Rush led his program this morning with the obvious from last night's debate: the Romney/Paul alliance...
Quick question: Aren't we all going to have to be 'team players' once this primary process is over, regardless of the candidate with all their strengths and weaknesses, if we want to get Obama out of office? But I digress...
Now, Levin is going on the offense tonight, looking closer at the Romney/Paul alliance, as well as delving into deeper analysis of Paul's embrace of radical libertarianism and how this odd marriage with the Republican establishment aims to chip away at conservatism. This is VITAL info, folks!
Past clips from Paul:
Past clips from Romney:
Here's that quick question once again, via Levin, to Romney: "If you are the Republican nominee, do you want all the rest of us to be a 'team player'?" Levin also has a few other substantive questions for establishment members...
Romney and Paul...what an odd alliance, indeed.
Check here for all of Levin's sources.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
HALF of Americans don't pay income taxes
Here's a headline you won't find in the U.S. mainstream media:
HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling government debt
151.7m people - 49.5% of the U.S. population - paid no federal income tax in 2009, figures show
Only half of U.S. citizens pay federal income tax, according to the latest available figures.
In 2009, just 50.5 per cent of Americans paid any income tax to the federal government - the lowest proportion in at least half a century.
And the number of people outside the tax system could have climbed even higher since as the economic downturn has continued to bite and unemployment has remained high.
The decreasing number of taxpayers threatens government revenues, and could also cause resentment from those who believe that welfare recipients are taking money out of the economy.
Uhh, ya think?!
HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling government debt
151.7m people - 49.5% of the U.S. population - paid no federal income tax in 2009, figures show
Only half of U.S. citizens pay federal income tax, according to the latest available figures.
In 2009, just 50.5 per cent of Americans paid any income tax to the federal government - the lowest proportion in at least half a century.
And the number of people outside the tax system could have climbed even higher since as the economic downturn has continued to bite and unemployment has remained high.
The decreasing number of taxpayers threatens government revenues, and could also cause resentment from those who believe that welfare recipients are taking money out of the economy.
Uhh, ya think?!
CNN AZ GOP debate highlights
Here's the highlight reels:
However, I've gotta say Levin called one huge component of this on Tuesday's program...
...as well as on Wednesday...
And Santorum was on defense most of the night for it. I'm not certain that he expected that kind of relentless double-team (or John King's moderation usually giving Romney the final word, which has been a running theme throughout the season), but he certainly got it. And along with his libertarian lackey, as well as the stacked audience, Mitt executed what he intended: cast doubt about Santorum in the minds of undecided voters. Will it work? We'll find out in these coming primaries.
I don't think Santorum bombed, but the punditry certainly took no time in expressing that this was a 'missed opportunity' for Santorum. Although there's no question he definitely took his lumps, he nonetheless held his own, owned up to his mistakes when called out on (as he consistently has), and continued to speak from the heart with that unscripted appeal. The effectiveness of a few of his responses, particularly the one on No Child Left Behind, I'll admit, seemed just as debatable as some of Romney's...however, the sincerity in Santorum's admission was there (unlike the inabilities of both Romney or Paul to admit they're even capable of folly).
(nonetheless, it would have been beneficial to leave it at the previous mention)
Not to make excuses, because I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a little heat from some bad past calls. That's how you learn from experience. But I think anyone would be hard-pressed to name a single politician who's never voted for something they weren't 100% behind (and although Ron Paul would attempt to make that claim, he's not fooling anyone when he puts earmarks in legislation that he knows will pass, then votes against it to 'appear' noble, which Santorum sorta called him on, but not in quite those terms). What Santorum did attempt to do in those particular pieces of legislation, for better or worse, was to place equitable objectives if he knew it was going to pass anyway.
However bad No Child Left Behind turned out to be, sorry, but it's still no where on par with RomneyCare. Our nation isn't on the brink of losing essential liberties because of NCLB. We find ourselves at that precipice, not in total, but to an integral degree, because a New England moderate devised a mandate on healthcare that his liberal friends took and ran with! Not NCLB, nor earmarks, nor even the crystal ball argument on how Arlen Specter would end up, are the issues in this election. A definitive connection in social engineering with the establishment candidate and our current occupant is in conjunction with a key issue in this election.
But to move beyond the snippiness and bullying of Romney, the double-teaming of he and Paul, and the bruised-but-not-out Santorum, the most unscathed of Wednesday night's debate was unquestionably Gingrich. As Quin Hillyer stated:
Newt Gingrich performed best. He didn't dominate, didn't rejuvenate his campaign, in fact seemed a bit irrelevant to the horse race and at times even a little bored... but because he is no longer a threat, nobody challenged him and, just as in the summer and early fall, it allowed him to play the wise man on stage. He had a number of pretty good lines, and made a lot of sense. He might get a bit of an uptick in the polls from it -- but that's all.
