It's Not About the Sexism

I am so livid at these bogus charges of sexism being levied against the big, bad white senators who oppose the prospect of a Susan Rice nomination as Secretary of State. 

A presumptive nominee can be opposed because of her substantive policy, her views, her covering up for the Administration over Libya. Is Kelly Ayotte expressing skepticism because she's a sexist? What about Susan Collins? What about Dana Milbank?

Rice’s pugilism provoked the Russians to weigh in this week in opposition to her nomination as secretary of state. The Russian business daily Kommersant quoted an anonymous Russian foreign ministry official as saying that Rice, who quarreled with Russia over Syria, is “too ambitious and aggressive,” and her appointment would make it “more difficult for Moscow to work with Washington.”

Compared with this, the flap over Libya is relatively minor — but revealing. It’s true that, in her much-criticized TV performance, she was reciting talking points given to her by the intelligence agencies. But that’s the trouble. Rice stuck with her points even though they had been contradicted by the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who, on CBS’s “Face the Nation” just before Rice, said there was “no doubt” that the attack on Americans in Benghazi “was preplanned.” Rice rebutted the Libyan official, arguing — falsely, it turned out — that there was no evidence of such planning.

True, Rice was following orders from the White House, which she does well. But the nation’s top diplomat needs to show more sensitivity and independence — traits Clinton has demonstrated in abundance. Obama can do better at State than Susan Rice.

What about Jennifer Rubin?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar as Dr. Freud said. Maybe the uniform criticism from Republicans and the refreshing candor coming from liberals in good standing at the New York Times is actually based on the merits, Rice's that is. Truth be told, she was a washout in the Clinton administration (where she sat idly by while the Rwandan genocide unfolded), signed on with Obama's campaign where she was an uncommonly partisan foreign policy adviser, had to be hushed when she attacked another woman, Hillary Clinton, and then wound up at the United Nations, where she has had the most undistinguished career of any U.N. representative in recent memory. (She rounded up all of eight "no" votes on the Palestinian declaration of statehood and has made serial excuses for the heinous Human Rights Council. A convenient list of her underachievements can be found here.) That's before we got to Benghazi. And her investment portfolio.

What about Maureen Dowd?

Are the Republican senators unreasonable? Or is the secretary of state-manqué undiplomatic? Did the senators sandbag Susan Rice? Or did Rice further inflame a tense situation? Is it a case of shooting the messenger and playing politics? Or is national security dangerously infected with politics?

It seems as if it would have been simple enough for Rice to quickly admit that the administration talking points she used on the Sept. 16 Sunday shows about the slaughter in Benghazi were misleading. But she went silent. She has no wartime consigliere and, aside from the president’s angry postelection defense of Rice, the White House — perhaps relieved that she was taking the heat rather than the president — wasn’t running a strong damage control operation that clarified matters.

Were critics of Condoleeza Rice accused of being sexists? No?

It makes me ragey that you can't criticize a women, or a black women, and the leftist members of the press not accuse you of racism and/or sexism. It's a McCarthy-ite tactic designed to shut down opposition by placing the label of bigotry on you. Don't like Obama? You are a bigot. Don't like Hillary? Sexist. It's almost an SNL sketch ludicrous, is it not?

But that's not how some see it. Frankly, most Americans would have no clue that Susan Rice was black if it was not for the relentlessness of the media expounding upon that point. The hypocrisy of this is my rage of the day. It's not about the sexism. Not even close.

The Coming Storm

I guess this title can refer to the Frankenstorm coming: It's the worst storm in a century! Or the election. Obama's firewall of Wisconsin is coming down.

Or it could come to the disaster befalling the Tigers unless they win. One fan is ready to offer their home for World Series tickets. Ah, Detroit. 

The storm could be a $500 trillion tax cut (thanks, Bidenism!) that is threatening our fiscal stability. It could really be anything.

To the weekend...

Last Night's Debate

Romney blew the Libya answer, no thanks to a botched quote by the biased moderator. His answers on energy and the economy were much stronger. At best it was a draw, but media will want to claim an Obama win. I don't think it will sway many undecided his way.

That was last night's debate reaction...today, I am heartened that Romney still seems to have the lead. Anything can happen...less than three weeks to go.

