Over my little break, besides some much needed R&R, I finally caught up on a few movies that I missed. One was the Coen Brothers’ remake of True Grit, much enjoyed by the way…finally a worthy ending to boot! Anyway, pondering on that and the old spaghetti westerns, I thought the above title was of appropriate usage for a rundown of this ‘catch-up’ post that in turn, picks up from the previous…
THE GOOD: a couple who aren’t running, and frankly shouldn’t…
I’ve said I didn't think he would for a while now, and the Huck graciously informed us on Saturday…
…and the Chump bowed out today, because if he runs, he might win…my condolences to anyone who ever took this seriously.
THE BAD: I’ll split this one between a speech and a prediction…
On Thursday night, Romney gave a speech at Ann Arbor in his first public attempt to explain why the Massachusetts health care reform (resentfully referred to as ‘Romneycare’) was a good policy, while Obamacare wasn't (however similar they seem to appear).
“I respect the views of those who think we took the wrong course and who think we should have taken a different course. I also recognize that a lot of pundits around the nation are saying that I should just stand up and say this whole thing was a mistake, was just a boneheaded idea and I should just admit it, it was a mistake, and walk away from it. And I presume that a lot of folks would conclude that if I did that, that would be good for me politically. But there's only one problem with that. It wouldn't be honest. I, in fact, did what I believed was right for the people of my state. And I'm gonna describe for you now what I think would be right for the people of the United States, which is quite a different plan.”
So Romney's defense: Federalism.
I thought Rush exquisitely explained the sentiment of many, including my own, on Friday’s show:
“Mitt Romney and Massachusetts care. The reason why I think he's vulnerable on it (and why a lot of other people do, too) is it's a dead ringer for Obamacare and the country wants Obamacare repealed, and Mitt is saying he wants Obamacare repealed. Now, I understand, Romney does not want to admit a mistake because he doesn't want to fuel the fire that he's a flip-flopper, and he thinks that there is something to be gained by staying committed to something that he did. But the argument that the people of Massachusetts, in a liberal state, wanted this and therefore Mitt -- as the governor of a liberal state -- had to give them what they want? Why? What's leadership?
That's what it comes down to, to me. Now, see, this is again why I would never succeed in politics. Because the first order of business is get reelected, and that means either giving people what they want or creating the illusion that you're giving people what they want. I wouldn't have passed, I wouldn't have conceived this version of health care. I don't care who wanted it or where I was. That's just me. I know this is going to be interpreted as criticism of Romney. It's not. I'm answering a question I got here from somebody on the phone. If the people of a state want something that I know is wrong and not good, I'm not gonna do it. That's just me.
If the people of the state want a health care plan that they foolishly believe is gonna end up costing them less and expanding their coverage, when I know it won't do either, I'm not gonna do it and then hope I could live with the fallout. But, if that's what Mitt did, why doesn't he just say that? Why doesn't he say, "Look, I was a governor of a liberal state. The people of that state were clamoring for health care reform. I believe in the states being laboratories, trying different things and after all these various experiments, we come up with the best way to do it for the country." That's what he's saying that he would do as president.
Open it up, here. States, do what you want to do here and we'll come up with the best system we can. But (sigh) politically, I don't know how he defends the substance of Romneycare and rips the substance of Obamacare at the same time, because there's not that big a difference between them. In fact, Obama is, we are told, happy to point out, "Hey, you know, Romneycare is a mirror image of Obamacare," which is not good for Obama. It's bankrupting the state. It's not delivering on any of its promises.”
Now finally onto the second BAD (I’ll try to make this one quicker). You can take this prediction with a grain of salt, but on Sunday’s edition of This Week, George Will gazed into his crystal ball (yeah, the same one that predicted Reagan couldn’t win), and sees only two possible GOP contenders to face Obama: Pawlenty or Daniels.
Hasty are we, Mr. Will? Daniels hasn’t even announced he’s running and Pawlenty is not exactly firing up the base or the polls. Perhaps Mr. Will shouldn’t be so quick to put all the other Republican candidates out to pasture just yet.
THE UGLY: a foot in mouth moment and an establishment-imposed purity test…
Yesterday on Meet the Press, just days after announcing his bid for the White House, Newt already sticks his foot squarely in his mouth!
Nice, Newt. Tell me, what is it about Paul Ryan’s serious, common sense solutions (and HERE is a great explanation of those, as well as correcting the misinformation and lies), or the young conservative himself, that screams "Right-Wing Social Engineering"? Conservatives, tea party members, the Republican leadership, and a generous portion of establishment Republicans (that should cover many of the ‘moderates’ that the media praises) are all on board with Paul Ryan’s budget reforms…but Newt’s giving the same Chump Trump line: “It’s too big a jump.” Now don’t get me wrong, I understand that Newt is reminiscent of a sense of bipartisan cooperation in Congress, bringing both sides together in a legislative effort, contrasting the way Obamacare was rammed through. And whether that’s questionably genuine or not, the bigger issue is that Newt’s totally ignoring two integral elements: 1.) the Left would rather see the Nation fall into the abyss before agreeing to really reform entitlements, particularly at the behest of a Republican proposal, and 2.) the growing public sentiment out there, the frustration, the hurting, the anger, loathes the destructive policies of this President! There can be no bipartisanship or moderation with radical Statists! Can they not compromise with conservatives?!
