Showing posts with label Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reagan. Show all posts

Monday, January 23, 2012

Gingrich, Communications & The GDS-Suffering Republican Elites

. . . for years now, I have been screaming that the failure to communicate and respond to these endless [leftwing] attacks was the greatest failing of the Bush Administration - and Republicans generally in all situations. I am convinced that McCain lost the election because of his failure to aggressively attack Obama in the debates and the failure of the entire Republican Party as a whole to respond to the left's outrageous charge that the right was responsible for our financial nightmare. . . .

Having watched the current crop of Congressional Republicans for years now, I am under no illusion that, come 2012, they will be able to effectively communicate. The backlash we see against Obama's policies and vast overreach today has come from the bottom up, with the Tea Parties and social networking. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Congressional Republicans. That does not bode well for the right come 2012.

That said, as I look out at the field of potential candidates who could possibly communicate effectively - those with the necessary intelligence and aggressiveness to actually call the left on their falsehoods and change our national paradigm - the only one I see today who foots that bill is Newt Gingrich. . . .

16 July 2010, Wolf Howling, Looking Ahead: Obama, 2012 & The Biggest Republican Weakness

Gingrich won South Carolina by 12 points and, going into Florida, he now leads the polling by 9 points. Hysterical dysentery has now afflicted those many Republican elites suffering full blown cases of GDS (Gingrich Derangement Syndrome). The disdain they feel for the voters - i.e., the rank and file Republicans and independents who voted in the S.C. primary - and the grass roots Tea Party movement literally drips from their mouths. It appears that before the Conservative rank and file can take back our nation from Obama, we will first have to take back our party from the Republican elites.

As so many people are today pointing out - Gingrich roars. And when he unapologetically does so with passion and eloquence in defense of conservative values, when he does so in shredding an ill thrown race card, when he does so in calling the media out for their bias, that is what the base of the party wants above all else. It is clear that the base understands that it is precisely what the party has been lacking. And it is clear that the base also understands that progressives - who have, over the past century, changed our nation in so many ways - will continue making fundamental changes to our nation until we can get someone who roars in defense of conservative values.

This is not a sudden catharsis, at least for me. I have been pointing it out as the single greatest failing of Republicans almost from the first day I started this blog. For but a few examples, see:

-  Advice On How To Lose The 2012 Election
-  Looking Ahead:  Obama, 2012 & The Biggest Republican Weakness
-  A New Cold War In America
-  Losing the Message Wars
- Republicans Ponder The Abyss

For the past eight decades, Republicans in government, with the exceptions of Ronald Reagan and then Newt Gingrich, have been fighting a rear guard action, accomplishing little more than minimizing the ever continuing advance of socialism / progressivism in our government and in our society.  As to Reagan as President and Gingrich as Speaker, they actually pushed back against the advance and managed conservative victories.  They did so because they vocally, passionately and eloquently were able to challenge the falsehoods of the left while promoting conservative ideals.

We can see much the same happening today in some of the states. Take New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for example.  He is a darling of the right today - despite the fact that he is a RINO's RINO on so many conservative issues.  But on the two intertwined issues most effecting NJ, the economy and the power of unions, Christie is firmly on the conservative side of the fence.  And he has been just a shining success in bluest of blue NJ on those issues.  Why?  Because he is an incredibly effective communicator who is vocal, passionate and eloquent in the effort to promote fiscal sanity and an end to the power of NJ's massive public sector unions.

But today, the many Republican elites suffering GDS are telling us that the ability to communicate does not matter and that the voters in S.C. were just dumb.  They now are trying to frighten the base into voting for Romeny by saying that a Gingich nomination will mean that we lose not just the Presidency, but the House and the Senate down ticket.  Let's take a look:

The voters in their infinite wisdom have just given a huge boost to perhaps the only GOP candidate who could shift the spotlight from President Obama to himself, alienate virtually all independent voters, lose more than 40 states and put the House majority in jeopardy.

Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post

. . .  with Newt Gingrich you get the name calling for the president — very popular with the tea party crowd in South Carolina, not so popular with independents. He won’t put a fence on the border and wants amnesty for illegals. He took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac. But you know, he attacked Paul Ryan’s plan on Social Security. So with Newt Gingrich, you throw out the baby and keep the bath water… I think South Carolina is going back to their Democratic roots.”

Ann Coulter, Fox and Friends (via Gateway Pundit)

. . . Let’s just pray that Barack Obama’s second term didn’t start today. If Gingrich does get the nomination, this may turn out to be a year in which Republicans more or less ignore the presidential race, ceding Obama his second term, and focus instead on trying to hold the House and, if possible, picking up a seat or two in the Senate, along with doing the best we can in state races where the wipeout at the presidential level doesn’t swamp all efforts to elect Republicans.

John Hinderaker, Powerline

On the heels of Newt Gingrich’s trouncing of Mitt Romney in the South Carolina primary, Republican Party brass are privately expressing deep concerns that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s high unfavorable rating in national polls could prove catastrophic to the so-called “down ballot”–the House and Senate races under the presidential race–and may even threaten the Republican Party’s control of the House of Representatives.

