Category Archives: Republicans

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.

Double Standard When It Comes to Killer Karl

Conservatism, Democrats, Media, Republicans

“DEM DELEGATE WANTS TO ‘KILL’ ROMNEY” blared a DRUDGE headline.

What about the Republican dirt bag who said the following: “We should sink Todd Akin. If he’s found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts!”

Draw your own conclusions from the fact that kingmaker Karl Rove, the man behind much of the Bush presidency, has never stopped being star and guru to conservatives and establishment Republicans.

As the grand dame of the conservative movement, Phyllis Schlafly, said: “Karl Rove has made himself toxic to Republicans by his incredibly offensive and dangerous statement suggesting the murder of Congressman Todd Akin of Missouri. Any candidate or network who hires Rove will now be tarnished with this most malicious remark ever made in Republican politics. … Rove has been calling on Todd Akin to resign, but the one who should resign because he made an embarrassing, malicious and downright stupid remark is Karl Rove.” [Joseph Farah]

On Conflating The Candidate With The Machinations Of The Republican Party Politburo

Elections, Ethics, Family, Journalism, Republicans, Ron Paul

…the Republican National Convention did provide Americans with extraordinarily important information about Mitt Romney and the sort of leader he is likely to be …he is also a rules lawyer who is more than willing to smash the spirit of the game while rewriting its rules any time it appears to suit his interests. From keeping important party figures such as Ron Paul and Sarah Palin off the podium to refusing to recognize the duly-elected delegates from Maine, from changing the party rules on the fly to indulging in a Soviet-style vote count in which only votes for Romney were reported, it is clear that Mitt Romney is even more inclined toward authoritarian rule than Barack Obama has ever shown himself to be.

The problem with assertions made above in “Romney’s Fair Warning,” by Vox Day, my WND colleague, is that they are … assertions, in which Day skips a crucial step. This step would involve showing that Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee are one and the same thing, and that the candidate is involved in the bureaucratic machinations of the party executive.

This is quite possible, but unproven in the column; Day has been too quick to collapse the distinction, at least in so far as administrative matters go, between the purview of the Republican Party politburo and that of the candidate.

I mean, did the candidates running at the time have a hand in what the National Republican Senatorial Committee did to Christine O’Donnell?

Again, it is quite possible that Mitt Romney agreed with party leadership’s decision to bar the most controversial speakers from the 2012 RNC. But it is unclear that Romney was behind it. Assertions absent proof don’t cut it in journalism.

If anything, there is evidence that the “Romney campaign’s [decision] to feature a video tribute to Paul [was] because he likes Paul.” There were rumors on the campaign trail that the two candidates and their wives had become fast friends. And why not? Politics aside, both ladies are gracious, lovely women with family and faith on their minds. (See also “Romney and Paul: BFFs?”)