Oh, this is good
Prepare to laugh and then get really depressed, maybe. More "apocalyptic standup" from the master, Mark Steyn. I'd say "STEYN FOR PRESIDENT" if his material wasn't too choice to water down for a presidential campaign. Just read the whole thing. Well, OK, here are some grabber lines:
In a post-prosperity West, social solidarity — i.e., socioeconomic fictions such as “Europe” — are the first to disappear.
In effect, Nancy has rolled a giant condom over the entire American economy.
I think this is what they call handing out condoms on the Titanic.
[I]t’s cowardly, and, like so much else about the sexual revolution, very old and wrinkled.
A very effective argument whether or not you think contraception is wrong. This is why political candidates should seriously consider rarely mentioning the topic. If they do, they should immediately do as Steyn does to show the ridiculousness of the state effectively promoting infertility in the shadow of looming insolvency for social programs.
Thumbs up to Ann Coulter's column from yesterday:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-02-22.html
"We're being asked to hand Obama another four years in the White House in order to "send a message." To whom? And what message? That we're morons? Message received!"
I'll see your Ann Coulter and raise you with a new Mark Steyn offering.
ReplyDeleteP.S. See, Pauli? I can keep my comments germane to the post topic (if broadly construed to refer to the same cited author).
P.P.S. Mark Steyn for President indeed. Although he suffers from the Schwarzenegger (and Obama?!?) problem of being born outside the country.
Wow, it's amazing. Three months ago, when he was polling at 1 percent, I didn't hear a peep about Santorum from anyone. Now Levin, Limbaugh, Steyn et al cannot cease their exhortations that Rick Santorum is verily our one and only hope! REALLY?! What the frak was Santorum three
ReplyDeletemonths ago?!
madness.
Ann C. has been... resolute. Good for her.
ReplyDeleteI think two things happened, kathleen.
ReplyDeleteOne is that the choices are different now. We each have had our agreements and disagreements with each of the candidates, especially the group of non-Romneys. E.g., I threw a little bit of money at Herman Cain. As most have now gone away, the most appealing remaining candidate has changed for many.
Second, we know more about each of the candidates now than we did 3 months ago. The facts are different, and new "plans" from candidates have surfaced.
As an aside, a good conservative good friend of mine had a little face time with Romney last week (friend is a mover and shaker in a national business organization, whose event Romney appeared at). He was previously disinclined to favor Romney, but Romney's speech and the face time gave my buddy the sense that his principles were in the right place. He wonders why it has taken Romney so long to articulate them.
I trust my friend's judgment, so I feel better should Romney be the nominee. I still favor Santorum and Newt for the reason previously stated (it is a big question election, and we need the candidate who can best articulate and act on those big questions, rather than a better manager of the government we now have). But I feel better than I did, anyway.
And I am disgusted by the Obama-like willingness of all, but esp. Romney, to act the Internet troll and say anything to get an edge over the others. That must stop.
Well, I'll say something that I've resisted saying, but I think Newt is the *WORST* candidate out there, and I'd rather see Santorum get the nomination that him. I mean, here's the guy who hasn't been gracious enough to concede to Romney in the last 2 primaries Romney won and then he says if there's one word that describes him it's "cheerful"? Riight.
ReplyDeleteSantorum has been quite willing to say "anything" as well. He is at least as much of a game player as Romney except he's far less intelligent, far less successful, far less articulate, far less likable, far less fit, and far less electable.
ReplyDeleteAnd I really object to the term "Obamneycare". State health care regimes and federal health care regimes really are two entirely different beasts. The 10th amendment to the Constitution does mean something. Arguably, it wasn't even Governor Romney's place to veto state health care if that's what his 80% Democrat legislature was pulling for. It's not like Republican Romney foisted health care on a population obsessed with liberty. For goodness' sake we are talking about MASSACHUSETTS, bluest of the blue.
If Santorum were such a clearly superior candidate to Romney he should have had a solid following before two weeks ago. His surge is mere desperation on the part of Republicans who keep hearing Romney being slammed by media outlets on the right and left. Like Ann Coulter, I'm completely mystified by the right's campaign against him. What's next from Republicans, just ban anyone who ever served in a blue state from running on the Republican ticket?
ReplyDeleteI agree, Kathleen, and I absolutely *hate* this all coming from the conservative talking heads. In 2008, everyone was screaming about how we had to support Romney and demonizing everyone else, namely McCain and Huckabee. I thought Romney was running a bad campaign and I supported McCain because he was more electable then. Maybe that was a mistake, but Romney was spared losing to Obama at the time.
ReplyDeleteNow Romney is back and running a better campaign, he's more conservative and instead of supporting a certain candidate over him, the conservative talking heads are supporting ANYONE instead of him. Santorum is flavor of the week, Mr. I'm-a-team-player-yet-really-courageous. The laundry list of his liberal lapses is ignored and Mitt Romney's are publicized. Fine. Attacking one's opponent is a tradition of the American democratic process. Then when Romney attacks Santorum in the same way, people say "Internet troll!" Huh? Just because he does it better and more effectively.
It don't make no sense, ma.
