-
Take a Victory Lap, Ed Feulner
November 12, 2012 | 4 comments
-
The Market Sends a Signal: Short Warren Buffett
September 28, 2011 | 50 comments
-
Neoconservatism Interrupted
August 18, 2011 | 200 comments
-
In Praise of M. Stanton Evans
July 15, 2011 | 32 comments
-
A Syllogism for 2012
January 21, 2011 | 227 comments
Political Hay
Mitt, Newt, and the Greater Good
A sober assessment of the good news in store.
While watching Mitt Romney in action last night, I had a fugitive thought: he would be the perfect candidate for Vice President. I do not say that in a disparaging way. In the modern era, the Vice Presidency has become a job of substance and delegated authority. On more than a few occasions, it has been an important executive post; cf., Gore, Albert and Cheney, Richard. Can you think of anybody more likely than Romney to succeed in reorganizing an unwieldy Cabinet department, or in cutting back a bloated budget request? With Romney, there would not be a problem with the implementation of plan. He’s a world-class manager. The problem would be with the plan itself.
Which frames the residual question about Romney as Presidential candidate this way: left to his own predilections, would Mitt Romney be a conservative President? The answer is almost surely no, he would not. As the acerbic Tory Benjamin Disraeli observed of the swells in the House of Commons: “sensible men are all of the same religion,” by which he meant that establishmentarian elites tend to cluster around the received wisdom. The late Herman Kahn saw the same tendency from a different perspective. In his tangy way, Kahn claimed that the fundamental division between public men was between “those who care what the New York Times thinks about them and those who don’t.” Clearly, Romney cares. His entire career has been expended in the seeking and winning of approval from establishmentarian elites. Which prompts the sequential question: could Mitt Romney, supported closely by an engaged and vocal conservative movement, be a conservative president? In the current economic circumstance — where the politics of reality is reasserting itself with a vengeance — my hedged and hopeful answer would be, yes. Here’s the hedge. If, after the election, conservatives choose to return to the plow and the hearth, my answer would be no, almost surely not.
Eye on Newt
What to
make of Newt Gingrich? It may have been the estimable Jeffrey Lord
who first
remarked the similarities between Newt Gingrich and Winston
Churchill. Suspend your disbelief. What Lord had in mind and what I
find arresting were the surface similarities between the two portly
statesmen — the forensic gifts, the historical perspective, the
long exposure to government benches back to front, the maturing
life-experience with both savored victory and embittering defeat,
the towering intellect. I was riding along smoothly with Lord until
that last stop, where I felt compelled to get off the rhetorical
train. Gingrich is verbally facile, to be sure, even pyrotechnical,
but intellectually towering?
At a small dinner in Washington some years ago, several of us sat enthralled as Gingrich held forth well into the evening. He expressed admiration with unmodulated fervor for the writings of James Madison, the principal author of The Federalist Papers, Alvin Toffler, the intermittently intelligible futurist, and Arianna Huffington, the Greek-American ditz who would say almost anything in her climb to social prominence and economic opulence. Gingrich’s undifferentiated enthusiasm represented for me the root problem of the autodidact: to the self-directed, all ideas appear to be created equal. (This is no knock on autodidacts, understand. Thomas Jefferson, alone in his library at Monticello, attained a superb education long after he had departed William & Mary. It’s the rest of us that need guidance.) Is it unfair to entertain the possibility that a Gingrich Presidency might resemble in essential respects a Gingrich Speakership: lots of ideas in search of a premise, lots of projects in need of adult supervision, management by whim and driven by impulse — followed by a swirl of charges, a cloud of confusion and, off at the end, an awkward exit?
And then again, when taking the measure of any Gingrich enterprise, one is obliged to count the number of personal items he’ll be bringing on board. One can be pretty sure that they won’t fit in the overhead storage bin. The two pieces of “baggage” that stick most conspicuously in memory, the one distant, the other just this month, were these. The first was when Speaker Gingrich lied about his adulterous affair just as he was impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about his adulterous affair. Not quite Churchillian, I think we can agree. The other oversized carry-on was Gingrich’s explanation this month of a $300,000 fee he received from Freddie Mac. He was employed as an “historian,” said the former Speaker, thus electrifying faculty lounges across the fruited plain. When subsequent news reports showed that the fee was at least $1.6 million, Gingrich retooled his explanation. He was not actually writing history and certainly not lobbying. He was providing “strategic advice.” That formulation was not so much Churchillian as Clintonian. Whatever Gingrich thought he was selling, it’s clear what Freddie Mac thought it was buying — influence with conservatives who were thinking of closing the open bar at the mortgage-scam party. (One can only imagine the sweep of that seven-figure advice: “Gentlemen, I commend to you a genuinely new paradigm. According to projections calculated here at the Gingrich Polymathic Institute, we can bring the American Dream to every man, woman and child in this country by laying off the risk on the U.S. taxpayer, who can then lay it off on the Chinese government. Everybody with me so far?”)
In at least one respect, Gingrich must be considered fully Churchillian. As the great biographer William Manchester wrote of Sir Winston at mid-career: “By now he had become adept at creating his own dramas.”
Bottom line: If Gingrich is the nominee, would we, could we, support him? In a heartbeat. He’s not a Retributionist (see below).
The End of the Beginning
The Presidential election has now been defined and, bringing
particular satisfaction to those of us of the TAS
persuasion, it has been defined by the broad mass of the citizenry
and not by the increasingly derelict national media. The choice
next year will be between the Disciplinarians on the one side and
the Retributionists on the other. All of us— right, left, and
middle— recognize that something serious and possibly epochal has
gone wrong with our fragile Republic. Seen in its most favorable
light, this problem is cyclical and soluble. In the gloom of
twilight, it can seem fundamental and irreversible. (Watching the
bond markets swoon, we expect the declinists to exhume any day now
Sir Edward Grey’s chestnut from 1914: “The lamps are going out all
over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our
lifetime.”)
The Disciplinarians, identified in the public mind with the Tea Party but spreading far beyond its ranks into both of the major parties, regard the problem as soluble and they have stepped forward to accost the decline and enlist in the restoration effort. They understand the core issue to be the breakdown of discipline in public finance. They seek to “take back” their government — not in a lunge for operational power, but in the limited sense of calling the government to its original commitments.
The Retributionists, identified in the public mind with Occupy Wall Street but representing a broader swath of political alienation, are resigned to the prospect of national decline and have fixed their attention on the division of residual wealth. They believe that an unfair economic system has inevitably produced unfair results and they seek to redress these systemic wrongs through the brute power of government. They employ not just the language of class warfare. They advocate openly for the prosecution of class warfare.
Barack Obama, of course, is the champion of the Retributionists. He springs from the same activist roots as the Occupiers, was nurtured boy and man by the dependency establishment and speaks fluently the faux-street-language of the Affluent Left. He will make the Retributionist case as well as it can be made.
The good news is that the Disciplinarians will have a champion next year, too. He will have been tested in debate, vetted by the media, scrutinized in retail primaries and conservatized by a nominating process that has purged Retributionist tendencies comprehensively from the Grand Old Party.
About the Author
Neal B. Freeman is chairman of the Blackwell Corporation.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (156) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Neal B. Freeman
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/23/mitt-newt-and-the-greater-good
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 11.23.11 @ 6:15AM
The New Hampshire Gazette
The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.
name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman
A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close
Margie| 11.23.11 @ 1:33PM
Better a forgiven serial Adulterer than an unrepentant Socialist.
And better a forgiven serial Adulterer than a whacky blame America Firster.
Clint| 11.23.11 @ 2:03PM
" Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is also another foreign policy expert who agrees that the United States is extraordinarily secure due to its geography and nuclear weapons, and doesn’t need a huge global presence.
He also argued that the United States’ military is being used in overseas conflicts with little or no national interest, specifically pointing to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Preble gave Paul credit for being one of the few outspoken critics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
For sure America’s attitudes toward the war has changed and popular opinion seems to be on his side.
It’s evident at most of his campaign stops, where Paul’s calls for the troops to return home are met with thunderous applause and the occasional standing ovation."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
carnot| 11.23.11 @ 6:53PM
All Hail Stan Laurel!!!!!!
Gary B| 11.23.11 @ 6:42AM
"...by a nominating process that has purged Retributionist tendencies comprehensively from the Grand Old Party."
