What Do Conservatives Want?

So, over at the HQ this morning, commenter jwest raised an interesting point.  His comment is too long to quote in its entirety, but the gist seems to be this:  Conservatives, especially in the blogosphere, are too ready to pull out the Long Knives whenever one of our allies (actual allies- a Perry, or Walker, or Cruz, or Lee) makes a tiny misstep.  So we should probably make some decisions, as a movement, about where we really stand.

So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader).  I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.

1: Immigration/Border

On immigration, has anyone defined what the word "amnesty" means? We can't simply say "follow existing law", because than entails kicking in doors at 2am and dragging mothers away from their children (which looks bad on the evening news). It would be good to have a well written position on what true conservatives want.

Amnesty means "officially not administering just punishment for a crime."  Any "path to legalization" or "path to citizenship" is Amnesty.

Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it).  Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens.  Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals.  Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.

2: ObamaCare/Health Care/Health Insurance

On healthcare, certainly everyone wants Obamacare repealed, but that's not a position. Never in the history of the U.S. has the government been able to give citizens free shit and then turn around and take it back. Those who think this is an option just aren't being serious. We need a conservative plan on what is going to replace Obamacare.

Burn it down. 
Scatter the stones. 
Salt the earth where it stood. 

The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance.  The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance.  Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).

3: Defense (esp. Defense Budget)

On defense, some are taking the position that patriotism can be gauged by how much we spend on the military. Others know that at some point, enough is enough. It's hard to make the case of being a budget hawk while handing out blank checks. We should nail this down so that voters know where we're at.

I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money.  I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much).  Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient.  If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.

4: Social Security

On Social Security, for decades the holy grail of the conservative side of the aisle was a plan to privatize SS. If this is still the plan, it could be marketed in such a way as to gain the black vote. Of course, our side needs to agree on plan first.

One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA.  Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's.  For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan.  Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.

I'll add on top of that:

5: Taxes

A massively simplified tax code.  Flat tax, fair tax, even a progressive/graduated tax which is simple to understand would be far better than what we have today.  I don't think, realistically, we'll ever get a true "flat tax," and the "fair tax" scares me unless we can repeal the 16th Amendment.  Repeal the estate tax, drop corporate taxes to around 15%, stop taxing capital gains (and maybe dividends).

6: Budget

A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country.  Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).

What are your thoughts?  Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.

Ben, it's because they DO think it's good policy.

Oh, and they DO think we're idiots.

Several days ago (by the time you're reading this) Ben Domenech went on a Twitter rant slamming GOP Leadership (especially Speaker Boehner) for "lying" to Conservatives.  That is, Ben's position is that the budget deal is good politics but bad policy, the leadership knows this (and agrees), and that the GOP reaction to Conservatives (who know that it's bad policy, and are dubious about the politics part) should have been to "tell the truth," and say, "Yes, we know it's bad policy, we're totally doing it for the politics.  Don't call us sell-outs and we won't call you idiots."

Let me, by way of rebuttal, provide a re-phrasing of Occam's Razor.  Put simply- the answer which assumes the fewest things not already in evidence is usually the correct one.  The let me suggest an answer- they do think we're idiots and they think this plan is good policy.

Now, let's judge them both against Occam's Razor.

Ben's answer assumes the following-

• the deal is bad policy
• the deal is good politically
• the Republicans know both of the above
• the Republicans are simply "lashing out" at Conservatives in response (pre-sponse?) to being called "sell-outs."

Of those, only one fact is actually in evidence- that the deal is bad policy.  Everything else is asserted but not proven.

My answer assumes the following-

• the deal is bad policy
• Republicans think it is good policy
• Republicans think Conservatives are idiots.

All of my assertions have proof to back them up.  They are all in evidence.  The first is evident by the fact it increases both spending and taxes.  The second two are evident by the words that GOP Leadership are using.

So which is more likely?

It is no secret that a large number of Republicans in Washington both resent and fear the Conservative Grassroots.  Mitch McConnell uses harsher language against the Senate Conservatives Fund than he ever has against the President.  Ted Cruz has been pilloried as much by Republicans as by Democrats.  One miserable old troll in the Senate even called the TEA Parties "hobbits" (though- I'll take that one.  The Hobbits won in the end).

It is similarly no secret that the GOP Leadership loves them some spending.  None of them complained when Medicare D was passed.  They have never once asked for actual cuts to any government program.  Whenever Conservative Grassroots ask for something to be cut, they're among the first to tell us we're crazy, it can never happen, etc., etc.

Now, Occam's Razor only says that the answer which assumes the fewest facts not in evidence is the most likely answer- it doesn't make any guarantees.  So it's possible that Ben is right and I am wrong.  The fact is that it doesn't matter.  Leadership that detests- or even pretends to detest- its base is not "leadership" at all and should be replaced.

Wait. "Compromise" IS a Bad Word

Compromise: a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason

So, Paul Ryan has agreed to sell out Conservatives because Democrats might say mean things about Republicans.  Again.  The "compromise" bill to which Mr. Ryan agreed will increase discressionary spending for FY 2014 from the ~970 Billion that was written into the 2011 Budget Act by about 300 Billion dollars (to approximately 1,025 Billion).  FY 2015 spending would go up from there.

We are told that this is a "compromise" between House Republicans and Senate Democrats.  See, Democrats wanted to spend All The Money, so anything less than that is a win, right?  Wrong.  Even after the sequester cuts (which could have been avoided by Democrats negotiating in good faith), our debt has still grown.  When your out-go is higher than your income you have a problem, and the politicians in Washington, DC refuse to address the problem.

