June 18, 2013 | 104 comments
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
June 11, 2013 | 215 comments
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
Obama’s relationships, just like Reagan’s, are relevant: Will Romney fight like Truman — or wimp out like Dewey?
“The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership—in the White House and in Congress — for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us.” — Ronald Reagan accepting the Republican presidential nomination, July 1980
“He had just one strategy — attack, attack, attack, carry the fight to the enemy’s camp.” — Historian David McCullough on Harry Truman’s upset 1948 win over Thomas E. Dewey
Why is Barack Obama’s life just like Ronald Reagan’s when it comes to the presidency?
What if Barack Obama had spent 20 years with the black Thomas Sowell as his mentor — instead of the black Jeremiah Wright?
Who died and left liberals in charge of defining the rules of acceptability in the 2012 campaign?
Why is the Romney campaign apparently deciding to play by those liberal media rules?
And what’s up with Speaker Boehner saying on ABC’s This Week:
“The issue is not Reverend Wright. The issue is the economy. This kind of nonsense shouldn’t happen. The election’s going be about the economy and getting Americans back to work.”
And Karl Rove, who said this on Fox News Sunday:
“Trying to dredge up Jeremiah Wright, right or wrong, after this issue was litigated four years ago by John McCain, who decided not to litigate it, was stupid. And so, you want to try and do things that are helpful, not hurtful.”
These questions and more come to mind as Governor Romney and his team abruptly fled the field of battle the other day after someone leaked (to the New York Times) a proposal to a pro-Romney SuperPAC that, as described by the Times,
…calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.
Like clockwork, the Governor whose head-on attacks on Newt Gingrich helped win him the nomination immediately caved to the predictable screeches of liberal outrage. Outrage over a proposed attack ad that in fact never actually existed.
Romney, recall, confronted with a Gingrich surge during the primaries never flinched when a pro-Romney SuperPAC did for real to Gingrich what was only being proposed for Obama. Suddenly Romney was no more Mr. Nice Guy — smilingly attacking Gingrich for whining when Gingrich angrily reacted for being attacked by Romney’s SuperPAC as an “influence peddler” “erratic” and someone who had resigned the Speakership “in disgrace.” Brutal anti-Gingrich commercials hit the air, like this one called “Baggage” in which Gingrich was pictured as unethical, cashing in on his political connections for big bucks, a pal of Nancy Pelosi and a supporter of abortion. And this one titled “Whoops” in which Gingrich was assailed for repeated mistakes of judgment.
Romney and his team had not a problem in the world with all this — and frankly they shouldn’t have. Politics ain’t bean bag, as Mr. Dooley once said, and Gingrich of all people should have been better prepared for inevitable attacks like this. He wasn’t. Game Romney.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
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.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
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?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?