of United Arab Emirates as a "huge hole in the wall of economic sanctions against Iran."

Electricity shortages in Lahijan.

Five Chinese banks resume deals with Iran.


Diplomacy

Brigadier General Rahim Safavi, former commander in chief of the Revolutionary Gaurds: "The key to regional security is in the hands of Iran...The United States has not achieved its goal - establishment of a secular government - in Iraq."

A senior Revolutionary Guards commander says no senior Guards member has travelled to Iraq recently.

Hosseini, spokesman of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "The U.S. should apologize because of the "campaign of lies they have started to misinform the public mind about Iran in the Hormuz Strait incident."

U.S. creating “Iranophobia.”

U.S. fencer in Iran for tournament speaks to Iranian media.

Ahmadinejad sends invitations to the Persian Gulf emirates to expand ties.

In English.

Ahmadinejad says Turkmenistan's decision to stop natural gas export to Iran was a conspiracy, and "at the behest of some people from inside Iran whose names I can't mention out of respect for the regime."

Iranian parliamentarians worry that visits by foreign actors can backfire by corrupting youth.


Politics

Reformist parliamentarian Emad Afrough explains why he does not intend to run for the next parliament: "Our political behavior does not enjoy a firm theoretical foundation and strategy. I think we have put all our eggs in the basket of politics... Besides the practitioners of politics there is a need for theoreticians who study the theoretical dimensions of politics... The problems of our society will not be solved by politics alone, but by criticism in the public sphere. The more deeply informed the public is, the better armed it is to defend their rights. [Such a public] will prohibit violation of its rights in the name of religion in the realm of power...We really need to increase the courage of the public…."

Ansar, representing the views of the Ansar-e Hezbollah vigilante group, engages in character assassination against former Revolutionary Guards chief Mohsen Rezai, who sponsors Tabnak. According to Ansar-e Hezbollah, Rezai is no longer a revolutionary and "principalist" candidate.
The Iranian parliamentarian who drank the remaining water from the Iranian president's half empty glass of water as if it was holy water explains: "I was thirsty, I saw a glass of water and I drank it." Sudani also refuted earlier reports that he threw the rest of the water on his suit.

For background, see Iran News Round Up, Jan. 9, 2008.

Vali-Allah Ra'iyat, member of the Iranian parliament: "Mr. President, you talk of social justice, but why are the people of Qaem-Shahr, Joybar, Shirgah and Kiya Kola paying the price for the poor management and incompetence of the Ministry of Petroleum?... Have you any idea of the hardships of the people in the cold winter months without natural gas or other means of warming the houses?"

Referring to Ahmadinejad’s promise to distribute a share of the oil money among Iranians, Ra'iyat said: "We don't want the oil money. Just give us natural gas."

Ahmadinejad promises that the natural gas shortage in the northern provinces will be "solved by Tuesday."

Politics: March 2008 parliamentary elections

List of reformist candidates registered for elections:

Hezb-e E'temad Melli [National Trust Party]: Rasoul Montakhab-Nia, Esmai'l Gerami-Moghaddam, Javad Eta'at, etc.

Hezb-e Mosharekat [Participation Party]: Mostafa Taj-Zadeh, Ahmad Khorram, Ali Soufi, Ali Mazrou'i, etc.

Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Enghelab [Organization of the Holy Warriors of the Revolution]: Mohammad Salamati, Mohsen Armin, Behzad Nabavi, Morteza Haji, Hashem Aghajari, etc...

Kargozaran [The Technocrats]: Eshaq Jahangiri, Isa Kalantari, Jahan-Bakhsh Khanjani, etc...

Reformers who are not running: Hassan Rowhani, Mousavi Lari, Mohammad Hashemi, Feizollah Arabsorkhi, A'zam Taleqani, Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, Mohsen Mehr-Alizadeh.

Nuclear Issue

All outstanding nuclear questions will soon be resolved.


Human Rights and Labor

Joint Declaration of Islamic Student Associations of 37 universities in Iran against a new wave of suppression of student activists: "The Islamic Student Association at the University of Khorramshahr is victim of false accusations after the speech of Abdollah Mo'meni... Student activists at the University of Kerman are being persecuted... Hunger strike at the University of Isfahan praise worthy... Islamic Student Association at the Medical Department of University of Shahr-e Kord is dissolved... Student activists are called to disciplinary committees from all over Iran...."

In an open letter to Judiciary chief Ayatollah Shahroudi, family members of student activists Majid Tavakoli, Ahmad Qassaban and Ehsan Mansouri of Amir Kabir Technical University, protest against the fact that the judicial system has acquitted the students of guilt, yet prison authorities deny them freedom.

Brother of Behrooz Karmizadeh, imprisoned Iranian student activist attempts suicide. His mother says the entire family is going into pieces.

Wife of Emad al-Din Baghi, imprisoned civil-society and democracy activist: "There is still no response to our petition for a furlough from prison to Baghi." Baghi has suffered from two heart attacks while in prison.


Society, Religion, and Culture

Archeological sites and historical buildings are handed over to the private sector to take care of restoration and in order to "attract tourists and infuse foreign exchange into the economy."

Ten Iranians die of carbon monoxide poisoning trying to heat houses lacking of natural gas.

Parliamentarian Omidvar Rezai, "The children of Masjed Soleiman, where natural gas was first excavated in Iran, are freezing to death."

Photo of the Day

Snow in Arak.

Read More...

Summary only...