As pointed out on the PowerLine blog, the sequester itself was a "compromise."  So why must it now be the Republican's starting position?  Shouldn't Republicans honestly contend for what their constituents want- a balanced budget?  Had Mr. Ryan started from that position, we might have had a "compromise" that was an actual "meeting in the middle."  Had Mr. Ryan, or any Republican, really, been able to articulate why even sequester level spending is still too high, perhaps the new "compromise" would have been to lower spending again.

Instead, by using sequester as the starting point, the new plan increases spending and taxes.

But that, perhaps, is the worst part.  You see, the plan not only increases taxes, but it hides them.  No politician in his right mind would vote to increase the income tax rate.  Despite what the MFM would have you believe, we're still muddling along in a financial quagmire.  We might not meet the technical definition of a Recession, but for many families, a Recession is still their reality.

But rather than decrease spending, Washington Politicians want to increase spending.  Mr. Ryan, having run as a Budget Hawk, can't do that without somehow being able to say he's "decreasing the deficit" and obvious tax increases are off the table, so what can he do?  Hike "fees."  There is also some talk of decreasing Federal Employee pensions but a) I'll believe that when I see it and b) the numbers talked about there are inconsequential in relation to the size of the budget.

Some will claim that by raising "fees" Mssrs. Ryan and Murray are giving people a way to avoid taxes.  Aren't fees a "usage tax?"  Well yes, and then again no.  For one thing, Mssrs. Ryan and Murray don't want you to forego the activities they will now be taxing a higher rate.  They want you to do more of those things (which is counter-intuitive and, frankly, stupid, but whatever).  For another, the things they've chosen are activities it is hard to avoid.

Certainly I can choose to drive on vacation instead of fly, but what about a business traveler?  I have known and worked with a fair number of people who lived and worked 3 weeks out of every 4 in Illinois, and the other week in Texas.  If they had to drive instead of fly, that would be a huge cost to them and the company.  So they'll suck up the extra fee.  So will many families on vacation (who really wants to spend 4 days of a 7 day vacation in a car?).

Indeed this is a "compromise," but not in the way Mr. Ryan would have you believe.  This is a cave, a capitulation.  It is a complete forfeiture of Fiscally Conservative principle.  Spending does not need to increase faster (remember, even the sequester was a cut in the rate of growth, not a "cut" as you and I understand it).  Spending needs to decrease.  Failing that, it certainly needs to increase yet slower than it is.

But the Republicans are afraid Democrats and the Media (BIRM) will say mean things about them.  So of course their first and only option is to sell out Conservatives.  Again.

Susan Estrich: I Didn't Vote For Obama's Policies, Just For Obama

Well, then, Ms. Estrich, why did you vote for him?  His stunning success as cutting the deficit in half like he promised?  Did you vote for his stellar record of job creation and unemployment numbers?  Oh, I know, you voted for him because of his amazing facility for quieting our international foes while bolstering our allies.

Oh, that's right.  You voted because somehow no one can do what you explicitly state you were able to do.  To whit:

I voted for Obama. I voted for him because I know how hard it is to buy health insurance for a single person with even a minor pre-existing condition. In the case of my nanny/housekeeper/dear friend, it was gastritis. Thank God for Kaiser, which sold me the insurance that some years later saved her life when she was diagnosed with cancer. So call it what you will, but I did not want to see Obamacare repealed.

Now she's complaining because Obama claims he has a mandate to raise taxes.  Guess what, Ms. Estrich, he believes he does.  Why might he believe that?  How about the fact he ran on tax increases.  His answer to everything for the entire election season was "Tax the Rich."  And now you have the gall to be surprised that he wants to raise taxes?  I mean, it's obvious you're stupid from the paragraph I quoted, but exactly how stupid are you?  Are you only able to "type" because someone gave you Dragon, Naturally Speaking and showed you how to use it?

This kind of thing drives me nuts.  It's absolutely stupid, and I hate stupidity.  Democrats run on competing ideas all the time.  They want to raise taxes "on the rich" but won't raise taxes.  They're all about Amnesty when talking to Hispanic voters, and all about border control when talking to rural Whites.  So many Democrats are single issue voters, and they choose not to notice the Democrats' positions on the other issues.

So, yes, Ms. Estrich, you did vote for Barack Obama to raise your taxes.  He claimed that was his specific intent, and you voted for it.  You also voted for continued drone strikes and involvement in Syria.  You voted to stone-wall the investigations into Fast and Furious and Benghazi.  You voted for a porous border.  You voted to spend billions on "green energy" schemes which are doomed to failure, and continued refusal to drill for oil on Federal land.  You voted for massive spending cuts in Medicare and Defense.  You voted to support Hamas and Al Qaida over Israel.

These are all things that Barack Obama stood for during re-election.  If you voted for him, you voted for all of them.

H/T Ace.  Again.

On Messaging

One of the things I've been hearing the last couple of days is that Republicans need a new message- or to refine our messaging.  Part of this comes from this post from DrewM at the Ace of Spades HQ, the other from an anecdotal comment from friend-of-the-blog tsrblke on twitter.  Drew points out that 81% to 18%, the electorate believed that Obama "cares more about people like me" than Mitt Romney.  On a related note, tsrblke points out that many believe that Republicans see everyone on welfare as "takers."

Now, both of these are silly.  They're even stupid.  They're also both absolutely correct.  What Republicans believe doesn't matter.  What people believe that Republicans believe is what matters.  Mitt Romney is a very caring man.  The stories of his being a caring man are poignant and hardly rare- except that he wouldn't talk about them.  As for all those on welfare being "takers?"  Well, that comes down to the "47%" comment.

So what do we do?  If we change our principles, then we're not the same Republican party.  We could do that, but we'd have to recognize we're giving up on things that have been core conservative values for generations.  If we won't change the product, though, maybe we have to change the packaging.

But how do we do that?  We can't just offer people free stuff, nor should we.  It's weak and cowardly to do so, which makes it all the more vexing that Democrats get away with it cycle after cycle.

