Category Archives: Neoconservatism

Romney: So Nice, So Wrong

Business, China, Democrats, Foreign Policy, Iran, Neoconservatism, Republicans, Trade

MSNBC was my first port of call, right after Mitt Romney completed his address to the 2012 Republican Convention. Romney’s sworn enemies would be the best gauges as to how well the speech resonated.

The cobra head at MSNBC—Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O’Donnell, Ed Schultz—all were remarkably mild in their reactions. Other than the hissing Chris Matthews, these people were partial to the man and his message.

O’Donnell: ‘It was an effective presentation’
Chuck Todd: ‘optimistic nostalgia’
Ed Schultz: a ‘pitch to women’
HuffPo: “Solid.” “Competent.” “Workmanlike.”
Chris Matthews, aka The Snake, was the only one to rightly condemn Romney’s “jingoistic language about war,” as “bad for the country.”

AND FOR THE WORLD!

Tomorrow these pundits will have returned to their default position. But, for now, they seemed to have finally seen that, while Romney’s political positions are horrid, he’s a lovely man. As incongruous as this may seem, it is nevertheless true.

I’ve seen enough of life to know a lovely man when I see one. Ann Romney, herself a delightful lady, is a lucky woman. Romney is a great provider, fabulously devoted to family and church, consistently generous and charitable to all those around him, and brilliant in all endeavors, academic and other.

Unlike those of Obama, Romney’s university transcripts will stand scrutiny.

Sadly, Romney is wrong on almost all issues of policy.

WRONG on China.
WRONG on Foreign policy.
WRONG on Iran.
WRONG on Russia.

So wrong about so much, yet such a lovely man. (And I did cheer, “Bain, Baby,” when he talked up free enterprise.)

“Repeal-and-replace statism” is what the Ryan-Romney ticket is about.

Just In From Mainstream: Barack Is As Thick As A Brick

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Debt, Economy, Foreign Policy, Media, Neoconservatism

Here’s an excerpt from the current column, “Just In From Mainstream: Barack Is As Thick As A Brick,” now on WND:

“… Nevertheless, Niall Ferguson has performed a small service, in so far as he has offered the first comprehensive, utterly damning case against Barack Hussein Obama, from establishment intelligentsia’s perspective.

Easily his greatest feat, however, is to have admitted that Barack Obama doesn’t comprehend the issues about which he is expected to decide; to intimate that the president is a product of—how shall we put it?—political grooming.

“You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him [Obama] make a decision,” [Lawrence] Summers told [Peter] Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.”

About the president’s comprehension skills, the one Harvard professor seconds the assessment of the other, quoted above. Writes Ferguson: “I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable ‘seminar’ on Afghanistan policy.”

Now, that is remarkable.

When “You Can’t Fix Stupid” was published (April 15, 2011), legions of WND readers wrote in to patiently and laboriously explain to me that Barack Obama was not “stupid,” only evil. An evil genius, if you like.

If indirectly, Ferguson disproves that misconception.

Yet I have to wonder who here is the real schmo—the man who was led to believe throughout his “career” trajectory that he was up to the task, or the sycophants and enablers, equally represented among The American People, and among those who’ve pirated the ghost-ship of state. All have helped enforce Barack Obama’s delusions of grandeur. …”

The complete column, “Just In From Mainstream: Barack Is As Thick As A Brick,” is now on WND.

Also available from WND or from Amazon is the prophetic “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid.”

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

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY:

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections.

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

UPDATED: Hit The Road, Schmo* (Some Ferguson Facts)

Barack Obama, Economy, Elections, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Media, Neoconservatism

“A member of this global, glamorous elite; people who are at home in London and New York” is how Byron York wryly (and aptly) described economist Niall Ferguson (6 minutes into this clip). Ferguson has penned a Newsweek article, “Hit The Road, Barack: Why We Need a New President,“ which has infuriated the Obama-Head media. The Washington Examiner’s York set the scene for Ferguson’s defiance: “It is very fashionable among [this global elite] to support President Obama.”

From the perspective of the libertarian, Professor Ferguson’s piece is unremarkable (although, as I have said before in covering him, Ferguson’s knowledge is formidable).

On foreign policy, Ferguson accuses Obama of not being enough of a statist, which this neoconservative equates with statesmanship.

However, for a member of establishment intelligentsia to openly admit that Barack Obama doesn’t understand the issues about which he is supposed to decide; to intimate that he is the affirmative action appointee: Now, that is remarkable.

“You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)

Except, I have to wonder who’s the real Schmo? The man who was led to believe that he was up to the task throughout his “career” trajectory, or the enablers and sycophants who enforced Barack Obama’s self-delusions.

I recall that when, in April 15, 2011, I wrote ‘You Can’t Fix Stupid,’ readers patiently explained to me that BHO was not stupid, only evil. (Even IQ ace Steve Sailer might have been gulled.) No. I’ve always maintained that Obama was cunning, but not clever.

But there is much more to the article. Read it.

(*Schmo: From Yiddish, dull, stupid, fool.)

UPDATE: Non-writers, or armchair scribblers, will be cavalier about the comprehensiveness of the Ferguson piece. I am not, for obvious reasons. I disagree with Ferguson on many issues—for example, he cites “official” unemployment figures, rather than real joblessness, which not even the U6 statistic covers.

In addition, his notion of GDP is in all likelihood off too; official GDP numbers are a gambit.

And, as far as the Killer Drone’s actions abroad go, Ferguson objects not so much to the stealth killing of innocents, but to the loss of “crucial intelligence” assets caused by BHO’s “assassination program.”

