-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
A few quick thoughts on the passing scene.
1. The allegations that Arizona Republican congressional candidate Paul Babeau threatened to have a Mexican illegal immigrant boyfriend deported (he denies everything from the deportation threat to knowing that the fellow was in the country illegally but admits he is gay) is the scandal du jour. It would not be unprecedented for Arizona to elect an openly gay Republican congressman. Jim Kolbe came out in 1996 — or rather was outed by gay liberals who disapproved of his vote for the Defense of Marriage Act — was reelected five more times before deciding to retire in 2006.
But Kolbe was a moderate Republican. His district was subsequently represented by Democrat Gabby Giffords. Babeau is running as a conservative against an incumbent Republican trying to switch seats after redistricting. It’s a somewhat different political animal. The immigration angle also looms large: Babeau had established himself as a border security hawk and appeared in a campaign commercial with John McCain during the latter’s successful campaign against restrictionist primary challenger J.D. Hayworth.
2. I don’t expect the Babeau controversy to have a huge impact on Mitt Romney in Arizona (Babeau resigned from his informal role with the Romney campaign). But it could move some socially conservative primary voters in the state who have lingering misgivings about Romney and are still on the fence. Romney still leads in the state but Rick Santorum has been gaining.
3. At the other extreme, Santorum keeps getting ensnared in controversies over faith and politics. The latest concerns whether President Obama adheres to “phony theology” about the Earth. These tussles are partly a media creation — some of the statements being reported on now clearly predate his presidential campaign while others involve the kind of messaging to evangelicals and other social conservatives done by many Republican candidates — but Santorum does keep giving them ammunition. It is a pattern that bears watching.
4. The White House’s attempt to defend the president’s new budget in congressional testimony this week was mostly a disaster. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn’t do much better.
5. Pete Hoekstra’s hamfisted, raciallly charged Super Bowl ad sure didn’t help his poll numbers against incumbent Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. (The spot seems to have been taken down from YouTube, so I can’t link.) But there’s always ESPN.
6. Despite criticism that it will divert funds from Social Security, Congress easily passed and sent the president an extension of the payroll tax cut.
View all comments (18) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/19/weekend-politcal-wrap-up
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Obama’s Drone War
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
albert constantine jr.| 2.19.12 @ 5:43PM
I guess the Hoekstra ad was shown locally in Michigan, because I must have missed it. I trust at least he stayed away from the "Me So Horny" dialogue from Full Metal Jacket or the 2Live Crew hit.
Lesser Weevil| 2.20.12 @ 3:11AM
I watched it and didn't see what was the big deal. There is no "broken English" and no "racism," and the idea that U.S. debt is putting us in a bad position with respect to China is hardly shocking. The concept of having a pretty young actress deliver what is supposed to be a menacing message in a cheerful tone seems pretty boneheaded, so I am not surprised that the ad didn't work. But "racially charged?" Give me a break.
Rick V.| 2.19.12 @ 6:40PM
"Phony theology?" You mean like, "Let's just keep screwing the taxpayers out of their money. We're congressmen, what's the big deal? What's the worst that can happen?" You mean, that kind of phony theology?
Henry| 2.19.12 @ 6:54PM
Santorum is on record trashing Protestantism in 2008.
albert constantine jr.| 2.19.12 @ 7:11PM
Is there a thread you haven't posted this on yet? I believe Jeffrey Lord's articles on the UCC and other traditional main line Protestant churches has been discussing that here for the last couple of years.
Clint| 2.19.12 @ 7:15PM
Ricky Specter-Santorum Is Our Useful Dupe To A Brokered Convention.
The First Step Is To Make RINO-CINO Patrician GOP Fop, Mittens Romney Lose Michigan.
Then The RINO-CINO GOP Ruling Elite House Of Cards Starts To Fall For The Super Tuesday Elections.
Once A Brokered Convention Is Assured, We Give Ricky Specter- Santorum His Walking Papers And Get Another Candidate.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Oldefarte| 2.20.12 @ 9:59AM
'....We pulled this comment from an ad that accuses Rick Perry of trying to “undo the Reagan Revolution” when he backed Al Gore for president in 1988. Photos show Ron Paul looking chummy with the Gipper as a deep-voiced narrator describes the Texas congressman as a bold Reagan supporter. The gist: Paul has impeccable Reaganite credentials; Perry does not. We examined Paul’s relationship with Reagan during the late 1980s to find out whether he was really so supportive of the Republican icon. Our colleagues at FactCheck.org covered this topic before, but we figure it’s worth another look as we continue our series on biographical claims of the 2012 Republican candidates.