I disagree. The Grand Old Party's NRC has done its level best, aided and abetted by the media, to shove real conservaties out of the nest and force members of the political elite down our throats for the many decades I've been alive. Reagan survived the process by going over their heads directly to the voters. Goldwater was overpowered.
The Republican establishment is just that: part of the establishment. Its specialty is offering voters the fake choice of the lesser of evils. It pretends to be the opposition, as it wink winks its way, going along to get along in Beltway society. Like everyone else in that cesspool, it, too, is up to its neck in DC corruption.
Once again, we'll be dumb lucky to have an actual choice in 2012. What a mess...
Jack in Wi| 11.23.11 @ 8:01AM
Newt Gingrich with his Mt Everest of of baggage is both unnomininable and unelectable. He has been a total flop in the only important jobs that he had a man, Husband and Speaker. Mr. Freeman fails to mention the 38 millon in other slush money Newt picked up as a grifter, influence peddler, and flack for numerous unsavory lobbies.
The only true Consevative-Libertarian in this race is Ron Paul. He mopped up the whole field of 7 dwarfs last night. Newt was his usual windbag self and self destructed on the immigration issue. Newt was done the day they found out about all his scams. Newt has been hated by about 80% of the population for at least 15 years. That is ever since Clinton made him the punching bag of the 1996 elections. Ron Paul is number 1 in the latest poll in Iowa with 25%, well above Herman Cain and the old fraudster Newt. Neither Cain or Newt has much organization as yet, to get people to the polls, so Ron's total is probably much higher. He is in second place in New Hampshire, behind Romney. Last night was a good start on the necessary debate which this party and country need. It was civil and stuck to a lot of the issues. Let the rest of the debates continue on this line.
It is time.
C Smith| 11.23.11 @ 11:44AM
"He has been a total flop in the only important jobs that he had a man, Husband and Speaker." Well said Jack:
Newt? The guy who visited his wife in the hospital as she was recovering from cancer surgery to discuss divorce? Wanted to marry the woman he was currently "bedding." This lasted until Newt and Bill found something in common, interns and staffers decades their junior.
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 12:18PM
C Smith:
The hospital divorce thing has been completely de-bunked. I know, I swallowed it, too and had to puke it up and disavow it.
I say Newt does have a near-terminally serious case of ADD that completely discredits him as Presidential timber.
C Smith| 11.25.11 @ 11:48AM
DTOM,
Naivety, has given us the "abomination" we have now, let's not repeat it.
“He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery.” (Jackie Gingrich, "Washington Post," January 3, 1985).
Newt's daughter’s conveniently timed rebuttal of her mother's testimony bears every earmark of fraud and deception; like father, like daughter I suppose. A father with any sense of honor would not have allowed his daughter to stoop this low.
Quartermaster| 11.25.11 @ 5:36PM
But, CSmith, what if it's simply the truth? Why should she not tell what she knows to be the truth?
carnot| 11.23.11 @ 6:54PM
Stan Laurel! He's the one!
NeilBJ| 11.25.11 @ 1:18PM
Good for you, Jack. I, too, am a Ron Paul supporter. My first vote in a presidential election after I first became eligible was for Barry Goldwater. Ever since then, I have been voting for the lesser of two evils. I may not have thought so at the time, but now that I have a greater understanding of how far our country has drifted from the principles of our Constitution, I realize that in my ignorance I had been doing just that.
Ron Paul is the first candidate in decades that actually understands our Constitution, sound monetary policy, and the need for a strong defense as opposed to our interventionist foreign policy.
It will be the second time that I will knowingly vote "for" someone. I will vote for him in my state's primary, and I will write him in on the general election ballot if he is not the Republican nominee.
BMX| 11.23.11 @ 12:38PM
Gary B., I must agree in full. Being Republican is the equivalent of being immoral.
Just one very recent example in my life (so I assure all readers here of its veracity)
Having spent recent years trying (even before the current Occupier of the White House) to work grass roots issues, conservative causes, I realized that the real "money" was in the election days themselves, both primary days and general election days.
What I estimate is between 4 - 10% fraud. Outright fraud.
So easy to do.
How do I know? I now work the polls. And this is not easy to do! To apply to work the polls and be accepted, one must try to appear liberal, derelict and mentally slow to get the job.
Yes, your county and city government officials are all in on this. The last thing they want is an agile mind working at the polls.
When one works the polls, what does one encounter? Antiquated, poorly maintained equipment, baffling counting, excessive paperwork that leads to errors, electronics that can be manipulated, counts that can be manipulated, and a voter registration database that IS manipulated. Top it off with poorly trained (this is by design) poll station workers who haven't a clue as to the basic laws and rules for primary day or election day voting procedures.
I've accumulated all of this in meticulous notes. Dates, times, places. To boot, my state aids and abetts the fraud as it does not require photo ID or any ID (one can "self identify") to vote.
We now have a Republican Attorney General for the state. One whom I have supported. One whom I aided with a few tips a few years back. I know that these tips helped him because he has personally thanked me for them. We have an established rapport.
Until....
When I recently approached him with all my documented, factual concerns about voter fraud, he wanted to hear nothing of it.
I countered that it is unconscionable to ask Republicans, conservatives, and co-oped Tea Partiers to advocate for Republican positions, ballot initiatives, judges, and Republican candidates while knowing that these "get out the grass roots" efforts only garner -- at best -- 5 - 7% of a difference on election days.
What is 5 - 7% of a swing on primaries/election days when a full 8 - 10% is outright voter fraud?
I know that this TAS site is a PC-speak place too. However, for the reader here who seeks and wants truth: GOP means immoral.
Gary B| 11.23.11 @ 12:51PM
BMX,
The vision of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind. Gary North (has articles on LewRockwell.com) feels national politics is a hopeless waste of time and advises his readers to spend their efforts on state and local offices.
Seeing many state houses swinging over to Republicans is encouaging, as I believe the most powerful anti-DC force will be the states. Having 26 of them join the Obamacare lawsuit is a good sign. If only they would band together like that more often...
I wish we had more details on what happens to newly-elected conservatives when they arrive in DC. I can only assume they threatened or bribed into towing the party line.
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 1:00PM
Gary,
Ignoring national politics is a truly short-sighted strategy that inevitability leads to disaster.
Really! Think about it.
Cede the field to Obama's Executive Branch? Is that guy nuts? Surrender to DOE, DOE, EPA, TSA, HHS? He's got to be kidding. Or drunk. Or stupid. Seriously!
Gary B| 11.24.11 @ 7:55AM
Didn't say I do that. I vote, but you have to admit a guy could get cynical.
DTOM| 11.24.11 @ 11:18AM
It only helps the enemies of the Constitution....that's what they seek. They cannot defeat us with logic and ideas - they just want us to quit.
Sort of like the North Vietnamese. It worked for them.
Silver Bullet| 11.24.11 @ 10:51AM
I have thought of a way to inhibit voter fraud. Print a receipt for the voter to inspect, the voter then must review it. Each voter could be given a bar code identification, and this bar code printed on the receipt; the receipt then dropped into a re-count box that can be used after the electronic tally in order to verify the vote. In the event of a re-count, bar codes could be used to identify a list of voters at each precinct who did, in fact, sign in and vote. Of course, privacy advocates will have a hissy fit over this, claiming that the bar codes, together with a listing of the voters by name, could abrogate the secrecy of the ballot. Nonetheless, the re-count could be done under observation, with Republican, Democrat, and independent re-counters. If the secret vote of any given voter is breached, the re-counters could be held liable for civil and criminal penalties -- just as has been done with secrecy procedures being used now by hospitals. No, there is no perfect system for ensuring lack of fraud unless there is a way to identify which voter voted which way, in a re-count. Which is worse -- rampant fraud, or a carefully guarded way of verifying the tally? I would argue that the former (fraud) is a far worse danger these days.
daddio| 11.24.11 @ 10:04AM
I have to agree with this. At this point, we have no real choice. Romney would be as bad in my opinion as another Obama term. Gingrich, while perhaps creating good policy, would do nothing to unite the country. I do like Paul for a lot of reasons, mostly because he would try to disassemble much of the mess in Washington, but he has no chance of being elected. A lot of us independent voters may just sit this one out. Republicans/Democrats, not a lot of difference from what I see.
irish19| 11.25.11 @ 1:30PM
Sitting this one out is NOT an option. If you can't find a Presidential candidate worth voting for, at least go and vote for down-ticket conservatives. And remember Heinlein's admonition that you may not be able to find someone to vote for, but can always find someone to vote against.
