The American Spectator

Masked Hooligans Shut Down University Classes in Montreal

Posted by Aaron Goldstein on 5.16.12 @ 5:29PM

Law students at the University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM) had their classes shut down this morning by masked hooligans who stormed the campus forcibly removing some students from the classroom as they shouted, "Scab!!! Scab!!!"

The law students had obtained a court injunction permitting their return to class. There have been more than thirty such injunctions around the province but they have been ignored by striking students.

Last Thursday, Montreal's Metro was shut down during rush hour after several UQAM students allegedly threw smoke bombs onto the tracks at several Metro stations.

The student strike has lasted more than three months and according to Michelle Courchesne, Quebec's new Minister of Education, CLASSE (the student union) is "hardening" their demands. The Quebec Liberal government of Jean Charest is contemplating measures which would hand down heavy fines to those involved with organizing and encouraging the disruption.

But I doubt it will be enough.  The use of the Sûreté du Québec (the province's police force) will probably need to be stepped up and if that doesn't work then Charest might need to ask Ottawa to send in the military. Of course, if students rioters are killed in the course of restoring order then Canada's left-wing media will crucify the authorities. Of course, I hope it doesn't come to that but I don't see a peaceful resolution in the offing.

22 Comments | Add a Comment

Kevin Hickey, R.I.P.

Posted by Aaron Goldstein on 5.16.12 @ 4:05PM

Former big league pitcher and coach Kevin Hickey has passed away. His cause of death is unknown but he was a diabetic and had been found unresponsive in his hotel room in Dallas prior to Opening Day last month. He was 56.

Hickey did not have a distinguished big league career except to say that it is a minor miracle that he pitched in the big leagues at all. Born on the South Side of Chicago, Hickey worked in a steel mill and in his spare time played softball and semi-pro baseball. In 1977, he was one of 250 players to attend an open tryout at Comiskey Park and was the only player offered a contract by the White Sox. He made his big league debut with the Chisox in 1981.

He pitched with the White Sox through the 1983 season. That year the White Sox reached the post-season for the first time in 24 years winning the AL West by 20 games over the Kansas City Royals. It marked the first of 14 post-season appearances for manager Tony La Russa. I remember the '83 White Sox well. Ron Kittle won AL Rookie of the Year on the strength of his 35 homeruns. Greg Luzinski, Carlton Fisk and Harold Baines also supplied power. There were the Laws - Rudy and Vance (no relation). And how many people besides diehard Chisox fans remember that Jerry Dybzinski was the starting shortstop?

Then there was the pitching staff led by LaMarr Hoyt, whose 24 wins would earn him the AL Cy Young Award. Richard Dotson quietly won 22 games. The starting rotation was rounded out by Floyd Bannister, Britt Burns and 40-year old Jerry Koosman of Amazin' Mets fame. The Chisox didn't really have a closer that season. Dennis Lamp led the team with 15 saves but Salome Barojas had 12 while Juan Agosto and Dick Tidrow had seven apiece. For his part, Hickey recorded five saves in '83.

I remember Hickey because he had long hair and a moustache. He looked like a lefthanded version of LaMarr Hoyt. Most baseball fans might not remember Hickey but George Brett sure does. The three time AL batting champion and Hall of Famer was 0-for-15 lifetime against Hickey.

But then Hickey disappeared. He was released by the White Sox prior to the 1984 season but re-signed with them days later. He would be traded that summer to the New York Yankees along with pitcher Doug Drabek (who would later win the NL Cy Young Award with the Pittsburgh Pirates) as players to be named later for Roy Smalley. Hickey would bounce around in the minors with the Philadelphia Phillies, back with the White Sox and with the San Francisco Giants before signing with the Baltimore Orioles prior to the 1988 season.

I was shocked to see Hickey when he returned to the big leagues with the O's in 1989 after an absence of more than five years. His hair was much shorter but he still found a way to get lefthanded hitters out. That year the Orioles nearly went from worst to first in the AL East. Unfortunately, the Toronto Blue Jays had other ideas. Nevertheless, Hickey was back in the bigs and would remain with the O's until they released him during the 1991 season.

In 1994, Hickey got some acting work and appeared in Major League II alongside Charlie Sheen, Tom Berenger, Corbin Bernsen and ex-big leaguers Bob Uecker and Steve Yeager. After being out of baseball for more than a decade, the White Sox hired Hickey as a part of their coaching staff as a pre-game instructor/batting practice pitcher in 2004 and was on hand in 2005 when the Chisox won their first World Series in 88 years.