Rubio and Romney

The story last night was about Rubio and Romney. Not Clint Eastwood and Invisible Obama. That was just bizarre. A Reagan hologram would have worked better.  But it wasn't important.

Senator Marco Rubio was eloquent. He was passionate and he spoke truth.

These are tired and old big government ideas. Ideas that people come to America to get away from. Ideas that threaten to make America more like the rest of the world, instead of helping the world become more like America...

A few years ago during a speech, I noticed a bartender behind a portable bar at the back of the ballroom. I remembered my father who had worked for many years as a banquet bartender.

He was grateful for the work he had, but that's not the life he wanted for us.

He stood behind a bar in the back of the room all those years, so one day I could stand behind a podium in the front of a room.

That journey, from behind that bar to behind this podium, goes to the essence of the American miracle — that we're exceptional not because we have more rich people here...

 And in conclusion:

The story of our time will be written by Americans who haven't yet been born.

Let's make sure they write that we did our part. That in the early years of this new century, we lived in an uncertain time. But we did not allow fear to cause us to abandon what made us special.

We chose more freedom instead of more government.

We chose the principles of our founding to solve the challenges of our time.

We chose a special man to lead us in a special time.

We chose Mitt Romney to lead our nation.

And because we did, the American Miracle lived on for another generation to inherit.

Romney delivered maybe the best speech of his life. He was likable, and earnest, and powerful, and everything he usually does not portray himself to be. And the video tribute beforehand was one of the best I've seen. It humanized him, and showed him at his best: leading at work and being with his family. Too bad Eastwood came afterwards, but I digress.

In his speech, he heralded women:

My mom and dad were true partners, a life lesson that shaped me by everyday example. When my mom ran for the Senate, my dad was there for her every step of the way. I can still hear her saying in her beautiful voice, “Why should women have any less say than men, about the great decisions facing our nation?”
I wish she could have been here at the convention and heard leaders like Governor Mary Fallin, Governor Nikki Haley, Governor Susana Martinez, Senator Kelly Ayotte and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

 Truth:

How many days have you woken up feeling that something really special was happening in America?  Many of you felt that way on Election Day four years ago. Hope and Change had a powerful appeal. But tonight I’d ask a simple question: If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn’t you feel that way now that he’s President Obama? You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.

And the bottom line:

What is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound. It doesn’t take a special government commission to tell us what America needs.
What America needs is jobs.
Lots of jobs.

Onward to November!

 

Condi's Speech

Of course, I've been watching the GOP convention, and by far the most buzzed about speech was Condi's address last night. Jay Nordlinger summarizes many of the salient points, and he ends with an observation about her tenure as Secretary of State was "so flat." Yes, that. She was an ideological wimp in that role, and it meant that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney often had to exert the American exceptionalism needed in leadership.

Yet her speech last night reflected the VP buzz that was generated after her summer speeches. It was eloquent, emotional, delivered with conviction and thrust, and she spoke without the dreaded teleprompter. With her, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley, and other talented GOP women on the front lines, who is to say we're losing this "war on women?"

Notable quotes:

"Now, to be sure, the burdens of leadership have been heavy. I know, as you do, the sacrifice of Americans, especially the sacrifice of many of our bravest in the ultimate sacrifice, but our armed forces are the surest shield and foundation of liberty, and we are so fortunate that we have men and women in uniform who volunteer, they volunteer to defend us at the front lines of freedom, and we owe them our eternal gratitude."

"I know that it feels as if we have carried these burdens long enough.  But we can only know that there is no choice, because one of two things will happen if we don't lead. Either no one will lead and there will be chaos, or someone will fill the vacuum who does not share our values."

"My fellow Americans, ours has never been a narrative of grievance and entitlement.  We have never believed that I am doing poorly because you are doing well...No, no, ours has been a belief in opportunity.  And it has been a constant struggle, long and hard, up and down, to try to
extend the benefits of the American dream to all.  But that American ideal is indeed in danger today. There is no country, no, not even a rising China that can do more harm to us than we can do to ourselves if we do not do the hard work before us here at home."

