The Stupid Party (Republicans) appears to have outsmarted the Evil Party (Democrats), for once.
Don’t you love how Democrats, especially, are talking non-stop about the imperative of all decent people in the nation not to talk about the unmentionable, ungodly Reverend Jeremiah Wright?
I love it. It’s out of a Kathy Griffin skit. (I once adored that woman, until she went and let her lefty self all hang out. She’s still wickedly un-PC.)
“Ann Romney is economically a hell of a lot smarter than Hilary Rosen,” concludes Kevin D. Williamson, in a neat column wherein, taking into account “scarcity of economic resources and scarcity of parental time,” and weighing these against the utmost top dollar the lovely Mrs. Romney might have commanded, Kevin calculates that Ann Romney would have been stark raving mad to have abandoned her gorgeous kids to the deprivations of daycare.
Not when the much-maligned Mr. Romney was bringing in “about $6,400 an hour at Bain Capital.”
Nice, if reductive, column, for after all, it is indeed likely that the Romneys would have made the same decisions were Mitt less successful. Values are irreducible.
“Democratic operative Hilary Rosen — who sneered that [Ann Romney] ‘has actually never worked a day in her life'”—wishes she were a quality babe who could attract a catch like Mitt Romney.
(Tinny ideologues should note that I do not support Romney, but this does not rob me of objectivity, as it does the robotic ideologue. I appreciate many of Mitt Romney’s qualities.)
Assad should leave Syria [his home]. Maybe his Russian pals can save his family members of whom he seems fond.
The gorgon also recommended that, “Newly ‘elected’ President Vladimir Putin could use the crisis in Syria to ‘reset’ world perceptions of his country. Negotiating Assad’s exit would go a long way toward restoring Russia’s image as a responsible and crucial global player.”
Russians voted. International monitors approved the rambunctious process as the fairest so far. Having failed in egging on a “successful,” “color-coded or plant-based revolution” in Russia, the know-it-all, monolithic media of the West have expressed the standard contempt about Vladimir Putin’s overwhelming majority, calling the victory a “stolen election.” Way to go.
Everyone knew that Putin was going to win, and even anti-Putin pollsters admitted he would get at least 60% of the vote, which would be a landslide in an American election. But, cry the pundits, Putin has the support of the peasantry. The smart people in the cities who can watch the BBC and read the New York Times–the people who really count in any country–they are holding spontaneous anti-Putin demonstrations. Pro-Putin demonstrators are either state employees doing a job or mere yokels. In other words, Russia=the USA, where only rubes and crazies would support Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul.
The pundits, long in advance, were also predicting corruption and irregularities, as they always do whenever the the US regime disapproves of election results. The fall-back position is that Putin and his cronies rigged the election in advance by restricting the pool of candidates. …
merican elections have never been clean. Nevertheless, the sauce for the Russian goose cannot be ladled on the American gander. This is especially clear in the case of the charge that Putin’s party rigged the election in advance by restricting the pool of candidates. Here in America, we call this manoeuvre the primary system.
In our two-party party state, ballot access for third party candidates is very restricted. After all, only Democrats and Republicans were involved in writing federal and state election laws. There is no mention political parties in the Constitution, and while two political coalitions emerged very early–the faction of Hamilton versus the faction of Jefferson–they did not function as political parties in the later sense. There were no chairmen, party lines, or caucuses to enforce discipline on independent-minded members of Congress or state legislatures.