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Don't Blame Wrigley Field

Posted by Aaron Goldstein on 5.16.12 @ 12:33PM

In an op-ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Rich Cohen argues that Wrigley Field should be torn down in order to put a merciful end to the Chicago Cubs' 104-year (and counting) World Series drought:

I'm a Roman, and to me, the expanse between Waveland and Addison on Chicago's North Side is Carthage. The struts and concessions, the catwalk where the late broadcaster Harry Caray once greeted me with all the fluid liquidity of an animatronic Disneyland pirate - Hello, Cubs fan! - the ramps that ascend like a ziggurat to heaven - it's a false heaven - the bases, trestles, ivy, wooden seats and bleachers, the towering center-field scoreboard - all of it must be ripped out and carried away like the holy artifacts were carried out of the temple in Jerusalem, heaped in a pile and burned. Then the ground itself must be salted, made barren, covered with a housing project, say, a Stalinist monolith, so never again will a shrine arise on that haunted block. As it was with Moses, the followers and fans, though they search, shall never find its bones.

Methinks Cohen is making a scapegoat of Wrigley. Now it's true the Cubs have never won a World Series in all the years they have played at Wrigley. But the Cubs haven't always been synonymous with futility and lovable losers. During their first thirty years at Wrigley, the Cubs were amongst the best teams in the National League. Between 1916 and 1945, the Cubs won six NL pennants. Only the New York Giants won more NL pennants during this period with seven. Of course, the Cubs went 0 for 6 in the Fall Classic during that period including The Called Shot by Babe Ruth during the 1932 World Series against the Yankees. Nevertheless, the Cubs were a perennial contender and had 14 consecutive winning seasons between 1926 and 1939.

So the Cubs trouble didn't begin with Wrigley but rather with The Curse of the Billy Goat. Before Game 4 of the 1945 World Series between the Cubs and the Detroit Tigers, Billy Goat Tavern owner William "Billy Goat" Sianis and his pet goat, Murphy, were refused admittance into Wrigley because of the goat's stench. Sianis appealed to Cubs owner Phil Wrigley to no avail. An enraged Sianis told Wrigley, "The Cubs ain't gonna win no more. The Cubs will never win a World Series so long as the goat is not allowed in Wrigley Field." The Cubs lost the '45 Series in seven games and haven't been back since.

Between 1946 and 1983, the Cubs had only eight winning seasons and the bulk of those came between 1967 and 1972 when the club was managed by Leo Durocher. The Cubs led the NL East for most of the 1969 until along came a black cat which crossed Ron Santo's path on the on deck circle. From that point forward, the New York Mets ascended to World Series glory.

Things have been better (or worse, depending on your point of view) since 1984 when the Cubs won the NL East only to lose to the San Diego Padres in the NLCS in five games after having a two games to none lead needing to win only one more. Before there was Bill Buckner, there was Leon Durham and a little spilled Gatorade. Since 1984, the Cubs have been to the post-season five times including 2003 when they were five outs away from winning their first NL pennant in 58 years. Who knew that a fly ball by Luis Castillo headed down the leftfield line would cause so much trouble?

So the next time the Cubs are in the post-season, for crying out loud, let in the Billy Goat, keep out the black cats, hide the Gatorade and publicly apologize to Steve Bartman. That would sure cost a lot less than to tear down Wrigley and build a stadium with a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.

22 Comments | Add a Comment

Video of the Day: Romney 2012 Ad

Posted by TAS Staff on 5.16.12 @ 12:24PM

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Senate to Hold Budget Votes Today

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.16.12 @ 12:10PM

The Democratic-controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in 1,113 days and that is unlikely to change today. But senators are scheduled to vote on five different budget proposals, four of them proposed by Republicans.Senate Democrats did not agree to a budget of their own. There are a few interesting questions:

• How many Senate Republicans, if any, oppose the Paul Ryan budget from the left? There will be a few GOP senators who vote against it because it doesn't balance the budget fast enough. Will any say it goes too far?
• Does anyone vote for Barack Obama's budget? The president's budget failed to record a single vote in the House and looks likely to be shut out again in the Senate. Democrats will probably want to avoid a scenario where Republicans can subject the Obama budget to prolonged debate and amendments.
• How many votes will conservative alternative budgets by Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, and Mike Lee get? These senators have all pushed to balance the budget more rapidly than the Ryan plan. Will any of their alternatives gain any traction?