THE FACTS
Paul has little room to criticize politicians for changing their party affiliations. He campaigned for president as a Libertarian in 1988, after running for office seven times as a Republican and serving as a GOP member of the U.S. House for more than six years at that point.
So why didn’t he vie for the Republican nomination? Because he’d renounced the party — along with Reagan’s presidential policies — a few years earlier, resigning from the GOP and forgoing a bid for reelection to Congress.
Paul supported Reagan once in 1976, when the former California governor ran against Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination. But he appears to have fallen out of love with the party’s hero during year one of his administration.
“It didn’t take me more than a month after 1981 to realize there would be no changes,” he told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987, referring to Reagan.In 1987, Paul broke ranks with the GOP, writing to the Republican National Committee: “I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government.” He added: “Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly doubled national debt.”Paul mentioned Reagan 14 more times as he accused the party of violating the conservative principles of free enterprise, limited government and balanced budgets. He knocked the former president for supporting anti-communist guerrillas, for increasing deficit spending, for expanding the federal payroll and for giving the Internal Revenue Service more power. He even reached back in time to criticize Reagan for his sparse use of the line-item veto as governor of California — which makes us wonder why he endorsed him in 1976. The Perry campaign posted a copy of the letter to the RNC as it appeared in the Libertarian Party News.
Paul continued disparaging Reagan throughout the 1988 nominating process, telling the L.A. Times at one point that he wanted to “totally disassociate” himself with the two-term president. We asked the Paul campaign what changed between then and now. “Dr. Paul loved President Reagan’s campaign platform and sincerely hoped he would govern that way,” said spokesman Gary Howard. “Dr. Paul remained personal friends with Reagan, flying on Air Force One with him several times, but was saddened with the weakening of the Reagan Revolution and the co-opting of Reagan’s great message by the Establishment.”Howard said he doesn’t think Paul endorsed any candidates during the years when Reagan won the White House, so it doesn’t appear the congressman “stood with” the Republican favorite beyond 1976. The Paul campaign has a history of manipulating the facts when it comes to Reagan-related issues. The group produced an ad in July claiming the former president had reluctantly raised the debt ceiling because of pressure from Democrats. In reality, his reluctance had nothing to do with the debt ceiling, but instead with a set of automatic defense cuts that would take effect if he and Congress couldn’t reach a deficit-reduction deal.
Reagan said at the time that he had “no objection whatsoever” to raising the debt ceiling, according to FactCheck.org.
THE PINOCCHIO TEST
Paul “stood with” Reagan, but his support didn’t last for long. He endorsed the charismatic Republican in 1976 and later ostracized him while chasing his own presidential dreams — at the same time Perry backed Gore, nonetheless.
The Texas congressman may be more Reagan than the Gipper himself, but he can’t “totally disassociate” himself from the conservative icon only to invoke his name once he needs more support from the Republican base. He earns two Pinocchios for trying to have it both ways....'
Clint| 2.20.12 @ 12:41PM
Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Jeffersonian | 2.19.12 @ 7:48PM
Rick Santorum basically is most similar to a European pre WW2 Catholic socialist.
Romney greatly resembles an old "progressive conservative" from Canada.
Gingrich is the sterotypical beltway whore.
Paul is the only good choice.
9thID| 2.19.12 @ 9:04PM
Pro-Choice Ron is just another moral relativist Baptist In Name Only like Slick Willie Clinton and Jimbo Carter...
Clint| 2.20.12 @ 6:45AM
Israel Firster Smear Bund Scum, 9th IDiot's In The Building.
"In 2005, 2007, 2009, and again in 2011, Dr.Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the Federal level."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Headed For A Brokered Convention.
Dai Alanye | 2.20.12 @ 12:51AM
Vote Ron Paul! Because we totally over-reacted to that Pearl Harbor incident.
Clint| 2.20.12 @ 6:54AM
Dr. Ron Paul,
" I'll Ask Congress For A Declaration Of War Against Iran, If Necessary."
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Oldefarte| 2.20.12 @ 10:00AM
'....We pulled this comment from an ad that accuses Rick Perry of trying to “undo the Reagan Revolution” when he backed Al Gore for president in 1988. Photos show Ron Paul looking chummy with the Gipper as a deep-voiced narrator describes the Texas congressman as a bold Reagan supporter. The gist: Paul has impeccable Reaganite credentials; Perry does not. We examined Paul’s relationship with Reagan during the late 1980s to find out whether he was really so supportive of the Republican icon. Our colleagues at FactCheck.org covered this topic before, but we figure it’s worth another look as we continue our series on biographical claims of the 2012 Republican candidates.