Renaissance Nerd | 11.25.11 @ 2:37PM
I'm sorry but your position is downright silly. Reagan didn't turn back one iota of big government; he slowed it, but only slightly, as the tax cuts he managed to get through created an unintended consequence--income tax receipts doubled. Yet they still managed to come up with a deficit every year. Expecting any candidate to actually fix what took 100 years to build is foolish. Even if Romney is 'socialist lite,' which is at least partially true, that's still better than a 200 proof fascist like the current President. Obama believes so hard that he's right that he sees the obvious corruption and venality rife in his administration as justified, because the ends are good. Romney, or whoever gets the nomination, will be an order of magnitude superior in every way, provided the Congress becomes more conservative. We often forget that the President can't do much--the bully pulpit is all very well, but pep-rallies haven't helped Obama pull the economy out of the crapper. It takes a Congress, and that's the way our Constitution wanted it. So quit with all the whining and man up. Don't make perfection the enemy of the good. Not even Reagan was perfect; indeed, I can't think of a President who was. I don't know of any candidate for any office I've ever agreed with 100%--or any other human being for that matter. I'll take 35% if that's the best I can get, which is far superior to 0%.
jocon307 | 11.26.11 @ 6:33AM
"Romney would be as bad in my opinion as another Obama term. "
I'm no Romney fan, but that's complete nonsense.
Does Mitt Romney hate America?
Does Mitt Romney hate Americans?
Barack Obama does.
kentek| 11.28.11 @ 3:23PM
Gary B,
How'd you get so damn smart? You nailed it in one paragraph!
thanks
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.23.11 @ 6:56AM
If the conclusion of the article was true, John McCain's candidacy was a fluke. It wasn't.
RJ| 11.23.11 @ 7:03AM
I don't see either Romney or Gingrich as a VP nominee. If either wins the nomination, the candidate will need to select a more reliable conservative to reassure the base. Also, regarding the Churchill comparison for Newt, the key to remember is that Churchill wasn't thought of in Churchillian terms in 1939. Newt's legacy will be determined by future events.
martin j smith| 11.23.11 @ 7:42AM
I would change your wording of the choices and Mr Freeman this calls for more honesty--and we need that very much. What we have is a choice between Socialist Authoritarian government versus Free Market Capitalism and Representative Republic. That is as simple as that. That is the real choice,. Now Say it !!!!!!!!!
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.23.11 @ 8:18AM
Neal,
I have copied your article to my personal documents. (I’ve only done that three times in three years here.)
Absolutely splendid thinking!
Among all of my business friends coast to coast there is a chomping at the bit “to get going” once the government get’s off our backs.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.23.11 @ 8:46AM
I'm not comfortable with Mr. Paul's proposed policies and beliefs.
Does he think that if we don't threaten the bully, that the bully will ignore us because we aren't "bothering " him?
Isolationism is never the answer........
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.23.11 @ 8:46AM
Great points in this article.
Clint| 11.23.11 @ 8:53AM
Dr.Ron Paul,
"I Would Ask Congress For A Declaration Of War, If Necessary."
Imagine The President Abiding By The Constitution.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 9:19AM
Imagine Democrats abiding by the Constitution.
Heck, imagine them READING the Constitution!
Doctor Right| 11.23.11 @ 10:57PM
Ron Paul = Non-starter
Clint| 11.26.11 @ 2:29PM
Dr.Ron Paul= Finisher.
Doctor Reich+ RINO-CINO Who Said He'll Vote For Mittens Romney.
Ron Paul is surging, an Iowa and New Hampshire front-runner and powerful third-party possibility
By Brent Budowsky - 11/21/11 10:04 AM ET
There are now multiple polls that show Ron Paul has gained support and has a legitimate chance to come in first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire. I would now call Ron Paul one of three front-runners in both Iowa and New Hampshire alongside Mitt Romney and a third candidate, currently Newt Gingrich. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, which he might, all bets are off. Also, most analysts miss the fact that many states have open systems where independents, and in some cases Democrats, can vote for a Republican nominee. This could give a further boost to Paul.
It is now time to give Ron Paul the attention he deserves in debates and throughout the political community.
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 9:16AM
Mr. Freeman;
I take issue with you on two points.
First, you suggest that Mitt Romney is one of those who cares what the NYT thinks of him. I agree. Once President, Mitt's decisions would driven by what he reads in the paper which would then require modulating pressure from true conservatives. Conservatives who will not be the majority of his staff. Those geniuses who cooked up Romneycare will be the majority of his staff. This will be George Bush all over again. It'll be compassionate conservatism all over again. Has anybody got Harriet Myers phone number?
The idea in electing a true conservative is that conservatives actually have lives and jobs outside of monitoring the President. If we have to continually plumb Romney up to hold him to true conservatism, we can't take care of our own business. Thus, Romney will be making the NYT happy ten times a day, and every once and a while, Romney will throw us a conservative bone. Kind of like the Democrats taking care of black voters, actually.
Second, you seem to suggest that the economic difficulty we are currently experiencing is:
" All of us-- right, left, and middle-- recognize that something serious and possibly epochal has gone wrong with our fragile Republic. Seen in its most favorable light, this problem is cyclical and soluble. In the gloom of twilight, it can seem fundamental and irreversible."
This is received wisdom from the NYT. What has gone wrong, is that the Democrat leadership has made its core principle, its fundamental guiding light into this: Wealth creation is evil, and we intend to punish those who do it.
As evidence I offer these incessant Obama bromides: "Tax the rich!" "The wealthiest of us are not paying their fair share!" "We need to spread the wealth around."and the ever popular OWS call, "Eat the rich!"
What the Democrats are telling anyone thinking about creating wealth is this, "You go right ahead and try - we'll be coming for you and we're gonna git you!" Anyone attempting to create wealth in these guys faces has been warned - don't expect to keep anything you make. Look at what we did to GM's bondholders, GM's stockholders, look at what we did to the suckers owning real estate in this country, look at what we did to those who lent them money, and look at JOHN CORZINE!
What is wealth creation? Just the main engine of job creation and economic growth. And these Democrats have put the word out that anyone trying it will get creamed. We'll tax it all away, we'll claw it back, we'll send unruly thugs to your home to terrorize your teenagers! This is what they have already done. This is not a confusing business cycle issue. It is a socialist governance issue. Plain and simple. Want it to end? Then, let people keep their profits, don't threaten, discourage, and punish them! Do this and this business thing will fix itself in two quarters.
By the way, you cannot create jobs without creating wealth. So they call for something they really don't want, just to appease the uninformed masses, "Oh we are doing everything we can think of to create more jobs!" What they are actually doing is destroying citizens' independence willfully and intentionally. This is NO accident!
The economy will turn around on the next election night when SOCIALIST Barack Hussein Obama does not receive the majority of electoral college votes. And not one, single second sooner!
Solo| 11.23.11 @ 10:24AM
Good post, DTOM. You nailed it!
daddio| 11.24.11 @ 10:08AM
The thing I do not understand about their "vision" is if they destroy all private wealth creation, where do they think they will get tax money from to continue their ways? If there are no jobs being created, and no wealth being created, then there are no taxes being collected, and thus no way to fund their way of life? Or am I thinking to much again?
Mormon Girl| 11.23.11 @ 9:19AM
I predict Mitt will win Iowa!
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 9:20AM
Based on exactly what?
Al Adab| 11.23.11 @ 11:59AM
Iowa will not deliver any electoral votes to the GOP candidate. Why should we care who they might think the GOP should run? Should CA, NY, NJ, Mass or others like IL have any say whatsoever in the ultimate nominee?
Pelligrino| 11.23.11 @ 12:50PM
Thank you, Al Adab. Last night on Fox News (Greta v.S. segment) Britt Hume was opining on the debates and who will be the GOP nominee. His very telling comment, "After Iowa and New Hampshire, several of these [meaning several of the 8 GOP candidates] will already be dropping out due to lack of funding."
You pose the right issue. Do Illinois GOP voters get asked? Those in Nebraska or Kansas? Alabama? North Carolina?
The presidential decision in these primaries will already be sewn up by the time we get to YOUR state's primary date.
This supposed "fair" means of choosing a candidate is anything but fair. It's mind-boggling daffy.
I bet there is not one New Hampshire registered GOP voter (already registered) who even reads this article today. Yet a NH voter's vote carries 50-times the value of your vote.
