Tag: politics

It’s not as if the elections in Spain will actually change anything:

The Socialists, in power since 2004, are also looking likely to lose the next general election, which is scheduled for March 2012, but could come earlier if big losses on Sunday spark a leadership crisis within the party. After the euro zone debt crisis forced Greece, and later Ireland and Portugal, to take bailouts, Zapatero implemented round of measures to tackle a huge public deficit and persuade financial markets that it has the budget under control.

He is expected to maintain unpopular economic policies whatever the outcome on Sunday.

As we’ve seen with both the Obama White House and the Boehner-led Republicans in the States, as the Irish have learned in switching from Fianna Fail to Fine Gael, and as the Spanish are about to learn, it doesn’t matter for whom one votes. They will carry out the same policies regardless of what they promise their supporters; King Log replaces King Stork and yet nothing changes.

I’d like to think I helped provide Gov. Daniels with some clarity on the matter last week. I don’t, actually, but I enjoy having the opportunity to do so. While it was nice that the Indiana governor too the message of last week’s column to heart, it rather more likely that it was the revolving door that knocked a little sense into him.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said early Sunday that he won’t run for president because of family considerations, narrowing the field in the race for the GOP nomination…. A two-term Midwestern governor, Daniels had been considering a bid for months and was pressured by many in the establishment wing of the party hungering for a conservative with a strong fiscal record to run. He expressed interest in getting in the race partly because it would give him a national platform to ensure the country’s fiscal health would remain part of the 2012 debate.

Now if the dishrag and the ridiculous me-too from the Fed will only drop out of the race, we can see a clear and straightforward choice between Ron Paul and Captain Underoos.

Newt Gingrich isn’t merely a joke candidate, he has either gone seriously off his rocker or he has his staff approaching near-Clintonian levels of shameless spin doctory:

“The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding,” Tyler wrote. “Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.”

Gingrich has been finished as a politician for more than a decade. It is a remarkable testimony to the myopic narcissism of the American political class that he is still in denial over it. It’s not the Washington elite that is opposed to Gingrich; they’re the only ones who still take him seriously at all. And they have no need to destroy a man who makes a habit of kneecapping himself. More importantly, the Republican grass roots are not in the least bit interested in a fat little double-talking adultererous Washington insider who completely fumbled his golden opportunity to effect genuine change in government 17 years ago.

Gingrich never had a chance in the first place, but with his self-destructive comments on the Ryan plan, he rendered himself an embarrassment and an absurdity. Gingrich isn’t merely done, he’s rotting in the political compost pile.

I should say that Republicans need to do a lot more of this to their self-appointed RINO leaders:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Speaker Gingrich, what you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable.

NEWT GINGRICH: I didn’t do anything to Paul Ryan.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, you did. You undercut him and his allies in the House. You’re an embarrassment to our party.

GINGRICH: I’m sorry you feel that way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why don’t you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself?

Romney and Daniels, at the very least, merit similar treatment. Probably Pawlenty too, although because I am so very heavily biased against him on a personal level, my judgment is not sufficiently impartial to be reliable. But Gingrich has always been a joke as a presidential candidate; I find it difficult to imagine he genuinely believes anyone outside of the National Review offices truly wants to vote for him.

It would appear Mitt Romney is no longer favored by the Republican elders:

As everyone knows, the health reform Mr. Romney passed in 2006 as Massachusetts Governor was the prototype for President Obama’s version and gave national health care a huge political boost. Mr. Romney now claims ObamaCare should be repealed, but his failure to explain his own role or admit any errors suggests serious flaws both in his candidacy and as a potential President.

There’s a lot to learn from the failure of the ObamaCare model that began in Massachusetts, which is now moving to impose price controls on all hospitals, doctors and other providers. Not that anyone would know listening to Mr. Romney. In the paperback edition of his campaign book “No Apology,” he calls the plan a “success,” and he has defended it in numerous media appearances as he plans his White House run.

It seems Daniels is the flavor du jour, seasoned with some light amusement to be provided by retreads Gingrich and Giuliani. Romney couldn’t have won the nomination anyhow, as his Mormonism trumps his height and executive hair, but the Massachusetts Romneycare debacle renders him a complete non-starter.

And so begins the familiar process of manipulating the Republican grass roots and saddling them with a status quo Republican approved by the red faction of the ruling party:

Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama. The poll indicates the president leading Gingrich by 17 points, Palin by 19, and Trump by 22 points.