TheRightScoop poll appears to confirm this consensus (although, it looks to be the opposite of Romney-attack-dog Drudge...but then that poll allots for Ron Paul, so there goes the validity of that poll!).
I tend to want to agree with Hillyer on his overall analysis of Wednesday night's debate, despite the MSM taglines:
I don't think tonight's campaign is going to do much to radically change te trajectory of this race. Nobody dominated, and nobody bombed. ...Overall, this debate was nowhere near as momentous as some earlier ones have been. Romney and Santorum both missed the chance to really grab the bull by the horns and really talk about the future and about their own positive agendas. It'll be a close race in Michigan and Arizona because neither elevated himself above the other.
However, I've gotta say Levin called one huge component of this on Tuesday's program...
...as well as on Wednesday...
And Santorum was on defense most of the night for it. I'm not certain that he expected that kind of relentless double-team (or John King's moderation usually giving Romney the final word, which has been a running theme throughout the season), but he certainly got it. And along with his libertarian lackey, as well as the stacked audience, Mitt executed what he intended: cast doubt about Santorum in the minds of undecided voters. Will it work? We'll find out in these coming primaries.
I don't think Santorum bombed, but the punditry certainly took no time in expressing that this was a 'missed opportunity' for Santorum. Although there's no question he definitely took his lumps, he nonetheless held his own, owned up to his mistakes when called out on (as he consistently has), and continued to speak from the heart with that unscripted appeal. The effectiveness of a few of his responses, particularly the one on No Child Left Behind, I'll admit, seemed just as debatable as some of Romney's...however, the sincerity in Santorum's admission was there (unlike the inabilities of both Romney or Paul to admit they're even capable of folly).
(nonetheless, it would have been beneficial to leave it at the previous mention)
Not to make excuses, because I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a little heat from some bad past calls. That's how you learn from experience. But I think anyone would be hard-pressed to name a single politician who's never voted for something they weren't 100% behind (and although Ron Paul would attempt to make that claim, he's not fooling anyone when he puts earmarks in legislation that he knows will pass, then votes against it to 'appear' noble, which Santorum sorta called him on, but not in quite those terms). What Santorum did attempt to do in those particular pieces of legislation, for better or worse, was to place equitable objectives if he knew it was going to pass anyway.
However bad No Child Left Behind turned out to be, sorry, but it's still no where on par with RomneyCare. Our nation isn't on the brink of losing essential liberties because of NCLB. We find ourselves at that precipice, not in total, but to an integral degree, because a New England moderate devised a mandate on healthcare that his liberal friends took and ran with! Not NCLB, nor earmarks, nor even the crystal ball argument on how Arlen Specter would end up, are the issues in this election. A definitive connection in social engineering with the establishment candidate and our current occupant is in conjunction with a key issue in this election.
But to move beyond the snippiness and bullying of Romney, the double-teaming of he and Paul, and the bruised-but-not-out Santorum, the most unscathed of Wednesday night's debate was unquestionably Gingrich. As Quin Hillyer stated:
Newt Gingrich performed best. He didn't dominate, didn't rejuvenate his campaign, in fact seemed a bit irrelevant to the horse race and at times even a little bored... but because he is no longer a threat, nobody challenged him and, just as in the summer and early fall, it allowed him to play the wise man on stage. He had a number of pretty good lines, and made a lot of sense. He might get a bit of an uptick in the polls from it -- but that's all.
TheRightScoop poll appears to confirm this consensus (although, it looks to be the opposite of Romney-attack-dog Drudge...but then that poll allots for Ron Paul, so there goes the validity of that poll!).
I tend to want to agree with Hillyer on his overall analysis of Wednesday night's debate, despite the MSM taglines:
I don't think tonight's campaign is going to do much to radically change te trajectory of this race. Nobody dominated, and nobody bombed. ...Overall, this debate was nowhere near as momentous as some earlier ones have been. Romney and Santorum both missed the chance to really grab the bull by the horns and really talk about the future and about their own positive agendas. It'll be a close race in Michigan and Arizona because neither elevated himself above the other.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Profound truths
"There they go again."
March 8th, 1983 - President Ronald Reagan addressing the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida:
August 29th, 2008 - Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum speaking at Ave Maria University in Florida:
And the elites, among the media, among the establishment, ridiculed Reagan then just as they ridicule Santorum today for proclaiming our founding faith and professing these profound truths.
ADDENDUM: Both Paul Kengor at the American Spectator and Rush recognize this as well.
March 8th, 1983 - President Ronald Reagan addressing the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida:
August 29th, 2008 - Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum speaking at Ave Maria University in Florida:
And the elites, among the media, among the establishment, ridiculed Reagan then just as they ridicule Santorum today for proclaiming our founding faith and professing these profound truths.
ADDENDUM: Both Paul Kengor at the American Spectator and Rush recognize this as well.
The Father of our Country remembered
I look back at last year's in-depth look at some of Washington's fundamental ideals, and decided that considering the decision we're faced with this year, I thought it might be beneficial to pull one quote from that post and take a second look:
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty."