GOP strategist Steve Schmidt, who previously served as Sen. John McCain’s senior campaign strategist, told MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow that if Mr. Gingrich wins next week’s Florida GOP primary, there will be “a panic and a meltdown of the Republican establishment that is beyond my ability to articulate in the English language. People will go crazy.”

Wynton Hall reporting at Big Government

What these GDS-afflicted prophets of Armageddon are relying upon are polls showing that, at the moment, Gingrich has a lot of negative name recognition. Wow, no kidding? It's not like Gingrich suffers from two liabilities - the MSM of the past two decades and now the GDS afflicted right.

Does anyone reading this remember Gingrich's speakership in the mid - 90's, the balanced budgets, the welfare reform, the Contract With America, the good economy, the low jobless rate? I do. And I vividly remember a few other things. The left of the era hated Gingrich with a passion that would not be seen in America again until Sarah Palin came onto the national scene. The MSM of the time was not just as left wing as today, but they had a near complete monopoly on the news. There was no alternative media. They demonized and demagogued Gingrich unmercifully. Indeed, I kid you not when I say I remember the day I looked up the definition of the word "demagoguery" in the dictionary. I had heard the word used by Rush Limbaugh in an interview with the Speaker in response to how the left and the entire MSM was portraying one of his acts.

Update: It appears that my memory of that time - the intense partisan war against Gingrich, the bull shit ethics complaint, and the total war of the MSM declared on Gingrich is accurate. Byron York of the Washington Examiner takes us on a walk back through that time here.

As to when Republican members in the House led a coup against Gingrich, I have no inside knowledge. I do know this. What we got after Gingrich left was a disaster. We got a House that was, for the next decade, nothing more or less than Democrat-lite. There were zero conservative accomplishments, there were zero balanced budgets, but there were huge increases in spending. So was the problem Gingrich's leadership, or the fact that Gingrich took Republicans out of their comfort zone and brought a lot of bad press at the time? I have always believed it was the latter based on what I saw at the time and afterwards.

And now when it comes to negative press, it has been the GDS Republican elites who have picked up where the far left MSM dropped off near a decade ago. As I wrote in Decemeber:

The last two months of flame throwing against Gingrich [by the GDS-afflicted Republican elites] 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.

So when the GDS afflicted right now tells us that a Gingrich nomination would be catastrophe because he doesn't have positive name recognition, that is like the boy who murders his parents then asks the Court for mercy because he is an orphan.

So how are we to evaluate Gingrich's negative name recognition from some earlier national polls when matched up with the most recent polls and with the results of the SC election? First this from Gallup:

The latest Gallup polling shows Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney each trailing President Obama by exactly the same tally — 50 to 48 percent. . . .

. . . Gingrich, in particular, improved versus Obama in the swing states: While he trailed Obama by 6 points overall at that time, he led Obama by 3 points in states that are likely to be hotly contested — a swing of 9 points.

The Gallup poll is not limited Republicans, and it certainly seems that Gingrich is at least as popular as Romney. And then there was the S.C. open primary, where Gingrich not only won running away, but also took the independents.  I am just not feeling the hate . . .

In sum, all of prophecies of total Republican annihilation coming from Republican elites who hold the actual voters in utter disdain is nothing more than fearmongering. Their total immersion in GDS suggests that their problems with Gingrich run far deeper than merely wanting to see the Republican party - or conservativism, for that matter - succeed, and their total disdain for the Republican base shows arrogance unbound. Indeed, it leaves me speechless, though still with a desire to communicate clearly with the GDS-afflicted Republican elites. That said, let's cue the non-verbal response.




Update:  Doug Ross has also addressed the down-ticket argument with a rather amazing historical fact from Rasmussen. You literally have to go back in time to 1860 to see a scenario play out where an incumbent president loses the White House but his party wins "control of either house of Congress from the other party."

Update:  Linked at Larwyn's Linx.

Read More...

Friday, December 9, 2011

Newt The Communicator, Newt The Most Effective Conservative, & Newt The Mad Scientist

Kudlow Hearts Gingrich, Sees His Economic Bona Fides As Superior To Romney

Larry Kudlow, the CNBC and NRO economic guru, interviewed Newt Gingrich the other day and was quite impressed. This from Mr. Kudlow:

Say what you will about former Speaker Newt Gingrich. His philosophy, his policy proposals, his track record, his campaign, and all the rest. But the one thing you have to acknowledge about Gingrich is that he’s a sizzler. He has a way with words. And he’s as good a communicator as anyone in modern politics.

In my CNBC interview with Gingrich this week, he slammed President Obama’s tax-the-rich, class-warfare attack on bank’s and businesspeople. He hammered Obama, calling him a hard-left radical who is opposed to free enterprise, capitalism, and “virtually everything which made America great.”

It was a brutal, frontal, hard-hitting attack on the president. He called Obama “the candidate of food stamps, the finest food-stamp president in American history.” He said, “I want to get equality by bringing people up. [Obama] wants to get equality by bringing people down.” He said, “I want to be the guy who says, ‘I want to help every American have a better future.’ [Obama] wants to make sure that he levels Americans down so we all have an equally mediocre future.”

