Category Archives: Elections

‘Tomorrow’s Headlines Today’

Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections, Intelligence, Journalism, Media, Reason

It matter not how well or how poorly Mitt Romney performs in Wednesday night’s “first of three presidential debates.” On the morrow, the headlines the media scrum will run with will approximate these:

• “Romney tries to match BHO’s hipness, but sounds hollow.” (That is if Mitt dares to crack a joke. And Romney IS funny.)
• “Once again, Romney attempts to connect but falls flat.” (That is if if Mitt mentions any of life’s travails, or if he makes a logical argument, instead of sticking to emotions, as BHO does so well.

On and on. It’s tiresome.

Why don’t you have at it? Write “Tomorrow’s Headlines Today.” Pretend you too are a pre-programed journo pack animal.

Remember, it’s all for the love of Obama.

UPDATED: Anything Obama Can Do, I Can Do Deadlier: That Sums Romney’s Foreign Policy

Barack Obama, Constitution, Elections, Foreign Policy, Just War, libertarianism, Old Right, Republicans, Terrorism, War

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow stares into the Romney foreign-policy abyss, and demolishes Obama’s challenger for going AWOL, and allowing Americans to continue to drift unmoored. In fact, from Maddow’s impassioned plea, I hazard that if Mitt Romney fleshed out the details of an Old-Right, anti-interventionist stand, exposing the immorality of Obama’s adventurism and violations abroad, he’d get her respect, and, if not her own vote, that of many of her pals on the left.

Yes, on rare occasions, Rachel Maddow does surprise with a streak of independence. If I understood Maddow’s latest televised monologue–and I do believe I am not giving her undue credit—she is challenging Mitt Romeny to say something meaningful, anything, about US foreign policy. And, in particular, about Obama’s worldwide drone assassination program, which she, like any decent human being, abhors.

That’s all you’ve got. how about this. what would you do differently if the answer is we’d be stronger, that’s not an answer. we deserve a politics that is capable of giving us choices or setting up a debate about competing reasonable ideas about handling the controversial things the government does in our names.
I know what the obama administration’s position is on Afghanistan. because he’s the president. i have no idea what mitt romney would do differently in Afghanistan, if anything. i know what the obama’s administration is on drones. i frankly find that position hair raising. i know what the obama administration’s position is on Pakistan. i know mitt romney thinks pakistan is very important. is it inconceivable somebody would ask him why, how, what his plan would be when it comes to that country? politics should move us some distance toward debate and decision making on the hardest problems we face as a country. that is not what we’re getting from our politics right now. if we’re not getting it now, when…”

Obama, says Maddow, is “using flying killer robots to do kill people all over the world.” She invites Romney to step into the void,

and his “answer is that he also thinks killing bin laden was a good idea. [and that] he wouldn’t crash [a drone] in iran. any questions? it is days like this when you realize that however important this presidential campaign is and this decision is, that we as a country have to make between these two candidates, our politics are essentially failing right now. they’re essentially impotent now for debating questions like this one. choosing between candidates is supposed to be the way we choose between policies in important thing that affect our country including national security. but our politics have been allowed to shrink if one side doesn’t want to talk about it, we’re not going to debate it as a country. let people in Washington figure it out. a new report out today says our secret drone policy, which we’ve been implementing for the better part of a decade, may be radicalizing the residents with a radical country. we’re not going to debate that at all. that’s not a policy matter that’s bort some national discussion. no competing ideas about maybe a choice in course. this is what the democratic president is doing. the republican party has no competing ideas on this at all? nothing to say? with this policy, due process that we afford people, that we kill people, the due process ultimately consists of the president of the united states making the call.
…but we are in the process of picking who’s going to be the next president and we’re not asking where these two men stand on that issue or if they think they should have that power. if that power should exist. if we’re not going to ask these questions now. look at this week. you have president obama at the UN talking about the policy of Pakistan and Hillary Clinton meeting the president of Pakistan on the same day. you have the developing story of the drone attack yesterday that killed an al qaeda leader. and you have a presidential campaign. but the conversation when it comes to this stuff is, “he seems like jimmy carter.” i read that he was a one-term president once. really? that’s all you’ve got. how about this. what would you do differently? if the answer is we’d be stronger, that’s not an answer. we deserve a politics that is capable of giving us choices or setting up a debate about competing reasonable ideas about handling the controversial things the government does in our names. i know what the obama administration’s position is on afghanistan. because he’s the president. i have no idea what mitt romney’s [is]…