Romney supporters remove Santorum signs in Michigan
Desperation?
Via rebelpundit:
In Michigan, Santorum supporters planted hundreds of campaign signs in Shelby Township prior to Mitt Romney’s appearance. Some of these signs were planted alongside sidewalks and roadways across from and surrounding the Romney campaign stop. Approximately two hours before the scheduled event, Romney campaign staffers, including Dennis Lennox of Topinabee, MI, began planting Romney signs in front of the location. Around the same time, several other people, who refused to identify themselves, began uprooting hundreds of Santorum signs along the roadway leading to the event. Signs placed at a commercial intersection were also removed.
When asked to explain his actions, Santorum supporters were confronted with obscenities from one person removing signs. He claimed to be unaffiliated with the Romney campaign.
One officer on the scene, Lou Francis, refused to assist in retrieving stolen campaign signs valued at over $1500.
ADDENDUM: In related Romney news, read Ben Domenech's Ricochet piece on The Trouble With Mitt. Besides giving more insight into the 'it'll be conservatives fault if we lose in November' meme, leading to the 'brokered convention' talk, Domenech makes a critical point about Romney's disconnect.
The reason Romney hasn’t ended this thing in a walk is that he hasn’t successfully sold himself to the base or the country. ... The competitive and lengthy primary is not the reason for Romney’s failure – it’s just revealed the things about him that make him fail. There are three ways Romney supporters could've avoided this circumstance. They could have run a different campaign. They could have run on a different agenda. Or they could have run a different candidate.
And in regards to that Pethokoukis piece buried in there on Romney's 'maintenance-based agenda', I know that the Romney camp has issued a statement to Kudlow that a "bolder tax-cut plan" is on its way, but I have to ask... Why does Mitt always have to be nudged to come up with conservative solutions, economic or otherwise? Why does the man have to be nudged towards the conservative base?
Via rebelpundit:
In Michigan, Santorum supporters planted hundreds of campaign signs in Shelby Township prior to Mitt Romney’s appearance. Some of these signs were planted alongside sidewalks and roadways across from and surrounding the Romney campaign stop. Approximately two hours before the scheduled event, Romney campaign staffers, including Dennis Lennox of Topinabee, MI, began planting Romney signs in front of the location. Around the same time, several other people, who refused to identify themselves, began uprooting hundreds of Santorum signs along the roadway leading to the event. Signs placed at a commercial intersection were also removed.
When asked to explain his actions, Santorum supporters were confronted with obscenities from one person removing signs. He claimed to be unaffiliated with the Romney campaign.
One officer on the scene, Lou Francis, refused to assist in retrieving stolen campaign signs valued at over $1500.
ADDENDUM: In related Romney news, read Ben Domenech's Ricochet piece on The Trouble With Mitt. Besides giving more insight into the 'it'll be conservatives fault if we lose in November' meme, leading to the 'brokered convention' talk, Domenech makes a critical point about Romney's disconnect.
The reason Romney hasn’t ended this thing in a walk is that he hasn’t successfully sold himself to the base or the country. ... The competitive and lengthy primary is not the reason for Romney’s failure – it’s just revealed the things about him that make him fail. There are three ways Romney supporters could've avoided this circumstance. They could have run a different campaign. They could have run on a different agenda. Or they could have run a different candidate.
And in regards to that Pethokoukis piece buried in there on Romney's 'maintenance-based agenda', I know that the Romney camp has issued a statement to Kudlow that a "bolder tax-cut plan" is on its way, but I have to ask... Why does Mitt always have to be nudged to come up with conservative solutions, economic or otherwise? Why does the man have to be nudged towards the conservative base?
Obama's downsized American dream for us
Back to Obamaville. Although they dress it up a bit, even the Associated Press recognizes that Obama is peddling (their preferred word) a modest American dream, or as Levin described Tuesday night, "a lifestyle that [liberals] believe we should live, nothing more, nothing less."
This excerpt is from Obama's Cedar Rapids, IA speech to hock his economic 'blueprint' the day after the SOTU address on January 25th:
"If you're willing to put in the work, the idea is that you should be able to raise a family and own a home; not go bankrupt because you got sick, because you've got some health insurance that helps you deal with those difficult times; that you can send your kids to college; that you can put some money away for retirement. That's all most people want. Folks don't have unrealistic ambitions. They do believe that if they work hard they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American Dream."
(You can find this segment starting @ 2:55)
Rush called it a despicably downsized American dream:
"Obama...made a statement that sets the bar so low for what he thinks is middle-class success, happiness, and achievement in this country...That's not all of what anybody wants. He's describing his own serfs...People stuck in the middle class in the safety net. They are taking government assistance and they're embarrassed and they don't like it and some of them have said with all the obstacles in our way, they don't think they can work hard enough to get out of it...Yeah, just want to be able to send your kids to college, put some money away for retirement. That's all most people want. They don't have unrealistic ambitions. They believe if they work hard they ought to be able to achieve that small measure. Man, what a limited view of potential freedom and possibility in America."