The biggest question is probably how long we can run the federal government without a real budget. My guess is we'll have to wait at least until after the November elections.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Four Words

Posted by Ross Kaminsky on 5.16.12 @ 9:04AM

Yesterday, I posted to these pages a blog note of 619 words on the subject of the politics of Obama's flip-flop-flip on gay marriage. Of these, four words were "as we should be" which I used in reference to the nation's getting more comfortable with homosexual relationships.

To be perfectly clear, I am neither gay nor willing to learn. But not being gay doesn't cause me to automatically dislike gays anymore than not being black causes me to automatically dislike blacks. Of course, I'm perfectly willing to dislike any individual based on his or her own merits.

When I wrote those four words, I knew they would generate some controversy on the blog pages, but I did not expect that of the large number of comments to the note nearly 90 percent would be in reference to four words rather than to the other 615 words (in which I argued that Barack Obama's rapid "evolution" on gay marriage was not turning into political success, though it was bolstering his Manhattan and Hollywood fundraising).

Since you, esteemed readers, were so interested in those four words, I thought it only fair to respond.

A few specific replies. I won't mention commenters' names. You know who you are, or you know if you agree with those who made the initial points:

• Libertarian is not the same as libertine. I presume you know that and are intentionally misrepresenting what you know, or should know, I stand for. If you don't know, then stop using terms you don't understand. (Beyond that, I am more Objectivist than libertarian, though some consider the difference subtle. Certainly Ayn Rand didn't...but that's a story for another day.)
• I did not say "celebrate" homosexuality, nor did I say people should become comfortable with (much less celebrate) "homosexual acts." It is perfectly natural to feel uncomfortable with something so outside of one's own inclinations. What I talked about quite specifically was tolerance of two people's relationship, and I stand by my assertion that such tolerance is better than its opposite. It is better morally and better politically; the former is more important.
• I understand that some people believe the bible says that homosexuals are going to hell. With you I have an unbridgeable gap; we will never convince each other and I am not trying to talk you out of your deeply-held religious beliefs. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice for most gays and lesbians. Therefore, I do not believe it is moral to hate homosexuals for whom they fall in love with (or whom they have sex with) any more than it is moral to hate blacks for their color.
• I never said that morality is an "oppressive device." I said that oppressive devices, i.e. the federal government, should not be used to impose morality. If any of you can convince others to follow your moral code by explaining it to them, by telling them why you think you're right and why you think your prescription is good medicine for our nation or culture, more power to you. But government is force and it must not be used, either by a majority or by a minority, to impose morality beyond those fundamental natural rights understood by our Founders and already protected by them, at least theoretically, in our Founding documents.
• Thanks to the person who said that Objectivists are not liberals or "secular humanists." You are quite right. As you are right that I object to altruism as the left uses the term, though I do believe strongly in giving VOLUNTARILY to charities. I certainly don't believe in "social responsibility", again the way the left uses the term, but that does not mean I do not place value on helping others VOLUNTARILY. Feel free to read Ayn Rand's short non-fiction book "The Virtue of Selfishness."
• What exactly is a "homosexual public display?" If it's two guys holding hands, I admit that makes me a little uncomfortable (though much less than it used to). If it's two guys kissing, it makes me more than a little uncomfortable. But it doesn't make me hate them.
• I don't suggest you/we (straight white guys) join in a Gay Pride parade any more than I suggest we join in an MLK Day parade or that non-Italians join in Columbus Day parades, waving the Italian flag. I do suggest you avoid literally or rhetorically bashing gays any more than you bash blacks or Italians, even if you are none of the above.
• "Spouses" was in quotes because 60 percent of our United States (or somewhat less than 60 percent if you believe there are 57 states) don't allow gay marriage. Therefore, one state's spouse is another state's ___ (you fill in the blank; I don't know the answer).
• As for orgies in the back yard that neighborhood kids can see, that is improper (and I presume illegal) no matter the gender or sexual orientation of those participating.
• I don't want to pay for higher health care costs for any group because of their behavior. So get the government out of health care costs. And let private companies discriminate, i.e. permit higher (health and life) insurance premiums for gay people. If they don't really cost more to insure, competition will bring prices down. If they do cost more, they should pay more just as smokers often do for insurance. People should live with the costs of their own behavior. I'll bet you that gays in committed relationships have little or no actuarial difference in health/life risks. Here is one example of a benefit from encouraging committed relationships among gays. Another example would be that, just as with heterosexual couples, if one hits a financial rough spot, the other can help out and keep an American off welfare, food stamps, and the government dole generally.
• For the person who suggests that gays will "roast on Beelzebub's spit," I suggest a long look in the mirror when considering what God really thinks is OK.
• For those name-callers out there (i.e. those going after me personally because of a disagreement of philosophy/religion), I can only think of this worst-possible insult: Your behavior reminds me of what I would expect from liberals, who routinely take political disagreement as personal attack.