Now, I haven’t heard any of the other GOP candidates offer that kind of response to Obama’s recent class-warfare speech. Maybe I’m missing something. But I haven’t heard it from Mitt Romney or the others in a sizzle fashion, which is the way Gingrich operates.

Frankly, Romney ought to be beating back Obama right now. He should at least be asserting that America’s free-enterprise, capitalist system rewards success, not punishes it, and that free-market economics — including supply-side tax-cut policies, worked in the 1920s under Calvin Coolidge, in the 1960s under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and again in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan.

In fact, Bill Clinton joined with Gingrich in the 1990s to slash the capital-gains tax, cut spending, and enact welfare reform, all of which kept the Reagan boom going. Over 40 million jobs were created in the two decades that followed Reagan’s supply-side tax cut. . . .


Read the entire article here. Kudlow goes on to suggest that Gingrich's record on economic policy is superior to Romney's.

Peggy Noonan On Why Gingrich Is "Inspiring & Disturbing:"

Peggy Noonan writes on the two opposing views of Newt Gingrich, one as a supremely effective conservative leader, another as a mad scientist of sorts. This from Ms. Noonan:


. . . Republicans on the ground who view Mr. Gingrich from afar, who neither know nor have worked with him, are more likely to see him this way: "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." That is Rush Limbaugh, who has also criticized Mr. Gingrich.

And that is exactly what I've been hearing from Newt supporters who do not listen to talk radio. They are older voters, they are not all Republicans, and when government last made progress he was part of it. They have a very practical sense of politics now. The heroic era of the presidency is dead. They are not looking to like their president or admire him, they just want someone to fix the crisis. The last time helpful things happened in Washington, he was a big part of it. So they may hire him again. Are they put off by his scandals? No. They think all politicians are scandalous. . . .

Those who know him fear—or hope—that he will be true to form in one respect: He will continue to lose to his No. 1 longtime foe, Newt Gingrich. He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, "Watch this!"

What they fear is that he will show just enough discipline over the next few months, just enough focus, to win the nomination. And then, in the fall of 2012, once party leaders have come around and the GOP is fully behind him, he will begin baying at the moon. He will start saying wild things and promising that he may bomb Iran but he may send a special SEAL team in at night to secretly dig Iran up, and fly it to Detroit, where we can keep it under guard, and Detroiters can all get jobs as guards, "solving two problems at once." They're afraid he'll start saying, "John Paul was great, but most of that happened after I explained the Gospels to him," and "Sure, Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize, but only after I explained how people can think fast, slow and at warp speed. He owes me everything."

There are many good things to say about Newt Gingrich. He is compelling and unique, and, as Margaret Thatcher once said, he has "tons of guts."

But this is a walk on the wild side.

Read More...

Friday, March 26, 2010

Reagan's Warnings Against Socialism & Socialized Medicine

His words ring ever more true today.



(H/T Irate Nation)

Read More...

Monday, July 6, 2009

Foreign Policy Folly Take 4 - A History Of Getting It Wrong


As Dr. Sanity tells us, the "best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." Perhaps that explains why Obama's foreign policy to date has been one huge folly after another. It seems that Obama's foreign policy instincts have always been 180 degrees wrong. The NYT, as part of its due dilligence on the candidacy of Obama (finally they get around to it post-election) has unearthed an article that Obama wrote while attending Columbia University. It is a paean to the anti-war agenda of campus radicals. At one point in the article, "Breaking the War Mentality," Obama comes out in favor of a nuclear freeze - a movement we now know was started by Soviet agents in Western Europe - and criticizes Reagan for pushing ahead with new weapons systems. Opined our future Dear Leader:

The Reagan administration's stalling at the Geneva ta1Iks on nuclear weapons has thus already caused severe tension and could ultimately bring about a dangerous rift between the United States and Western Europe. By being intransigent, Reagan is playing directly into the Russians' hands.

History has not been kind to Obama's views. I think it an utter certainty that three decades hence, history will be equally as unkind to the foreign policy decisions of Obama taken during his presidency. 2012 just can't come soon enough.

(Hat Tip: Fausta's Blog, NRO, The Anchoress)


6 July 2009: Foreign Policy Folly Take 3 - Honduras (Joining Castro & Chavez To Support A Would-Be Dictator)
5 July 2009: Foreign Policy Folly Take 2 - (Biden Channels Dean Acheson)
5 July 2009: Foreign Policy Folly (Standing Against Sanctions On Iran's Theocracy For Their Brutal Repression)

Read More...

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Obama On Iran: A Broken Moral Compass, A Distorted Perception of Reality,


Chatham House has done perhaps the definitive study on the vote in Iran's Presidential election, finding vote fraud pervasive. Obama continues to give the protesters in Iran short shrift while holding out hopes of still engaging what is now a wholly illegitimate theocracy in talks over its drive for nuclear weapons. And yesterday, as protesters took to the streets again, suffering beatings and murder at the blood stained hands of the butchers of Iran's theocracy, Obama chose that time to assure the theocracy that they were invited to attend 4th of July celebrations. That is not merely immoral, its obscene and so contrary to our interests as to be inexplicable.