I have a couple of ideas, here.

First off, about the "makers versus takers," we need to radically shift our language there.  Mark Davis (formerly of WBAP in Dallas/Fort Worth, now on 660 KSKY ("The Answer")) has recommended using the term "Economic Liberty."  We're not for "Tax cuts for the rich" we're for increased economic liberty.  We're not for a national sales tax, or a flat tax, we're against the economic repression of a too-bulky, hard-to-understand progressive tax system.  We don't want to "privatize Social Security" we want to expand Seniors' economic liberty by giving them additional choices to fund their retirement.

Second, on the "he cares about me," stuff, there are two steps.  The first, and most simple, is simply to say that, over and over.  Not flippantly, dismissively, or in exasperation.  "Of course we care" is not the correct answer.  "Republicans care deeply about the plight of young urban youths.  That's why we want plans that will empower them to reach their goals and achieve their dreams."  "Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, believed in a world where your abilities, not your skin color, determined your success.  Republicans still believe in that dream."  Yes, it's touchy-feely, mealy-mouthed crap.  It's also absolutely necessary.

For those of you who are married- what do you think would happen to your marriage if you never, ever told your spouse, "I love you?"  Or, when you did, it was "Well of course I love you, I can't believe you'd ask that question!  Would I work 50 hour weeks to keep a roof over your head if I didn't love you?"  That wouldn't do much for your marital bliss, would it?

Well, the voters we need to reach are the same way.  They have to hear "we care," over and over and over.

The second step is more difficult.  We have to actively change our image from one of "big ideas" to one of "personal ideas."  Republicans typically reject this approach.  "We don't worry about [group], because we know that our policies are good for everybody."  Well, we need to be seen as worrying about [group] more often.  We need to be seen as thinking for X many minutes every day, "I wonder what I can do to help young blacks," or, "We've got to do better helping rape victims," or, "What can we do to make sure women are successful?"

Ultimately, this question constantly trips up Republicans in debates, "I'm a member of [insert group here], what are you going to do for me?"  Republicans respond with the quite factually correct answer that getting government out of the way is good for everybody.  Then the Democrat says, "See, I see people in exactly your situation every day.  What I propose to do is have group X fund a plan to give you more free stuff."

Republicans can't win against "free stuff" but we don't really have to.  We just have to be more competitive.  So, when the question of (for instance) student loans comes up, a good answer might be something along these lines:

"You know, I talk to college kids who are either just graduating, or looking at graduation pretty quickly all the time.  And their number one concern, as soon-to-be or recent graduates is 'how do I pay for these loans.'  Well, let me tell you what I'm going to do about that.  First off, I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure your loans stay as affordable as possible.  The last thing you need is for your interest rate suddenly to go up.  The next thing I'm going to do is everything in my power to make sure you can get a job that will let you then pay back those loans as quickly as possible.

Then, for people who are further away from graduation, or aren't even in college yet, I'm going to do one more thing: I'm going to use what power I'll have to encourage colleges to offer a streamlined degree program that can be completed in 3 years of full-time work.  Right now, a lot of the cost of your education is taking credits that don't actually have anything to do with your major.  Now, that's really good from the standpoint of a well-rounded education, but when you're trying to get a degree so you can get a good job, you don't need those extra hours which cost you so much."

Now, here's the thing: realize how many weasel words you've left in.  "Everything in my power."  "What power I'll have"  "Encourage."  "As quickly as possible."  Just as importantly, realize that I can achieve all of those goals through conservative means, with the possible exception of the low interest rate (see also: weasel words).  A good job?  Lowering regulations, cutting the minimum wage, and all kinds of conservative ideas will make business boom- leading to more jobs.  Encouraging colleges can be done, not by increasing their grants and subsidies, but by threatening to cut them.

Messaging is important.  It doesn't matter how good your product is if no one will buy it.  We've got to figure our our messaging and get it fixed- fast.

Squrirel of the Day: "Binders of Women"

With very few exceptions (this post being one of them) you can dismiss anyone bringing up Mitt Romney's line about "binders full of women" as a completely unserious political hack.  For some reason, they think this reflects poorly on him as regards his beliefs about women (I'm really not sure how they got there) so let's go and look at what he actually said:

ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

And I -- and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are -- are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we -- can't we find some -- some women that are also qualified?"

ROMNEY: And -- and so we -- we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.

I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women.

I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.

Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two, because I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.

Do you see anything objectionable there?  He saw a hole forming in his leadership team- his Cabinet would have been all male.  That is actually a problem.  While diversity, for its own sake, is not a huge virtue, there really are ways of thinking about things that woman brings to the table that a man does not.  Having women in all trades just to have women in all trades is silly.  Making sure your senior leadership staff is as diverse a mix as you can reasonably achieve makes a lot of sense.

Having spotted the problem, he then took specific steps to solve it: find women who were qualified.  Note that he didn't make any statement about finding women who were "good enough."  I'm certain that had there really not been any women available who were qualified for what he wanted them to do, he wouldn't have selected them, diversity or no.  He set his staff about the job of finding qualified candidates who were female.

Having found "binders full" of candidates (obviously he's talking about their resumes or personnel files) he then also noted that he had to make some sacrifices.  If anywhere, this is where I disagree with him.  Part of being qualified is being available.  If you want to be the primary bread-winner of your family, and work in any kind of high office (from a Governor's cabinet to being a C-Level employee at a large corporation), one of the sacrifices you have to make is time with your family.  Men are expected to do this all the time, I don't see why women can't do the same- or make the choice not to go as high on the corporate ladder. 

Whatever my thoughts on the matter, he made his decision.  For all of his years as Governor, he then had the most women in senior positions of any of his contemporaries.  If you're looking at it as a numbers game (too many supposed feminists do), that's a good thing.