THE FACTS
Paul has little room to criticize politicians for changing their party affiliations. He campaigned for president as a Libertarian in 1988, after running for office seven times as a Republican and serving as a GOP member of the U.S. House for more than six years at that point.
So why didn’t he vie for the Republican nomination? Because he’d renounced the party — along with Reagan’s presidential policies — a few years earlier, resigning from the GOP and forgoing a bid for reelection to Congress.
Paul supported Reagan once in 1976, when the former California governor ran against Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination. But he appears to have fallen out of love with the party’s hero during year one of his administration.
“It didn’t take me more than a month after 1981 to realize there would be no changes,” he told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987, referring to Reagan.In 1987, Paul broke ranks with the GOP, writing to the Republican National Committee: “I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government.” He added: “Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly doubled national debt.”Paul mentioned Reagan 14 more times as he accused the party of violating the conservative principles of free enterprise, limited government and balanced budgets. He knocked the former president for supporting anti-communist guerrillas, for increasing deficit spending, for expanding the federal payroll and for giving the Internal Revenue Service more power. He even reached back in time to criticize Reagan for his sparse use of the line-item veto as governor of California — which makes us wonder why he endorsed him in 1976. The Perry campaign posted a copy of the letter to the RNC as it appeared in the Libertarian Party News.
Paul continued disparaging Reagan throughout the 1988 nominating process, telling the L.A. Times at one point that he wanted to “totally disassociate” himself with the two-term president. We asked the Paul campaign what changed between then and now. “Dr. Paul loved President Reagan’s campaign platform and sincerely hoped he would govern that way,” said spokesman Gary Howard. “Dr. Paul remained personal friends with Reagan, flying on Air Force One with him several times, but was saddened with the weakening of the Reagan Revolution and the co-opting of Reagan’s great message by the Establishment.”Howard said he doesn’t think Paul endorsed any candidates during the years when Reagan won the White House, so it doesn’t appear the congressman “stood with” the Republican favorite beyond 1976. The Paul campaign has a history of manipulating the facts when it comes to Reagan-related issues. The group produced an ad in July claiming the former president had reluctantly raised the debt ceiling because of pressure from Democrats. In reality, his reluctance had nothing to do with the debt ceiling, but instead with a set of automatic defense cuts that would take effect if he and Congress couldn’t reach a deficit-reduction deal.
Reagan said at the time that he had “no objection whatsoever” to raising the debt ceiling, according to FactCheck.org.
THE PINOCCHIO TEST
Paul “stood with” Reagan, but his support didn’t last for long. He endorsed the charismatic Republican in 1976 and later ostracized him while chasing his own presidential dreams — at the same time Perry backed Gore, nonetheless.
The Texas congressman may be more Reagan than the Gipper himself, but he can’t “totally disassociate” himself from the conservative icon only to invoke his name once he needs more support from the Republican base. He earns two Pinocchios for trying to have it both ways....'
Clint| 2.20.12 @ 12:39PM
Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Bob Grant| 2.19.12 @ 8:58PM
"4. The White House's attempt to defend the president's new budget in congressional testimony this week was mostly a disaster. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn't do much better. " -------
The testimonies of Geithner and Zientz were bizarre to say the least. Not only did Geithner admit to not having a plan beyond 10 years to tackle the deficit, he had no response to the accusations that his administrations' yearly budget were full of gimmicks. Using cuts in OCO is a flat-out lie. The baseline budgeting gimmickry is also a lie. The fact that Zientz didn't understand Obamacare mandate fines are really taxes is scary. I know he's new but it is no excuse. To top it off, when David Gregory from Meet The Press invite Ryan and Van Hollen - Budget Committee Chair and Ranking Member - to discuss obama's alleged budget, he spends over half the time asking questions about Santorum's comments on obama's religion. Is this not Alice in Wonderland?
"6. Despite criticism that it will divert funds from Social Security, Congress easily passed and sent the president an extension of the payroll tax cut." ----------
This is even more outrageous. They don't even pretend to hide the fact anymore that Social Security is insolvent, so they'll no longer fund it. Criminal behavior!
Kingofthenet| 2.20.12 @ 1:39AM
It doesn't matter one iota whether they 'fund' Social Security, it's a General Obligation that MUST be paid for, even if everything else has to get cut to do so.