Gov. Mitch Daniels Denies Mourdock Is Tea Party Phenomenon

lefty makes a point

The former Lugar associate might be expected to say something like this, but the fact is, and Rush Limbaugh is right, Sen. Lugar of Indiana represents the Republican establishment, and Mourdock beat him with the help of the Tea Party.

This is also why Mitch Daniels went nowhere this cycle as a possible presidential candidate. Mitch is also the Republican establishment. He might as well be Senator John McCain.

Rush has the full story, and here's Daniel's denial:

DANIELS:  It would be a complete misunderstanding to label this a Tea Party phenomenon when in fact the winner had a very strong majority with rank-and-file Republicans who felt they knew him, have seen a lot of him, he's been elected twice statewide in just the last six years, so he's a Republican regular himself, and that was the decisive factor.

Mitt Romney (and Rush Limbaugh) Do Not Understand The American Founding

Here's Rush cheer-leading Gov. Mitt Romney for something Romney said today at CPAC, something which shows neither he nor Limbaugh really understand the American Founding:

ROMNEY: We believe in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence!  We believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!  We know the brilliance that suggested that individuals pursuing their own dreams would make us the most powerful nation on earth, not a government trying to guide our lives.  This is who we are! This passion we must take to the American people.  This is our moment! This is why we're conservatives.  The task before us now is to reaffirm the convictions that unite us and go forward, shoulder to shoulder, to secure victory that America so desperately needs and deserves. 

CROWD: (cheering)

ROMNEY: Let's do it together! Thank you, and God bless America. 

CROWD: (cheers and applause)

ROMNEY: Thank you.

RUSH:  Right on, dude.  Right on.  I mean, that's... What did you think of that, Snerdley?  Did you it? That was! It was severe.  It was.  It was "severely conservative."  You know that I'm just gonna get beat up so bad for this.

Rush should get beat up for this, along with Romney, because becoming "the most powerful nation on earth" was as foreign a concept to the Founders as it is to conservatism.

The Founders sought independence from England in order to enjoy membership in the family of nations, instead of enduring the on-going disrespect with which King George treated his colonies in America. A grandiose design to become world hegemon, pace Mitt, pace Rush, was a . . . uh hum, foreign concept.

From "The Original Intent of the Declaration of Independence" by John Fea, here:

Historian David Armitage, in a fascinating book entitled The Declaration of Independence: A Global History, has argued convincingly that the Declaration of Independence was written primarily as a document asserting American political sovereignty in the hopes that the newly created United States would secure a place in the international community of nations. In fact, Armitage asserts, the Declaration was discussed abroad more than it was at home. This meant that the Declaration was "decidedly un-revolutionary. It would affirm the maxims of European statecraft, not affront them."

To put this differently, the "self-evident truths" and "unalienable rights" of the Declaration's second paragraph would not have been particularly new or groundbreaking in the context of the 18th-century British world. These were ideals that all members of the British Empire valued regardless of whether they supported or opposed the American Revolution. The writers of the Declaration of Independence did not believe that they were advancing political principles unique to America. This was a foreign policy document.

In an 1825 letter to fellow Virginian Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson explained his motivation behind writing the Declaration:

When forced, therefore to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our jurisdiction. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take.

John Adams, writing five years after he signed it, called the Declaration "that memorable Act by which [the United States] assumed an equal Station among the nations." There is little in these statements to suggest that the Declaration of Independence was anything other than an announcement to the world that the former British colonies were now free and independent states and thus deserve a place in the international order of nations.

Alas, we are left with ignorant fools, appealing to ignorant fools.

Same as it ever was.

Rush Limbaugh Gets 'Hermaphrodite' Spectacularly Wrong

This is almost charmingly naive when you think about it:

Wait 'til you hear what was said about them and what these guys were saying about each other back in 1800. Only on their deathbeds when they both died within seconds of each other, according to legend -- only on their deathbeds -- did they put it all back together. Well, prior to that Adams had sent Jefferson a letter. "Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character..." He accused him of being a hermaphrodite, which of course means that you have neither the aspects of a man or a woman. You're like a moderate. "You hermaphrodite!" It's like calling somebody a moderate with no sex organs to boot. You know, no nothing.

Heritage Foundation Director Responsible for Healthcare Mandate Idea in 1989

It's one of three dirty little secrets about the Republicans that they are intellectually responsible for the healthcare mandate idea which we have so vehemently opposed but which now stares us in the face in ObamaCare. If ObamaCare were in fact a Bolshevik plot, that must mean the commies own also the Republican Party, not just the Democrat.