A couple of other points here.  The original question was about "wage equality," and the myth that women make less than men.  It was initially addressed to Mr. Obama who brought up the Lilly Ledbetter Act.  Two major problems here: first, the Lilly Ledbetter Act is stupid.  It doesn't actually address wage equality, it simply gives women more ways to sue their employers if they decide later that they weren't given "equal pay for equal work," and puts the onus on the employer to disprove the accusation.  Second, I wish Mr. Romney had asked the President, "So, if wage equality is so important to you, why do you pay female staff, on average, 17% less (or whatever the actual number is -DT) than your male staff?"  Maybe he would have brought it up if he'd been given a chance to respond to Mr. Obama's response, but, as with so many other times in the debate, he was not.

Joe Biden Condones Murder

One of the many execrable things Joe Biden said in the debate last night was when the debate turned to Abortion.  Paul Ryan made the distinction between Principle and Policy, and said that, as a matter of policy, the Romney/Ryan ticket would oppose abortion excepting "rape, incest, and health of the mother."  Now, that's not actually that defensible a statement, but it is bowing one's head to reality.

Joe Biden, however, said this (rough quote- still haven't grabbed the actual transcript): "I submit to the teachings of my church that life begins at conception, but I don't think I should force that view on others."

Now, friend-of-the-blog tsrblke (follow him on twitter: @tsrblke) is a Catholic (I assume devout), and aspiring bio-ethicist.  I asked him what he thought about Biden's comments, and he said this (paraphrasing): Joe Biden is either a coward or lying.  I'll stretch that to say it's not an "either/or" situation.

According to him, that formulation of "I submit..." is a common cop-out method when someone is about to disagree with the Church.  Basically it's saying, "I think they're wrong, but I don't want to get excommunicated, so I won't say that."  Now, either that is what Biden was doing, or he really does accept Church doctrine.  Both of those are bad.

The first is bad because it means he will disregard his faith for political expediency.  If he doesn't really accept that teaching of the Church, he should have had the guts to say so.   That is: he was showing cowardice.  He didn't have the courage of his own convictions to say, "I know what my church teaches, but I disagree.  That disagreement is between me and my church, but as a policy matter I cannot support the logical conclusions that follow from 'Life begins at conception,' if I don't fully believe it myself."

The second is bad because it condones murder.  Look at what he said- "I agree that life begins at conception, but it's not for me to say you can't have an abortion."  Logically that simply does not follow.  Mr. Ryan's answer was not logically much better, but at least had the (unspoken) caveat of "Look, I know this illogical, and it's not what I personally support- but sometimes principle has to submit to reality."  Mr. Biden's answer though equates to this: "Well, sure I believe you're alive, but it's not for me to say you shouldn't be killed.  That's between your murderer and his own conscience." 

Logically, if one believes that life begins at conception, then one must oppose all abortions.  Even those "for the health of the mother" should make them admit there is a moral quandary there.  Two lives are at risk, only one can be saved- which do you save.  That really is a truly personal choice.  But rape and incest?  Logically it cannot follow that those are okay reasons for an abortion if you really believe that life begins at conception.

Joe Biden tried to walk a line which does not exist.  He tried to create a moral equivalency between a philosophy of life and one of death.  And in so doing, he has condoned murder.

Sally Kohn in 3 Words

Here, first go read this.  Back?  Okay, let's get started.

1) Banal.

As an opinion writer, Sally Kohn should know that being boring is perhaps the worst sin one can commit.  Sometimes you can't help it, you're doing as much to impart information as you are expounding on an opinion, but you should avoid it whenever possible.

This article was worse than merely boring, however, it was predictable.  Indeed, the meme from the Left today seems to be that Paul Ryan is a Lying Liar who Lies.  Strangely enough, that's not just the meme from the media, but from the DNC, too.  I'm sure that's just coincidence, though.

2) Fantastical

In the meat of her article, Ms. Kohn calls out several "Facts" which she asserts.  She's absolutely wrong.  Let's look at them:

a) Debt Ceiling

Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.

Only in Liberal La-La land do you keep a good credit rating by taking on more debt.  The credit rating was slashed because the United States had no plan to deal with it's debt.  Several credit agencies specifically said that just raising the debt ceiling wasn't going to cut it- a real plan to reduce future deficits had to be put in place.  The single biggest obstacle to that was President Obama.

b) Janesville GM Plant

Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush.

You'll hear this a lot, and it's a blatant lie.  While much production had been shut down by the end of 2008, the plant was still open until April of 2009.  More importantly, given Mr. Obama's level of influence, if not control, over GM by that time, it's also worth it to mention that the Janesville Plant was passed over for a new car line before it closed.

Just as important, you'll notice she doesn't quote Mr. Ryan or how he "blamed President Obama for the shut down..."  That' because he didn't.  Here's Mr. Ryan's quote:

A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that G.M. plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said, "I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years."

That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day.

Barack Obama promised that, with government support, that plant would still be there "for another 100 years."  That government support came, the plant is still closed.  Where is the lie?

She also mention's Paul Ryan's support for, and Mitt Romney's opposition to, the auto bail out in 2009.  I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

c) "You didn't build that."

Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.

Note the flat denial with no attempt to quote either Mr. Ryan or the President.  Here, for Ms. Kohn, are links to my own take on what Mr. Obama said.  Remember, the context made it worse.

d) Medicare Cuts
Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.

This is so divorced from reality that I almost don't where to start.  First off, her own "fact" supports what Ryan said: President Obama is taking $716 billion dollars out of Medicare.  Second, this idea that "savings in Medicare reimbursement rates" will "save Medicare recipient out-of-pocket costs" is absolutely ludicrous.  What will actually happen is that Doctors, in droves, will stop accepting Medicare and Medicare recipients will either not get care, or bear more of the cost up front.  Unless you think Doctors are suddenly going to start working for free.