Mike Rogers | 11.23.11 @ 3:58PM
NH activist and blogger, at your service.
You BETCHA we pay attention.
No pulling of wool over eyes here.
Don'tTazeMeBro| 11.25.11 @ 9:12AM
Mike Rogers, I don't doubt your conservative credentials, but its too bad that the New Hampshire primary has been taken over by carpet-bagger liberals who have immigrated there from Massachusetts. It is for that reason that I think conservatives in the later primaries need to start disregarding the New Hampshire primaries completely. We don't want New Hampshire thrusting another McCain on us.
BTW, I looked at your website, and it is very good.
W| 11.23.11 @ 1:20PM
Al Adab
Excellent point. We have these minor states like New Hampshire and Iowa selecting the Republican nominee. There should be a rescheduling of the primaries so that states important to our election, such as Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Texas, select the nominee.
Al Adab| 11.23.11 @ 2:17PM
Thanks W:
I would give great weight to the preference of Ohio or Florida as well as Virginia this year. Those are the states where the electoral votes MUST come from for the GOP to prevail. Not one state that McCain carried will vote for Obama so the GOP must capture those above in order to win. Their voice is much more significant than Iowa or NH.
W| 11.23.11 @ 2:29PM
Al Adab
Every Rep who campainged in Iowa always had to support ethanol, a waste of money.
Happy Tanksgiving to you and your family.
Al Adab| 11.23.11 @ 3:13PM
W:
Indeed true more pandering to special interests.
My best to you and yours for a Blessed Thanksgiving. May God preserve our endangered Liberty always.
markenoff| 11.27.11 @ 8:10PM
Abolish open primaries.
Paul Bot| 11.23.11 @ 10:35AM
I predict Mitt will get the Bob Bennett treatment.
C Smith| 11.23.11 @ 11:53AM
"Joseph[Smith], a good natured, lazy boy, suffering from a bad heredity physically and psychically, began to have visions which seem to have accompanied epileptoid seizures…"
MORMONS: [The Encyclopedia Britannica, Thirteenth Edition, London, vol. 18, pp. 842-843, 1926]… a religious sect founded by Joseph Smith… born… December 1805 at Sharon… Vermont, from which place… his parents, who like his grandparents were superstitious, neurotic, seers of visions, and believers in miraculous cures and in heavenly voices and direct revelation, removed to New York, where they settled on a small farm… Joseph, a good natured, lazy boy, suffering from a bad heredity physically and psychically, began to have visions which seem to have accompanied epileptoid seizures… from which he recovered apparently before he became of age. The boy’s father was a digger for hidden treasure… the son became a crystal gazer and by the use of a “peep-stone” discovered the whereabouts of pretended hidden treasure.
He [Smith] said… that on the night of the 21st of September 1823 the angel Moroni appeared to him three times, and told him that the Bible of the western continent, the supplement to the New Testament, was buried on a hill called Cumorah, now commonly known as Mormon Hill….
It was not until the 22nd of September of 1827 that (as he said) he dug up, on the hill near Manchester, a stone box, in which was a volume… made of thin gold plates… and fastened together by three gold rings. The plates were covered with small writing [supposedly of the reformed Egyptian tongue]… with the golden book Smith claimed that he found a breastplate of gold and a pair of supernatural spectacles, consisting of two crystals set in a silver bow, and called “Urim and Thummin”; by aid of these the mystic characters could be read. Being himself unable to read or write fluently, Smith employed as amanuenses: first Martin Harris… then his own wife, Emma; after the middle of April 1829, Oliver Cowdery, a blacksmith and school teacher, and David Whitmer; to them , from behind a curtain, he dictated a translation, for the printing and publishing of which Martin Harris paid, in spite of the continued opposition of his wife to the scheme. An edition of 5000 copies of The Book of Mormon was printed early in 1830… Soon afterwards, according to Smith, the plates disappeared, being taken away by the angel Moroni.
The Book of Mormon, in which Joseph Smith was declared to be God’s “prophet,” with all power and entitled to all obedience, professes to give the history of America from its first settlement by a colony of “Jaredites” from among the crowd dispersed by the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel down to the year 5 A.D.
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....ummin.html
carnot| 11.23.11 @ 7:01PM
The Stan Laurel crowd adds some more intolerance to its Libertarian list!
Peppermint Tea| 11.23.11 @ 9:20AM
Neal is dead on with his assessment as Romney as a manager and one who cares what the NYT thinks of him, and might I add, one who will search for a consensus, not a Tea Party revolution toward the Constitution.
Which is ironic because his religion, which he will be judged on when the Obama Smear Machine is loosed, is perhaps the least "sensible" religion--not caring what the other 98% of the population think of their history, rites, doctrine, and political doctrine. If religious affiliation were equal to political temperament, Ron Paul would be the Mormon and Mitt Romney would be the Episcopalian.
David T| 11.23.11 @ 9:22AM
Mr. Freeman--Great piece. Thank you.
One comment: Gingrich, whom I believe to be the intellectual equal of Churchill, has yet to demonstrate the wisdom and statesmanship that marked Churchill's later years. There are signs of hope, however, and I relish the prospect of a Republican nominee who, for once, can articulate the Disciplinarian position in sharp contrast to the Retributionist approach.
One small point: I believe Hamilton was the principal author of the Federalist Papers.
Stuart Koehl| 11.23.11 @ 12:14PM
Churchill's wisdom and statesmanship are only apparent in retrospect, and were due largely to the moderating influence of other men who had the balls to stand up against his more wild and impractical ideas--in particular the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshall Sir Alan Brooke. At various times, even Brooke failed to restrain Churchill's enthusiasms, leading to disasters such as the intervention in Greece, the loss of Crete, diversionary actions in the Adriatic in 1944-45, the attempt to hold Singapore, the loss of Tobruk, etc.
In one very famous early war incident, only a very blunt memo from Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, Commanding Officer RAF Fighter Command, kept Churchill from frittering away the RAF's fighter strength by sending additional squadrons to reinforce collapsing French forces.
Churchill's recklessness and distorted judgment manifested itself on many occasions in his earlier career, most notably in his support for King Edward VIII over the Wallace Simpson affair.
In short, Churchill was a giant, but he was also just a man, and on occasion, a very erratic one at that. But he was right about the One Big Thing, and he was in the right place when he was needed.
Clinton Lovell| 11.23.11 @ 1:56PM
You need to work on your Churchill history. Churchill was the First Sea Lord until France fell. After which he became the PM. He would not have had charge of the RAF beforehand.
Stuart Koehl| 11.25.11 @ 8:51AM
Churchill was First Lord, not First Sea Lord. First Sea Lord is always a professional naval officer who provides technical advice to the First Lord, who is a civilian political appointee.
Churchill remained First Lord until the fall of the Chamberlain Government on 10 May 1940, at which he became both Prime Minister and Minister of Defense in a national unity government.
French Prime Minister Daladier requested additional RAF fighter squadrons be sent to France on 15 May 1940. By this time, the RAF fighter squadrons already in France had been decimated in attempting to stall the German advance through the Ardennes and across northern France.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, AOC Fighter Command, sent his famous letter to Churchill on 16 May 1940. The full text may be found here: http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-7.html
Please think more carefully before you presume to question a military historian on such an elementary point of information.
Ted| 11.23.11 @ 11:25AM
"Gingrich's undifferentiated enthusiasm represented for me the root problem of the autodidact: to the self-directed, all ideas appear to be created equal."
This is not a universal problem among all autodidacts. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was able to clearly see that not all ideas are created equal.
Stuart Koehl| 11.27.11 @ 11:42AM
A lot of Churchill's contemporaries said the same thing about him. According to one, Churchill had "a talkative mind".
Al Adab| 11.23.11 @ 12:03PM
At long last the parties divergent philosophies are becomming clear. One believes that citizens can and should be deprived of their property, their income, for what the party defines as the greater good. The other believes that ones' property is theirs by right and that government has only limited access to that property and only for clearly specified purposes.
Yet, to this day there are still too many republicans (as distinct from Conservatives) who feel that The Left simply over reaches and that a little, better managed social redistribution is legitimate. Until we finally "purge" such thinking from the GOP ranks, we will suffer the fate of the lukewarm or tepid. Those who would compromise with evil, stand for nothing and accept anything.
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 12:26PM
Al,
Nice to see you get this point. I recall that Nelson Rockefeller represented the "a little less government is more"vin the '60's Republican primaries. Statists have always been around and always will be. The names change because the old ones keep getting older and dying...