Now, one thing I could have made clearer: I did and do mean that I believe we should be getting more comfortable with those in same-sex relationships...with those people as individual human beings or as couples. I did not say and did not mean we should necessarily be more comfortable with "gay marriage" per se (and not with particular sexual acts, though that is no more your business than your sexual acts are anyone else’s business).

Even Barack Obama, in 2004, noted that marriage has a specific meaning with thousands of years of history behind it. I am among those who think that part of the problem with this debate is the use of the word marriage. My wife asks rhetorically: if the majority of us have to suffer through marriage, why should gays be exempt? I concur except for the use of the word marriage.

I understand that civil unions and domestic partnerships may be perceived, and may be intended by some, as the camel's nose under the tent -- a giant step toward gay marriage. But having spoken to a few gays about this, I know that a substantial percentage of them don't care about the word marriage as much as they care about equal treatment under the law. And in that a least they have a reasonable argument.

I maintain my view that we should get government out of marriage, allow any two people to make any contract they want to (which does not infringe on the natural rights of others), allow any house of worship to decide whom they will or won't marry, and only have government involved insofar as contract enforcement.

Lest my conservative friends and readers on these pages think I am a full-fledged apologist for "gay rights," allow me a couple more points:

Some gays wildly exaggerate the "rights" that they don't have. But more importantly, "gay rights” crusaders, just as many other crusaders for other "victim groups" that the left likes to create in their permanent divide-and-conquer strategy, misunderstand and misuse the word "rights."

Our rights are inherent in our being human beings. Our Founders said that our rights come from God. It is in that sense of us being equally human -- no matter your view of God -- that we have equal rights. But we are a nation of negative rights, which is to say that our fundamental law, the Constitution, is a code which says what government may NOT do to us. Neither the Constitution nor any politician gives us rights. (In fact, this was part of the original argument about the Bill of Rights: James Madison, among others, initially opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights as potentially implying that rights not spelled out were rights not retained by citizens; thus the inclusion of the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.)

No group has a claim to special “rights” that others don’t have. (One example of the government violating this precept is the existence of "hate crime" laws. There should not be a bigger penalty for beating up a gay or black than for beating up a straight white guy.) Furthermore, I believe that private businesses and private citizens have a First Amendment right NOT to associate with people just as much as we have our rights of association as normally considered. Thus, those who dislike gays or blacks or Jews or left-handed people or people who enjoy the sport of curling should have the right to exclude them, or anyone else they don’t like for any reason whatever, from their private property.

The other side of the coin, however, is that the government should not be able to discriminate at all. Government’s picking winners and losers in no more appropriate in society or culture than in business; I say this in complete realization that today’s government does all of the above. Because, I repeat, government is force. This means that government must not treat gays, blacks or any others worse than they treat members of society’s (then current) majority; but it means just as importantly that government must not treat them better than they treat others.

One commenter got something right yesterday: When I deleted those four words – not because I was backing away from my position, but because I wanted people to focus on the other 615 words – someone suggested I should have left them. I probably should have. After all, the virulent reaction of several commenters, both against gays and against me, says at least as much about them as my words said about me.

In any case, I am appreciative, as always, of the conversation and of those who engage in a civil discussion on issues, regardless of whether we agree or disagree.

87 Comments | Add a Comment

Beckett Turns Jeers Into Cheers

Posted by Aaron Goldstein on 5.15.12 @ 10:11PM

Five days ago, Boston Red Sox pitcher Josh Beckett was booed off the mound after a dismal performance against the Cleveland Indians in which he gave up seven runs over two and a third innings en route to an 8-3 loss.

Red Sox Nation not only was miffed with Beckett's performance but teed off after it was revealed Beckett played a round of golf despite missing his previously scheduled start against the Baltimore Orioles.