The revolt against the regime continues with a general strike called for today. There are several possible ways that this may be resolved, two of which would involve the end of Iran's theocracy. That is the best case solution for both Iran and Western civilization, yet Obama seems utterly - and ominously - oblivious. Is he seriously considering throwing the theocracy a life line over the bodies of the dead protesters so that the regime acquiesces on paper to his major demands? Is he really that amoral, narcissistic and detached from reality?
___________________________________________

As a threshold matter, whether Iran's theocracy engaged in massive vote fraud should have been beyond question the moment the Supreme Guide announced final vote totals two hours after polls closed in an election done with tens of millions of paper ballots. Any lingering doubt should be answered by the analysis done of the election by Chatham House, a left wing British think tank. You can read the analysis here. They found overwhelming evidence of fraud based on publicized election results and prior voting patterns. One snippet of their conclusions:

In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.

Obama has yet to acknowledge that actual vote fraud took place, nor to make a statement that actually supports the protesters. While I supported Obama's initially restrained response because of the popular belief in Iran that the U.S. underminded the Iranian government in 1953 and has been behind plots since, that restraint should have ended as soon as it became clear that this was a grass roots protest and that there was blood in the streets.

Bill Kristol documents the time line of Obama's responses to the protests at the Weekly Standard. Instead of a robust response, we were at first treated to days of silence as riots swept Iran, then tepid statements that reached their nadir when Obama attempted to answer criticism by claiming that the two Iranian Presidential candidates, Ahemedinejad and Mousavi, were "two of a kind." I am still not sure if that was raw political cynicism at its worst or whether Obama was that clueless about what was occurring in Iran. One hopes the former, as the latter would mean that Obama is a naif who will cause tremendous damage to our country.

During the Presidential campaign, Mousavi, despite having revolutionary credentials exceeding those of Ahmedinejad, advocated real and fundamental reforms that utterly energized the Iranian populace. Iranian specialist Michael Ledeen took note, writing on July 10, two days before the election, that Mousavi had lit a firestorm in Iran by offering reforms, particularly in the area of women's rights, that threatened "the whole structure of the Khomeinist regime . . ."

So for our President not to grasp this and to try to sidestep criticism by claiming that Ahmedinejad and Mousavi were "two of a kind" was both a distortion of reality and, as the Mousavi camp noted in a letter to the President, highly destructive. As Mousavi's office put it, the President's "two of a kind comparison, was "a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom." Mousavi's office rightly assessed that Obama was being deliberately misleading as he held on to false hopes of a "dialogue with this regime."

The protests began almost as soon as Khameini announced the "divine assessment" of the electorate, supposedly voting for Aheminejad in a landslide. The repression followed almost immediately. Tens of thousands have been beaten, gassed, arrested and/or murdered, with the most barbaric symbol of the regime's brutality and illegitimacy being the murder of Neda, a woman peacefully standing in the street during a protest.

And yet Obama mutes his criticism because he does not want to be seen as "meddling" - a pretextual excuse at this point since the Iranian government is portraying this as an American directed plot regardless - and despite all of this, he continues his outreach to this illegitimate regime. According to WaPo, Obama is trying to "calibrate his comments to the mood of the hour" so as to "preserve the possibility of negotiating directly with the Iranian government over its nuclear program, links to terrorism, Afghanistan and other issues." Indeed, under this rubric, yesterday, while this bloody theocracy was involved in the beating and murder of its citizenry, Obama's State Dept. took the opportunity took the opportunity to assure the theocracy that they were still invited to attend 4th of July celebrations. That is not merely immoral, its obscene and so contrary to our interests as to be inexplicable.

And Obama is the person explaining to America that our moral compass is broken because the majority of us believe that its okay to waterboard a terrorist if it will save American lives? Obama's moral compass is the one broken. There could be no clearer demonstration that Obama sees the world through a reality distorting lens then his response to this protest and his continued reaching out to the butchers of Iran's theocracy.

The reasons to pressure the theocracy and support these protesters are crystal clear, both as a moral and a practical matter. Morally, who can possibly condone or do business with a regime that uses beatings, arrests, and indiscriminate murder to thwart the will of its people. As a practical matter, leading international pressure on Iran can only help the protesters. It matters not a wit to the theocracy, since they are claiming we are the cause of this uprising anyway . It is a transparent pretext that, with the facts established, can fool no one in or outside of Iran.

Further as to the practicalities, there was never any chance that talks with the theocracy would do anything to convince them to forgo their drive for a nuclear arsenal that existentially threatens the U.S., Europe and Israel. For one, what could Obama possibly offer this illegitimate regime moving ever closer to the edge of oblivion at the hands of its people? What could he offer that would make the regime give up a nuclear arsenal it had heretofore utterly refused even to discuss giving up?

