Asked Salena Zito if Mitt Romney owns an IPhone or a Smartphone. Answer: unknown, however he never shows such a device in his hands to photos. The reason the Romney campaign stumbled last Friday at the Detroit event is because it did not consider what an empty stadium would look like behind the Romney stage to anyone using a simple IPhone cam to send the shot around the world on Twitter and Flickr. Is Team Romney in our century? A correspondent writes that the Secret Service ordered the venue. Seems strange to start blaming the Secret Service this early. The Romney campaign looks as awkward and tin-earred as the candidate. Spoke David Drucker, Zito and Lara Brown, also Taegan Goddard; and no one is impressed by the Romney campaign's closing argument. Elect me, I will blame the Secret Service (or, fill-in-the-blank)? Late breaking poll shows Santorum regaining lead in MI. Taegan Goddard reminds that 15% of the vote already cast as absentee --during the FL nomination contest. This means that Santorum must play mighty catch-up in the open to all primary. Late word from the last PPP poll has Santorum back in the lead, Would Democrats vote for Santorum in order to frustrate Romney? Yep (As I recall there was noise in 2008 about Republican voters in MI voting for Senator Obama over Senator Clinton?) Then again, there is the right-sized tree remark, a credit to Romney's special sense of what to say in public about why he likes MI.
Update: Noon on Tuesday 28: Reports from several sources in MI say that Democrats are voting in the big cities, and likely voting for Santorum. Romney quoted saying that the Santorum robo-call to Democrats to ask for their vote was a dirty trick. Michael Moore gleefully promoting Operation Hilarity. Exit polls may show how many Democrats are voting, especially in Detroit.
How does a guy that doesn't even draw a crowd warrant the public expense of Secret Service protection?
I'm going to go out on a limb and call Romney the winner. I'm doing the math with Wayne, Washtenaw and Oakland Counties and it doesn't look good for Santorum.
Ever since 68 or 72, I forget which, candidates get it if they ask for it. The nominee gets it whether he wants it or not.
I almost threw up thinking that anyone thought Santorum was a serious candidate.
What I didn't understand is the obvious attack on President Kennedy seemingly out of the blue.I went back and found that speech and listened to it all the way through. While I thought his views between separation of church and state sounded secular, and somewhat extreme, I don't think I would have said they made me feel like"throwing up". Now, I like Santorum. But he says some bone-headed stuff. Allowing himself to get cornered into a fight over contraception shows to me that he can't take charge of the situation. This whole thing has been derailed, and is not tracking on the issues. Instead, the Republican candidates are playing right into the hands of the MSM. The MSM have managed to divert attention completely away from Obama's lousy and quite radical record to which on of our candidates will be the first to force women into second class citizens out there running lemonade stands with "the girls".
"The MSM have managed to divert attention completely away from Obama's lousy and quite radical record."
Yes. The MSM has let important issues go uncovered, lest it be critical of POTUS. [see, for example, http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2012/02/27/obama-administration-ignored-iranian-oppositions-advice]. I think, by the MSM controlling the 1001 debates, it chose not to ask critical questions. Questions that would've let the candidates state where they stood contrary to Obama. Instead, it played 'gotcha' politics. Even Fox did it.
However, by Santorum being so socially conservative, he played perfectly into the MSM 'gotcha' game.
Corlyss gave a great criticism of Santorum in a past post. To me, having heard him through the years, I just can't listen to him anymore. He's always had a demagogue quality about him: He revealed it when he just got too cocky for his own good. I mean why would he attack JFK on what most people agree is a sound policy on separation of church and state? Maybe I say this because I remember JFK running for President and there really was 'talk' about Catholics having to obey the Pope.
Bottom line: Santorum's just far too right for mainstream America or independents and, probably, most Catholics. For me, I'm just sick of social issues -- and especially anti-abortion politics which I've heard for the last 40-50 years -- when economics, energy, healthcare and foreign policy are much more important.
"The MSM have managed to divert attention completely away from Obama's lousy and quite radical record."
Gosh! Did we HAVE to help them so much? The MSM was never going to talk about Obama's record. They don't care now any more than they did in 08. They have all that time to magnify the Republican warts.
I was tickled to hear Krauthammer say tonight that this ridiculous process/spectacle/circus abortive monstrosity "the Party" fixed us up with has been a disaster. Apparently the idiots are still in charge of the party. They decided that the process had been too short in 08 and that what the voters really needed was a primary that lasted the length of the period covered by Genesis. Apparently they forgot that in 2012 Obama would be an incumbent and there would be no Dem challenger making THEM look bad. God help us!
"Operation Kaos" promotoed by limbaugh also failed. If a state allows citizens to switch parties or allows non-party members to vote, they get what they deserve.
"While I thought his views between separation of church and state sounded secular, and somewhat extreme, I don't think I would have said they made me feel like"throwing up"."
