Romney on Iraq: “Our foreign policy is run by bumbling incompetents”

June 16, 2014

Okay, okay. Mitt didn’t really say that; I was just interpreting what I take to be the subtext of this interview with NBC’s David Gregory:

Via National Review, here’s the key passage:

“This administration, from Secretary Clinton to President Obama, has repeatedly underestimated the threats faced by America, has repeatedly underestimated our adversaries,” he said on Meet the Press. “Whether that’s Russia, or Assad, or ISIS, or al-Qaeda itself, it has not taken the action necessary to prevent bad things from happening; it has not used our influence to do what is necessary to protect our interests.”

Emphasis added. I think “repeatedly underestimated” is the typically nice, Romney-esque way of saying “bumbling incompetence,” don’t you?

The foreign crises we’re facing are no laughing matter, but a small part of me can’t help but hope Mitt is feeling some vindication; time and again, after being ridiculed in the campaign for being out of touch with our Brave New World of Smart Power, he’s been shown to be right, and the Obama team (including their MSM cheerleaders) spectacularly wrong.

I probably would have found myself at odds with “President Romney” fairly often over domestic issues, had he and Paul Ryan won, but I’ve always been impressed with Mitt’s solid grasp of America’s foreign interests and the challenges facing them, ever since I read his speech in Herzliya, Israel, in 2007. In a way and to a depth that President Obama and his “team of unicorns” never will, Mitt gets it. And I feel safe in saying he would not have made the boneheaded mistakes that are the hallmark of the current mis-administration.

It’s a shame he didn’t win.

PS: I haven’t written about the crisis in Iraq, yet, because I’m still processing what’s happening there. I’ll leave the instant commentary to people desperate to show this proves what they always believed and wanted to be true, whatever that happens to be. But I will say this: in 2009, George W. Bush, in spite of whatever mistakes his administration made from 2003-2009 in Iraq, left President Obama and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki a winnable situation; all they had to do was show prudence and wisdom. All they had to do was not screw it up.

Yet they both did just that. And I have no idea how this situation can be salvaged.

PPS: Remember the “purple finger woman” of 2005? I hope she’s alright.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Perry on Romney: this is how you do an attack ad

October 20, 2011

Yesterday, the Romney campaign issued an attack ad obviously questioning Rick Perry’s intelligence — and then quickly pulled it back when they realized it made their guy look like a jerk.

Today the Perry campaign issued their own ad attacking Romney, and it’s a good one:

Ouch! That’ll leave a mark.

Team Romney, take notes.

Now, if only Team Perry could get their guy to actually show up at debates…

RELATED: Rick Perry 2012.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Why Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and how to fix it

September 13, 2011

My blog-buddy ST did a great job yesterday calling out former Governor Romney and Congresswoman Bachmann for their hypocrisy in attacking Governor Perry for calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” As she pointed out, not only have liberals been saying that same thing, but so have Romney and Bachmann. While it’s disappointing, it’s hard for me to work up outrage over this; politics ain’t beanbag, as they say, and primaries in particular seem to lead people to say anything to win. On the other hand, when what they say is dishonest, it needs to be called out.

And this was dishonest.

Anyway, as a follow-on to that post, here’s a video from Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute showing why Social Security is not only a Ponzi scheme, but also a flat-out terrible deal for current workers, retirees, and especially ethnic minorities. Then Mitchell introduces the way to fix the system — private retirement accounts:

Be sure to read Mitchell’s related post.

The way forward to a stable retirement system is clear, but it will take tremendous efforts to get past the Left’s demagoguery and the fear it engenders.

And we certainly don’t need conservatives adding to it.

RELATED: Well, if demagoguing Social Security wasn’t bad enough, Michele Bachmann may be torpedoing her own campaign by seeming to join the “Jenny McCarthy Anti-Vaccination Club for Kooks.” Even if if she’s only repeating misinformation she heard, it’s still bad. Her campaign needs to get this clarified, fast. See also Moe Lane.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Okay, was someone at the WaPo editorializing in the byline?