But it would be nice if we could get rid of them. It'd be nice if we could get rid of cockroaches, too. I am not holding my breath - I do agree with you, we just need to keep them in check.
rn| 11.23.11 @ 1:03PM
Hey, DTOM, as for getting rid of terrible nuisance insects, we got rid of the stink bugs, didn't we? Just in the last 5 months. Plague averted! (If you don't live in a mid Atlantic state, you won't get this. Some will understand.)
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 1:15PM
How'd you do it?
I DO know what you are talking about!
And I'm not in a mid-Atlantic state. And you, dear, obviously studied geography when Akron was the rubber capital of the country! (maybe?)
Margie| 11.23.11 @ 1:41PM
"So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My Mouth." Rev. 3:16.
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 1:46PM
If you have a point, I cannot divine it.
Al Adab| 11.23.11 @ 2:21PM
Thank you Margie, my point and reeference, exactly.
Margie| 11.23.11 @ 2:25PM
"Figures" was to DTOM.
Thanks, Al.
Al Adab| 11.23.11 @ 3:11PM
Margie,
Forgive me for overlooking to wish you and yours a Blessed Thanksgiving. May God preserve our endangered Liberty always.
Margie| 11.23.11 @ 3:49PM
Thanks, but it is a day no different than the rest to us, and we are thankful every day for our freedoms.
Speaking of freedoms, my posts to Ken are being removed here.
I guess Ken is the new Popey.
He can say whatever he pleases~ try to destroy someone with false charges, say he has proof~ then suddenly he changes his story and doesn't have "the proof."
Makes me SICK.
All I have to say is:
"He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit." Prov. 12:17.
Have great Thanksgiving, every day!
Al Adab| 11.23.11 @ 4:18PM
Indeed Margie, every day. Thanks not only for our Freedom but of course our salvation. "Stand fast therefor in the Liberty where Christ has made you free...".
Mike| 11.23.11 @ 8:15PM
All your posts should be removed. Who want to hear your problems with Ken.
Margie| 11.24.11 @ 1:22PM
That should go both ways then, punk.
Mike| 11.26.11 @ 1:38PM
Fine, good riddance, leave,take your filthy mouth and pal with you.
Margie| 11.26.11 @ 9:35PM
Seems you have an issue with your punctuation there Clint, I mean Mike. As well as having an issue with the TRUTH.
Clint| 11.27.11 @ 5:24AM
I Got $1000.00 That Says That Mike Post Ain't Mine, American Spectator's Resident Zany Crazed Anti-Catholic Joisey White Trash Bigot, Margie.
See A Religious Counselor And A Psychiatrist.
Mike| 11.27.11 @ 12:43PM
Not Clint.
Are you obsessed with Clint.
Just another of your many fans here.
Margie| 11.23.11 @ 2:24PM
Figures.
Mike Rogers | 11.23.11 @ 4:04PM
That is why they are also known as "The Evil Party, and "The Stupid Party".
The left simply want control, and believe (or claim) that redistribution can work.
The conventional GOP does not understand they are in an existential struggle for the republic.
We have to throw out the entire ruling class and restore limited government.
Mimi| 11.25.11 @ 10:35AM
Al Adab...Your words , are profound! I don't think that we Conservatives this time will cave.
Having the Liberal-Left invade to the extent they have....The outrage is just too great.
This time we will prevail...The Roves out there NEED to get it and soon...We have the numbers!
A Newt presidency, with his teaching ability, future PLAN, and statemenship qualities..... A Romney leaning to the right as V.P. may just be the Best ticket to carry the country out of this abyss!!
Stuart Koehl| 11.23.11 @ 12:08PM
In effect, Freeman implies the executive has become too large for a single man to manage. The President has vested in him the roles of both Chief of State (equivalent to a limited monarch or parliamentary president) and head of the government (equivalent to prime minister in a parliamentary system), which creates tremendous tension, since the former is supposed to have a unifying role and the latter is inherent political (hence divisive). Modern presidents have used the Vice Presidency in an ad hoc way to mitigate some of the tension by turning over actual management of large portions of the executive branch to their VPs.
This parallels the German General Staff system devised in the early 19th century, whereby, at every echelon of military command from regiment up, there would be a commanding officer assisted by a chief of staff trained by and belonging to the General Staff. The commanding officer was the inspirational leader who devised plans and issued orders; the Chief of Staff was the technician who performed "reality checks" on the plans and worked out all the details necessary for their execution.
Applied to the American political system, it has much to recommend it, considering that the bureaucracy has grown so large and unwieldy since the days when Washington had five cabinet officers who oversaw a few dozen clerks.
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 1:04PM
Stuart,
Seems that there is a large co-variance between incompetent Presidents and calls that 'the job is too big for one man!'
Last time it was during Carter's term. Not Reagan's, Clinton's, or GW Bush's.
Small men make their jobs look too big.
Stuart Koehl| 11.25.11 @ 8:56AM
You seem to ignore that G.W. Bush used Dick Cheney as ex officio super chief of staff, wrangling disputes between cabinet departments and heading up red team assessments. Bill Clinton, who disliked detail work, used Al Gore as his head wonk to work out the nitty gritty. Even Reagan used G.H.W. Bush as special envoy and tapped him for his insights into areas such as intelligence operations.
I doubt the Emperor Diocletian would consider himself a small man for creating the Tetrarchy. It may not have worked in the long term, but it saved the Roman Empire, and it only failed because it needed a big man at the top to make it work.
I also submit that you totally failed to understand the concept of dual command, but that's another story.
DTOM| 11.25.11 @ 1:20PM
Stuart;
No, I just repeatedly fail to understand why you believe your very detailed, internally-consistent non-answer to my question addresses my question. It does not. And you do not.
There is no escaping these facts:
1. I asked whether calls that the Presidency is "Too big for one man" increase as the apparent size, i.e. leadership effectiveness, of a given President decreases.
2. I made no implication of any President's utilization of his Vice-President to assist his Presidency. None. Your inference that I did not understand it was a fabrication from the whole cloth of your brain based on "facts" residing solely inside of your imagination. You have no information with which to make any judgement about my understanding of the concept dual command. None.
At Thanksgiving, do your family members spend a lot of time telling you to stop starting arguments where there are none? Or do they just stay away?
If they do, you might want to re-read my question and then think about how your insulting response neither answered nor even addressed it. Instead, you used it as another opportunity to display your encyclopedic fact base (Or do you just Google that stuff?) of non-relevant facts.
Is it painful for you to be surrounded by so many billions of your inferiors?
Stuart Koehl| 11.27.11 @ 8:32AM
DTOM,
It is indeed painful, but I have learned to live with the pain, to which your contribution is only a very minor increment.
Jabber3| 11.23.11 @ 1:10PM
Gingrich is the only Speaker in the House’s 222 year history to have been disciplined for ethics violations. During his term he had 84 ethics charges filed against him and in January of 1997 the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich which included a $300,000 fine. Special counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich had violated tax law and lied to the investigating panel. He was asked to resign but refused, however, in November of 1998 after he saw the writing on the wall he resigned from the House in disgrace. No House member has ever been elected president.
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 1:42PM
Jabber3,
You are right about the Congressmen not being elected as long as you don't count:
James Madison (was Jefferson's Sec of State after being Representative)
Andrew Jackson (was Senator after being Representative)
William Henry Harrison (was Senator after being Representative)
John Tyler (was Senator after being Representative)
James Knox Polk (was Tennesee Governor after being Representative)
Millard Fillmore (was Vice President after being Representative)
Franklin Pierce (was Senator after being Representative)
James Buchanan (was Senator after being Representative)
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson (not really elected as President)
Rutherford Hayes (was governor of Ohio after being Representative)
James Garfield
William McKinley (was governor of Ohio after being Representative)
JFK (was Senator after being Representative)
LBJ (was Senator after being Representative)
Richard Nixon (was Senator after being Representative)
George HW Bush (UN Ambassador, CIA Director, RWR VP before election)
If your point was no Congressional Representative was elected to the Presidency, okay. But you still have to forget Lincoln and Garfield.
Just don't tell Michele Bachman, and please, please, please, don't tell the Ron Paul people. Don't go there! You'll be sorry...
And if you want to say that no sitting Representative has been elected into the White House, just throw in "in modern times."