As for Ferguson’s China fear mongering; that was addressed in an earlier critique: “Chinese mercantilism is not free trade, but is it not better than American militarism?” You bet it is.

On and on.

I understand that all Ferguson’s condemners believe they could have bested the Prof. Still, Ferguson has done a serious service in so far as he has offered the first damning case against BHO from the perspective of mainstream.

Interesting excerpts:

…the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.
…In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.
…Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.
…By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), [government debt] will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.
…Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”

UPDATE II: The Neoconservative Project Lives (Paul Ryan’s ‘Conservative’ Record)

Conservatism, Debt, Elections, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, War

On Mitt Romney’s choice of “vice presidential running mate,” I’ll cut and paste what I wrote on 01.13.11 and on January 10, of the same year, about Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, who, like Romney, is a nice enough man, but no candidate for the change the US needs.

No wonder neoconservative kingpin Bill Kristol had anointed the House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan as heir apparent to the neoconservative project. He is “strong on national defense,” Kristol repeated twice to Neil Cavuto with that broad Cheshire-Cat grin of his.

Could the neoconservative kingpin be licking his chops for war? Is Iran on the chopping block? What else would make a religious proponent of big government and American manifest destiny so smitten?

If Bill Kristol was this excited about the prospects of a Romney-Ryan run for president—it must mean the promise of killing and carnage.

Remember, moreover, that Ryan is a strategist; he has more plans than principles. You and I do not want to see the debt ceiling raised. But for some reason, Ryan thought ours was a “tactic” that was not “viable.” Tactic? Come Again? Ryan clearly believes that the US government’s ability to borrow must be sustained as part of the neoconservative national-pride dybbuk.

Ryan had stated his willingness, however, to “tack on requirements for deep spending cuts as a condition of passage.” Why, thank you, Sir.

When it comes to serious spending cuts, Republicans intend to do no more than tinker around the edges. Time and again, John Stossel has exposed just how little they will do to beat back the federal behemoth:

New Speaker John Boehner, leader of the Republicans who now control the House, says he wants to cut spending. When he was sworn in last week, he declared: “Our spending has caught up with us. … No longer can we kick the can down the road.”
But when NBC anchorman Brian Williams asked him to name a program “we could do without,” he said, “I don’t think I have one off the top of my head.”
Give me a break! You mean to tell me the Republican leader in the House doesn’t already know what he wants to cut? I don’t know which is worse — that he doesn’t have a list or that he won’t talk about it in public.
The Republicans say they’ll start by cutting $100 billion, but let’s put that in perspective. The budget is close to $4 trillion. So $100 billion is just 2.5 percent. That’s shooting too low. Firms in the private sector make cuts like that all the time. It’s considered good business — pruning away deadwood.
GOP leaders say the source of their short-run cuts will be discretionary non-security spending. They foolishly exclude entitlement spending, which Congress puts on autopilot, and all spending for national and homeland security (whether it’s necessary or not). That leaves only $520 billion.
So even if the Republicans managed to cut all discretionary non-security spending (which is not what they plan), the deficit would still be $747 billion. (The deficit is now projected to be $1.267 trillion.)
This is a revolution? Republicans will have to learn that there is no budget line labeled “waste, fraud, abuse.” If they are serious about cutting government, they will ax entire programs, departments and missions.

UPDATE I (Aug. 12): PAUL RYAN’S ‘CONSERVATIVE’ RECORD. Via Jane Aitken, Founder, NH Tea Party Coalition:

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs

-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education

Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties

-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad

-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

“Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi-trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid.”

“According to Michelle Malkin in 2009, ‘[Paul Ryan]”… “hyped as a conservative rock-star’ …. ‘gave one of the most hysterical speeches in the rush to pass TARP last fall; voted for the auto bailout; and voted with the Barney Frank-Nancy Pelosi AIG bonus-bashing stampede.’ Milwaukee blogger Nick Schweitzer wrote: ‘He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don’t see one bit of regret for what he did previously. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let him get away with it’.”

UPDATE II: Boorish neoconservatives (bores too) tout the Ryan choice for VP, on Meet The Press (which always transcribes programs):

BILL BENNETT:

“Well, I see Paul Ryan is a serious man for serious times. And here’s what I think. It is a clear choice. There will be a serious debate. If people will pause and think about the debate, think about the arguments and take Paul Ryan’s arguments seriously that he will make and lead on.
And he’s got a winning way. This is one of the reasons he was picked. This guy has a way of presenting things that makes people listen. He’s got that Jack Kemp style and wins over a lot of people. If they pause and reflect on it and see the problems that we have and his solutions I think we have a very good chance of winning.
If we stay at the cheap shot level, that Mitt Romney kills people, Mitt Romney is a vulture capitalist, then we have a problem. What Ryan does is gives the campaign definition, as Chuck Todd said yesterday, but gives it reality too. You don’t have a caricature of Paul Ryan now to talk about. You have to deal with Paul Ryan. And I very much look forward to that Biden-Ryan debate.”

RICH LOWRY:

“I think it’s a pick that really speaks well for Mitt Romney. Shows he has a good eye for talent. Shows he is bolder and more creative than some of us even supporters of his had given him credit for. And shows, David, a real commitment to getting some big things done.
And he wasn’t going to win a strictly safe or a strictly biographical campaign. This pick puts the accent more on substance and puts the guy on the ticket who’s perhaps best capable among current Republicans to defend a forward-looking agenda.
And the Medicare attack was going to come regardless, because Mitt Romney is already in favor of (UNINTEL) support for Medicare. And, look, Democrats are already accusing Mitt Romney of killing someone and they haven’t even gotten to Medicare yet. So the Medicare attacks are–“