The very fact of such talks would add legitimacy to this failed regime. But this gets far more insidious. Iran has rejected every carrot offered by the West, and every reasonable one has been tried multiple times - including the inane suggestions of Obama during the campaign. What could Obama possibly offer the theocracy in their final hours that would induce them to suddenly change their position (on paper at least, as to expect this regime to hold true to their written word is to ignore decades of history to the contrary). Literally the only things they could want that would be worth the price of agreement would be tools that would allow them to survive the challenge of their people. In other words, Obama would have to throw the protesters to the hyenas of tyranny to get any movement from the theocracy. That would be an abomination. Yet it is the only possible logical outcome of talks under the current circumstances.

The reality is that this revolt presents a golden opportunity to end the nuclear ambitions of the mad mullahs as much as it is an opportunity for the people of Iran to end their oppression. If this rebellion flowers into a successful revolution, it will change overnight the dynamic of the Middle East every bit as fundamentally as the founding of Israel changed the dynamic in 1948.

How to approach Iran in this instance has clear lessons from our recent history. The playbook on this was written in 1981. It does not involve playing nice, weinie roasts or conducting "business as usual." This from Sean Hannity via Gateway Pundit:



As I write this, Obama is holding a news conference. In his speech moments ago, he said this on Iran:

The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

. . . [T]he United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

. . . Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran.

Good, but not yet a condemnation of blatant vote fraud, nor an endorsement of the goals of the protesters - human dignity and democracy. Further, in response to a question from Major Garret as to whether in fact Obama still was holding open the invitation to 4th of July celebrations to the theocracy, Obama hemmed and hawed, leaving the clear impression that the answer is yes. Just amazing.

It was relatively quiet in Iran yesterday. The government has achieved its immediate objective of largely clearing the streets and has further hardened its position. The Guardian Council announced today that they would not annul the election. The government is engaged in mass arrests, including today Mousavi's staff. That completes the arrest of essentially the "top two tiers" of leadership in Mousavi's organization. Additionally, the theocracy has "retired" the soccer players who wore green wrist bands in the match with South Korea. Yet all is not returning to normal. As I wrote here, major faultlines are becoming apparent in the regime.

Still Mousavi and another Presidential candidate, Kharoubi have called for a protest march tomorrow. The few protesters who have shown up on the streets yesterday and today are turning the tables and conducting hit and run attacks on the basij. Mousavi has called for a strike today, though it is not clear whether one has occurred and, if so, how widespread it is. This is a revolt still in its nascent stages. Coups can happen overnight, but grass roots revolutions do not. Indeed, the closest antecedent to what is happening in Iran today is the 1979 revolution that toppled the Shah. It began in 1978 and played out over a year, going through periods of intense protests and violence followed by long lulls.

There is yet another way that this could end - a clerical coup that ends Khomeini's three decades old experiment in theocracy. It is not one that I imagined possible as there are too many clerics in the theocracy with vested interests, financial and otherwise, in the theocracy's survival. But it seems that is now under discussion in Qom at the highest levels of Iran's clerical establishment.

An article in the Saudi's Al Arabiya, "Iranian clerics seek supreme leader alternative," states that Rafanjani, president of the Guardian Council, is in Iran's home of Shia scholarship, Qom, holding "secret talks" with Iran's top Shia clerics about doing away with the position of Supreme Leader. Whether this would be a full scale retreat from theocracy or a partial one, going from a "Supreme Leader" to a "Supreme Council," is unclear.

As I have pointed out many times before, Khomeini's creation of the Iranian theocracy based on his personal theory of the veleyat-e-faqi (rule of the jurisprudent) is a complete reversal of over a millenia of Shia tradition holding that there should be separation between mosque and state. Khomeini's veleyat-e-faqi was not only a break from tradition, it was a radical and complete reversal.

When Khomeini established the theocracy thirty years ago, he split with many senior clerics in Qom who believed his experiment wrong-headed. And indeed, three decades later, Iran's theocracy is facing a popular revolt from a population many of whom have been secularized as a result of the misrule and massive corruption of the theocracy.

It is of important note that Rafsanjani's meetings have "included Jawad al-Shahristani, the supreme representative of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who is the foremost Shiite leader in Iraq." Sistani is an ardent traditionalist who believes in separation of mosque and state. His last contact with the Iran's theocracy was to snub Ahmedinejad when Ahmedinejad visited Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is also the most popular clerical figure in Iran. His presence in the meetings suggests that the options under consideration are far reaching. And indeed:

An option being considered is the resignation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's president following condemnation by the United States and other European nations for violence and human rights violations against unarmed protesters.

This could itself work a sea change to Iran - and it might just work. It would end with the the corrupt theocracy fading into the woodwork, the evil doers with their scalps still attached to their skulls, but out of power. It would likely overcome the IRGC without firing a shot because they too rely on the authority of the ayatollahs as their raison d'etre. At worst, it might kick off an active civil war between IRGC elements in a naked power grab and the rest of Iran's military. Steve Schippert has more on this at Threats Watch.

This is something that we can only support indirectly, just like the protests, by keeping the pressure on Iran's theocracy to allow democracy, free speech and rights of free association. But so long as we have a President who is seeing the world through a reality distorting lens and navigating with a broken moral compass, that will not come from him.

