Star Parkerl
Perhaps the question worth re-asking is why Romney, well into his second presidential campaign, with financial resources many orders of magnitude greater than either of his opponents, remains so weak.
Of Conservative thought and information
Perhaps the question worth re-asking is why Romney, well into his second presidential campaign, with financial resources many orders of magnitude greater than either of his opponents, remains so weak.
...At this late stage of the process, the perceived inevitable nominee is loosing to a former Pennsylvania "big government" conservative by 22 points in a southern red state. Far from accepting the inevitable, it seems that conservatives are giving the "establishment" the finger. All of this will probably not change the "inevitable" nomination of Romney. Hopefully it will also not dampen turn out to replace Obama, but after 2012, I suspect we will see a serious move from many in the base to either leave the Republican Party or totally take it over and destroy the current "establishment"....
...The 2012 election should be an opportunity for Americans to elect a President committed to ObamaCare’s repeal and replacement with sound free-market competition. But that is where this 2012 election has an unusual aspect. The original architect of the Democrats’ unpopular healthcare law is himself also running for president on the GOP ticket. Mitt Romney, one of the candidates in the race for the GOP nomination, authored and championed his own version of ObamaCare less than six years ago....
In a few minutes the freedom of 350 million people comes down to the votes of 9 unelected judges. You know, just like the founders intended.
— DrewM (@DrewMTips) March 26, 2012
A Mississippi State student was shot and killed over the weekend. Don’t be surprised if you haven’t heard about this since at least one of the victims identified is white and the three suspects are blacks, and could look like Obama if they were his sons or something.
...If you've been ignoring "The Hunger Games" because you think it is nothing more than trite tween escapism, you're making a mistake. It is an action-packed ode to freedom that any small-government conservative will love...
...The challenge before the Court, a challenge it has often not lived up to, is to keep perspective that applying our constitution is not about splitting hairs about the meaning of words in order to further a personal agenda. It’s about applying, in good faith, the principles that define this country and assuring that our government operates in a fashion consistent with those principles.
There is no technical substitute for common sense. And clever men can always use words to overpower men not as clever to show anything they want. Cleverness should serve principle, not vice versa...
But Fehrnstrom’s comment is interesting in a broader way. It captures a certain disposition to politics, a certain understanding of public affairs, that goes beyond campaigns. It expresses the view of the political class, in both parties, that governing is politics, that politics is a kind of perpetual campaign, that a campaign is mostly talk, and that talk is both cheap and changeable. The modern American political class tends to have an Etch A Sketch view of political life as a series of rhetorical resets and opportunistic restarts.
There’s some truth to this view. Politics always has something of sophistry about it. But a healthy politics in a serious country—a healthy political class and a healthy citizenry in a great country—has to realize the limits of mere talk, and especially the limits of cheap and changeable talk.
Our politics isn’t entirely healthy. Our political class in particular is more sophistic than ever—believing in the predominance of talk, the centrality of “messaging,” the power of spin, the possibility of a tricky game change. But politics isn’t simply a game. And even to the degree that it is, the political class overestimates its ability to affect the outcome by clever words and tactical maneuvers.
Jon S. Corzine, MF Global Holding Ltd. (MFGLQ)’s chief executive officer, gave “direct instructions” to transfer $200 million from a customer fund account to meet an overdraft in one of the brokerage’s JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) accounts in London, according to an e-mail sent by a firm executive.
On so many issues libertarians and grass roots (the majority) of conservatives not only have common ground they are walking the same path. The only thing that stands in the way of a true partnership is in fact Ron Paul himself.
But history, when far removed from the Obama phenomenon, will not view the cowardly as intelligent or even wise.
The reason is twofold. First, there are too many oddities with Obama. And second, in context of the manifold oddities, the reasonable thing for Obama to do is end all doubt. If he had nothing to hide, wouldn't Obama want to quickly remove doubts and restore confidence?
...In other words, according to the left, Paul Ryan and Republicans who support his plan are not only heartless, not just stupid, but going straight to hell....
So religious leaders and employers have no business opining on what a woman does with her body. Unless, that is, Michelle Obama gives the all-clear. Because when it comes to eating habits, physical activity, cholesterol, and weight, the White House is telling churches it’s their obligation to instruct women (and men and children) what to do with their bodies.
This is the principle behind Mrs. Obama’s “Let’s Move Faith and Communities” initiative, launched in November 2010 to enlist faith-based organizations in the anti-obesity crusade. At events across the country, Obama has celebrated religious organizations that have heeded her call, lauding everything from Jewish community gardens to Muslim sports tournaments.
As long as America is itself, it will welcome the messy chaos that is not really disorder but, rather, what Postrel calls “an order that is unpredictable, spontaneous, and ever shifting, a pattern created by millions of uncoordinated, independent decisions.” Professional coordinators, a.k.a. bureaucracies, are dismayed. Good
..Choice of one policy over another policy. Choice over the government straitjacket. Choice is the natural consequence of a people who believe in personal liberty.
By making choices in public policy one creates competition and all the benefits that come from competition. One creates better policies, policies suited for individuals' varying needs. One creates efficiencies in distribution and in design of policies...