"America has a way of making the impossible seemed inevitable in retrospect, but we know it was
never inevitable. It took leadership.  And it took courage.  And it's a belief that our values.  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have the integrity and the experience and the vision to lead us. They know who we are.  They know who we want to be.  They know who we are in the world and what we offer. That is why -- that is why this is a moment and an election of consequence.  Because it just has to be that the freest most compassionate country on the face of the earth will continue to be the most powerful and the beacon for prosperity and the party across the world."

Michigan for Romney?

Recent polls show the race to be a dead heat in Michigan. And with Michigan's history as Reagan Democrat country, maybe there's a chance that the state will vote for its hometown son this election year? Marc Thiessen sees several reasons why MI may go for the GOP this year beyond just the economy:

But the Romney campaign has also been highlighting two other issues that have particular resonance in Michigan. One is the administration’s contraception and abortifacient mandate, which hurts the president with the socially conservative Reagan Democrats in such places as Macomb County. There are 2.4 million Catholic voters in Michigan, and Obama’s assault on religious liberty has alienated many of them. In May, the Michigan Catholic Conference filed suit against the Obama administration over the Health and Human Services mandate — and Catholic priests will be preaching against it in parishes across the state between now and Election Day. Look for Romney to underscore his opposition to the HHS mandate — and his endorsement by Lech Walesa — with these Catholic voters, many of whom are of Polish and Ukrainian descent.
The second issue is welfare reform. Welfare fraud is fresh on people’s minds here, thanks to the news of a Detroit area woman who was recently caught continuing to collect benefits despite winning a $1 million state lottery prize. Michiganders have a strong work ethic and remain justly proud of their state’s role as a pioneer of welfare reform in the 1990s. The charge that Obama is gutting welfare reform hits a nerve here.

I would love, love to see Michigan go Romney. When I was there in June, some of the lawyers suggested that possibility.  Hopefully it can become a reality.

Other Things Going On...

The Uganda series will wrap up tomorrow after our debrief dinner.  What else is going on...

We had a quiet anniversary dinner with lousy service. Mo's Fish Shack worked far better.

Veepstakes speculation is the chatter. I am not surprised it hasn't been announced yet, but the convention is heading here rapidly. I'm going with Pawlenty, Portman, then Ryan.

We are watching a lot of Olympics. Every year I get sucked in.

Just started reading Gone Girl. Love it already.

Three dinners in a row out this week. Busy busy.

NFL preseason football starts tonight. 

Obamacare Fail

Well, that was unexpected this morning, wasn't it? That the commerce clause argument did succeed; it was not constitutional. But it is a tax. A tax despite Obama saying it was not a tax increase, the legislation using the word "penalty."  And it was not Kennedy that defected, but the Chief Justice. Wow, John Roberts.

Now that there has been a few hours to absorb the decision, a few people questions. Can this be a new Marbury v. Madison?  How much is Congress thwarted going forward under the Commerce Clause?  Was Justice Ginsburg outlining another constitutional challenge to the mandate--if religious liberties questions were violated?  Was the dissent originally the majority? 

And most imortantly, what will happen in November? I gave my first presidential donation today to Romney. Repeal is the only answer.

I will leave you with the Scalia/Kennedy/et. al. dissent:

Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs. That clear principle carries the day here.

Thoughts on Politics this Week

Has Biden never heard this expression: "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."

Obamacare prediction? Individual mandate goes, the rest stays intact. Hoping it all goes down.

Contempt for Eric Holder with Democratic support?  Sure, at least twenty.

Dems just don't want to go to Charlotte.

Scott Walker Wins

Stephen Hayes nails it in his column; Scott Walker won his recall race last night because he did what he promised to do.

Walker turned a $3.6 billion deficit into a $154 million surplus. Unemployment is down. So are property taxes. Businesses, even with uncertainty about the U.S. economy, are optimistic about the direction of the state. Even with the political divisions, it’s hard to imagine a more successful 16 months as governor.

Now on to governing, right, Wisconsin? And all of this empty rhetoric about unity is worthless if the left does not realize that an election of their choosing went disastrously for them. Elections have consequences.

Good News from Texas

Conservatives are excited about Ted Cruz making it into a run-off against David Dewhurst in Texas. With Dick Lugar going down in defeat, and the "Tea Party" caucus of Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and others, having Cruz in the Senate would be another great conservative pick-up. Yes, I am biased because I know him somewhat.