Ryan’s appropriate response: "With allies like that, who needs the Left?!"
“Hardly is that ‘social engineering’ and ‘radical’. What’s ‘radical’ is kicking the can down the road, not doing anything to fix this problem, and watching the whole system implode on itself, which the trustees just told us last week is coming up sooner than we thought.”
And Thank You, Mark Levin, for politely calling him on it…
Mark later stated to a caller at the end of the show, “I could tell he was struggling…and I sat here and thought to myself, “Do I want to go in for the kill, or back off and let this man at least have some semblance of humility return to him?” So that’s why I didn’t do that.” I think one can see (or rather, hear) that Levin effectively got his point across that Newt royally stepped in it. And for what it’s worth, or not, George Will, in the same appearance on This Week gave his two cents on Gengrich, dubbing him “not a serious candidate.” And a final "Ouch!" to add to this one...
And to wrap up the UGLY, Rush picks up on Will’s comments about ‘unserious candidates’, and runs with it, mentioning presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann along with the news of the day…
Besides the fascinating discussion/observation that picks up from the last segment (please, feel free to listen), at around 6:15, Rush refocuses the topic to the previously mentioned opposition research into Michele Bachmann as the target of a purity test of sorts being imposed by the establishment beltway intelligentsia…
What should be taken away from The Daily Caller piece is that these guys understand as much, or rather little, about conservatism as they do about the tea party sentiment, targeting conservative candidates, and lifting their tactics from a page right out of the Democrat Left’s playbook. They trivialize our search into abstract purity tests, or whatever other buzzwords they can invent, when perfection is not what’s sought. There is no perfection! It’s about the adherence to the fundamental principles of conservative philosophy. Yes, NEWS FLASH: Michele Bachmann is imperfect! But what else:
“Michele Bachmann has been a leading advocate for stripping $105 billion from Obamacare so that it cannot be implemented. Michele Bachmann was one of the early conservative leaders, along with Steve King from Iowa, trying to make sure that Obamacare was defunded. She heard the Tea Party, she heard everybody was taking it very seriously. We must not allow the thing to become law, or we must repeal it or defund it. Okay, here's $105 billion put in there, stealth way by Pelosi. She identified it. She wanted to strip it out of there.
She's a leading opponent of the continuing resolution theory of funding government. She steadfastly stood up and opposed the House leadership on funding the government two weeks at a time. She's a leading opponent of amnesty for illegal immigrants. She's a solid conservative on national security and defense. She's a leading activist for the Tea Party, and she's a major speaker at numerous Tea Party events. Now, all of that distinguishes her quite a lot from most of the candidates who are seeking the Republican nomination for president, or planning to. However, because she supported some earmarks and ethanol, she is said now by nonconservatives not to be pure enough for conservatives who are demanding purity and in another piece they'll say, demanding purity is a bad thing. But right now, she's not pure enough. Nobody can be everything to everybody.
On the big stuff, Michele Bachmann has flying colors when it comes to being defined as a conservative. It would be an incredible stretch to try to say that she's not a conservative. I think we've talked about earmarks, ethanol, those two things, considering everything else we face, that's chump change, but if you want to focus on those two things trying to say she's impure, that's what's underway, people on our side.”
For more dissection, check out Dan Riehl's assessment today. And Levin took Lewis to task as well...
And just the first two-and-a-half minutes of this segment goes a long way in summing up what this whole post, as well as the last, is all about!
…and if you’d like to read along:
“Now, I'm just using today's attack on Bachmann -- and it is an attack. It's in the Daily Caller. I'm just using today's attack on Bachmann as an example of the way the game is played in Washington: Tear down conservatives for the kind of superficial approach to governing and philosophy that too many people have. These are dangerous times for the country. People ask me all the time, "Rush, how can there be such divisions within the Republican Party over this?" and I think I've got the appearance. You know, you and I, folks -- let's be honest -- we look at Obamaism and we see a threat to the nation.
We see this indebtedness, the uncontrolled spending. We know what it means for liberty and freedom, children and grandchildren. We are really afraid that the very structure of the country is under a purposeful assault. I don't think that many of the inside the inside-the-Beltway Republicans -- the Republican establishment people -- think that's the case at all. I think that's the reason for the big divide. It's no different than, "Okay, LBJ was president. He gave us the Great Society and a whole bunch of spending. We took over and we spent some, too, but not nearly as much," and it's just the normal cycle of things. Democrats run the show right now, and the objective is to get back in charge of spending the money.
I think that's where the establishment Republicans are. They're trying to get back in charge of spending the money. They don't see the threat. They don't believe the country is threatened, as founded. They drive around and go to Denver. They don't see the strip mall that's there ceasing to exist. They don't see the destruction of the country taking place. They just don't see it. They don't think anything is that bad. It's nowhere near that dire. "Yeah, we gotta get a handle on our spending. It's a little out of control. We gotta do something here on the debt. Yeah, we gotta solve health care but, no, no, no, no, this is not about turning this place into the Soviet Union or any of that," and I think that's the divide. That's my guess, anyway, and that's what it is: A guess.”
…and that is the UGLY truth of the matter.