Levin says what he believes the American Dream is: "You work hard, you think hard. Sometimes you fail, sometimes you don't. And you'll achieve what you want to achieve." But then contrast that with Mark's reflection on Obama's mindset:
"You don't hear any of that in this Obama statement. You don't hear anything in here about the individual doing what the individual wants to do, individual ambition. You don't hear discussion about that. He's telling you the kind of life you should have, and part of it is not going bankrupt. So is that your objective in life: not going bankrupt? That's a pretty low objective...In fact, when he does use the word 'ambition', he says folks don't have unrealistic ambitions."
"This is a president who does not understand Americanism. This is a president who does not understand the history of this country, or rejects it. He's so consumed with rebuilding, reshaping, redesigning our society; he's so consumed with telling us what we must do, what we can do, what he'll allow us to do [that] he doesn't get it, so he's off on a different pursuit..."
"Why is it that Obama's ambitions are limitless? Why is it that his wife's ambitions are limitless? Why is it that all these politicians, there ambitions are limitless? But yours are not? Yours are 'realistic'. You see, you're only capable of doing certain things, particularly when you consider that Obama wants to control how you live: what kind of healthcare you can have, how much income you can have, when he wants to control the price of fuel, which effects the price of everything else, including food & clothing, transportation, what kind of automobile you can have through CAFE standards and environmental rules. In other words, he's telling you, 'People don't have these unrealistic ambitions.' What he's really saying is 'you better not have these unrealistic ambitions, because you're not gonna get to achieve them. You're not gonna get to pursue them.'"
"This is the most important, in recent time anyway, view into his mindset that you'll hear: what he thinks of you, the people; what he thinks of you, the individual."
This is how he thinks he's 'connecting' with the working man? The disconnect cannot be more profound. Obama has described practical wants and needs, or simply 'making it', as our 'ambitions', our 'dreams'. Mark surmises that this fits perfectly into the mold of the Left, "This is how they view you: as individuals, you don't have a lot of ambition, and if you do, you've gotta be reshaped and molded to fit what they want, what their notion of government requires." Kinda sounds like what Tocqueville described in the previous post about how the sovereign 'kneads' the individual to his liking, doesn't it?
This excerpt is from Obama's Cedar Rapids, IA speech to hock his economic 'blueprint' the day after the SOTU address on January 25th:
"If you're willing to put in the work, the idea is that you should be able to raise a family and own a home; not go bankrupt because you got sick, because you've got some health insurance that helps you deal with those difficult times; that you can send your kids to college; that you can put some money away for retirement. That's all most people want. Folks don't have unrealistic ambitions. They do believe that if they work hard they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American Dream."
(You can find this segment starting @ 2:55)
Rush called it a despicably downsized American dream:
"Obama...made a statement that sets the bar so low for what he thinks is middle-class success, happiness, and achievement in this country...That's not all of what anybody wants. He's describing his own serfs...People stuck in the middle class in the safety net. They are taking government assistance and they're embarrassed and they don't like it and some of them have said with all the obstacles in our way, they don't think they can work hard enough to get out of it...Yeah, just want to be able to send your kids to college, put some money away for retirement. That's all most people want. They don't have unrealistic ambitions. They believe if they work hard they ought to be able to achieve that small measure. Man, what a limited view of potential freedom and possibility in America."
Levin says what he believes the American Dream is: "You work hard, you think hard. Sometimes you fail, sometimes you don't. And you'll achieve what you want to achieve." But then contrast that with Mark's reflection on Obama's mindset:
"You don't hear any of that in this Obama statement. You don't hear anything in here about the individual doing what the individual wants to do, individual ambition. You don't hear discussion about that. He's telling you the kind of life you should have, and part of it is not going bankrupt. So is that your objective in life: not going bankrupt? That's a pretty low objective...In fact, when he does use the word 'ambition', he says folks don't have unrealistic ambitions."
"This is a president who does not understand Americanism. This is a president who does not understand the history of this country, or rejects it. He's so consumed with rebuilding, reshaping, redesigning our society; he's so consumed with telling us what we must do, what we can do, what he'll allow us to do [that] he doesn't get it, so he's off on a different pursuit..."
"Why is it that Obama's ambitions are limitless? Why is it that his wife's ambitions are limitless? Why is it that all these politicians, there ambitions are limitless? But yours are not? Yours are 'realistic'. You see, you're only capable of doing certain things, particularly when you consider that Obama wants to control how you live: what kind of healthcare you can have, how much income you can have, when he wants to control the price of fuel, which effects the price of everything else, including food & clothing, transportation, what kind of automobile you can have through CAFE standards and environmental rules. In other words, he's telling you, 'People don't have these unrealistic ambitions.' What he's really saying is 'you better not have these unrealistic ambitions, because you're not gonna get to achieve them. You're not gonna get to pursue them.'"