Here's hoping good things happen on July 31.

More GOP Truth

This expresses my sentiments exactly.

Let's just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.

It doesn't matter that Mr. Obama can't get the economy out of second gear. It doesn't matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn't matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn't matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn't matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn't matter that the result of his "reset" with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn't matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn't matter that his wife thinks America doesn't deserve him. It doesn't matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn't going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

Above all, it doesn't matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won't be another fiasco. But they can't be reasonably sure, so it's going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.

And:

Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn't because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November—or, rather, when he does—the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.

Best We Can Do?

I watched the first part of last night's CNN debate, if only out of curiosity to see if Newt was going to reveal some tidbit about the latest campaign scandal. He did not disappoint with his biting comment back to John King re: his ex-wife's allegations that he wanted an open marriage.Of course, he was going to snark back at the media. Of course, he was going to deny the allegation.  And of course, he was going to look good. And while we didn't watch long, I was impressed with Romney's response of "let's get back to the real issues."  I was also impressed with Newt's strong grasp of local issues. Of course, he's going to look professorial and prepared.  By many accounts, Santorum had a good debate, because he was able to focus on the issues and remove himself from the sniping exchanges.

But really...how would that stage have looked if Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, maybe Tim Pawlenty, and maybe Mitch Daniels were up on that stage? What a different field, and vibe. I'm not excited about anyone, though I guess I could vote for Santorum, and even Romney.  But the enthusiasm gap on the GOP side is formidable.

It's still a long 9.5 months until the election, but it's too short, maybe, to fall in love with the present field. It'll be interesting to see if Newt can pull out SC tomorrow. I think keeping this campaign going for a while (with Santorum as the Iowa victor) is the best way to make this field appear to be a little less underwhelming. Just "whelming" would be good.

Detroit, and 5 Drudge Saviors

Detroit is going bankrupt.  Shocking, I know.  And while I applaud the salary cuts and the layoffs to try to barely make things meet, upping corporate taxes is not the savviest of strategies.  Detroit needs to create jobs and attract business, not frighten it away but ultra over taxation. And while 1% isn't much, wouldn't a tax break to hire workers be a more effective method of creating jobs, thus income which can then be taxed for the city?

I know Dave Bing is grasping at straws. But still a bad idea.

1.  Tim Tebow is Denver's savior? Well, you can't argue with success, especially against the Jets' D.
2. Newt Gingrich is the latest Republican savior, though gosh, is it still 1994?
3. The investigation into Natalie Woods' death is being reopened. It probably smacks of opportunism, after three decades. She had no savior then, or now.
4. Germany, however, is trying to save Europe. Or not, by derailing an EU referendum.
5. And Dems, who once censured Rangel, are trying to save his seat. Shameful. Boot him out, voters.

Future President

No doubt that Paul Ryan is going to be a candidate for president someday. Unfortunately, it won't be next year. But his words make so much sense: 

The president, he said, has made a shift in his appeal to the electorate. "Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy and resentment."

But Republicans, in their desire to defend free economic activity, shouldn't be snookered by unthinking fealty to big business. They should never defend—they should actively oppose—the kind of economic activity that has contributed so heavily to the crisis. Here Mr. Ryan slammed "corporate welfare and crony capitalism."

"Why have we extended an endless supply of taxpayer credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, instead of demanding that their government guarantee be wound down and their taxpayer subsidies ended?" Why are tax dollars being wasted on bankrupt, politically connected solar energy firms like Solyndra? "Why is Washington wasting your money on entrenched agribusiness?"

Rather than raise taxes on individuals, we should "lower the amount of government spending the wealthy now receive." The "true sources of inequity in this country," he continued, are "corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless." The real class warfare that threatens us is "a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society."

More on Brown

Like the WSJ piece:

Many Members may be curled on the floor in a fetal position now that the GOP has won even in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. (We'd love to eavesdrop on the next Blue Dog caucus meeting, or Indiana Senator Evan Bayh's conversations with his pollster.) And assuming they're not paper tigers, Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and his band of 10 or so pro-life Democrats have said they can't accept the Senate language on funding abortions.