Prior Posts:

21 June 2009: Faultlines Developing
21 June 2009: When The Regime Will Fall
20 June 2009: The Regime Turns On Its Own People (Updated)
20 June 2009: Life, Death & Terrorism On Iran's Streets - Neda
19 June 2009: Countdown To High Noon
19 June 2009: An Iranian Showdown Cometh - Liveblogging Khameini's Speech At Friday Prayers
18 June 2009: Iran Update
16 June 2009: Iran 6/16: The Fire Still Burning, An Incendiary Letter From Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, State Dept. Intercedes With Twitter & Obama Talks Softly
16 June 2009: Breaking News: Vote Recount In Iran, Too Little, Too Late
15 June 2009: Iran Buys Time, Obama Votes Present, Iraq's Status Is Recognized
15 June 2009: The Fog Of War - & Twitter
15 June 2009: Chants Of Death To Khameini
15 June 2009: Heating Up In Iran
14 June 2009: Heating Up In Iran
14 June 2009: Tehran Is Burning; What Will The Iranian Army Do? (Updated)
13 June 2009: The Mad Mullah's Man Wins Again - For Now
15 April 2008: The Next Moves In An Existential Chess Match (Background On Iran's Theocracy)








Read More...

Friday, June 12, 2009

This Day In History - 12 June: Peasants' Revolt, Oda Sneaks, & Reagan Calls For A Wall To Be Torn Down





1381 – The Peasants' Revolt got into full swing in England by June 12. Rebels arrived at Blackheath where they were treated to a sermon by Priest John Ball who asked the famous question: "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" (i.e. in the Garden of Eden, were there any class distinctions?"). The Peasant's Revolt was the most extreme and widespread insurrection in English history. It marked the beginning of the end of serfdom in medieval England. The causes of the revolt were excessive taxation and attempts by the aristocracy to limit the compensation peasants could be paid. Do those two sound familiar?

1560 – In one of the great battles of medieval Japan, Oda Nobunaga, outnumbered ten to one, defeated Imagawa Yoshimoto at the Battle of Okehazama with a surprise attack.

1665 – England installed a municipal government in the former Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam, today NYC.

1775 – British general Thomas Gage declared martial law in Massachusetts. He offered a pardon to all colonists who would lay down their arms, but for Samuel Adams and John Hancock, who, if captured, were to be hanged.

1830 – Beginning of the French colonization of Algeria: 34,000 French soldiers land 27 kilometers west of Algiers, at Sidi Ferruch.

1898 – General Emilio Aguinaldo declares the Philippines' independence from Spain.

1940 – 13,000 British and French troops surrender to Major General Erwin Rommel at Saint-Valery-en-Caux.

1942 – Anne Frank, the young girl whose writing has been a window into the horrors of the holocaust, received a diary for her thirteenth birthday.

1943 – Nazis liquidates the Jewish Ghetto in Berezhany, western Ukraine. 1,180 Jews are led to the city's old Jewish graveyard and shot.

1963 – Civil rights figure Medgar Evers is murdered in front of his home in Jackson, Mississippi by KKK member Byron De La Beckwith.

1964 – Anti-apartheid activist and ANC leader Nelson Mandela is sentenced to life in prison for sabotage in South Africa.

1967 – The United States Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia declares all U.S. state laws which prohibit interracial marriage to be unconstitutional.

1978 – David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam" killer in New York City, is sentenced to 365 years in prison for six killings.

1987 – Ronald Reagan publicly challenges Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall at the Brandenburg Gate.

1991 – Russians elect Boris Yeltsin as the president of the republic.

1994 – Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman are murdered outside her home in Los Angeles by ex-husband O.J. Simpson.

1997 – Shakespeare's Globe Theater is officially reopened in London by Queen Elizabeth II.

2004 – A 3 lbs. chondrite type meteorite strikes a house in Ellerslie, New Zealand causing serious damage but no injuries.


Births

1924 – George H. W. Bush, 41st President of the United States

1929 – Anne Frank, German-born Dutch Jewish diarist and Holocaust victim (d. 1945)


Deaths

816 – Pope Leo III, best remembered for his act on Christmas Day 800, when, to Charelemagne's surprise, Pope Leo crowned Charlemagne as Roman emperor. This symbolism suggested that leaders bore their authority at the pleasure of the Church, strengthening the Church and setting up an issue that would plague Church-monarch relations for close to the next millenium.

918 – Ethelfleda, the eldest daughter of England's King Alfred the Great, wife of Æthelred, ealdorman of Mercia, and after his death, ruler of Mercia. As befitting a daughter of Alfred, she proved a formidable military leader and tactician during her reign over Mercia.

1957 – Jimmy Dorsey, American musician (b. 1904)

2003 – Gregory Peck, American actor (b. 1916)


Today is the feast day for Saint Leo III who is discussed above, and for Saint Pharaildis, the patron Saint of Ghent. She was married against her will at a young age with a nobleman, even after having made a private vow of virginity. Her husband insisted she submit. She refuses and was beaten, but retained her virginity through her marriage and then until her death in 740 A.D. Her patronage includes childhood diseases, difficult marriages, physical abuse and widows.

Update: Crusader Rabbit has a great post up on a fascinating historical fact: ". . . a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass."