She also claims that Mr. Ryan "embraced these savings in his budget plan." Absolutely false. Where Obamacare removes $716 billion from Medicare right now, Mr. Ryan's plan simply reduces the rate of growth over 10 years. It also specifically exempts from any reforms anyone age 55 and over.

3) Desperate
This piece was nothing more than a desperate attempt to spin the Ryan speech as something it wasn't for people who didn't hear it live.  It was an attempt to "get ahead of the story," and an attempt to substitute the Liberal version of reality for the Truth.

Ms. Kohn, if this is the best your side has, I suggest you seek shelter.  A storm is coming, and it's name is Romney/Ryan.

From The "If a Conservative Said It" Files

In today's New York Times (no link for the primary propaganda arm of the DNC) Ross Douthat makes one of the most hideously racist/bigoted screeds against Mitt Romney I've seen in a while.  That even the NYT would publish this filth is disgusting.

That's a high bar to set, so let me go about proving it.

Imagine a Republican saying the following line- maybe Trent Lott:

"Michelle Obama was not born into Muslim/Indonesian Culture, but she's a quasi-Muslim by birth and breeding, and her marriage to Barack Obama clearly united like with like. ("I was into Black Liberation Theology, he was reared a Muslim," she said Tuesday night, straining to make an affinity sound like an impediment.)"

Outrageous, yes?  We'd be hearing cries of racism for weeks.  Well, here's the actual quote.

"Ann Romney was not born into Mormon culture, but she's a quasi-WASP by birth and breeding, and her marriage to Mitt Romney clearly united like with like. ("I was Episcopalian, he was a Mormon," she said Tuesday night, straining to make an affinity sound like an impediment.)"

Now, first, this shows a profound misunderstanding of the strains that can be put on a relationship between couples of different Christian denominations.  While we have much more in common with each other than we have in conflict, those areas of conflict can be, and often are, highly divisive.  When you look at the difference between Mormonism and the Episcopal Church, that only gets worse.

More importantly, I find it odd that Mr. Douthat finds it so necessary to remind us that the Romneys are WASPs (that would be "White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant" for the uninitiated).  He mentions the word WASP in some form at least three times.  He also gets in a gratuitous nod to Mormonism's history of polygamy.

I can't help but ask what his reaction would be if someone mentioned either the Islamic heritage under which Barack Obama was reared, or his embrace of Black Liberation Theology under Reverend Wright so gratuitously in a column.  I can't help but wonder what his reaction would be to someone pointing out that Mr. Obama's own father was a polygamist.

And, of course, the point is exactly what Liberals accused Conservatives of in 2008, attempting to paint Mitt Romney as "the other," and "not like us."  Even the title of the piece "The Case for Noblesse Oblige" is supposed to evoke imagery of an aristocracy ruling over "the little people," not a representative government which serves them. 

As we often point out at the Ace of Spades HQ (link in sidebar), anything of which a Liberal accuses a Conservative is usually projection, and this is no different.  It is Liberals who believe in Neo-Feudalism, with little fiefs ruled by an unaccountable bureaucracy (I won't say "aristocracy").  It is Liberals who believe we are subjects to be ruled over, and not citizens to be governed.  And it is Liberals who believe race, or gender, or religion define a person, and not the choices they make and principles they hold.

Does Jonathan Alter Aspire To Stupid?

Is pre-experiment Charlie Gordon his hero?  Does he wake up in the morning and say, "Johnny boy, you can do this.  You can get through the day merely being stupid, and not advertise the fact you have the intelligence of a mentally retarded paramecium?"  Does he have sticky notes on his fridge with things like, "Think it, Believe it: 70 IQ?" Because if so, he just failed.

On MSNBC's "Ed Show" mental-Lilliputian Jon Alter said this:

"People will die in the United States if ObamaCare is repealed.  That is not an exaggeration.  That is not crying fire.  It's a simple fact.  If you have preexisting conditions and you are thrown off of health insurance, or if you get sick after you or your husband, spouse, loses the job, you're not going to go to the doctor as soon, you cancer or disease is not going to be caught as quickly, and your odds of dying are much, much increased."

Then, if you had any doubt that he was saying that ObamaCare would make you immortal, he followed up with this:

"ObamaCare will save, literally, thousands of lives."

Okay, for those with any doubt.  You are going to die.  One day, you'll be alive.  The next, or even the next hour or minute- you won't be.  No health insurance scheme is going to change that.  As for "early treatment," well, if you don't go to the doctor, that's your own fault.  It's that simple.

See, we already have laws requiring hospitals to provide life-saving emergency care regardless of ability to pay.  You can use a County hospital in place of a primary care physician if you can't afford your own health care.  The American people were already providing that, we didn't need ObamaCare for it.

Of course, his point wasn't actually that ObamaCare will save lives.  That's a transparent lie.  He wanted to double down on the "Mitt Romney has time-traveling cancer-ray eyes," add featuring Joe Soptic.  Don't believe me?  How about this quote:

"And they can bring death into the conversation and say, 'No, we're not calling Mitt Romney a murderer, what we are saying is that if he's elected president, a lot of people will die.' Those are two slightly different, but related issues,"

That's right.  Jonathan Alter isn't calling Mitt Romney a murderer, he's just saying he's responsible for the death of Joe Soptic's wife.

Let's Do That Again!

You know how kids will do something incredibly dangerous, to the point they (and any observers) think they're going to die?  And then when they survive the experience they usually crack up laughing and screaming and then say, "Let's do that again!"?  Parents everywhere are cringing, because they do know.  They also know it's their job to say, "No, I don't think so."

Well, it's time to correct the child in office again.  And we'd better do it quickly because his defenders in the media are already trying to spin it as "he didn't mean it that way."

