Category Archives: Republicans

We Know “What Kind of ‘Skeeza’ is a Condoleeza [sic]”

Bush, English, History, Iraq, Neoconservatism, Republicans, Terrorism

“Skeeza” was the moniker that Brother Amiri Baraka attached to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose VP candidacy many conservatives are pushing.

Via RT:

The latest reports out of the Republican Party’s inner circle suggest that Rice, the Secretary of State under former President George W. Bush, is a viable option for Mr. Romney as he comes close to selecting a vice presidential candidate. Drudge Report, the heated political website overseen by conservative pundit Matt Drudge, alleged that Rice was among Romney’s top picks in a posting made this Thursday.

Just this once, I must agree with New Jersey’s awful, inartful poet laureate.

Let us take a romp down memory lane (via the Mercer Archives) with Ms. Rice:

FROM “HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE!”, dated May 29, 2002:

Condoleezza Rice [head of the National Security Council] was unblushing as she justified her dismissive treatment of the critical mass of intelligence pertaining to impending terrorist attacks. Her distinction between analytical reports and specific intelligence information was especially specious. …Is Rice claiming that the mental capacity for deduction is not part of her job description? (President Bush might get away with that.) Can’t Americans expect the thousands of agents they employ to possess the rudimental capability for drawing inferences from data and moving to verify or refute information? Can Rice not be expected to execute a simple algorithm, like instruct her subordinates to screen and canvass certain targeted suspects?

…the National Security Council … is an office created by the National Security Act of 1947 to advise the president on “integration of domestic, foreign and military policies relating to national security and to facilitate interagency cooperation.” If suspicion existed – analytic, synthetic, prosaic or poetic – Rice should have put the squeeze on the system she oversees.

Don’t go away. There is much more to come from the Mercer vault to counter the GOP ditto-heads’ historic Alzheimer’s.

Later.

UPDATED: Romney Went Wooing And Got Booed

Democrats, Elections, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Racism, Reason, Republicans, War, Welfare

Mitt Romney, rather bravely, went to court the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, at the NAACP’s annual convention. He got booed.

Thank CNN for its reliable, comprehensive transcripts. Here are those Romney remarks that angered the crowd at the NAACP Convention:

I’m going to reduce government spending. I hope everyone understands that high levels of debt slow down the rate of growth of the GDP, of the economy. And that means fewer jobs are created. If our goal is jobs, we have to stop spending over a trillion dollars than we take in every year. And so to do that I’m going to eliminate every nonessential expensive program that I can find. That includes Obama care and I’m going to work to reform and save –
(BOOING)

In reply to the frosty reception, Romney told Neil Cavuto of Fox News:

“I am going to give the same message to the NAACP that I give across the country which is that ObamaCare is killing jobs, and if jobs is the priority, then we’re going to have to replace ObamaCare with something that actually holds down health care costs,” he said.
He addressed the fact that in 2008, President Obama got 96 percent of the African-American vote, and said that he believes he’ll take some of that vote away because African Americans are disappointed with the president’s policies.
He added, “By the way, at the end of my speech, having a standing ovation was generous and hospitable on the part of the audience. And I believe that while we disagree on some issues like ObamaCare, on a lot of issues people see eye-to-eye. They want to get the economy going again.”

Every broadcaster knows, but will not say, why blacks vote Democratic almost exclusively: welfare. Free stuff.

Every broadcaster knows, but will not say, why blacks voted en masse for Obama: racial solidarity.

Romney’s changes to the welfariat will probably be minor—and any cuts in welfare will be used to justify waging wars.

Still, the mere hint that, under the too-white to like Romney, state-mediated distribution of the wealth of others would slow provokes black ire.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal editorializes that with his NAACP visit, Romeny was appealing to the wrong constituency: the black liberal establishment.

Well, if Romeny’s “mistake [was] thinking that the NAACP represents average black voters,” it’s an error one can understand. Voting records that lack nuance attest to it. Blacks, moreover, have never risen against their shakedown elites, because, as the community perceives them, race racketeers like “Reverend” Al Sharpton are doing the Lord’s work.

He Contorts, Tom Woods Decides

Conservatism, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Media, Republicans

If Bill O’Reilly proves anything (over and over again) it is that Gresham’s Law (generalized beyond economics) reigns supreme: Specious reasoning will always drive out careful thinking.

Against these odds, Tom Woods tackles O’Reilly’s reliably wonky “constitutional scholarship,” in a masterful YouTube clip, below:

From The O’Reilly Factor, email segment for July 5:

“Bill, you keep asking what the Republicans have to replace Obamacare. Under the Constitution, there is no role for the Federal government in healthcare.”
–Felicia

O’Reilly:
“That’s not true, Felicia. The opening paragraph of the Constitution says the welfare of the people must be promoted. A just healthcare system comes under that banner.”

[Tom Woods] couldn’t resist answering this [for which we should all be grateful].

Establishment Enraged At Its Candidate, Romney

Conservatism, Economy, Elections, Media, Republicans, Taxation

“…for the sake of not abandoning his faulty health-care legacy in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is jeopardizing his chance at becoming President,” the WSJ editorializes.

The editors have objected to Mitt Romney’s lack of objection to Obama and the gang’s framing of The un-Afforable Care Act as a tax. Capiche?

Romney is not remotely as coherent as the WSJ thinks he is in his most confused moments.

Mr. Romney should use the Supreme Court opinion as an opening to say that now that the mandate is defined as a tax for the purposes of the law, he will work to repeal it. This would let Mr. Romney show voters that Mr. Obama’s spending ambitions are so vast that they can’t be financed solely by the wealthy but will inevitably hit the middle class.

On the other hand, it is just possible that the WSJ is upset with the Romeny campaign for failing to hire as campaign adviser the ubiquitous Stephen Moore, popular commentator on Fox New and beyond, and author of “Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer.”

“We’re on its email list,” they whine, “and the main daily message from the campaign …[simply won’t cut it].”

Hint, hint.