As one commenter at National Review noted, “So Pawlenty is the “top-tier” candidate at 5%, and Ron Paul is the “non-major” candidate at 8%. Nope, can’t see where charges of bias might come from.”

It not remarkable how a powerful congressman who performs well in the polls, raises more money than the other candidates, is more intellectually formidable than any of them, and was proven to be correct about both the endless nature of the foreign interventionism of the last decade and the fragility of the banking system is automatically deemed “unelectable” and a “minor candidate”. What is remarkable is the large number of mindless, thoughtless Republicans who, despite their feigned disdain for it, blithely accept the mainstream media’s assertions and obey the stage management of the party elders.

And so we’ll see all the faux conservatives pushing the ludicrous likes of Captain Underoos, Newt Gingrich, and the feckless Tim Pawlenty. For those non-Minnesotans not familiar with Pawlenty, all you need to know is that he is a spineless wet noodle of a politician with the moral principle of a Clinton.

Curiouser and curiouser:

Yet another backtrack and change of tune from the White House has emerged over the fact that Obama did NOT watch the raid live and did not see the moment Osama bin Laden was shot dead. In fact the video feed stopped before US special forces stormed bin Laden’s hideaway.

The White House originally said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton watched the raid as it happened and in effect encouraged the world’s media to report that they had watched “the drama unfold”.

But now CIA chief Leon Panetta has admitted that, not only was there a 25 minute delay in the live feed and a blackout as has already been reported, in fact the video being played to the president stopped as troops got to the bin Laden compound. And the president did not see any subsequent action on the ground, including the fatal shooting of Osama bin Laden.

For those who wonder why I distrust everything the government says about anything on principle, note that about half of the information initially released by the government about the raid in Pakistan has already been publicly retracted. And the White House is refusing to release any evidence that would confirm the remaining claims.

From my 2007 interview with him:

VD: Do you believe in open borders? That’s the Libertarian position, after all.

RP: Some libertarians believe in totally open borders. I don’t. Remember, I was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president in 1988 and I ran as a Right-to-Life Libertarian. I don’t support totally open borders, because although I think the federal government should be small, protecting borders and providing national defense – which excludes occupying other countries – are two of its legitimate functions. I would beef up the borders and not worry about the Korean and Iraqi borders. It’s ironic that we’re taking border guards off our borders and paying them to go and train border guards over there. I do understand the libertarian argument. The more we deal with our neighbors, the better off we are. I like the idea of trade, I like the idea of free travel and friendship. When that happens, you’re less likely to fight. But that doesn’t mean anyone can come in and get easy citizenship.

My biggest argument is different than those who want to shoot anyone crossing the border. When you subsidize things, you get more of it, and we subsidize immigration. We need to stop that. I want to deny the benefits that draw people here. If we had a healthier economy, we could have a generous work program but we don’t need it.

From the Numbers USA’s review of Dr. Paul’s new book:

In his book, Dr. Paul sounds very much like supporters of Comprehensive Amnesty measures by talking about the impossibility of sending back home 11 million illegal aliens. Like most amnesty supporters who say they oppose “amnesty,” Dr. Paul seems to buy the false choice between “legalization” or mass deportation. Since he says mass deportation isn’t possible, he feels he has to choose some kind of legalization.

He fails to support Attrition Through Enforcement, which is the middle way supported by most anti-amnesty Members of Congress.

He would limit the legalization by perhaps not allowing the illegal aliens to ever be citizens or to vote. But they still would get to stay in the U.S. and to keep their U.S. jobs, while millions of Americans who want the jobs would have to stay unemployed.

“It could be argued that (this system) may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits — a much better option than deportation,” Rep. Paul writes on page 156.

I completely disagree with this statement. Deportation is absolutely the only option for illegal immigrants. While removing the temptations of automatic citizenship and the elimination of tax-supported benefits are definitely to be preferred to the present system, the political history of American immigration clearly shows that any such technical measures will be rapidly overturned, or as is more likely the case, declared to be unconstitutional and invalid by an immigration-friendly judge.

It seems politicians never learn that tweaks and fine-tuning are totally irrelevant when it comes to the art of governance. It’s like attempting to drive a semi on a particularly convoluted rally course. However, I think it is a bit harsh to give Paul an F for a position that is better than a) the status quo, b) the other Republican candidates, and c) the Democratic candidate. I’d make it at least a D.