Paul,
Keep that thought in mind when pondering Santorum's candidacy. The nature of his reaction to Kennedy's opinion, which is pretty much ingrained in the public now, and how important Santorum thinks the issue itself is, represents just a small snapshot of why Independents think him scary. As hard as it is, you have to look at the candidates thru the Independent filter. What you and I and a million conservatives/TPers think of Santorum ain't worth a hill of beans if Independents are going to elect the next prez. What Independents think of a candidate is VASTLY more important than what anyone else thinks of him. As long as a candidate scares Independents, you can color him "defeated."
some of the smartest people I have ever come across are friends of JB, and regularly appear on this site. Has anyone besides me taken a hard look through the book Ameritopia? It is a sobering what if view. I agree with your view, Corlyss D, of the way in which independents must view Ric Santorum. I hear it all the time on WBAP radio on calls in to local conservative host.
Well, thanks for the intro, there, Paul. I just wanted to point out in all this middle-of-the-road love-in, wing-nuts be damned love-in we're having here, that if you add together Santorum's 37% and Paul's 11% it beats Romney's 41% by a rather wide margin. I know, I know, "If" is a big word - if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle - but how anyone can conclude from the Michigan results that Santorum is too conservative for the GOP's candidate in 2012? You have Romney, who from where I stand is practically indistinguishable from Obama. You have Santorum and Paul who are different answers to the same question: "Who do we send to the White House that will really make a difference?" Romney isn't the answer. Santorum IS the middle of the road from the GOP point of view. I swear, I'm liable to vote for Obama this year if Romney is the alternative, on the grounds that the two men have almost identical visions for the country, but Obama is at least honest about his.
"Obama: I’ll veto bill that will provide water to California’s Central Valley"
posted at 2:30 pm on February 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/29/obama-ill-veto-bill-that-will-provide-water-to-californias-central-valley/
Orchards with all trees dead. This is very sad.
@paul... IMHO, "Ameritopia" is top shelf for the philosophical bases of where we are and what is at stake. Probably at your library now and easily available is "Liberty & Tyranny" and "Liberal Fascism" by Levin and Jonah Goldberg respectively, also fine IMO.
For Levin's fine, quick explication of US church-state separation history, take a listen to the first hour of Levin's 2/27 show, podcast streamable here: http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
Cheers.
Interesting post on the water bill, thanks.
There may actually be some valid reasons mixed in there with the Administration's statement. California does have a long, bloody, and sometimes ugly history of the battle for water rights. What speaks loudest to me about the statement, however, is that there really is little concern shown for the plight of the CV farmers. The status quo is not good. In fact, the status quo is an unmitigated disaster. If the Obama Administration opposes AB 1837, they ought to be pushing some other bill through to help those farmers, and quickly. And by "help the farmers", I don't mean give them welfare. I mean get out of the way and let them work.
I've just started looking into James Burnham's Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism. The most recent edition of the work first published in 1964 is 1972. Shocking how precient the book is.
@Mike
Any hints as to why the Ca. congressional delegation tolerates such destructive impulses? Ca is a lock for him so perhaps he can treat them like the Dems do the blacks and the Jews. The reasons for his treatment of the Gulf states is obvious. But to deprive Ca. of the income from the Central Valley seems incomprehensible. I think someone, perhaps Hanson, put the Central Valley share of the ag income at something like 40%. I'm hazy on that precise amount, but it has to be important to Ca. and important to keeping ag goods prices low. I just don't get the man. He's a puzzlement.
"Any hints as to why the Ca. congressional delegation tolerates such destructive impulses?"
Sorry, can't tell you anything new.
Old news: San Francisco [also probably, Oakland and San Jose] controls the water that goes into the San Francisco Bay. And that water comes from the mountains and runs through the Central Valley. That's it.
Feinstein and Pelosi are from SF. They, obviously want what's going on.
Also the Central Valley, represented by Nunes, is Republican territory so it's very much -- or exactly -- like you said about the Gulf states.
The irony is that Oakies came to CA because of the Dust Bowl. Now, parts of the very rich farmland of CA are returning to semi-arid. What I don't understand is: "Where are the agricultural/technical schools?" There are people who can solve the problem of the smelt and the damn dams.
I'll add a few more thing: It was an area that grew a lot of tomatoes. Someone who's now growing tomatoes is profiting from not having to compete w/the Central Valley. I don't know enough about the politics of water. But I'd guess that another part of CA [LA/San Diego?] is also profiting by getting more water.
Thinking out loud:
Maybe, the WH is trying to twist arms to get support for its high-speed train which looks like it's going through the Central Valley.
I guess farming doesn't create 'green' jobs. Wow is that odd.
Makes me think of "Chinatown". Maybe people want to buy up the farmland cheap -- and then develop it -- or incorporate it into another place with water so it can be farmed again. "Chinatown" was a GREAT movie with tremendous complexity about ... the politics of water.
"Well, thanks for the intro there, Paul."
