June 18, 2013 | 105 comments
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
June 11, 2013 | 215 comments
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
Steve Schmidt, Mike Murphy, and the political consultant-big government complex.
(Page 2 of 4)
Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician. In April of 1940, when the Nazis were invading Norway, instead of leading a resistance movement Quisling launched a Nazi-backed coup against his own people. As the Nazis settled in to occupy Norway Quisling settled in to live the life of luxury as Norway’s “Minister President” — and avidly assisted as a participant in what is known to history as “the Final Solution.”
His betrayal of his own people was so stark that within days of Quisling’s assumption of power the Times of London wrote an editorial saying of those who cooperated in betraying their own country that there were “Quislings everywhere.” The paper went on to say:
To writers, the word Quisling is a gift from the gods. If they had been ordered to invent a new word for traitor… they could hardly have hit upon a more brilliant combination of letters. Aurally it contrives to suggest something at once slippery and tortuous.
Days after that editorial another London paper, the Daily Mail, picked up the term. And shortly after that the BBC chimed in, rocketing the word into the global vocabulary.
Nineteen days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, no less than British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was in Washington to address a Joint Session of Congress on the war. Master of language as he was, Churchill found a way to use the suddenly popular new word:
Hope has returned to the hearts of scores of millions of men and women, and with that hope there burns the flame of anger against the brutal, corrupt invader. And still more fiercely burn the fires of hatred and contempt for the filthy Quislings whom he has suborned.
Churchill pulled no punches.
Nor will we.
The real problem the Republican Party and, yes, America itself faces is hardly Rush Limbaugh. Are these guys joking?
The real problem the Republican Party faces is the rise of a political consulting class that feeds off the beast that is the federal Leviathan.
Take a look again at that New York Times story about Steve Schmidt. The business with the nice house along the shores of “the glassine lake ringed by snow-dusted mountains, the late-morning quiet.… riding around the lake in his S.U.V., wandering a pristine beach, puttering around his office, and enjoying a long wine-soaked dinner as the sun set over the lake.”
Who pays for all of that?
Answer: You do. You pay the taxes, and the taxes fuel the growth of government.
What Mr. Schmidt does — and by no means is he alone — is depend on the growth of government to so entangle the private sector that it needs people like Steve Schmidt to simply stay alive. So when it comes to candidates — or talk radio hosts or the Tea Party or anybody that wants to take an axe to the insatiable beast that demands your tax dollars — Schmidt and company will use their Establishment podiums to go after them.
Just take a look at this Public Affairs section of the website for Edelman , the global PR and lobbying company that Schmidt earns his money from as “Vice Chairman, Public Affairs.” What is it that they communicate to the world? Note: the key words I have put in bold print.
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?