"This is the most important, in recent time anyway, view into his mindset that you'll hear: what he thinks of you, the people; what he thinks of you, the individual."
This is how he thinks he's 'connecting' with the working man? The disconnect cannot be more profound. Obama has described practical wants and needs, or simply 'making it', as our 'ambitions', our 'dreams'. Mark surmises that this fits perfectly into the mold of the Left, "This is how they view you: as individuals, you don't have a lot of ambition, and if you do, you've gotta be reshaped and molded to fit what they want, what their notion of government requires." Kinda sounds like what Tocqueville described in the previous post about how the sovereign 'kneads' the individual to his liking, doesn't it?
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Tocqueville's impassioned plea
. . . an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, rigid, far-seeing and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that.
Thus, taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrial animals of which the government is the shepherd.
So, does Barone understand what he's quoted? Does he not understand that these slow drifts of the progressive sovereign leads nonetheless to despotism? And I'm not just referring to Obama. Of course 'patience is a virtue', but after a hundred years or more, has patience not turned to complacency? When would Barone become passionate about returning our nation to constitutional rule? And why can't he see that both prudence and passion have a role in the Republican fight to reverse Obama's soft despotic policies? Tocqueville's warnings are not subtle hints to idly sit upon. Likewise, before Barone bemoans tea partiers, conservative bloggers and like-minded House members, perhaps he should not detach the passion of the Declaration from the rules of the Constitution.
ADDENDUM: To be fair, there was another part of Barone's piece that he got right: "Tocqueville, after describing in Democracy in America how Americans avoided the perils of equality by forming voluntary associations, engaging in local government, and believing in religions that disciplined their pursuit of self-interest into a pursuit of virtue, painted the picture of a darker future." Rush chose to target this portion of the piece and expanded on that yesterday.
"Now, stop and think of that for a moment: "The perils of equality." Everybody can't be equal. They knew in 1830 that that would be the death of the country, the concept of everybody was equal in terms of outcomes."
Monday, February 20, 2012
Setting your mind at ease with 'social' conservatism
This President's Day (officially called 'Washington's Birthday', which was officially reset to the third Monday in February by Nixon in 1971, thus not actually making it Washington's birthday anymore...separate rant) evidently brought some degree of mental anguish among the Establishment Republican minds, some of whom sound ready to throw in the towel for Romney if he can't win Michigan and call in...Jeb Bush? Or beg Mitch Daniels to reconsider? Oh for crying out loud. And all of this doubt and fear because a social conservative has overtaken the establishment candidate in national popularity. More specifically, as Rush stated today, "What's scaring them is that Santorum is coming out and he is unabashedly being honest and truthful about his beliefs when it comes to so-called social conservative issues. And they are in a panic."
But to set some minds at ease, a few early reviews of Jeffrey Bell's new book, The Case for Polarized Politics, have emerged among the more Romney-friendly outlets, apparently recognizing that the social conservative movement is an integral component to not only building up the Republican Party, but also winning! The focal piece for this discussion comes from James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal:
Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, "The Case for Polarized Politics," has a winning track record for the GOP. "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," he observes. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."
The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to "end welfare as we know it" and make abortion "safe, legal and rare." Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). "Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority," Mr. Bell says. "It isn't coincidental."
Bell digs deeper into the broader historical linkage of conservative social issues:
...social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had "its center of gravity in social issues" since the French Revolution, he says. "Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we've had a good illustration of it in the last month or so."
In regards to Obamacare's HHS mandate regarding this "contraceptive flap," Bell says, "it wasn't a miscalculation. They knew that the Catholic Church and other believers were going to push back against this thing. . . . They were determined to push it through, because it's their irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle." I believe he is right on the mark with that analysis. Bell continues to point out the benchmarks of societal issues that have inherently been a part of conservatisms core...
American social conservatism, Mr. Bell says, began in response to the sexual revolution, which since the 1960s has been "the biggest agenda item and the biggest success story of the left." That was true in Western Europe and Japan too, but only in America did a socially conservative opposition arise.
The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. "Nature's God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence. . . . The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it's more religious. . . . My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn't particular to any one religion. . . . If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you're a social conservative."
Right on! Now here is where the establishment fears begin in our current presidential competition, but where Rush's point takes hold, as pertains to Santorum:
Mr. Santorum is the most consistent and unapologetic social conservative in the race, but Mr. Bell rejects the common claim that he places too strong an emphasis on social issues: "I think that's unfair to Santorum. He goes out of his way to say that he has an economic platform, he isn't just about social issues."
He notes that on NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend, host David Gregory opened his interview with the candidate by asking a series of questions about social issues, one of which he prefaced by saying that such issues "have come . . . to define your campaign."
Mr. Santorum disputed the premise: "It's not what's defining my campaign. I would say that what's defining my campaign is going out and talking about liberty, talking about economic growth, talking about getting manufacturing jobs back here to this country, trying to grow this economy to make sure that everybody in America can participate in it."