But today all is forgiven - for now. On his 32nd birthday, Beckett pitched seven shutout innings against the Seattle Mariners striking out nine batters. The Red Sox 5-0 victory over the M's is their fifth in a row. They have not lost since Beckett's debacle last Thursday.

Have the Red Sox turned the corner or will they return to their struggles? After starting the season 4-10, the Sox won seven of eight to finish the month with a .500 record at 11-11. But the Sox began May by losing eight of nine games before their current five game winning streak. As of this writing, the Sox are 17-19 and five and a half games back of the Orioles and Tampa Bay Rays in the American League East.

Speaking of the Rays and Orioles, the Red Sox embark on an eight game road trip to St. Pete, Baltimore as well as an interleague series against the Philadelphia Phillies. It will be interesting to see where the Sox stand the next time they play at Fenway.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Bush Praises Arab Spring

Posted by Aaron Goldstein on 5.15.12 @ 5:34PM

Former President George W. Bush made a rare appearance in Washington, D.C. today on behalf of George W. Bush Institute which promotes universal freedom and houses the "Freedom Collection", an archive of video testimonial by activists in freedom movements the world over. Amongst those who provided testimonials include the late Czech President Vaclav Havel, Liberian President Ellen Sirleaf Johnson and Kang Chol-Hwan who survived a decade in a North Korean labor camp and wrote about his experiences in the book Aquariams of Pyongyang (which I highly recommend).

The event included a video interview with newly elected Burmese parliamentarian Aung San Suu Kyi and was attended by dissidents from around the globe. I second Elliot Abrams when he writes, "The support that Bush and his wife Laura, who spoke as well and who took a special interest in ending the dictatorship in Burma, gave to such dissidents is notably absent today."

However, I was troubled by the former President's enthusiasm for the Arab Spring especially when he said, "America does not get to choose if a freedom revolution should begin or end in the Middle East or elsewhere. It only gets to choose what side it is on."

The problem with that, of course, what side we're on doesn't come down to a choice of good and bad but rather a choice between bad and worse. More often than not, kicking out the old and bringing in the new does not bring with it more freedom. In Egypt, we're choosing the Muslim Brotherhood over a military regime. In Libya, we chose al Qaeda over Colonel Qaddafi. In Syria, we may choose al Qaeda over Assad. Of course, we rid Iraq of the Stalinesque Saddam Hussein only to replace it with an Iranian puppet which has driven Iraqi Christians out of the country. It is difficult to promote universal freedom in Muslim countries that would deny the most basic freedoms to non-Muslims not to mention the ancient schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

This isn't to say that Bush's endeavors aren't noble and I think they can be helpful in places like Burma, Cuba or Zimbabwe. Nevertheless, humanity is seldom black and white but rather shades of grey covered in crimson.

23 Comments | Add a Comment

Obama, Gay Marriage, and the Black Vote

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.15.12 @ 2:57PM

Over at Mother Jones, Adam Serwer cites polling data that suggests Republicans shouldn't expect a lot of black votes over the president's embrace of gay marriage. First he looks at Pew numbers showing that 68 percent of black Americans say their views of Barack Obama were unaffected and an earlier survey showing a drop in black opposition to same-sex marriage since 2004. Serwer continues:

Perhaps even more indicative of the direction black voters are heading, a Washington Post/ABC poll released Tuesday shows a larger percentage of whites (48 percent) disapproving of Obama's decision than blacks (37 percent) despite the fact that polls have consistently shown black voters more opposed to marriage equality on average. The fifty-seven percent of black voters who approve are even more likely to approve strongly (31 percent) of Obama's decision than the population as a whole (28 percent).

Serwer is undoubtedly right that Mitt Romney will net very few black votes from Obama's flip-flop. My guess is that Obama's percentage of the black vote won't look much different than in 2008. But if the race remains close, Obama won't just need the same percentage. He will need black turnout to be comparable to what it was four years ago. Here is where I think in a tight contest the issue could hurt him at the margins with blacks: some number of black pastors and churches will not work as hard, or at all, to get out the vote.

Not a huge number, mind you, and there will be a lot of factors that are more important to whether Obama is reelected in November. But if we are headed toward a 2000/2004-style squeaker, it could make some difference.

24 Comments | Add a Comment

CNN's Standards of Rudeness

Posted by Aaron Goldstein on 5.15.12 @ 1:30PM

If Bob Tyrrell can be banished from CNN because describing President Obama as "a stealth socialist" is considered "rude" then one would must wonder what exactly CNN's standards of rudeness are.

