Regarding etiquette . . .

Here's a great line from this article about etiquette The etiquette gap: From Newt and Mitt to Facebook and texting - CSMonitor.com:

Good manners are keepers of the peace, say experts, who suggest that as indicators of social intelligence they may be better predictors of success in life than IQ.

Apparently the recession hasn't hit Greater Washington, D.C. . . .

This report is troubling to me . . . 10 of the top 15 "richest" counties in the U.S. are "bedroom" communities to Washington, D.C.

Well, good for you GM . . .

In light of reports that General Motors has posted its largest annual profit EVER, I must admit that every time I see the (well done) GM television ads, I get a little pit in my stomach, because I know that folks like The Atlantic and Democrats will attempt to say that GM's profit somehow vindicates the government bail out of GM. Jim Geraghty has the perfect retort to such blather The Campaign Spot - National Review Online

The Atlantic is already snarking, “Just don’t tell the Republican candidates that the bailout worked.”

Amazing how easy it is to return to profitability when the federal government gives you $60 billion, with zero interest and no particular deadline on paying it back, and lets you write off up to $45 billion in old losses.

Re. the president's worldview

In the latest installment of Santorum-as-Scold, (In weaving faith into campaign, Santorum resorts to chiding opponents - The Washington Post) the so-called Mainstream Media quotes an amazingly air-headed from a Penn professor . . . referring to Santorum, the professor says:

“Scolding just makes you look old. I shouldn’t say old, so I’ll say something else: Scolding just makes you look dour,” said Anthea Butler, a professor of religious studies at the University of Pennslyvannia (sic). “You need to be a little bit more” than that, she said.

Whuh? Wouldn't want to "look old." What a load of shallow, generationist twaddle.

By the way, inasmuch as President Obama refers to his religious beliefs in support of his policies (here), his "theology" is fair game. Kudos to Rick Santorum for having the guts to point out that--in his opinion, the Emperor has no sound worldview.

Where I pooh-pooh Liberal fears about Santorum . . .

In psychology I believe it is called "projection," but the American Left's attempts to demonize Rick Santorum's convictions about sex are based on the presumption that he would impose said convictions through public policy in America. He has consistently and flatly stated that he would not, which means that the demagoguery is either (a) disingenuous (highly likely), (b) based in ignorance about his positions (not likely) or (c) based in a moral relativist's presumption that he is lying about his intention (also highly likely). I like Jonah Goldberg's angle on the issue, in particular, on how hollow Liberal histrionics about the threat of Santorum (Free Health Care? That’s Rich - Jonah Goldberg - National Review Online):

It’s really this simple: A government empowered to steamroll the people with the rosaries has the same power to trample the citizens with the ovaries. If you’re afraid of Rick Santorum, you should be afraid of Obamacare.

UPDATE: Great WSJ article on this subject. (The Weekend Interview With Jeff Bell: Social Issues and the Santorum Surge - WSJ.com) Key quote:

But what about voters who don't make a high priority of social issues, who aren't unwilling to vote for a social conservative but might be put off by a candidate who is—or is made to appear—a moralistic busybody? "The key thing along that line is the issue of coercion," Mr. Bell says. "Who is guilty of coercion? I happen to think it's the left." Mr. Obama and his supporters are "going to imply that Santorum wants to impose all the tenets of traditional morality on the American population. He doesn't. He just doesn't want the opposite imposed on Middle America."

Jon Corzine BHO's go-to guy . . .

Great article about the downfall of former Democratic U.S. Senator and NJ Governor Jon Corzine . . . this passage points out how clueless or blind Obama and Biden are with regard to "economics": The American Spectator : The Collapse of Jon Corzine:

So it should come as no surprise that two of Jon Corzine's biggest supporters are Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. At a Corzine campaign rally in Edison, New Jersey, in October 2009, speaking of the administration's quandary regarding how to deal with the banking turmoil in 2008, Biden made it clear why, in retrospect, the Obama administration's economic policies are so reckless and confused:

I literally picked up the phone and called Jon Corzine and said "Jon, what do you think we should do?" The reason why we called Jon is because we knew he knew about the economy, about world markets, about how we had to respond, unlike almost anyone we knew.