A Heritage Foundation director named Stuart Butler presented a paper in 1989 which contains the idea of the healthcare mandate, backed up by some of the absurd reasoning many of us had been attacking in the debate over the Senate healthcare bill, for example, the analogy between car insurance and health insurance.

The link to the full paper is here.

And here's an excerpt on the mandate:

This paragraph sounds like a Newt Gingrich talking point.

Boobs like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity incessantly promote the Heritage Foundation to their audiences, while claiming the mantle of conservatism. But as we all come to learn sooner or later, saying doesn't make it so.

Government compulsion continues to be the nexus of political conflict in America. Unfortunately for us, the Republican establishment is for it as much as our enemies on the left.

For more, regrettably, see here:

It wouldn't have been at all odd for any of these Republicans to support the individual mandate in the past, because it was a Republican idea, hatched by Stuart Butler and some others at the Heritage Foundation. (Documentation here.) Heritage has desperately tried to disavow it, but to no avail. Even James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, apparently present at the creation, concedes the point. You sometimes hear conservatives defend their past support for the individual mandate by saying that something was needed to head off more ambitious health insurance schemes like Hillarycare, but that's another way of saying that whenever a conservative proposes any solution to the health care crisis he or she does so in bad faith. Vote Republican if you like, but don't kid yourself that a Republican president would replace Obamacare with anything at all. Not even Romney would. You might even say especially Romney, since the issue has brought him nothing but grief since the 2012 cycle began.

Rush Limbaugh Seriously Asks Us To Believe Elliott Abrams Was Spoon-fed

Not once. Not twice. But three times.

Transcript:

[I]t seems like Elliott Abrams has been had.  It seems like Elliott Abrams had a piece at National Review really ripping into Newt, was spoon-fed some out-of-context stuff. ...

So Jeffrey Lord got together with some peopl[e], and found out that it appears that Mr. Abrams been spoon-fed some stuff that he didn't question because there is an institutional dislike for Newt amongst the conservative establishment and so on and so forth. ...

[T]here were the videos of some examples selectively edited. You know, things left out and starting point of the edited version, not really the starting point. So there you have it. But, however, folks, I'm just gonna have to assume here that Elliott Abrams was spoon-fed this stuff by the Romney people.

Elsewhere in his remarks Rush lets this whopper fly:

Elliott Abrams' reputation is beyond repute [sic]. He's gold. He's the coin of the realm, and that's what made people curious.

Assistant Secretaries of State for eight years under Ronald Reagan aren't spoon-fed anything, particularly Harvard grads with BA, MA and JD degrees who go on to plead guilty to two misdemeanors of withholding information from Congress.

You know, doofusses who, [w]hile serving for Reagan and in the State Department . . . were integral players in the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams held many roles within the affair, some official and unofficial. This included working with CIA operations that got the U.S. onboard with the illegal shipment of arms and supplies.

Gee, what could Elliott Abrams and Newt Gingrich have disagreed about in 1986 which would have caused Abrams today to attempt to re-write Newt Gingrich's relationship with Ronald Reagan in order to discredit Newt's run for president?

An "institutional dislike"?

Try a fundamental difference over the meaning and limits of conservatism.

Rush Limbaugh is such a fraud today: Elliott Abrams was spoon-fed a bunch of Newt excerpts!!!

Like Eliott Abrams had no idea what Gingrich was saying in the well of the House every night for five hours, and is too stupid to remember today.

This is all about Gingrich's opposition to neo-conservatism. The whole controversy has become a veritable litmus test for it, and Rush tries to paper this over with some kakamaymee story while the Republican establishment, which is neo-conservative, launches a jihad against the former Speaker of the House, Ronald Reagan's best friend in the Congress.

'Co-opt Reagan! Co-opt Reagan!', that's the neo-conservative marching order.

Rush really does think his audience is stupid.

Richard Viguerie Smokes Mitt Romney As Anti-Capitalist On His Own TARP Petard

Here:

To Mitt Romney, venture capitalist, the average worker is an expendable line on a spreadsheet -- until that worker’s tax dollars were needed to bailout financiers who promoted the leveraged buyouts and packaged the exotic financial instruments that led to the financial meltdown of 2008.

Who is more anti-capitalist? Is it Romney’s opponents, who question whether or not a form of capitalism that allows a handful of rich people to avoid moral hazard, manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and then walk off with the money by getting a bailout from the taxpayers?

Or, are the real anti-capitalists Mitt Romney and his establishment friends in the Washington/Wall Street Axis who hypocritically enjoy having the option of firing "the little guy" and stripping the factory on Main Street on the way up -- but then use their insider power and influence to demand those same little taxpayers bail them out on the way down?

And the person chiefly responsible for misleading the troops on this issue is Rush Limbaugh, who has flip-flopped on the bank bailout issue in spectacular fashion and fed Gingrich to the wolves.