Maybe, I am being a little too precise, but what the hey!
Call me "anal" and I will explain to you that that is a term the unprepared call the prepared. I'm just sayin'...
DTOM| 11.23.11 @ 1:52PM
Oh and another thing. I see that you posted the exact same post on another TAS article.
Whatsamatta, you tired?
Al Adab| 11.23.11 @ 4:21PM
Talk to Henry Clay about it. I suppose the operative phrase would be, "No sitting or serving Representative has been elected directly to the Presidency from the House." A better parsed caveat.
Dick Nome| 11.23.11 @ 6:44PM
Sitting Senators and VPs don't generally get elected either. Bush 41 was the only sitting VP to succeed his Pres. in 200 years. The others did so due to the Pres having died in office. Sitting Senators are bad candidates and rarely elected. Kennedy was an exception, but was running against a sitting VP and former Senator. Last time around we had two very weak candidates and Senators as well. Both Liberals or Progressives, take your choice.
Intelligent Design| 11.23.11 @ 3:35PM
Governor Perry is the best choice for president.
Dave| 11.23.11 @ 5:51PM
Newt would be as bad a president as Obama has been, maybe worse. No one in my family will vote for him. Most would rather re-elect Obama than put Newt in office. I would.
carnot| 11.23.11 @ 7:05PM
Your family clearly hates America.
Dave| 11.23.11 @ 7:32PM
LOL. My family clearly loves America and would never elect some just because of their party affiliation. Newt is bad for America. He's shown that. Proven it. Find someone other than Newt to cling to.
idalily| 11.24.11 @ 12:56PM
Seriously? You and your family would vote for someone who has PROVEN to be an incompetent, dangerous man, who is driving our country over a cliff, and lying to us with every word he speaks, who has NO PLAN to fix our economy and NO INTENTION to fix our economy? You'd vote for that lunatic instead of someone who has a successful record of cutting spending and leading Congress, someone who is clearly well-educated, knowledgeable, and articulate, and has on his website a clear, spelled out PLAN for fixing our ills ? Seriously? What that tells me is that you and your family would not vote for the GOP no matter who the nominee is.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.23.11 @ 6:11PM
Intelligent Design.....
no s***t...but he ain't good at one liners.
As EVERYONE KNOWS...we need another President good with one-liners.
Proud Mormon| 11.23.11 @ 7:18PM
Gingrich shot himself in the foot over illegal immigration just like Perry further dividing right-wing fanatics in the party and weakening opposition to Romney. Mitt will win Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida and later California in landslides. Who cares about the Gamecock State?
idalily| 11.24.11 @ 12:59PM
Spoken like a MittBot. At least Gingrich had the guts to tell us his views, to offer ideas, and tell the truth as he sees it about immigration solutions. What is Mitt's plan/opinion/take? WE DON'T KNOW because he dodged the question. That behavior, typical of Mitt, is the political equivalent of a used car salesman when you ask about the transmission. No thanks. Until Mitt starts offering solutions and ideas instead of politically slick, meaningless platitudes, I'll take Newt over Mitt. Especially after he doubled down on RomneyCare.
Niniane| 11.23.11 @ 8:33PM
Gingrich received my sneaker thrown at the TV last night. While Perry called me heartless for opposing immigration, Newtie just called me inhumane.
I am sick of hearing continually that the American people cannot accomplish deporting millions of illegal aliens. We can preserve our sovereignty, not because it is easy, but it is hard, per JFK. We are a sovereign country and for the political types trying to side-step or dilute that, they do not deserve to lead this country. Over the years we have had so many "leaders" who pat us little people on the head and tell us to trust their wisdom in giving away this country, its reputation, sovereignty and freedom bit by bit.
Buck Ofama| 11.23.11 @ 10:32PM
OK, so you prefer the c0cksucker Ovomit with his illegal alien monkey-relatives?
idalily| 11.24.11 @ 1:15PM
Niniane, you might be sick of hearing it, but the truth is truth. WE ARE BROKE. We cannot afford the manpower, not at the local, state or federal level to find all the illegals, process the paperwork, and hold them in jails while we pay the lawyers to fight the inevitable lawsuits, before we are able (maybe) to ship them back home. Nor can we endure the endless and brutal attacks we will face as a result of our "heartlessness" and the sob stories played over and over on the MSM about the poor, helpless people we are sending back to tyranny, war and poverty. It's a PR nightmare conservatives cannot afford and would lose. Not to mention the international relations nightmare if/when other countries simply refuse to take back these people. What are we going to do? Push granny over the border? Fly the plane round and round Honduras while we tangle with the government that won't let granny's plane land? WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. Any conservative who thinks we have a spending problem has to come to terms with this. An "enforce the law we have" philosophy is all very well, but enforce it HOW? With what government employees? Paid out of what funds? Please, fellow conservatives, get real about what can be done here.
As for those who think just upping the fine on businesses will solve the problem, uh, no. Companies are required now to take copies of all paperwork (DL, Green Card, SSN card, etc) from every employee they hire, and are fined if they don't. Guess what? Most of those papers are FAKE. How is a small business going to tell the difference between a real SSN Card and a fake one? Most can't. And the way to verify authenticity of documents with the INS is a hundred times worse than dealing with the IRS. It's a logistics nightmare. Any conservative who thinks we can afford expulsion of illegals already here is (IMO) thinking like a liberal. They don't mind spending government money, as long as it equates with their particular philosophy of what to spend it on.
Gingrich is right, sadly. A path to citizenship is the only viable alternative, BUT ONLY IF we secure the border, get rid of anchor babies and welfare, and find a way to help businesses genuinely and efficiently verify the legality of people's documents.
Quartermaster| 11.25.11 @ 6:02PM
We don't have to round them up. Make it impossible for an illegal to hold a job and they will leave on their own accord. We've already seen how that works in states that have tightened the screws. That's why the Obummer Maladminstration is suing several states because they are making it hard for part of his base to stick around.
idalily| 11.27.11 @ 1:05PM
And how do you propose doing this? Employers are already required to obtain proof from employees of their legal status (DL, GC, SSN), but since many of those papers are fake, it hasn't done much to curb illegals. Is a small business owner also supposed to be an expert on forgery?
I agree with deporting those we happen to find, but going after illegals to deport them is unrealistic and any candidate who says that's what they'll do is making promises they can't keep.
markenoff| 11.27.11 @ 8:38PM
Use "no match" letters as an immigration enforcement tool. When an employer submits a new employees name and SSN to the SSA, if the name and number don't match the employer recieves a letter from the SSA point this fact out. They were suspended in 2007 but resumed earlier this year. The SSA sent out over 9 million in 2007. The INS should follow up on no match letters focusing initially on companies that recieve a large number of them.
Anyone working using someone else's SSN is engaged in identity theft, a felony. If someone uses your SSN the income attributed to the SSN from their job will show up in the IRS database and you could be liable for income tax on income earned by someone who stole your identity.
It's time to put the interest of US citizens first. We're the ones who pay the politicians.
idalily| 12.1.11 @ 3:10PM
I'm fine with this.
markenoff| 11.27.11 @ 8:27PM
There is a path to citizenship for the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 illegal aliens in this country and it starts at the US consulate in their country of origin. They need to go back and get in line like all the legal immigrants do (my wife included, Brazilian).
Have you ever stopped to wonder why they came here illegally? Maybe its because they couldn't pass the background check because they have convictions for violent crimes in their country of origin. Maybe its because they couldn't pass the medical check and are bringing contagious third world diseases like tubercliosis, typhoid, typhus etc with them.
If we can put a man on the moon we can round up all the illegals. We have been invaded and its time to do something about it. End the anchor baby problem first.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 5 clearly gives Congress the authority to make laws to implement and enforce the 14th amendment. A simple bill through Congress signed by the President defining "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to only include the children of US citizens and those in the country legally and excluding children of those with diplomatic credentials would go a long way to reducing the anchor baby problem.
POST American| 11.23.11 @ 9:51PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
One and all, in this the 11th hour of the
Globalist USURY world TREASON OP
---look around you. ---FIND yourselves
a worthy contender.
These CFR put ups aren't even worth
the time to refute.
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
thesquareglobe| 11.24.11 @ 8:07AM
Newt isn't Churchill; he's Thatcher in a wig.
Hate him, love him; he's genius with admittedly a lot of 'baggage'.
Personally, I feel Gingrich is the sandwich between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Clinton.
Take that for what it's worth...