Biden went on to say that Corzine gave the administration the framework for a national economic recovery plan. Thus, the Obama stimulus, which wasted a trillion dollars of our children's future earnings, was inspired and perhaps designed by an inveterate reckless gambler and financial mismanager.

Coulter and Santorum on the same page

Ann Coulter took a week off from shilling for Mitt Romney (not that there's anything wrong with that . . .) to write a splendid op/ed (Ann Coulter - February 15, 2012 - COMMUNISM BY INSURANCE MANDATE about how Liberals/Progressives will use schemes like Obamacare to impose their moral values on us. Today I realized that Rick Santorum had nailed the very same issue during his CPAC speech last Saturday (see below). It is encouraging to see that Coulter and Santorum are on the same proverbial page.

Except employees aren't customers...make sense?

In an article about Nashville Metro Schools Director's asserting himself against "long"-standing, inefficient, collectivist labor practices with employees of the schools was this gem of wrong thinking by a metro schools employee Register hammered over union policy, doesn't plan to retreat | Nashville City Paper:

“If you want to change the handbook, there’s no reason not to meet with employee representatives and discuss this,” said Deborah Dial, a Metro high school support staff worker.

“You discuss things with parent groups. You discuss things with business groups. You discuss things with educational groups,” Dial said. “So why can’t you do it with the people who actually make the school run?”

Actually, this quotation nicely illustrates the problem with public school labor unions (or quasi-public school labor unions). Too often, families of students are the only ones who don't have a seat at the table or any significant power to affect THEIR interest.

Santorum says "sin" in interview!!

I really enjoyed watching this video . . . it provides a great look at Rick Santorum.  Part of it could be attributed to the interview format . . . part of it can be attributed to the candidate.

Anyhow, Michael Sherer of TIME mag's "swampland" blog (here) has a post (here) about Rick Santorum based on the interview. Sherer writes:

Candidates often say things when polling in the single digits that come back to haunt them when they start leading the polls. Last October, Rick Santorum gave an interview with an Evangelical blog called Caffeinated Thoughts, in which he said contraception is “not okay,” and that this would be a public policy issue he would tackle as President. In particular, he said he would “get rid of any idea that you have to have abortion coverage or contraceptive coverage” as a government policy. Start watching the following video at 17:55.

First, Scherer says "start watching at . . . 17:55," but I say watch the whole thing, because context is important. And though I think that Scherer is correct in stating that lower-tier candidates say things that come back to haunt them (duh, noone is (a) listening to or (b) cares what a long-shot candidate is saying), but it is unfortunate that candidates are more guarded (read: disingenuous or inauthentic) the more careful they are in their campaign. Frankly, I don't think that Santorum has that problem as much as the typical politician, but you can bet that his opponents will attempt to beat him over the head with his authenticity. Whether or not he intends to abuse governmental power to impose his views, let's demonize and demagogue!

Santorum's skeery theory on contraception

Brace yourselves, dear reader, for the Democrats' propaganda campaign about take away contraception!!! And they're licking their chops that a devout Catholic and a devout Mormon (both groups which are known for having large families) are leading the polls for the GOP nomination. Rush Limbaugh has referenced (here) a Dick Morris theory on how the Democrats are trying to re-cast the "GOP in the bedroom bogeyman" with the contraception issue. For the record, hear is Santorum's "position" on the issue, from January of 2012:

"The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.  That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide."

and

"You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things.  Let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things get rid of the legislature and replace them as opposed to creating constitutional laws that have consequences that were before them."

Yes, you can't spell demagogue without DEM.

Is Rick Santorum REALLY "likeable"?