This exchange, like many other Santorum interviews, can be seen as a synecdoche of the liberal-conservative social-issue dynamic Mr. Bell describes. To the extent that social issues have "come to define" Mr. Santorum's campaign, it is in substantial part because liberal interviewers like Mr. Gregory have kept pushing them. If Mr. Bell is right, Mr. Santorum should end up benefiting politically, including in November if he is the nominee.
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."
Bob Schieffer's interview on Face the Nation is also exemplary of Mr. Bell's analysis here:
Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller also chimed in on this topic surrounding Bell's publication:
As much as moderate Republicans and cosmopolitan conservatives might lament the resurrection of the culture wars (which were foisted upon us, and appear to have been rekindled once again by liberal overreach), they were electorally fruitful for the GOP.
The trouble for Republican presidential hopefuls trying to make hay of a struggling economy is that, when times are hard, liberals can always out-promise and out-class-warfare their adversaries. Thus, national elections that focus instead on foreign policy or cultural issues have tended to skew more favorably to the GOP
Regarding cultural issues, one could argue that times have changed — that postmodern Americans are no longer interested in preserving traditional American values — that we’re all too sophisticated or too civilized to care. I would say two things: First, prove it. Second, while today’s voters may be too sophisticated to fall for cheap “family values” pandering, I do not for one minute believe the vast majority of Americans have suddenly turned up their noses at sincere efforts to preserve a just and moral society.
Here, here!
ADDENDUM: William McGurn joined in this discussion today, sending a message to those who would suggest that Santorum simply drop the social issues altogether...
It's not practical, first, because Mr. Santorum is running as what he is, a conviction politician. Having been dismissed for months by Republicans hostile to his social views, he is not likely to take their advice now. He appreciates that he did not get where he is today by trimming his sails.
Indeed, that's one reason he has now overtaken Mitt Romney as the front-runner...[who] is behind because Republican voters have yet to be persuaded he stands for anything. Mr. Santorum is ahead because even those who might not sign onto all his social particulars are hungry for a nominee who does not bend with the wind.
Dropping the social issues is also not practical for another reason: The media won't let him. When Mr. Obama used a prayer breakfast earlier this month to suggest that the Gospel of Luke was a call for raising taxes on the wealthy, the press corps yawned. When Mr. Santorum complained about the "phony theology" behind the president's worldview, suddenly it landed on every front page and lead every news show.
McGurn goes on to say that when Santorum discusses these issues, he needs to fold them into a larger narrative about the free society. Agreed. That's commendable advice, right? The only thing I find peculiar about it is having attended a Santorum rally, weeks prior to this particular suggestion, Rick HAS BEEN folding the social issues into that larger narrative! I guess this is just the divergence experienced between being on the ground and being behind the news desk.
But to set some minds at ease, a few early reviews of Jeffrey Bell's new book, The Case for Polarized Politics, have emerged among the more Romney-friendly outlets, apparently recognizing that the social conservative movement is an integral component to not only building up the Republican Party, but also winning! The focal piece for this discussion comes from James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal:
Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, "The Case for Polarized Politics," has a winning track record for the GOP. "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," he observes. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."
The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to "end welfare as we know it" and make abortion "safe, legal and rare." Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). "Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority," Mr. Bell says. "It isn't coincidental."
Bell digs deeper into the broader historical linkage of conservative social issues:
...social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had "its center of gravity in social issues" since the French Revolution, he says. "Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we've had a good illustration of it in the last month or so."
In regards to Obamacare's HHS mandate regarding this "contraceptive flap," Bell says, "it wasn't a miscalculation. They knew that the Catholic Church and other believers were going to push back against this thing. . . . They were determined to push it through, because it's their irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle." I believe he is right on the mark with that analysis. Bell continues to point out the benchmarks of societal issues that have inherently been a part of conservatisms core...
American social conservatism, Mr. Bell says, began in response to the sexual revolution, which since the 1960s has been "the biggest agenda item and the biggest success story of the left." That was true in Western Europe and Japan too, but only in America did a socially conservative opposition arise.
The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. "Nature's God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence. . . . The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it's more religious. . . . My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn't particular to any one religion. . . . If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you're a social conservative."
Right on! Now here is where the establishment fears begin in our current presidential competition, but where Rush's point takes hold, as pertains to Santorum:
Mr. Santorum is the most consistent and unapologetic social conservative in the race, but Mr. Bell rejects the common claim that he places too strong an emphasis on social issues: "I think that's unfair to Santorum. He goes out of his way to say that he has an economic platform, he isn't just about social issues."
He notes that on NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend, host David Gregory opened his interview with the candidate by asking a series of questions about social issues, one of which he prefaced by saying that such issues "have come . . . to define your campaign."