Gazinya | 11.24.11 @ 10:39AM
I also rolled my eyes and clicked my tongue when I heard Newt was joining the race. "That is not what we need", I would say. I had thoughts of Sarah Palin but worried, 'if they pillard her this severly as a private citizen, what would they do as a presidential candidate?'
As I have listened to the candidates they all have said parts of what I wanted in a complete candidate. The fact that, so far anyway, we have not been given a complete candidate I must pay close attention, not to what the supporters of any candidate may say but to what I hear them say.
Ron Paul is correct on many points, especially on the 'if we want to go to war then 'Declare War'. This, since Truman, totally unconstitutional use of military lives and resources to 'poke a finger' at the enemy is unacceptable. 'Hats' in both parties like the idea of committing votes to go to war without committing themselves to the war. A 'Declaration' would disallow 'I voted for it before I voted against it'. But Mr. Pauls foreign policy would have better served this nation in 1917 not now. To me, it is paramount that we support the nation of Isreal to the hilt. This is a political practicality and a theological dictate of mine. Mr. Pauls, 'let them all eat grass', puts him in my 'somewhere there is a place for him' but not the President list. This list also includes Romney, Bachmann, Santorum. Cain, even though at first blush I thought he might work, needs to re-think what it is he really wants then express it more succinctly.
With Newt I have this thought and please forgive the presumptive comparison. I was reading the Bible and I noticed how vilivied, justifiably, the new church, along with the apostles, were that the word of Jesus was being preached to the Gentiles by Paul. This Saul, now Paul, had caused even the murder of Christians to be executed. Not exactly what one looks to in the evangelical pulpit as 'without baggage'. Like I said, I listened to Mr. Gingrich and he convinced me that it may be possible that he has, through his life experience, as undesirable as it may seem to those who have lived above such failings, had a 'road to Demascus' revelation. I will see and listen but I would suggest that others be not like me and look to far back into a persons history if it appears that there has been some kind of 'physic change' followed by a 'spiritual (political) awakening'. In my humble opinion
Mormon Girl| 11.24.11 @ 10:47AM
Mitt is gaining in the polls here in Iowa. Our voluntary work is beginning to pay off, victory in sight, BYU Cougar Strong! Mitt Romney for President.
Salt Lake Ken| 11.24.11 @ 10:51AM
Second the motion, Utah Utes for Romney!
Simon Templar| 11.25.11 @ 12:38AM
Great maybe you and proud mormon boy should get together and have a few little Mitts and take great joy in destroying conservatives, particularly the social conservatives.
Your rush to lose this election is also underway as well as your Iowa success, given today's Rasmussen polls whereby Mitt is losing to Obama by six percentage points. Congratulations.
Mike| 11.26.11 @ 1:40PM
Simon, you are the one who wants to lose, all you do is complain and whine, and offer nothing positive.
creeper| 11.25.11 @ 1:44PM
So what if he wins in Iowa? In case you had forgotten, Iowa went for Huckabee in 2008. We Iowans are good-hearted people but we don't know squat about politics.
Simon Templar| 11.24.11 @ 1:25PM
"The good news is that the Disciplinarians will have a champion next year, too. He will have been tested in debate, vetted by the media, scrutinized in retail primaries and conservatized by a nominating process that has purged Retributionist tendencies comprehensively from the Grand Old Party."
Neal, please just who is that going to be? Is there someone you expect to jump ino the race at the last minute? Please inform us of this "vetted", wonderful electable person of the GOP? Who, Neal? Waiting, Neal.....
Oh, you could not mean one of those already running?
Neal, that person will be so thoroughly "vetted" by the MSM with your idiotic cooperation, they will have lost the general election by the end of the night that they are nominated.
Golly gee, I guess the electorate and the general public will just have some kind of bump on the head and get amnesia, eh? They will just forget all the smear, lies, distortions, and negativity dumped on these people? All the political damage to their images and reputations will just miraculously disappear to never be heard again or seen. The MSM will play nice and give them a good and fair run for president after nomination.
Of course, that candidate will be conservatized, like a "born again" conservative..praise the Lord and the GOP!
It really is no longer a mystery as to why the Republican party and "conservatives" continue to lose....
Mike| 11.26.11 @ 1:42PM
Do you have anything constructive to add besides your daily whining?
Margie| 11.26.11 @ 9:40PM
Do you, Troll? I have not seen one comment by you that is constructive here, not one thought other than to "pick on" conservatives and Christians.
Buzz off.
Mike| 11.27.11 @ 12:46PM
Who invited you Margie? What do you know about conservatives or anything elese since all you do is complain about someone named Ken and call everybody liars.
Simon is unlike you smart enough to reply in a constructive manner.
Simon Templar| 11.28.11 @ 12:53AM
Mike, I made several critical points that were delivered in what people call sarcasm. Apparently, they escaped you, you were unwilling to recognize them as you disagreed, or you are just playing smartass because I stepped on your toes some time ago. I think the latter.
Now, Mikey, the main points of my comment have been echoed, ironically this past week, by Rush, Gingrich, and Luntz who usually do not lend themselves to whining. If you are unable to understand what I was communicating about how this campaign is being handled, analyzed, and presented the just ask me and I will explain it further.
Mike| 11.28.11 @ 8:30AM
About what I expected from you simple Simon. You are just too smart for me. Such complicated analysis. Maybe try writing clearly and avoid what your think is sarcasm or wit.Regards, Mikey.
Simon Templar| 11.29.11 @ 12:48PM
Or perhaps, Mikey, you could develop your mind and intellect to get to the point that you could appreciate more sophisticated prose. Kinda what I expected of you, Mikey. Yes, given your response, apparently I am smarter than you.
Yasin| 11.24.11 @ 2:39PM
Gov Rick Perry was articulate and superb in the CNN debate.
Mitt Romney was as usual.
Newt Gingrich talked like a history professor.
Cain was stupid and made no sense.
Michelle Bachmann was informative.
Rick Santoruma was agressive and made no points.
Jon Huntsman failed and is done for 2012.
Yasin| 11.24.11 @ 2:43PM
Gov Rick Perry is rising and could close the deal, winning the GOP node and defeat Obama in 2012.
He is the only candidate who had a clear vision and made sense. If Gov Rick Perry does not get the GOP nomination, Obama will be a shoe-in candidate. We need to unite and support Gov Rick Perry;otherwise liberals will control America for another four years.
Proud Mormon| 11.24.11 @ 4:23PM
There is a move afoot by so-called social conservatives to undermine Mitt in Iowa. Smashing the right wing of the Republican Party will bring me great joy even more so than beating the Democrats.
Simon Templar| 11.25.11 @ 12:31AM
Proud Troll says....Smashing the right wing of the Republican Party will bring me great joy even more so than beating the Democrats.
You said a mouthful there....gave yourself away.
Let's just say you really are a Mitt supporter and obviously a progressive liberal moderate Republican. You just exposed what we suspected all along about moderate Republicans and Mitt Romney. Thanks for the clarification.
Get lost liberal troll.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.24.11 @ 6:51PM
OK. I get it now.........or maybe I should say I'll admit it now....
After reading some related material about the last debate on a popular conservative website, it is clear that Mit and Newt and a couple of others can stutter, momentarily misstate their views/proposed policies, have a brain freeze, flub up, or just plain blow it........
But Rick Perry better not even swallow crooked..............
And I innocently thought that the conservatives wouldn't eat their own.....
Guess you learn something every day.
But I will still vote for ANYONE but Obummer or Mit.......
Margie| 11.24.11 @ 7:26PM
"And I innocently thought that the conservatives wouldn't eat their own....."
Welll welcome aboard to reality Rip van Texicanette!
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.24.11 @ 6:55PM
I still believe Rick Perry ( yes, a dread TEXAN) has the specific knowledge, skill, and experiencethat best fit the job of president for this specific "moment" in time......
Nuff' said.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.24.11 @ 10:22PM
Well, I have this habit of generally tending to look for the good in people, mainly because I believe that there's still hope, redemption, and salvation readily available to anyone in this world who chooses it...........even when evil stares me in the face.
Often, unfortunately, there's not a lot of goodness left in some people these days.......
Margie| 11.25.11 @ 10:36PM
No, there isn't..... is there?
Margie| 11.25.11 @ 10:38PM
But I sure know it when I see it.. it's called the Spirit of God, by the Grace of God.