I really mean it. Politics is a very confusing issue for me. I think maybe because I'm trusting by nature, and frankly, most politicians seem to run the gamut from vague and misleading to flat out liars. Once again I will agree with you AND Corlyss that some of these guys are a puzzlement. And having said that,Obama is an out right mystery in the way he makes decisions.
I loaned my copy of Liberty & Tyranny to a friend and got it back all marked up with footnotes, writing in the spaces and highlight marks. Goofy kid! His teacher at UT Arlington did not like him studying Levin's book during class. More the reason to study it, I told him.
"Makes me think of Chinatown".
LOL! When I read that Doofus will veto any bill that provides water to the CV, the first thing I thought about was Chinatown. Excellent analogy, Mike. One or more of his cronies is set to make money somehow. You can bet on that.
"I've just started looking into James Burnham's Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism. The most recent edition of the work first published in 1964 is 1972. Shocking how precient the book is."
Whenever you post something like this (e.g., the old Barone book): Amazon benefits, the economy gets stimulated, and I learn things. Adam Smith noted a similar principle in 1776. Mises and Hayek later. Thanks as always.
Thanks, Paul. It's always 'Follow the money', isn't it.
and Mike
"Chinatown" was a GREAT movie with tremendous complexity about ... the politics of water."
Wow! How'd I miss that? I thought it was about incest. Probably watched with only half an eye as I'm not a Nicholson fan. I guess I'll have to watch it again with both eyes.
"I guess I'll have to watch it again with both eyes."
You do. You have to pay attention to it. "Chinatown" is (in my view) an homage to Dashiell Hammett. On the level of The Maltese Falcon. It has one of the best statements ever on "How much money do you need?"
The opening scene is so strange, it's easy to forget it as the mystery unravels. Looking back, the movie is a great example of how the gov't takes advantage of you, while you're busy w/what's going on in your own life. And you might not even know it.
Don't read anything about it -- just rent and watch it 'w/both eyes' open. It's on streaming Netflix, but Netflix is losing Starz soon, so it won't have the movie for long.
Happy viewing.
Apropos of the above:
Before Time-Warner wired NYC for cable, there were hearings. Just by chance I listened to a radio discussion by politicians who had held the hearings. Bottom line, none of them could figure out why Time-Warner wanted to structure the payment levels the way it was structured.
Of course, the politicians couldn't figure it out: They didn't know what Time-Warner knew.
Chinatown was a movie about lust for power and control, no matter what the cost. And in the end when the lust for power has corrupted everyone and everything there is no redemption. Or, it could be just about one man"s need to own everything, and everyone, including their innocence.
Just took my own advice and watched "Chinatown" again. Still great after all these years. I thought the opening scene was the sheep -- but it wasn't.
"Politicians, ugly buildings and whores get respectable the older they get."
Funny you should mention Burhnam. I am reading his Machiavellians.
In typical self-serving fashion, Neoconservatives have attempted to claim Burnham's intellectual legacy for themselves; but Burnham never had much use for them, remarking that they retained "the emotional gestalt of liberalism, the liberal sensitivity and temperament."
In other words, the Neconservatives never did entirely leave behind their Trotskyite origins. Exhibit A of this is neonconservative Michael ("Creative Destruction is our middle name") Leeden, who in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq urged in the pages of National Review that America wage "revolutionary war" in the Middle East.
Ezra Pound teaches us an idea is colored by what it is dipped in, and what Neoconservatism is dipped in is the crimson of revolution. It is anti-conservative, anti-human, anti-life.
I forgot to mention that although Burnham was the most ardent of Cold Warriors back in the day (espousing what he called "rollback," as opposed to Kennan's notion of "containment") he opposed involvement in the Middle East. If Burnham were around today to espouse that position, he would be called an anti-Semite, as were Russell Kirk and Pat Buchanan, quite possibly on Mr. Batchelor's show.
"Ezra Pound teaches us"
Really? Interesting.
"In typical self-serving fashion, Neoconservatives have attempted to claim Burnham's intellectual legacy for themselves; but Burnham never had much use for them, remarking that they retained "the emotional gestalt of liberalism, the liberal sensitivity and temperament." "
I need to read more. I have intermittently been on a Machiavelli kick for years. I first spotted Burnham's Machiavellians before any other of his titles, thinking it had something to do with Machiavelli's times and colleagues. I have it. I started it. It's around here somewhere. I think I put it down because it wasn't what I wanted to read at the time. I wasn't lookin for a critique of American politics; I was following up on some of Robert Kaplan's insights. I only accidentally happened on his Suicide of the West.
I'm not sure your fine distinctions are particularly useful to me at this point, but they might be later.
I'm not sure your fine distinctions are particularly useful to me at this point, but they might be later.
I prefer the term "subtle distinctions," given that the word "fine" sometimes carries with it connotation of smallness and insignificance. And there is nothing small nor insignificant about the mess that we are in. Great errors flow from subtle ones.
As for talk of "later," it is later than you think.