Even if one of these partisan efforts in brute political force succeeded in passing a bill, the effort would only further enrage the public and lead to an even larger Democratic rout in November.

The sensible alternative would be for Democrats to concede how badly they have misread the mandate of their 2008 victory and the public mood. They were elected to fix the economy and to replace a tapped-out GOP, not to exhume and pass every dead 20th-century liberal dream.

The place to start such a rethinking is on health care, by dumping the House and Senate bills and negotiating one that can attract Republican votes. A de minimis package that fixed some of the cost-drivers embedded in the tax code and added refundable tax credits to help the uninsured wouldn't be our policy ideal, but it would be better than the vast new entitlement spending, taxation and central planning that is ObamaCare. Mr. Brown (like everyone) says he supports universal coverage, and what an irony it would be if he and other Republicans ultimately voted for a more moderate plan that saved Democrats from their worst ideological obsessions.

And I like some of these headlines:

• Dazed Dems Rethink Entire Strategy (Politico)
• Dems in Disarray Over Healthcare (Politico)
• Democrats Point Fingers After Loss (CNN)
• White House Seeks to Confront Political Crisis (Washington Post)
• GOP Win in Mass. Puts Dems on Defensive (CBS)
• Recriminations Fly Among Democrats (Newsweek)
• Room for Debate: Why Are the Democrats Always in Disarray? (NYTimes)
  

Ah, am loving it.

Scott Brown Wins!

By at least five points. A good night for this country. Bye bye health care reform, at least in its current incarnation.

Back to the Scotch and Fox News...

Whole Food Republicans

Lots of this sounds familiar:

What's needed is a full-fledged effort to cultivate "Whole Foods Republicans"—independent-minded voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics. These highly-educated individuals appreciate diversity and would never tell racist or homophobic jokes; they like living in walkable urban environments; they believe in environmental stewardship, community service and a spirit of inclusion. And yes, many shop at Whole Foods, which has become a symbol of progressive affluence but is also a good example of the free enterprise system at work. (Not to mention that its founder is a well-known libertarian who took to these pages to excoriate ObamaCare as inimical to market principles.)

Yes, you can be a city-dwelling yuppie type who votes conservative. And maybe I'd quibble a bit...I "believe in environmental stewardship," because I refuse to pay taxes for plastic bags, but I also don't like waste. I believe in diversity, including philosophical/ideological diversity. And I appreciate Whole Foods, both because I admire its libertarian-leaning CEO, and also because I value the foods that go into my body. I'd rather not eat crap, for the most part, after I take so much time to run and work out.

The Republican party can have smart, educated, urban voters who care about their communities. It's not that a "progressive" lifestyle is better, but it's just not "liberal."

Politics Monday

Two things of note:

Bye-bye Souter. And Krauthammer is exactly right:

But I thought what Obama said today was really remarkable when he said I want someone on the court who understands that justice isn't about abstract legal theory. It's about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives.

Now that is not only wrong, it's deeply corrupting. The idea that you ought to be thinking about how the law affects the reality of someone's life is something that you do when you are passing a law or create a law. That's what you do if you are a member of Congress who represents people and their needs.

But once the law is passed, the only job a judge has is to interpret the law without consideration of a person's standing in life. Otherwise you could never have, say, a bank foreclosing on a home, because who, after all, is more affected, a bank that might lose a few dollars, or a family that's going to lose its home and future livelihood, et cetera?

And RIP in Jack Kemp. I saw him speak as a Sophomore or Junior at ND back in 1996, I believe. Best part of that presidential ticket.

Quick Observations

Obama seeks to cut budget by 1/35,000...nice.

Miss USA runner-up is anti-gay marriage. Perez Hilton and the like, boo on you.

This is naive, Mr. President. At least the US is boycotting this meeting. The UN is "shocked

The U.N. high commissioner for human rights said Sunday that she regrets -- and is "shocked" by -- the United States' decision to boycott. SHOCKED!!!!

"I am shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States' decision not to attend a conference that aims to combat racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and other forms of intolerance worldwide," High Commissioner Navi Pillay said in a written statement.

Today marks ten years since Columbine.