MikeG| 11.26.11 @ 12:14PM
You are Exhibit A, Margie
Margie| 11.26.11 @ 9:42PM
Troll: How old are you, five?
gearjammer| 11.25.11 @ 9:04AM
GOP needs a ticket that secures RINO vote. They are the key to saving America. You conservatives must learn to be pragmatic and compromise.
Ken MacAlister Jr.| 11.25.11 @ 4:50PM
Michael Medved/Smerconish is that really you?
Ken MacAlister Jr.| 11.25.11 @ 4:50PM
Michael Medved/Smerconish is that really you?
John| 11.25.11 @ 3:15PM
John McCain = Mitt Romney = Newt Gingrich =Herman Cain. No way we can gave those RINOs.
Rick Perry=Ronald Reagan!!!!! A sold conservative.
RonRonDoRon| 11.25.11 @ 4:41PM
"sold conservative"?
Typo, Freudian slip, or accurate description? (Just askin' - I have no opinion on this.)
RonRonDoRon| 11.25.11 @ 4:16PM
Unwavering political principles are a great virtue. In politics, however, and especially in the actual process of representative democratic governance, what matters is results.
I would vote for either Romney or Gingrich (while holding my nose, if necessary), in the hope that there will be a conservative majority in both houses to hold their feet to the fire so that conservative results can be achieved. Overnight transformation of the country's governance is neither possible nor desirable - we just need to consistently keep moving in the right direction.
Neither the voters nor the people they vote into government are, or ever will be, angels. Don't succumb to a right-wing version of utopianism. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
gary siebel| 11.25.11 @ 5:51PM
You obviously need to get out more, especially out of your little cocoon of navel gazing and imagining "We Are The World," when you are, in fact, a distinct minority. When was the last time you spoke with someone random -- I mean, aside from somebody at your country club or on the golf course, or perhaps a cab driver? Aside from your correct assertion that Gingrich is not quite the towering genius he imagines himself to be, you haven't got a clue what the average person is thinking!
That bit about left/middle/right is way off the mark. The institutions will remain long after you, me, and everyone else in this forum are long gone. This is just a phase, just like slavery and the Civil War were phases. Also off the mark is your characterization of disciplinarians/retributionists -- the entire OWS and Tea Party are premised upon the belief that things can, and should be, better, ya goofball.
Helen| 11.25.11 @ 7:46PM
ANYBODY BUT ROMNEY! ANYBODY BUT ROMNEY! ANYBODY BUT ROMNEY! ANYBODY BUT ROMNEY! ANYBODY BUT ROMNEY! ANYBODY BUT ROMNEY! ANYBODY BUT ROMNEY! ARE YOU LISTENING, AMERICA????????
RonRonDoRon| 11.26.11 @ 3:49PM
THAT WAS USEFUL!!!!
m| 11.25.11 @ 8:28PM
Newt Gingrich has won the debate three times in a row. He has done very well on the debate better than Romney and Perry. I will not vote for Romney if he does get the nominee. It is the liberal Democrats and the liberal news media wanted Romney to run. Romney is hurting the Republican Party already and we will lose the election because of Romney. No more RINO'S.
POST American| 11.26.11 @ 1:03AM
---SUB-Mitt ROME-knee
---ME-SHALL BALK--MEN
---TTT-Rick PAIR--he
---KNEW-IT 'Getting Rich'
And NOW with rumors that
Dick CHAIN-knee himself might jump in.
MEANWHILE, as we go into our 12th year
of aggressive CHEM-trailing, and our 10th
month of world media cover-up of the
FUKISHIMA world depop op,
the awakened will settle for nothing less than
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.26.11 @ 7:27AM
Race war beginning, folks.
Check this out:
http://townhall.com/columnists.....nst_romney
Margie| 11.26.11 @ 9:43PM
So what else is new, Reprobate?
somnolence| 11.26.11 @ 2:11PM
UNCONVINCING. TOTALLY UNCONVINCING.
somnolence| 11.26.11 @ 2:17PM
As far as a "race war" against Romney, Romney never had a chance at the total black vote anyway, lol. So there is another unconvincing argument. I have pretty well accepted the fact that this mediocre stooge in the White House IS going to be reelected, and a large part of the blame will go on GOP "know-it-all" shoulders. The very painting of Cain and Bachmann with a broad brush as abominable set this chain of events in motion. The GOP should have been able to dislodge Obama by a margin of 10% popular vote. It will be much closer than that, but he will prevail.
Bob| 11.26.11 @ 3:14PM
Well now, Newt's half-life as a top contender for the GOPuke nomination has come and gone and now the decay process begins in earnest. How stupid can someone be? He backs illegal immigration amnesty (Perry) and when the right-wing xenophobic sludge engulfs him he tries to slither out of it with a yes/no answer (Romney). Newt is half Perry-half Romney therefore all gone. Score two for Pedro. Bye-Bye Speaker of the Blouse. It's now your patriotic duty to cheat on Callista, go ahead you have my blessing.
Chuck| 11.26.11 @ 3:30PM
This latest breakdown by a GOP frontrunner again dislodged by weakness on illegal immigration means Romney will be the nominee. But and I do mean but, 81% of us want a third party, I mean a real strong third party that can beat both major parties. But will the leader of this third party be another wishy washy bootlicker on illegal immigration if so don't bother or a fire breathing dragon posting a no vacancy sign at the border and whose motto deport now every last one of them finally ridding the country of this problem, if so you have my vote.
RED RAVEN| 11.26.11 @ 5:22PM
"All of us-- right, left, and middle-- recognize that something serious and possibly epochal has gone wrong with our fragile Republic."
Who, on the Left, (active believer, ameable politico, useful idiot, or perennial parasite) is interested in anything but turning the U.S. into a quasi-communist overlordship, with "voting rights" to the left of labor unions?
Otherwise, thank you for an incisive and entertaining article.
Frank| 11.26.11 @ 8:25PM
The right is either doing nothing or is complicit with the left in leading us towards bankruptcy and anarchy. Will a real leader man or woman please stand up?
Chuck| 11.26.11 @ 8:28PM
Doing nothing is a form of complicity.
markenoff| 11.27.11 @ 8:41PM
We're all whistling past the graveyard. Things have gotten too bad for one election to change anything. Start stocking up on ammo and get ready for the collapse. It will be sudden and it will be cruel
POST American| 11.27.11 @ 9:36PM
---And, even as we write, learning
Gingrich is now coming out for what he
stands for, with his 'agenda' for full
legalization of the overwhelming
illegal aliens population.
CUT TO THE CHASE
North American franchise slum 'union'
with Globalist collapsed Mexico, certainly
before 2015.
Never debated, NEVER voted on by the
good people of America ---OR MEXICO.
Been 'warmly' in the works, no doubt,
since CFR front BUSH Sr. was in office.
Like the equally sleazy EU integration
---done entirely by stealth.
The big picture?
FINAL destruction of American rights,
even sovereignty, as America goes into
RED China fronted Globalist receivershiip
---MASS relocations ---and 'aggressive'
EUGENICS management.
It's in the 'age-enda'.
It's part of the 'plan'.
--------------HUAC/ NUREMBERG --2012!
-----------------------It's part of the TRUTH. . .
florin| 11.27.11 @ 10:55PM
The author is a conservative so why would he vote for gingrich??? Romney is not a conservative either but gingrich has a seriously dysfuntional personality. He stands with and for liberals a lot of the time...Pelosi, Gore, Rockefeller, pro-abortion,pro-gay marriage Scozzafava. He viciously attacks conservatives when they don't measure up to his brilliance or when they don't submit to his ideas; he called Ryan's plan 'right wing social engineering' ... he is conservative when it serves him and then liberal when that serves him. The man's ego is massively distorted - he writes notes to himself about how brilliant he is - almost, like Obama, the savior of the world...this man will never beat Obama - I believe that Paul Ryan will step in when he sees what we have right now...maybe John Thune also, Mitch Daniels...Nikki Haley..we some really good young men and women of character who would make great leaders - without the disgusting baggage of gingrich or the flip flopping of both
Romney and Gingrich...let's not 'settle' - let's try to get those others to run...
Zak Klemmer| 12.1.11 @ 1:22PM
What the NY Times and Dukakis couldn't do to the "Reagan Revolution" G H W Bush and G W Bush did, namely discredit "Conservatism" by being pretenders of Conservative Republicanism while devoting their administrations to Big Government Statism. The only reformer I see is Ron Paul.