Well, check out Don Lemon compare Mitt Romney's statement, "Marriage is between a man and a woman" to George Wallace's infamous "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever." (H/T to Jonah Goldberg at NRO). Yet notwithstanding Obama's public support for same sex marriage his statement doesn't prevent North Carolina from prohibiting it. Imagine if JFK had stated he favored integration but said that Wallace had a right to keep schools segregated and did not send in the National Guard. Or as Ross Kaminsky put it so eloquently:

If "gay rights" are the moral equivalent of civil rights for blacks or voting rights for women, as Obama claims, how can he justify leaving the issues to the states -- something few people (other than true racists) would have said about key 1960s civil rights legislation.

So if likening Mitt Romney to George Wallace is how people at CNN behave then Bob is better off staying far away from such contemptible company.

11 Comments | Add a Comment

The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul's Delegate Strategy

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.15.12 @ 12:45PM

Ron Paul has announced he will no longer devote resources to contesting the remaining primaries, but wasn't dropping out of the race or suspending his campaign. Paul would continue to try to accumulate delegates at state and local Republican conventions, with the intention of bringing as many as possible to the national convention in Tampa.

On the one hand, this decision makes sense in terms of spending money wisely. Paul has been beating Mitt Romney at many state conventions and grabbing delegates even when he comes up short. Paul isn't likely to beat Romney in any of the remaining primaries and neither the polling nor the first post-Santorum-and-Gingrich contests showed Paul consolidating the anti-Romney vote the way he did in Virginia on Super Tuesday. This also will soften the blow of a weak showing in Texas, Paul's home state, or Kentucky, where Rand Paul is the junior senator.

On the other hand, when your campaign is having its first sustained success since the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, why send signals that could demoralize the foot soldiers? Paul will still need his supporters to turn out in large numbers for the conventions and to donate to his money bombs. Will his supporters be as motivated if they are conceding primaries, suggesting (as his campaign chairman did today on a conference call) that they can't block Romney in Tampa, and saying there is "no chance" Paul will endorse Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson?

Although Paul failed to finish first in the popular vote in any of the caucuses, he has succeeded in getting the most delegates out of some states. To that extent, the delegate strategy has been paying dividends. But there is a question of what to do with the delegates. And one wonders if campaign prioritized process over momentum. If Paul had finished ahead of Rick Santorum in both South Carolina (which was doable) and Florida (which admittedly may not have been doable), it could have knocked Santorum out of the race. Even though there was no scenario where Paul was going to win Florida's delegates, he could have gotten more delegates in total -- and had more momentum -- in a Santorum-less race.

UPDATE: Yes, Ron Paul did win the popular vote in the Virgin Islands.

40 Comments | Add a Comment

Romney: "A Prairie Fire of Debt" Sweeping the Nation

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.15.12 @ 11:59AM

Mitt Romney is set to give a major speech on the national debt in Des Moines today as part of his offensive against the Obama administration's big-spending fiscal policies. Some excerpts:

A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation and every day we fail to act we feed that fire with our own lack of resolve.  This is not a Democratic or Republican problem. That fire could care less if you have a donkey or an elephant in your front lawn, it’s still coming for your house.  There’s plenty of blame to go around for both parties. But in my years leading businesses, an Olympics and a state, I’ve learned one simple principle of leadership that never falters: Leaders lead.  I will lead us out of this debt and spending crisis.

Romney on Obama:

President Obama started his days in office with the trillion-dollar stimulus package – the biggest, most careless one-time expenditure by the federal government in history.  And remember this: the stimulus wasn’t just wasted – it was borrowed and wasted.  We still owe the money, we’re still paying interest on it, and it’ll be that way long after this presidency ends in January.

Then there was Obamacare.  Even now nobody knows the exact cost of that new program.  And that uncertainty has done great harm to our economy.  Employers aren’t hiring, entrepreneurs are worried, all because of a massive, European-style entitlement that Americans didn’t want and can’t afford.

Romney's record as somone who has experience turning around troubled financial institutions may be his hottest hand in this race, and it is certainly a qualification the country needs in the next president. There nevertheless remain serious questions about the price tag of his actual policy proposals, since he is vague about his domestic spending cuts and specific about his defense budget increases.