In Pueblo, Colorado, President Obama gave a speech "villifying(sic) Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout."  In that speech he said:

"I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back.  Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry."  (emphasis added)

Let's break this down, and you'll see how ludicrous it is.

First off, if he believed in the auto industry, why did he interfere with the normal market operation?  If you believe in something, don't you allow it to operate?  Don't you only interfere if you don't believe that it's capable?

And what about "I want to do the same thing...?"  Well, what did he do?  He directly intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings of both GM and Chrysler with the effect that secured bond holders' legitimate claims were voided and the unsecured claims of the UAW and other Obama Donors were honored.  Just coincidentally, the UAW no basically controls both GM and Chrysler, the US Taxpayer is on the hook for millions of dollars that we'll never see again, and Barack Obama essentially appointed the current CEO of GM.  Just coincidentally.

And now he wants "to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs... in every industry."  I don't know how many more times the SCOAMT needs to say what he believes.  From "you didn't do that on your own," to "I think at some point you've made enough money," to (now) admitting he wants to de facto nationalize every manufacturing job in the nation, Barack Obama couldn't scream "I'm a Marxist!" any louder if he had sworn his oath of office on the Communist Manifesto.

A New Low

I'm absolutely flabbergasted.  I'm one of the most cynical people I know, and this still surprised me in its cynical disdain for reality and decorum.  I'm going to recommend you just read the article, not watch the ad.

Now, I have no desire to "pile on" "Joe Soptic," but neither can I, in good conscience, let this pass unanswered.  Mr. Romney's campaign will not directly address the add, for good reason, so it falls to us in the New Media to do so.  I am in a special position to be able to address the ad, so I will.  Let's take it apart claim by claim:

1) Romney and Bain closed the plant. - False.  Mitt Romney had already left Bain Capital when the Kansas City GST Steel plant closed.

2) Mr. Soptic lost his health care. - False.  Mr. Soptic, at most, lost his health insurance.  Health insurance is most definitely not the same thing as health care.  Most importantly, every state in the nation has a way to receive tax-payer subsidized health care: from county hospitals which will see you regardless of ability to pay, to medicaid, to even private charities.  While I'm sorry Mr. Soptic lost his job and his insurance (by the way: he was eligible for COBRA for at least 18 months.  Did he simply elect not to take it?), that did not prevent him from seeking medical care.

3) His wife "didn't say anything because she knew we couldn't afford the insurance," - I don't know if that's true or not.  What I do know, as mentioned in point 2, is that it didn't matter.  Health care options were available to them.  If they were ignorant of those options, I'm sorry.  If they were too proud to accept them, that's on them.  Either way, it is neither the fault of Mitt Romney, nor of Bain Capital.

These are the three premises on which the final statement: "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone, and furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned," is based.  We've proven that at least two of the necessary assertions are false.  Given Mitt Romney's other behavior I tend to think he would care, though that caring about one family would probably not have stopped him from trying to make the best business decision possible.

The fact is this add wants you to react on a purely emotional level.  It would have you say that Mitt Romney should have kept that plant open just for the Soptics- so they wouldn't lose their "health care."  Simultaneously, it wants you to forget the fact that Bain Capital exists to make businesses profitable.  Among their success stories are Home Depot and Staples.  There are uncounted others.  Sometimes Bain failed in its goal to make a given business profitable, and those businesses would fail.  Chance of success entails a risk of failure.

Most importantly, though, is that Mr. Romney's response is correct.  Set aside the emotional appeal in the ad, and you realize it's based on nothing.  It is a distraction from the things we should be concerned about.  By any objective measure (trillion dollar deficits, 5 trillion dollars in new debt, rising health care costs, foreign policy debacles, etc.) Mr. Obama is a miserable failure, and lacks any compelling reason he should be granted a second term.

Because Voter Turnout is Racist

So Fort Worth, just like every other city in America this year, went through re-districting.  Because of the (almost certainly) Unconstitutional Voting Rights Act, Forth Worth (being in Texas) has to submit their redistricting plan to the Department of Justice, who will promptly throw it out and implement their own anyway.

In an 8-1 vote on Tuesday, July 24, the Forth Worth city council voted to approve a map which was opposed by the United Hispanic Council.  Their argument is that, despite the fact Fort Worth is now a Majority Minority city (or very close to it), that it "illegally dilutes Hispanic Voting Power."

Councilman Sal Espino seems to agree with UHC saying, "It's not just voting percentages.  You have to look at voting performance."

Wait.  What?

Yes.  The United Hispanic Council basically argues thusly:  District 9, even though Hispanics make up 57% of the vote in the district, supposedly dilutes the Hispanic vote because Hispanics don't vote in large numbers.

That is, even though the district in question is majority Hispanic, it is not *enough* majority Hispanic to overcome Hispanic voter apathy.  You'll excuse me if I'm not impressed.  When your demographic makes up 57% of the registered voters in a district, your demographic has only itself to blame when it doesn't get its way.  There's no two ways around that.

And the Media Dutifully Reported: "Look! Squirrel!"

So Mitt Romney is doing a world tour.  I, personally, am very "meh" on the whole idea, but whatever.  And it probably would have remained out of the news, especially if it had been an unqualified success, except for two things.  First, the Media's Boyfriend, Barack Obama, is still reeling from being bludgeoned (figuratively) about the head and shoulders for his "You didn't succeed on your own" comments.  As he should.  Second, Mitt Romney said something that offended the Brits.

When asked about the Olympics in London, Mitt Romney said (not quoting) that from what he'd seen it didn't look like they were ready.  Now, two things about this: One, he was asked his opinion.  If you didn't want his opinion, you shouldn't have asked.  Two, Mr. Romney has some idea what "being ready" to host an Olympic Games looks like.

