Archive for 2012

THE GODS OF THE COPYBOOK HEADINGS, illustrated.

JONAH GOLDBERG: The fact that the presidential vote matters so much is a sign not of national health but of dysfunction.

This echoes Jerry Pournelle, who wrote: “We have always known that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. It’s worse now, because capture of government is so much more important than it once was. There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time — not during most of your lifetimes, and for much of mine — and it will probably never be true again.”

NOEMIE EMERY: The Benghazi Bleed. “The Benghazi bleed is draining Obama and Democrats, with the consequence yet to be seen. If he loses, it will be one reason why; if he wins, he will run into a headwind of investigations and inquiries that will get his second term off to an ugly beginning.”

Think how bad it would be if the press hadn’t done its best to protect Obama.

ORACULAR SPECTACULAR: Election predictions from the PJ Media columnists.

My gut says that Romney will win. That’s not scientific, but neither, really, are polls. I got an email the other day from a friend in New York who wanted reassurance. I told him that Michael Barone was predicting a Romney victory, if he wanted reassurance about who would win. But I also offered another kind of reassurance: Regardless of the outcome, it’s a certainty that we’ll have more fun over the next four years than Barack Obama will, and regardless of how the election grows, the Tea Party movement and the popular resistance to Big Government will continue to grow. You can pretty much take that one to the bank.

UPDATE: Related: Barack Obama, The Not-So-Happy Warrior. “The dissonance [between Obama in 2008 and 2012] is so obvious. … Can you think of a president who ran more different campaigns the first and second times? I’ve tried. I can’t.”

CALLING ALL LIBERTARIANS:  Randy Barnett has a great op-ed in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, in which he asserts that the Libertarian Party is a “mistake” and suggesting that the Republican Party is, for this election at least, a better fit for libertarians:

Libertarians need to adjust their tactics to the current context. This year, their highest priority should be saving the country from fiscal ruin, arresting and reversing the enormous growth in federal power—beginning with repealing ObamaCare—and pursuing a judiciary who will actually enforce the Constitution. Which party is most likely to do these things in 2013?

For this libertarian, it is clear that Romney and the Republicans are a far, far better fit.

UPDATE:  Apparently Glenn and I were thinking and reading the same thing at the same time.  LOL.

TEA PARTY:  THIS IS YOUR MOMENT:  Not only is the tea party most decidedly not “dead,” it’s entire existence has been building toward Election Day 2012, when it will finally become clear–to all the mainstream media naysayers–that it is a permanent force to be reckoned with, composed of ordinary Americans who love their country and their Constitution.

They will crawl over broken glass to unseat Obama, whose actions over the past 4 years have consistently demonstrated that he neither loves this country nor its Constitution.

UPDATE: I see Ed had already linked below.  Well, never mind.  I got to explain that, yes, this is my accent.  (Sigh.)

IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT: You have friends crazy enough to be swayed by a crazy foreign-sounding chick telling them Get out and vote! let them hear this.  Yes, that is me.  No, the accent is not a put on.  What is a nice Portuguese-raised girl doing with that accent?  I don’t know!  You should see the looks I got when I taught English comp in college. :)  [And I wasn’t listening to the radio.  We live downtown, and I guess someone with a car radio was parked nearby.  I didn’t hear it, but it showed up on the recording.]

HOW FAR HAVE WE COME IN 4 YEARS?:  From “hope” to “revenge.”  From uniting to dividing.  Do you really think 4 more years of this will make America stronger, more united?

My guess is that no one says “yes,” yet many will still vote for Obama not with the “hope” of “uniting” America, but with the expectation of extracting “revenge” and “fundamentally transforming” this country in the name something akin to “social justice”– a great Marxist, utopian vision that pits citizen against citizen, breeds hatred and division, and redistributes wealth from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Obama’s vision is a recipe for the demise of the greatest country the world has ever known.  It will only intensify if he is given 4 more years without the specter of political accountability via reelection.  The damage will be done.

The last 4 years, encapsulated in a picture:

NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TOMORROW, “Wave goodbye to the Obama media,” Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel write:

The point is that many in the press are every bit as corrupt as conservatives have accused them of being. The good news is, it’s almost over. The broadcast networks, the big daily newspapers, the newsweeklies — they’re done. It’s only a matter of time, and everyone who works there knows it. That may be why so many of them seem tapped out, lazy and enervated, unwilling to stray from the same tired story lines. Some days they seem engaged only on Twitter, where they spend hours preening for one another and sneering at outsiders.

By the next presidential cycle most of these people will be gone. They’ll have moved on to academia or think tanks or Democratic senate campaigns, or wherever aging hacks go when their union contracts finally, inevitably get voided. They’ll be replaced by a vibrant digital marketplace filled with hungry young reporters who care more about breaking stories than maintaining access to some politician or regulator.

Read the whole thing. And then stop by Newsbusters for a schadenfreude-filled rundown on the current career status of the folks who tipped the 2008 election cycle.

MICHAEL WALSH: CRUSH THEM.

JOURNALISM: Proof: Obama Refused to Call Benghazi ‘Terror,’ CBS Covered Up. “In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof–two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public–that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack “terrorism” from the beginning. CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft.”