Sarah Palin Follows Rush, Tries To Change The Subject to Jobs from Looting

Newt has tried to appear to take a principled stand in the war on Romney and today's Republicans don't seem to want to join him there, which just shows what a throwback Newt is and what co-dependents Republicans have become in their job-servitude.

Republicans are in thrall to the concept of The Job as much as Germany was to The Worker in the 1920s. Sarah Palin's remarks asking for full disclosure of job creation data and of Mitt's tax returns strike me as pure posturing and ass-covering in the face of Mitt's impending coronation. What was it, five colleges she attended to get a four year degree?

While Newt's gotten older the Republican Party has continued to move so far away from its old moral positions that it now considers Newt to be talking the values of the enemy. Rush Limbaugh is a case in point, who constantly derides Newt for using the language of the left, when Rush can't make up his mind from day to day whether the bank bailouts were necessary, superfluous or deceitful. A convert like Augustine of Hippo couldn't possibly have something important to contribute, could he?

The truth is Romney's capitalism is parasitic, not entrepreneurial, because it incessantly demands gains in productivity which go to the owners and investors at the expense of the workers. Please. Save. My. Crummy. Job.

No one aged 50 or more who has lost a position on a mere technicality after twenty or more years of service, and they are legion, is sympathetic to this argument. What work at year 5, 10, 14 or 18 was superior to the work at year 20, but for the fact that salary and benefits at that point represented a juicy cost savings going directly to the almighty bottom line? The young who lose their jobs are too inexperienced and too frequently abused to know any other reality than job-hopping in the world created by the corporate raider. Such lives do not produce traditional, stable families, nor committed, law-abiding communities and reliable tax bases. The business left is now in full-throated holler for simplifying taxes, removing tax deductions, and, the real point, a more mobile worker, one who doesn't own a house and who can be moved here and there at will without having to sell first.

Pat Buchanan, who twenty years ago this month made life very difficult for one President George Herbert Walker Bush in the New Hampshire primary, had a change of heart about what was really happening to American workers as he made the rounds during the campaign. It made him realize that something had begun to change in the relationship between worker and employer which went to the heart of patriotism. Today we see the full expression of businesses' loyalty, and it's not to justice, only to the letter of the law, skilfully crafted by its bought and paid for politician. 

If only we had Republican candidates today who could effectively tap this well of misery in order to alleviate it instead of merely to get elected. Democrats are better at this, which is why their future looks bright, and ours looks dim.

Romney Likens Bain to Obama Bail Out of Auto Cos.: Rush Livid Romney Makes Newt's Point!

So Rush is left today simply trying to change the subject to what Romney SHOULD have said, because Newt not only can't be right, he MUSTN'T be right, now that he's guilty of "anti-capitalism" according to Rush.

The story and video of Romney on CBS this morning are here:

“In the general election I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler – closed factories, closed dealerships laid off thousands and thousands of workers – he did it to try to save the business." ...

“We also had the occasion to do things that are tough to try and save a business." ...

Where is Sarah Palin and that crony capitalism talk from Sept. 3, 2011 when you need it? Is she going to leave Newt to hang out to dry and defend Ron Paul who now defends Romney, or ante up and call Romney (and Obama) nuts and Newt right?




"In a dull stream, which moving slow,
You hardly see the current flow;
When a small breeze obstructs the course,
It whirls about for want of force,
And in its narrow circle gathers
Nothing but chaff, and straws, and feathers:
The current of a female mind stops thus,
and turns with ev'ry wind;
Thus whirling round, together draws
Fools, fops, and rakes, for chaff and straws."

-- Swift

James Pethokoukis Trots Out His August 2010 Surprise as a January 2012 Surprise

Involving a supposed mass refinancing of GSE-backed mortgages.

Rush Limbaugh fell for it on his show today, but it's a recycled attempt at a story to which there was nothing when it first appeared a year and a half ago, and there's nothing to it now unless . . . Obama makes another very quick recess appointment, and a bunch of lenders agree to take huge hits.

Fat chance, I say.

Aside from the political toxicity of the former (even The New Republic thinks Obama's recent appointment was unconstitutional), I can't imagine how lenders are just going to agree to eat half of the losses associated with rewriting mortgages at today's lower interest rates, especially with the stiffer Basel III bank capital rules now taking effect: "[T]he plan would have an immediate fixed cost to the government of . . . $242 billion with half that cost split equally between the government and lenders." 

Linda Lowell at housingwire.com, among others, knew the story was malarkey way back when here.

For Pethokoukis' August 2010 version, see here. For the January 2012 version, now see here.