Don't miss Rougeclassicism, where they regularly post memorable dates from ancient history.

And for the best in current events, don't miss Larwyn's Linx at Doug Ross's Journal.








Read More...

Saturday, June 6, 2009

D Day, 6 June 1944


Today is the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings at Normandy, France. I had wanted to do a long post on this, but unfortunately got so tied up pulling apart the President's Cairo address that I ran out of time.

I've been fortunate to know a few people who were involved in the D-Day landings. One I knew was in the initial assault on Omaha Beach. I asked him about it once. He said that he was never so afraid before or since in his life. He remembers getting off the landing craft but only vaguely recalls fighting his way across the beach. All of his friends were killed and by the time he managed to get by the last German position to his front. he was alone and low on ammo. When he took a moment to think, some of the adrennilaine wore off and he realized he was scared to the point of death. He saw a barn in the distance, decided there was no force on earth that would make him go back on the beach, and then ran like hell for the barn. He said he got inside and spent the next 48 hours hiding in there, until he saw some other U.S. soldiers walk by. He said that one of the toughest decisions of his life was whether or not to try and stay in the barn for the remainder of the war.

At any rate, you can find some excellent D-Day posts around the web.

- Righwing Nuthouse: A Word About Courage.

- Powerline: The Ordeal Of Omaha Beach

- Small Unit Actions: 2nd Ranger Batt. at Pointe Du Hoc

- Thunder Run: Utah Beach

- Flopping Aces: D-Day Footage With Veteran's Narration

- Flopping Aces: Reagan's D-Day Speech

- Flopping Aces: FDR's D-Day Prayer

- Brits At Their Best: D-Day

- Joshua Pundit: Loyalty & Love - D-Day 65 Years Later

- Right Truth: D-Day Remembered

- Blue Crab Boulevard: A Flame Bright Beyond Common Understanding . . .

- Stop The ACLU - Operations Neptune and Overlord 65 years later

- Hot Air: The Day The West Freed Itself From Tyranny

And from the "Cynical Humor On D-Day" Dept., do see

- TNOY: Obama Offers French Profound Apology For D-Day

- No Oil For Pacifists: D-Day Causes A Resumption Of The French Anglo Wars

Read More...

Monday, August 4, 2008

Interesting Posts From Around The Web - 4 August 2008


I am making an effort to provide a short daily link to some of the blogs around the web that hold my interest. Some of the linkfests will be themed – the anglosphere, milbloggers, jihad, psych and crime, history and culture. The rest will be just a review of some good blogs that I unfortunately only get a chance to hit about once every ten days. So, at any rate, here is today’s general linkfest.
__________________________________________________________

Art: The Lady of Shalott, John Waterhouse, circa 1900

In the Mel Brooks movie, Blazing Saddles, there is a hilarious scene where the black Sheriff, played perfectly by Cleavon Little, draws in a couple of hooded clansmen by jumping from behind a rock and asking them "Where ‘de white women at?" Baseball Crank has a similarly themed – and satirical - post in his Racist Campaign Ad Watch.

At American Digest, it’s Obama Panties and the Adoration of the Magi.

Blonde Sagacity, who just runs a great blog up in Philly, is having a caption contest for the following photo:


My own caption – ". . . and I hope that I can count on both your votes in November."

Simply Jews responds with appropriate sarcasm to a question in the Guardian from a British Parlimentarian, to wit: "Are the Israelis who demand an attack on Iran, which - repulsive though its government undoubtedly is - has never invaded another country and possesses no nuclear weapons, the same Israelis who have launched successive invasions of Lebanon, with much slaughter and huge damage, and possess 200 nuclear warheads?

Dave Freddoso’s book, The Case Against Barack Obama, has just been released. More on it here.

At Betsy’s Page, a very good post on Obama and his "rather condescending attitude towards average Americans. They're always getting fooled by some nefarious "they" who causes them to do or think things against their best interests." And at Blue Crab Boulevard, its Obama’s ego out of control.

A brilliant post from Confederate Yankee commenting upon the Pelosi interview that I blogged on here: "But then, Pelosi isn't trying to save the planet, she's trying to drive up prices. She and other liberal democrats are hoping to force us to concede to their desire for funding more R&D into alternative energy sources that do not yet exist. In effect, she wants us to put a substantial amount of our eggs in a basket that hasn't been built yet, and starve for years to come while it is being constructed, and hope that it works. And they say Democrats don't support faith-based initiatives."

In a similar vein of religion and oil, the Glittering Eye speaks to Obama about the idiocy of tapping the strategic petroleum reserves, urging him to "avoid the snares of the Demon Rum, Demagoguery! Put down that bottle! Get thee behind me, Satan!"

Stop the ACLU blogs on Obama’s "tire gauge" energy policy: "Barry is suggesting that properly inflated tires will almost completely solve our automobile energy crisis. Now THAT is funny. The delusional "WTF are you talking about?" type. The kind of laugh you get when your bud knocks the cooler over into the pond, or barfs onto the floorboard of your classic Corvette."

Deleware Curmudgeon looks back to Nixon’s plan for energy independence and asks, what the hell happened?