Of course Londoners and Liberals here in the US decided this was the Worst Gaff Ever, especially since they could use it to distract from the Miserable Failure that is our President.  So everyone went completely nuts over it.

Never mind that Governors and Mayors here at home are trying to limit the Freedom of Speech.  Never mind a measly 1.5% growth in GDP.  Never mind the fact that Barack Obama is still lying about what he said in Roanoke.  No, the story of the day MUST be about how Mitt Romney offended the British with his comments.

And too many Conservatives are joining them.  It's a non-story.  Had Barack Obama said the same thing, most of these people would be defending him.  Even if they wouldn't be, that doesn't change the fact that someone who knows something about these things decided to give an honest assessment instead of the "diplomatic" answer.

What's important is right here at home.  Pathetic GDP growth.  Official Unemployment above 8% for 41 straight months.  Inflation.  Punishingly low interest rates which hurt investors and those saving for retirement.  A lawless administration legislating by executive fiat.  An unconstitutional (I don't care what SCCJ Roberts says) upheld by the Supreme Court which subjugates every American.  But Mitt Romney said something that the Left is going to exploit, so let's hammer him on that.

Right.

A Red Herring

So, Mitt Romney came out with a very good ad last week, taking Barack Obama's "You didn't build that" comment (note: no, it's not taken out of context.  It is those who are claiming that it's taken out of context who are taking it out of context) and simply blowing it out of the water.  Here, watch.

Surprising precisely no one, it took the MFM almost no time to submit the subject of the commercial to more scrutiny than Barack Obama has received (in total) since 2007.  And they found the smoking gun.  Or not.

You see, the claim is that the owner didn't actually build the business himself because (gasp) he applied for and received government loans and has government contracts!  Hypocrisy!!!11!!Eleventy!

One problem- there's nothing hypocritical about it.  He never said he didn't take government money, watch the ad again.  It's about hard-work, which he did, and the risk, which he assumed.  So let's break this down.

According to this report, he received "tax-exempt revenue bonds" in 1999 from the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority.  He also received a Small Business Administration federal loan in the 1980s.  Hypocrisy?  No.  Those are loans.  Had he not paid them, he would have lost his business to repay them.  These weren't some grants that never had to be repaid, they were loans just like any other.  He happens to be in metal-work, which happens to have lots of National Defense implications.  And those bonds were state, not Federal funds.

Well, what about those government contracts?  Well, those apparently come out to a whopping $88,600 among three contracts: two with the Navy, and one with the Coast Guard.  Wow.  Color me stunned.  He had the Government as a customer, and he got paid for it.  Obviously he's a crypto-Marxist.

This is stupid.  What's next, A full 20/20 or 60 Minutes investigation?  Will they comb through his tax records to see if, just maybe, he's donated to political campaigns before?  Will they find out that *gasp* he might be a Republican?

This is Joe the Plumber all over again.  Rather than address the real issue- that Barack Obama made a full on Marxist Comment (and if they want context, I recommend they start looking where he said that if you're successful you didn't get there on your own, and that your success is not due to your own intelligence and hard work), they try to turn the issue into who was in the ad.  This is sick and reprehensible.  They can't defend their Boyfriend in Chief, so instead they attack the messenger.

I just hope people are smart enough to see through it.

In Which Sally Kohn Completely Whiffs

On FoxNews.com today, Sally Kohn has a piece in which she espouses support for Barack Obama's "You didn't do that," comment.  It deserves some deconstruction:

First, this pair of statements:

"But there were things that helped my grandfather’s business that he didn’t have to pay for."

and

"...my grandfather paid almost 50% of his income in taxes to help make sure that good public schools and safe streets and the things we all need to succeed in America would be available for the next generation."

Ms. Kohn, don't you understand that the second refutes the first?  He did have to pay for those things- through his taxes.  He didn't "owe" anyone anything for their use, because he'd already paid for it.  No more do I "owe" Dell anything for the computer I'm using to write this: the computer has already been paid for.  You only "owe" someone for something when they've provided you a good or service for which you have not compensated them.  I couldn't work without this computer, or a mouse, or internet service.  I pay for all of them and therefore "owe" nothing for them.

Next:

"Today, hedge fund managers and big business CEOs pay lower tax rates than middle class families."

This is a fallacy you hear repeated quite often, and it needs to be refuted every time.  Big Business CEOs usually pay greater than 50% of their salary when local, state, and federal taxes are considered.  Just like your grandfather, Ms. Kohn.  You refer to the fact that many of the uber-rich subsist without a salary income, and live only on the interest from previous investments: thus, they pay a lower "capital gains" tax rate.  However, you miss two things: one, that money was taxed before it was invested and two, there is no guarantee that such investments will make money in any given year.  Yes, some investments are highly secure, but none that provide enough interest to be worth discussing are guaranteed.  Further, there is the fact that you would further harm businesses by increasing the capital gains rate.  People invest in businesses, especially new businesses, to earn a profit.  If the government makes that more difficult, fewer people will be able to invest, and those who still can will be less willing to do so.

Finally (and then go read the whole thing to point, and laugh, and mock)

"The president was clear:  We succeed because of our individual initiative but also because of the public investments that help springboard that success."

This is utter Marxist bovine defecation.  If the government was so instrumental in success, does it not then also get some of the blame for the (approximated 90%) of new business failures?  Of course not, and this goes back to the first point.  My taxes paid for those things.  There is no such thing as a "public investment."  First off, investments see returns, and nothing paid for by the government ever sees a positive return.  Secondly, "the public" is not an entity that can do anything.  To try, via slight of hand, to suggest it can is pure Marxist Collectivism.  The truth is that the Government does organize some things, and pays for them with your and my tax dollars.  Or, with funny money printed by the US Treasury- which is considerably worse.

In fact, when you begin to add in government bureaucracy, regulations, business taxes, and so forth, any business which succeeds does so in spite of government, not because of it.