July 1, 2011

This is the headline and byline at a post this morning at the Washington Post’s “Right Turn” blog, where Matthew Continetti is subbing for Jennifer Rubin:

But this is how it appeared on my screen in Google Reader:

Both have the same publication time-stamp (7/1/11, 7:35 AM)*, so…

Simple careless typo, or the print version of a Kinsleyan gaffe? Are Continetti and the Post cats-paws for the Romney machine?

Or were they hacked? Or pranked?

You make the call.

(For the record, I think it was a simple typo. But a funny one, worth a bit of ribbing.   )

*(PST)


America, Islam, and democratic tolerance

June 20, 2011

There’s an interesting post by Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media on Governor Romney’s problem with religion. No, not his Mormonism, though some blockheads might want to make that a problem, but his inability, thanks to the shackles of political correctness, to articulate why Islam poses a problem in America. And it’s not just Romney’s problem, but one shared by most politicians.

In his essay, Roger discusses the principle of religious tolerance and why it does not work when Islam is added to the mix:

Religious tolerance is a nifty idea.  As a Catholic, I’m pleased it exists. But here’s the rub: tolerance only works when practiced by all parties to the social contract.  It’s one thing for a Unitarian and a Catholic to tolerate each other.  They have  some important doctrinal differences.  But they do not endeavor to kill or enslave one another on account of those differences.

The friction of difference works differently when you add Islam to the equation.  Why?  Because Islam does not — in principle as well as in practice  — acknowledge a legitimate sphere of operation for the secular as distinct from the sacred realm.  There is no “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” in Islam because Islam — that’s mainstream, garden-variety Islam, not just its wacko Wahhabist allotropes — regards everything as subordinate to the will of Allah.

Romney, like many well-meaning liberals, wants to regard Islam as a religious phenomenon.  The thought process goes something like this:

  1. We’re in favor of religious toleration.
  2. Islam is a religion.
  3. Ergo, we should tolerate Islam. (Q., isn’t it, e. demonstrandum?)

The problem with this syllogism is what it leaves out of account — namely, as McCarthy puts it, that Islam is a “totalitarian political program masquerading as a purely spiritual doctrine.”

As with all systems of belief in a liberal democratic regime, Islam deserves tolerance to the extent that it extends tolerance. That syllogism really should begin:

  1. We’re in favor of religious toleration for those religions that practice toleration.

And therein, as Shakespeare said, lies the rub. By misunderstanding the mutualism required for genuine tolerance, muddleheaded Westerners turn what originated as a pact into unilateral intellectual disarmament, refusing to think critically about Islam lest they be labelled “judgmental,” “intolerant,” or, worst of all, “Islamophobic.” And that in turn leaves us vulnerable to the cultural or  “civilizational jihad” that the Muslim Brotherhood is waging here and elsewhere through front organizations, the goal of which is the imposition of Sharia law on us all.

While I do sympathize with Romney’s plight (this is delicate, difficult ground for Americans to cover, and rightly so), particularly since he himself was slammed by religious bigotry in the last campaign, it is nonetheless essential for would-be American leaders to grasp, wrestle, and explain to the public then dangers of tolerating the intolerant. Seeing who does it best should be one of our criteria for choosing a nominee and future president.

PS: I urge you to read McCarthy’s article, linked above in the quote, but I disagree with his description of Islam as a political system “masquerading as a religion.” This is a misstatement; Islam is a religion, for it does what any religion does, arranging the relationship between Mankind and the Divine. It is, however, a religion that encompasses a totalitarian and aggressive political program. The distinction may seem minor or semantic, but I think it’s important, for to frame it as McCarthy does would be to ignore the spiritual appeal it has for those who find relief in submission to a higher authority.

PPS: And before anyone asks, no, I am not saying “ban Islam” or “deport all Muslims.” What I am calling for is an open, critical discussion of what Islam is and what its goals are, as opposed to the platitudes we’re fed by politicians and the media. And that includes challenging American Islamic leaders to defend what’s clearly in their scriptures.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)