At Discriminations, a jaundiced view of Obama as anything but a "post-racial" candidate.

Conservative Beach Girl makes the argument for an end to 44 years of reverse discrimination in affirmative action plans.

A real laugher at the Daily Kos – a video comparing Reagan to Obama, making the mindless argument that Reagan was an "inexperienced celebrity" who challenged a person – Jimmy Carter – with military experience. Just as a reminder, Reagan’s experience before becoming President was two terms as California governor and he had enlisted in the Army Reserves in 1937 but was prevented from overseas deployment in WWII because of his vision. That is a bit more experience than "The One."

At Vocal Minority, a post on how homelessness has declined under Bush and how the MSM is at pains to limit his credit.

Callimachus at Done With Mirrors runs a good post on the death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. More on his passing from a personal acquaintance at the Brussels Journal. And Ron Coleman writes on how Solzhenitsyn impacted on him personally.

Colleen at Facing The Sharks waxes poetic on her pro se law suit.

At the Gay Patriot, Obama is living truth of Lincoln’s adage that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Some very sage thoughts on guns and self defense from Rough Diamond.

At Grandpa John’s, a review of a handful of Americans in the 1930’s "who understood the evils of American culture and capitalism to follow their ideals of hope and change by emigrating to the Soviet Union during the depression." There’s that hope and change theme again.

Dutch Concerns has the latest Pat Condell video – topic, Islam is not a victim.

At Pirates, Man Your Women, the candidate for change changes his mind yet again, this time on the separation between church and state.

If your tastes run to the Libertarian, the Whited Sepulchre a list up of the top Libertarian sites and blogs.

Red Alerts asks whether Britain can survive multiculturalism? I do believe that the answer is no, with the only question being whether Britain will put an end to the socialist madness or whether it will end Britain.

Robert at Seraphic Secret has some advice for would-be writers. But apparently, I had best reverse my plans to send him my screen play for collaboration.

I am amazed and utterly disgusted at the tolerance that the West shows for what is occurring in Gaza, particularly as to how the cult of death and hatred is being taught to children. It is fundamentally intolerable. Yet it passes by without condemnation. Soccer Dad has the story of Hamas summer camp.

One of the themes you will see discussed at my blog is the failure of our government to be forthcoming with our nation as to what exactly it is we are fighting in the "War On Terror." Faultline has their own take on that issue this week. I do not agree with the conclusion, because what we are at war with are some very specific strains of Islam, but the post itself is very thoughtful.

Political Insecurity has the latest video on the new First Lady of France. In support of international relations, I highly recommend it.

A sage question from Soob: Was George Orwell writing fiction or phrophecy?

At the American Jingoist, a very good post on the Axis of Idiots.

Villagers With Torches is one of the most intelligent blogs on the net. The most recent post looks at Pakistan’s snakepit of an intelligence service, the ISI, and our alternatives in dealing with Pakistan.

Woman Honor Thyself has a very good tribute to two of our fallen, Army Spec. Alex Jimenez and Pvt. Byron Fouty. Do visit this one.

The Common Room posts a list of books read in July along with short blurbs on each. It is an interesting mix.

Read More...

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Republicans Return To Reagan

There is little disagreement that Republicans as a group lost their way over the past several years. Republican leadership in both the House and Senate has ranged from weak to nonexistent and loyalty has mattered more than bedrock principals and values. That is the only reason I can fathom that Republicans put Jerry Lewis and Ted Stevens anywhere near our nation’s checkbook. Conservative values that infused the Republican Party from Reagan's presidency through the Contract with America fell by the wayside as Republicans settled into the majority. Nowhere was this more evident than in spending. The Republicans of today tossed aside the mantle of fiscal conservatism, embraced earmarks and spent like drunken Democrats. Indeed, in a role reversal, the Dems rode to power in 2006 on their promises to clean up the fiscal mess and to attack earmarks. As is now apparent, that role reversal barely survived the swearing in ceremonies.

Regardless, there is apparently a movement afoot to try and breathe life back into the Conservative movement among our lawmakers.

Capitol Hill Republicans are invoking former President Ronald Reagan in their latest effort to strengthen their party's conservative credentials, forming a new caucus whose members must pledge to support limited government and to restore ethics in Washington.

"We don't want to go back to what Reagan did," said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. "We want to take those principles he stood for and go forward, applying them to the challenges of today."

. . . "As a party, we've been strong on social issues," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican. "But on spending issues, we've dropped the ball."

. . . Along with Mr. DeMint, Reagan21 was formed by a small group of similarly-minded fiscal and social conservatives. Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is the Senate's other leading member, while the House membership includes Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the RSC chairman; John Shadegg of Arizona; Mr. Campbell; Tom Price of Georgia; and Mr. Ryan.

"Americans are disgusted by a Congress that is self-dealing and corrupt — that spends too much and under the control of the new majority is moving dramatically to the left," Mr. Shadegg said.

Read the whole story here. This news is strikes me like good news out of Iraq. It is wonderful and it’s a real step in the right direction, but there is a long way to go before success can be claimed.

Read More...