13 Comments | Add a Comment

Marco Rubio Happy in the Senate

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.15.12 @ 11:42AM

Yesterday I got a chance to watch Marco Rubio, Florida's Republican senator, praise small business at a reception held by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). Those looking for Rubio to tip his hand about his vice presidential prospects came away disappointed.

At one point, Rubio said he hoped to help small business in the years he had left in the Senate. A member of the audience asked whether he was in fact measuring his time remaining in the Senate in years rather than months. Rubio replied, "Look, I love serving in the United States Senate. I know that sounds strange, but that's the place I think I can make a difference." He chided the Senate's lack of urgency, calling it "frustrating."

NFIB joined the multi-state lawsuit against President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. A Supreme Court ruling is expected next month.

Photo by: Katherine Ruddy

7 Comments | Add a Comment

We're Not as Stupid as Barack Obama Thinks

Posted by Ross Kaminsky on 5.15.12 @ 10:39AM

A CBS News/New York Times poll shows that two thirds of Americans believe that President Obama's recent "evolution" on gay marriage was a political stunt while one quarter thinks his change was “mostly because he thinks it is right.”

Amusingly, an Obama campaign official claimed that the poll used a "biased sample." Surely she recognizes that this poll was done by two of the most pro-Obama organizations in America.

Perhaps what we are witnessing, pace Andrew Sullivan, is America's First Gay Ex-President.

Political bettors also don't think Obama's flip-flop-flip (he was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it) is a winner, with Obama's betting odds (to be elected president) slightly lower than they were prior to his May 9th position change. Still, Obama leads Mitt Romney in current betting by about 20 points, roughly 59 percent to 39 percent. (I've been buying Romney and selling Obama just a few points from these levels.)

Despite the issue not working so far, Democrats are doubling down, with 17 Senate Democrats (actually 16 Democrats plus socialist Bernie Sanders) asking the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to stop refusing green cards to foreign gay "spouses" of Americans.

It is true that Americans are steadily becoming more comfortable with homosexual relationships, and even with gay marriage, but we're not comfortable with radicals shoving their views down our throats, even to the point of the President refusing to defend the duly-passed Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.

Voters recognize the tyranny of (so-called) good intentions when we see it, and that's why the Democrats' full-court pander on "gay rights" and gay marriage will not work except among college students and as a short-term fund-raising ploy -- which is probably more than enough for an Obama campaign which has struggled to raise money outside of Hollywood and Manhattan. Of course, this only helps them raise money in Hollywood and Manhattan, but those are very fat arteries for the leeches that are Obama bundlers (of whom a reported one in six is gay) to bite into.

It is also worth noting that the "gay rights" activists are hearing what they want to hear, rather than what Obama is really saying: this president, who never found an issue that he didn't want the federal government to dominate, says that individual states should decide on the permissibility of gay marriage. This following last Tuesday's vote in North Carolina which by a stunning 61 percent to 39 percent margin became the 30th state to ban gay marriage. In fact, gay marriage has never passed a statewide vote of the people in any state in our republic. If "gay rights" are the moral equivalent of civil rights for blacks or voting rights for women, as Obama claims, how can he justify leaving the issue to the states -- something few people (other than true racists) would have said about key 1960s civil rights legislation.

Obama was trying to have it both ways on the issue of gay marriage until Joe Biden pushed him off the fence. He's still trying to have it both ways, but it's not working. Conservatives, and some independents, are being pushed toward Romney while Obama shores up part, but not the African-American part, of his voting base. If his gleeful gay bundlers were paying attention to Obama's actual policy prescription, they would be a lot less happy than Ricky Martin seems to be. But when you have the "first gay president," facts be damned! How can you not just write a check?

Again, despite all the media frenzy and Hollywood hosannas, in the real world Americans are not fooled by Barack Obama's transparently political ploy.

90 Comments | Add a Comment

Will The Last Person at CNN Please Turn Out The Lights?

Posted by Aaron Goldstein on 5.15.12 @ 8:53AM

That CNN would declare Bob Tyrrell persona non grata and withdraw its invitation to him, of course, says a great deal more about CNN than it does about the esteemed Mr. Tyrrell.

As Jeff Lord notes, CNN is barely afloat in the ratings. But even that doesn't describe just how bad things are at CNN. From March 2011 to March 2012, CNN lost a staggering 50% of its viewers. That's right! CNN lost half its audience in a year.

So perhaps we here at TAS can count this development as a blessing in disguise. If CNN hadn't cancelled and Bob went on as scheduled would there have been anyone watching?

9 Comments | Add a Comment