In this episode of Can't Spell Demagogue without D-E-M

. . . in which lefties equate accommodating non-citizens with imposing "apartheid": American Apartheid? The Republican "Dream" Scheme | blog.pfaw.org

Demonizing Scott Walker . . .

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Scott Walker Recall... On Broadway!:

A tragedy of public-sector unions is it can take well-intentioned employees, who might be otherwise apolitical, and turn them into Democratic apparatchiks who will actively campaign against reforms which have already prevented teachers from being laid off.

If you benefi[ted from] an unsustainable taxpayer-funded pension system which you never contributed to, had a guaranteed income for life, and taxpayer-funded gold-plated health insurance, you might be singing a bitter tune as well.

Taliban knows one when it sees one . . .

The mass killings by an American soldier over the weekend are reprehensible, and--I haven't done any research and don't know what it would look like, but I think that we ought to try this soldier in Afghanistan and allow the Afghan people (as represented by their gov't) to somehow be involved in his prosecution. That being said, I couldn't help but think about recent events in that country related to destruction by American troops of contraband (which included previously-defaced-by-Muslims copies of the Qu'ran). The violence and protests were incredibly disproportionate to any purported offenses, but this paragraph stood out in the article about the apparent murders over the weekend: The Associated Press: Afghan youth recounts US soldier's rampage:

Still the public response to the shootings so far has been calmer than the six days of violent protests and clashes that erupted after Qurans were burned at Bagram Air Field. There were no signs of protests Monday.

I think the only difference in the response is related to the fact that any protests or grand responses in that country are driven by Taliban types . . . and terrorizing and killing civilians (even women and children) in the night is nothing new to them.

The split between fiscal and social conservatism

There may be other reasons not to focus on the economic impact of libertinism, but it is foolish to claim that it isn't existentially relevant when discussing public policy. From Mark Steyn

The Fluke Charade - Mark Steyn - National Review Online: " . . . the Fluke story is a useful reminder that the distinction between fiscal and social conservatism is generally false. As almost all those fashionable split-the-difference fiscally conservative/socially liberal governors from George Pataki to California’s pathetically terminated Terminator eventually discover, their social liberalism comes with a hell of a price tag. Ask the Greeks how easy it is for insolvent nations to wean the populace off unaffordable nanny-state lollipops: When even casual sex requires a state welfare program, you’re pretty much done for."

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 . . .