MORE:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE (9/26): In reply to the Facebook thread: MRP, as per usual, your position is in contradiction to mine. As I’ve replied to you many times, and in almost every post or column of mine, yours is standard anarchism, and it goes as follow: “Don’t say anything, for it is nothing really. Do not comment on policy, for it compromises precious libertarian purity. Do not apply your mind to the issues of the day to enlighten your readers and bring them closer to liberty, for no enlightenment other than the immediate and absolute application and acceptance of the non-aggression axiom can be entertained.” Pretty much. I’m sorry, Myron, but, like it or not, what Maddow said is important. Objectively speaking. And my anti-war readers are better informed for understanding how truly remiss Romney is for not breaking with the Bush-McCain axis of evil. It takes no intellectual effort whatsoever to adopt a default position of intellectual ennui and superiority.
Finally, I am unconvinced Romney is as bad a man as is Obama, on a personal level. Romney is just a conformist, and pig ignorant in terms of political philosophy.

Peggy Noonan’s Looking For Mr. Big (In All The Wrong Places)

Conservatism, Debt, Elections, Republicans, Taxation, The State, War, Welfare

From the current column, “Peggy Noonan Is Looking For Mr. Big” (In All The Wrong Places), now on RT:

“Like those annoying pop-up ads on the Internet do, a mental image matching the reading material kept intruding into my thoughts, as I slogged through the Peggy Noonan column everyone is discussing.

The image: An over-sized, acromegalic baby, jaws slapping, going, “Ga, ga, ga.”

The column is “Time for an Intervention.” To better jibe with Noonan’s infantile prose and purpose, the thing should have been titled, “Noonan To Mitt: ‘You Naughty Little Boy.'”

Its subject: Mitt Romney’s so-called mic malfunction. In a stream-of-consciousness ramble, Peggy registers her displeasure with Romney’s unvarnished assessment of a large portion of the Democratic Party’s constituency.

The operative word in Peggy’s baby-talk: Big. Baby wants lots of big things. And now.

While liberty requires a leader small and insignificant—one who lets the individual live free—Peggy wants a “big and wise” presence in her life. And in everyone else’s.

Subconsciously, no doubt, Peggy presses her points by galvanizing the style of the black southern preacher—except that the preacher, contra the courtesan to politicians, does not mistake the Republican anointed one with a Higher Power.

Romney’s realism is not how “big leaders talk” to “a big nation,” whimpers Peggy, who suggests that we discuss a “big issue”—one that has long since been settled, if I am not mistaken.

As proof that the matter in Big Government V. Small Government has been decided, I offer exhibit No. 1: 16 trillion gigabucks worth of debt. …”

The complete column is, “Peggy Noonan Is Looking For Mr. Big” (In All The Wrong Places), now on RT.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

For the Love of Obama

Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections, Elections 2008, Journalism, Media, Republicans, Socialism, Taxation, The State, Welfare

Speaking to “a group of his wealthier Golden State backers at a San Francisco fund-raiser,” on a Sunday in April 2008, one presidential candidate slimes small-town America as bitterly clinging to their guns, bigotries and bibles. The media listens in, but decides to keep a lid on the rant, because, in the words of a reporter who like the rest was rooting for the candidate, she “didn’t want to bring down the campaign.”

Four years later, another presidential candidate states a few plain facts about an electorate of which “47 percent ‘will vote for [Obama] no matter what’; “who are with him,” no matter what, “who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it”; who regard as an”entitlement” the fruits of another man’s labor, and think “government should give it to them,” and who “will vote for this president no matter what… people who pay no income tax.”

The same reporters who refused to pull back the curtain to reveal Obama’s contempt for small town Pennsylvania are hyperventilating over Mitt Romney’s unvarnished assessment of a large portion of the Democratic Party’s constituency.

One is, seemingly, forbidden to point out that while some people work for their living, others vote for their livelihood.

Thankfully, Romney is not groveling, this time, but simply affirming the figures and his,

concern about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work.