Oh, and just to be clear- the Government didn't always build roads or schools.  Certainly major thoroughfare roads (like US Highways and the Interstate Highway System), and government run schools are actually fairly recent inventions in human history.  Many roads were built with private funds, and most schools were run by private (mostly Religious) institutions.  Did Ben Franklin owe his success to Government?  Certainly not.  If the Government weren't building the roads, someone would be.  And I'd have to pay for their use just like I do for those "provided" by the Government.

No, Seriously?

The Senate Minority Leader would like you to know that it would have been better if the Republicans had been willing to get their hands a little bit dirty, politically speaking, in 2009 than counting on them to repeal Obamacare.

With all due respect (I'm sure you're due some) Senator McConnell, no duh.

This is not news, this is not a statement that needed to be made to the base: of course we knew it already.  Which means precisely one thing: Senator Mitch McConnell is laying the ground work for not repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The Republicans are already signaling that they will not have the spine to stand up against the smears and the lies, that they will capitulate against the tide of Statism because it's easier than fighting.

So listen up, Congressional Republicans, and we'll go through this again.

We hired you to do a job.  That job was to stop the constant expansion of the Federal behemoth and start restoring sanity to our government.  The first specific task you were given was to stop Obamacare; you failed.  You have now been tasked with repealing it, and you're signalling that you won't even try.

So explain to me why I should vote Republican in November.  Explain to me why you doing nothing is any better for me?  At least if I actually join the Democrats, the beast might eat me last- you're not even promising me that.

I don't care if it's going to be hard.  I don't care if it's going to be "partisan," or if you're going to be called mean names.  I don't care about any of that.  This law must be repealed in its entirety.

In fact, repealing the law should actually be easier than passing it was.  We already have CBO estimates saying that ACA will cause the budget to explode, so anything repealing ACA is, by definition, a budget cutting measure which is subject to Reconciliation- needing only 51 votes, not 60.  A single line bill is all it would take: "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is Hereby Repealed in Full."

Wow, hard, huh?

Even assuming you want to keep parts of the law, which I've already explained is a terrible idea, you can re-implement those fairly easily.  So simply repeal the whole thing.

But that's not what you want.  You like the power this gives the Federal Government; the reason it will be hard to repeal is not that it would be hard to write a repeal bill that wouldn't cause problems.  No, the reason it will be hard to repeal is that the Congressional Republicans, just as the Congressional Democrats, are addicted to the power.  You can't stand the idea of letting that massive power out of your hands.

Radical Christians? What, Are They Going To Pray You To Death?

I know, as a southern male reared in a Christian home, that the worst curse that can be laid upon you is when some silver haired old lady says, "Bless your heart."  I'm not thinking that's what Texas Democrat Al Green had in mind though.

In House Homeland Security Committee hearing on Wednesday, June 19, the Representative apparently decided that no hearing on radicalization was complete without discussing the "radicalization of Christianity."

Pull quote: "If you agree that radicalization exists within all religions to some extent, would you kindly extend a hand into the air?"  He then noted "all the hands are raised."

This is so chock-full of fail, I may not have time for any other quotes.  Let's start with the idea that radicalization exists within all religions "to some extent."  First off: no.  To date, I have never heard of a "Radical" Hindu.  At least, not in the United States.  So if they do exist, they're hardly an appropriate topic for a US Congress Committee hearing.  And you know those darn Radical Unitarians and Lutherans are just itching to force you to a Church Social.

Which brings up the next point.  When he says, "to some extent," that's a cop-out line.  It's a line that says, "I know what I just said is complete cow manure, but I can plug in this little phrase and anyone who disagrees with me will look out of touch."  So let's be clear, here.  To what "extent" does Radicalization exist within Christianity?

Oh, certainly you can point to actually deranged people like Tim McVeigh and say "They're radical Christians!"  Except they aren't.  You could point to people who bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion providers and say, "They're radical Christians!"  Except they aren't.

Suppose a Muslim, crying "Allahu Akbar!" blew up an empty mosque- or one in which one of the five daily prayers was being said.  Could you really call that "Radical Islam?"  Not without some stretching.  That's just barbaric, probably sectarian, violence.

However, when Muslim screams "Allahu Akbar!" and proceeds to shoot the predominately Christian crowd which is around him, you can make a better case.  It's made easier by the fact that Islam teaches conversion by the sword and to kill all "Infidels."  Christianity makes no such claim.

To date, I have no knowledge of someone screaming, "God Loves You, and Jesus Died for all your Sins!" and proceeding to blow up a bomb.  Maybe I just missed it somewhere.

The difference between "Islamic Radicalization" and "Christian Radicalization" is in what it means to be a "Radical" Muslim or Christian.  A Radical Christian is going to annoy you because they'll often seem so syrupy and "nice."  They'll say things like "God Bless You" for no readily ascertainable reason.  They'll say, out of the blue, "I'm praying for you."  In short, a Radical Christian, if you notice their Radicalization at all, will mostly just seem to be socially awkward.

A Radical Muslim, on the other hand, is likely to try to kill you.  A Radical Muslim is liable to strap a bomb to his chest and blow it up in as crowded a location as possible.  Radical Islam is responsible for the deaths of more than 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001, as well as the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, among other atrocities.  Radical Islam believes that Israel has no right to exist, and that it is an Islamic Religious duty to either convert or kill every non-Muslim in the world.

Enough of the moral equivalency crap.  The reason the House Homeland Security Committee doesn't hold hearings on Radical Christianity is the same as why they don't hold hearings on Radical Hinduism, or Radical Budhism: such people may exist, but not in enough numbers to be an existential threat to US National Security.  Radical Islamists, however, are gaining a foot-hold in actual governments in the Middle East, which is much more worrisome.