Mr. Santorum disputed the premise: "It's not what's defining my campaign. I would say that what's defining my campaign is going out and talking about liberty, talking about economic growth, talking about getting manufacturing jobs back here to this country, trying to grow this economy to make sure that everybody in America can participate in it."
This exchange, like many other Santorum interviews, can be seen as a synecdoche of the liberal-conservative social-issue dynamic Mr. Bell describes. To the extent that social issues have "come to define" Mr. Santorum's campaign, it is in substantial part because liberal interviewers like Mr. Gregory have kept pushing them. If Mr. Bell is right, Mr. Santorum should end up benefiting politically, including in November if he is the nominee.
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."
Bob Schieffer's interview on Face the Nation is also exemplary of Mr. Bell's analysis here:
Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller also chimed in on this topic surrounding Bell's publication:
As much as moderate Republicans and cosmopolitan conservatives might lament the resurrection of the culture wars (which were foisted upon us, and appear to have been rekindled once again by liberal overreach), they were electorally fruitful for the GOP.
The trouble for Republican presidential hopefuls trying to make hay of a struggling economy is that, when times are hard, liberals can always out-promise and out-class-warfare their adversaries. Thus, national elections that focus instead on foreign policy or cultural issues have tended to skew more favorably to the GOP
Regarding cultural issues, one could argue that times have changed — that postmodern Americans are no longer interested in preserving traditional American values — that we’re all too sophisticated or too civilized to care. I would say two things: First, prove it. Second, while today’s voters may be too sophisticated to fall for cheap “family values” pandering, I do not for one minute believe the vast majority of Americans have suddenly turned up their noses at sincere efforts to preserve a just and moral society.
Here, here!
ADDENDUM: William McGurn joined in this discussion today, sending a message to those who would suggest that Santorum simply drop the social issues altogether...
It's not practical, first, because Mr. Santorum is running as what he is, a conviction politician. Having been dismissed for months by Republicans hostile to his social views, he is not likely to take their advice now. He appreciates that he did not get where he is today by trimming his sails.
Indeed, that's one reason he has now overtaken Mitt Romney as the front-runner...[who] is behind because Republican voters have yet to be persuaded he stands for anything. Mr. Santorum is ahead because even those who might not sign onto all his social particulars are hungry for a nominee who does not bend with the wind.
Dropping the social issues is also not practical for another reason: The media won't let him. When Mr. Obama used a prayer breakfast earlier this month to suggest that the Gospel of Luke was a call for raising taxes on the wealthy, the press corps yawned. When Mr. Santorum complained about the "phony theology" behind the president's worldview, suddenly it landed on every front page and lead every news show.
McGurn goes on to say that when Santorum discusses these issues, he needs to fold them into a larger narrative about the free society. Agreed. That's commendable advice, right? The only thing I find peculiar about it is having attended a Santorum rally, weeks prior to this particular suggestion, Rick HAS BEEN folding the social issues into that larger narrative! I guess this is just the divergence experienced between being on the ground and being behind the news desk.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Santorum draws the line in the sand
"Rick Santorum said something in a speech in Michigan that is the essence of liberty and free market capitalism..." ~ Mark Levin
Levin helped pick apart a New York Times piece on Friday's program to illustrate the integrity and willingness of Santorum to confront some key issues that will not only affect this coming election, but this nation's future.
In his speech, Mr. Santorum laid most of the blame for the bailouts not with Mr. Obama but with George W. Bush, a rare departure from the Republican candidates’ nonstop assault on Mr. Obama’s policies.
“President Obama was just following suit,” he said. “President Bush set the precedent, and it was the wrong precedent.”
Levin pointed out in Friday's program that "he's exactly right," as the conservative commentator has explained in both of his latest publications. But Mark points to something else Santorum said "that's really driving the libs nuts, and some of the Repubicans who don't get it, because they don't understand liberty, and they don't understand free market capitalism."
Mr. Santorum also said that he favored income inequality because some people contribute more to society than others. While also emphasizing that he favors “equality of opportunity,” he added: “There is income inequality in America. There always has been and hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be. Why? Because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and to the marketplace, and that’s as it should be.”
As Levin emphasized, "So there you have Rick Santorum stating one of the basic truisms in essence of the Declaration of Independence, in a free society, and all of you know it, and the media are running around liking chickens without...many heads, and yet it's obvious that he's right. You see, what he's doing, and what is so superb about it, he's running right into the teeth of the utopian statist propaganda, and he's saying 'Nope, nope, nope, that's not how our country is supposed to work.'" Mark added on his website, "Democrats want everyone on the same level so that they will have more control over them. They believe that liberty is immoral unless it brings about equality, not realizing that there always has and always will be income inequality. The conservative wants to create rights and individuality using a vibrant and vigorous economy that creates more opportunity." So I don't have to point out that this is the complete opposite of Barack Obama's Marxist philosophy, but I would note that this is a truism that you haven't heard Romney so boldly risk to utter.