Obamacare is the battleground question of the 2012 election, both for what it itself is, and for the principle it symbolizes (submission of individual liberty to the government in exchange for benefits).
ReplyDeleteThere are two questions about Obamacare: 1) its constitutionality and 2) if constitutional, is it good public policy?
Romney's attacks on Obamacare are limited to its constitutionality (and to a lesser extent, that it is bad public policy only because it is applied to all states at once). But he defends its fundamental public policy for the state he governed. He effectively answers question 2) with a YES!.
Santorum is therefore right that Romney is giving up the debate with Obama on that question -- its fundamental public policy.
And that is the problem that many (including me) have with Romney. He accepts and brags about the public policy of Romneycare in MA. I disagree strongly with its underlying public policy. Many do. And that is one of the problems we have with him, despite the condescending snotty snark from Ann Coulter.
P.S. Not vetoing because it was pointless to veto is a rationalization. If Romney disagreed with Romneycare's underlying policy, he should have vetoed the bill, made the case to the populace (i.e. leadership), and forced the legislature to override. But he didn't.
P.P.S. C'mon Pauli. Newt is the worst because he was mean to Mitt on the playground?
PIkkumatti, aren't you a lawyer? There's really no excuse for ignoring the tenth amendment here.
ReplyDeleteBut that's a cute trick, your use the word "state" to mean Massachusetts and the federal government all at the same time. They are two different animals entirely, as you well know.
It's perfectly "constitutional" for Massachusetts to make its health care system public. And it's really not a big shocker that the people who elect Barney Frank would want to do that. And the fact the governor wants to work with his legislature instead of "forcing an override" shouldn't be such a big shocker either. It's called governance.
OF course, Romney has said he would repeal obamacare first thing when President, but he must be a big old liar because... because ...??? He's not catholic! yeah, that's the ticket!
ReplyDeleteActually you used the generic term "government" rather than "state", but my point remains: state and federal public policy are two different animals under the constitution
ReplyDeleteKathleen
Newt is the worst because he was mean to Mitt on the playground?
ReplyDeletePlayground, schmayground. Ignoring normal protocols, attacking from the left, calling Paul Ryan's plan "right-wing social engineering", moon colony craziness... then he complains about attack ads. Weak. He's his own worst enemy. If he gets nominated watch for a Goldwater blowout.
kathleen, that is exactly my point with raising question #2. Romneycare of course does not violate the 10th amendment; Obamacare probably does. I get it.
ReplyDeleteMy problem is that the fundamental policy of the state (i.e., government) to mandate the purchase of health insurance under penalty of law, to mandate the coverage provided by insurance companies, to mandate what conditions can and cannot be used to set premiums, etc. etc. is wrong, IMO. Romney does not -- so I disagree with him.
FYI, Romney apparently did veto part of the Romneycare bill -- the part requiring employers of >10 to offer insurance.. (See the top bullet on page 4, and its footnote.) That provision was enacted via a legislative override.
Presumably, then, Romney was OK with the remainder of the provisions. I don't know whether Romney had a problem with the concept of the employer penalty, or with the number of employees, etc. But it is apparent that he did have a limit on how much he was going to "work with his legislature instead of 'forcing an override'", since he did exactly that on the employer mandate. Because he did not veto the rest of the bill, I disagree with him. As I said, this is an important issue, perhaps THE important issue of the election.
You can stick with your accusing me of a hidden Catholic vs. Mormon thing if you want. I can't do anything about that. But I'm afraid the bigotry insult says more about you than it does me. . . .
Spare me the hurt feelings act, Pikkumatti. Your guy Santorum has obviously been willing to vote against his conscience in the past. Compromise is ok for senators, not for governors, eh? You continue to put the worst possible spin on what Romney does. I don't know if you do it because he's mormon, he's catholic, he's rich, or he's from Michigan, but whatever the reason is, it's not rational.
ReplyDelete"My problem is that the fundamental policy of the state (i.e., government) to mandate the purchase of health insurance under penalty of law, to mandate the coverage provided by insurance companies, to mandate what conditions can and cannot be used to set premiums, etc. etc. is wrong, IMO."
ReplyDeleteinsert "auto" for "health". Do you still want to make this case? It sounds like you have a problem with state lawmaking, period.
Romney's partial veto makes my point, not yours.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rick-santorum-seeks-democratic-support-in-michigan-robocalls/2012/02/27/gIQAIbgceR_blog.html
ReplyDeleteHow does this sit with you, Pikkumatti? Still better than Romney? Do tell.
The robocalls angered me even more at Santorum. And... from what Byron York said this morning on Bill Bennett's show, Michigan Republican's who were undecided yesterday actually broke for Romney, probably due in large part to Santorum's robocalls to Democrats.
ReplyDeleteIt was a hail Mary pass and it FAILED. Or maybe it was merely a clumsy fumble or a botched punt. Santorum supporters trying to spin Romney's win are griping that Romney outspent Santorum and that the playing field isn't level. Kids, Mitt Romney has been in the game building this campaign for years. He has more experience. So face it: the other team is better and more likely to beat Obama.