Here's an interesting article (Likeable Rick Santorum attracts independents Romney is losing) about the GOP primary race.  It is unique in that it pushes back against the meme (from the Left and others) that the hackneyed, "out-of-right-field" knocks ("he is (personally) opposed to contraception!!"; "he's homophobic!")  The thesis is "Rick Santorum is likeable, but . . ."  I agree with the article in most respects, but several sub-theses are inaccurate I think:

1. "Santorum is only likeable because his negatives have not been driven up by a Romney barrage . . ." This is true in one sense, but Romney is limited in what weapons he can use against Santorum, and  aren't available to a candidate--Romney--who is trying to appeal to GOP conservatives.

2. Santorum is only superficially likeable . . .
From the op/ed:

Independent voters, in particular, see in Santorum the friendly neighbor who loans his lawn mower and offers to drive the kids to Sunday school. Just don’t risk his disdain by mentioning your recent vasectomy. He’s that kind of family man.

Of course, it wouldn't take a ton of ad money (from Obama's troopers--see #1 above) to strip away a veneer of "likeability" if it is superficial, but I think the cartoon with this op/ed inadvertently illustrates my point,  (harried wife/mom looking wide-eyed at her husband's announcement, "Honey, meet Rick Santorum . . . he talked me out of getting that vasectomy!") . . . that Santorum is truly more of a persuader than a preacher (which is what troubles many Lefties).

Even if you are not a Santorum supporter, I think it is in the best interest of Conservatism not to go along with efforts to stamp or brand Santorum "UNELECTABLE" because of his ideas.

A couple things about Herman Cain

I came across this op/ed today about Herman Cain's departure from the GOP presidential primary (The Fall of Herman Cain: A Conservative’s Lament | NetRight Daily). For the record, though I really like Herman Cain, I am inclined to believe that he is not being truthful about his relationships with the various female accusers, and particularly Ginger White . . . I simply do not believe that he would have failed to disclose this relationship with his wife if it was not illicit. Accordingly, I am bothered by the likelihood of his infidelity as well as the likelihood that he is now being deceptive. I know, I know, the allegations could be false, but I do not believe that is likely. If they are, then I will change my opinion. Until then, his explanations fall short.

That being said, the following passage re. Cain inspires me:

Before becoming President, Barack Obama authored The Audacity of Hope. The President might want to pull up a chair and take notes, for Herman Cain could teach him a thing or two about audacity. Try being a black conservative and alienating yourself to over 90 percent of your family and friends.

The same reporters who teared up on Election Night 2008 found little or no inspiration in Herman Cain, who remembers separate water fountains in segregation-era Georgia, vaulting from obscurity to become, briefly, a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, truly a first for a black American. Forget the generic niceties we’re hearing — he expanded the debate, he livened up the discussion — Herman Cain merits praise for exemplifying the strength of character.

Gosnell Abortion/homicide case . . .

I guess the money was good . . .Fourth Defendant to Plead Guilty in Gosnell Abortion Case | LifeNews.com:

A fourth defendant is expected to plead guilty today in the gruesome case involving the botched abortion deaths and the abortion-infanticides of dozens of unborn children that took place at the abortion facility run by Kermit Gosnell.

Republicans want to end public education!

I was alarmed to learn today--from a TN Democratic Party GOTV-for-Senate-District-6 email, that Republicans in Tennessee want to end public education:

Wining (sic) this deeply red district would be a political shocker and could deal a strong blow to Republicans’ extreme plan to end public education and hand over our democracy to lobbyists and special interests.

Thankfully all the Left's lobbyists and special interests--Labor Unions like the NEA come to mind, will fight tooth and nail to thwart the GOP's extreme plan . . .

"High Tech Lynching"

Watching this video, I am reminded of how much I admire(d) Clarence Thomas (watch until the end)



That being said, I like Cain, but regrettably, his situation seems different than the attacks on Clarence Thomas. There seems to be more to the allegations against Cain, to include actual complaints filed, actual legal settlements, third-party witnesses, etc. Frankly, where there's this much smoke . . .

However, I think the ugliest thing about "sexual harassment" is that it is so subjective and so patronizing to females, and it is so hypocritical for Democrats. Libs, who foster sexualization of every part of our culture (and thereby encourage women to assert sexual leverage) and who pooh-pooh traditional values and who try to pretend that there is no difference between men and women act like flirting or telling a dirty joke is a Federal offense (at least when Republicans do it). DEMS IGNORED A SITTING PRESIDENT HAVING SEX WITH AN UNPAID INTERN, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE . . . and now they're pursuing this story like it is some big deal?