In similar fashion, Santorum ran 'right into the teeth of the utopian statist' media wing on Saturday, with comments he made concerning Obama's secularist (as well as eco-statist) attacks, and again, to paraphrase Levin, it drove the libs nuts, as well as some Repubics who don't get it. Here's just a little bit of what he told the media hordes afterwards:
“The president has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before. If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine, but it is an imposition of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the Obama administration is forcing on them.”
“I’ve been pretty clear that the left in America has their own moral code in which they want to impose on this country. You can call it a theology. You can call it a moral code. You can call it a world view, but they have their own moral code that they want to impose on everybody else. While they insist and complain that somehow or another that people of Judeo-Christian faith are intolerant of their new moral code that they want to create here. I’m just saying they're the ones who are intolerant in imposing their will on, in this case, the Catholic church.”
Rinse, repeat on what I shouldn't have to point out again. (Note: check out Weasel Zippers one line comment about this...priceless!) And while the media, and undoubtedly some among the punditry, will label his remarks off color and certainly worse, it's pretty difficult to ignore, again, the truism of what Santorum's stating when a priest is arrested outside the White House for praying.
But whether the topic is economic liberty or religious freedom, it's Santorum's frank honesty and conviction, as well as his likable demeanor, that's connecting with voters; and I think that helps explain moments like what we saw on Friday with a key Romney endorsement/delegate in Ohio deciding to switch his support to Rick Santorum.
ADDENDUM: Rick Santorum introduced the liberal Bob Schieffer to our native language of conservatism yesterday on Face the Nation. Schieffer's clueless stares are priceless...
Levin helped pick apart a New York Times piece on Friday's program to illustrate the integrity and willingness of Santorum to confront some key issues that will not only affect this coming election, but this nation's future.
In his speech, Mr. Santorum laid most of the blame for the bailouts not with Mr. Obama but with George W. Bush, a rare departure from the Republican candidates’ nonstop assault on Mr. Obama’s policies.
“President Obama was just following suit,” he said. “President Bush set the precedent, and it was the wrong precedent.”
Levin pointed out in Friday's program that "he's exactly right," as the conservative commentator has explained in both of his latest publications. But Mark points to something else Santorum said "that's really driving the libs nuts, and some of the Repubicans who don't get it, because they don't understand liberty, and they don't understand free market capitalism."
Mr. Santorum also said that he favored income inequality because some people contribute more to society than others. While also emphasizing that he favors “equality of opportunity,” he added: “There is income inequality in America. There always has been and hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be. Why? Because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and to the marketplace, and that’s as it should be.”
As Levin emphasized, "So there you have Rick Santorum stating one of the basic truisms in essence of the Declaration of Independence, in a free society, and all of you know it, and the media are running around liking chickens without...many heads, and yet it's obvious that he's right. You see, what he's doing, and what is so superb about it, he's running right into the teeth of the utopian statist propaganda, and he's saying 'Nope, nope, nope, that's not how our country is supposed to work.'" Mark added on his website, "Democrats want everyone on the same level so that they will have more control over them. They believe that liberty is immoral unless it brings about equality, not realizing that there always has and always will be income inequality. The conservative wants to create rights and individuality using a vibrant and vigorous economy that creates more opportunity." So I don't have to point out that this is the complete opposite of Barack Obama's Marxist philosophy, but I would note that this is a truism that you haven't heard Romney so boldly risk to utter.
In similar fashion, Santorum ran 'right into the teeth of the utopian statist' media wing on Saturday, with comments he made concerning Obama's secularist (as well as eco-statist) attacks, and again, to paraphrase Levin, it drove the libs nuts, as well as some Repubics who don't get it. Here's just a little bit of what he told the media hordes afterwards:
“The president has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before. If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine, but it is an imposition of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the Obama administration is forcing on them.”
“I’ve been pretty clear that the left in America has their own moral code in which they want to impose on this country. You can call it a theology. You can call it a moral code. You can call it a world view, but they have their own moral code that they want to impose on everybody else. While they insist and complain that somehow or another that people of Judeo-Christian faith are intolerant of their new moral code that they want to create here. I’m just saying they're the ones who are intolerant in imposing their will on, in this case, the Catholic church.”
Rinse, repeat on what I shouldn't have to point out again. (Note: check out Weasel Zippers one line comment about this...priceless!) And while the media, and undoubtedly some among the punditry, will label his remarks off color and certainly worse, it's pretty difficult to ignore, again, the truism of what Santorum's stating when a priest is arrested outside the White House for praying.
But whether the topic is economic liberty or religious freedom, it's Santorum's frank honesty and conviction, as well as his likable demeanor, that's connecting with voters; and I think that helps explain moments like what we saw on Friday with a key Romney endorsement/delegate in Ohio deciding to switch his support to Rick Santorum.
ADDENDUM: Rick Santorum introduced the liberal Bob Schieffer to our native language of conservatism yesterday on Face the Nation. Schieffer's clueless stares are priceless...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)