While it bothers me to think that Cain might have been unfaithful to his wife and have violated the teachings of his faith, I think that we shouldn't let the Liberal media establishment frame this debate and drive this story.

A couple things re. Perry's "drunk" speech

After viewing the entire Rick Perry "drunk" speech, I have a couple of observations:
1) I do not think that Perry is drunk or high or anything . . . he may be a little tired or exhausted, I guess.
2) I do think that Perry is patronizing in the speech. A little bit like the "brother" comment in reference to Herman Cain in a previous debate, or Hillary Clinton's puttin' on an accent.
3) Although such patronizing can be related to racism or prejudice, I'd say it is more a result of trying to connect with an audience with whom the speaker isn't comfortable.

See for yourself . . .

Obama the Anti-Regulator!!

An Obama campaign press release today (sent to all of us diehard supporters of the O) proclaims that "Obama Has Approved Fewer Regulations Than Bush Up To This Point." Of course, if you read the report, as opposed to the press release, the thesis of the press release collapses (I can only imagine how much the phrase "Up To This Point" needs to be unpacked). Why? Because of this key paragraph in the article Obama Has Approved Fewer Regulations Than Bush Up To This Point, Analysis Finds:

Obama has approved 4.7 percent fewer rules than Bush had at the same point in his presidency, but they cost businesses more, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Obama's regulations are expected to cost businesses between $100 million and $4.1 billion more than Bush's, Bloomberg finds.

I should say that most conservatives wouldn't present Dubya as our standard on the issue of big gov't or regulation, but such disingenuous and deceptive spin isn't pretty. Hey, whatever it takes to win, right?

Coke, WWF and global warming

You have to read DEEP into press releases on the campaign to see any reference to "climate change," so I'll give Coke credit for being savvy enough to want to have it both ways, but . . .Coca-Cola Can Goes White to Save the Polar Bear:

"This campaign is about working together to save one of the most important places on Earth," said Gerald Butts, President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada. "As sea ice continues to melt at alarming rates, polar bears and local communities alike are threatened. With Coca-Cola's support, we can expand our reach and impact to help chart a sustainable future for this critical Arctic ecosystem."

But that sure conflicts with the data,

'Arctic rent seekers experts tell us that the ice is melting “faster than predicted.” Interesting conclusion, given that US Navy PIPS2 data shows that since 2008 the area of 2.5+ metre ice has nearly doubled and now covers almost the entire Arctic Basin. NSIDC also shows that the area of multi-year ice has substantially increased since 2008'

.

. . . where I spontaneously say, "Jindal for President"

Rise of the Republican Reformers - Josh Kraushaar - NationalJournal.com

As Jindal demonstrates, advancing good policies is good politics. The wonky Jindal is far from a natural pol, but his hands-on approach allowed Louisiana to rebound beyond expectations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. As the Republican front-runner, Romney would be well-advised to take a cue from Jindal instead of worrying whether doing so would become fodder for Democratic attack ads in a general election. It’s called leadership, and it’s something voters across the political spectrum yearn for.

Where Liberty and Life collide . . .

While I don't think that Congressman Ron Paul is the best candidate for president (He is too prone to conspiracy theorizing, in my opinion), I appreciate that he hammered the issue of abortion during his remarks (on c-span.org) at the Ames Straw Poll. Likewise, I have little respect for Libertarians who--while priding themselves on their willingness to take unpopular but principled stands, ignore the innocent human life growing inside a woman's body when proclaiming themselves "pro-choice."

I believe this message was tailored to the rather conservative activists who vote in the Iowa GOP primaries (in fact, even Paul muddled the point a bit when straying off the script, stating: "The prime reason that government exists in a free society is to protect liberty, but also to protect life."), but in this digital age, any candidate who disingenuously made such remarks on such a stage would be more naive than disingenuous . . . so Paul deserves credit.