E.J. Dionne: Romney’s Economic Plans Are Radical Because They Don’t Include Goverment

In Liberal World, the only entity that can truly make the economy grow is The Government

Romney’s principled, radical view for America

It turns out that there is at least one question on which Mitt Romney is not a flip-flopper: He has a utopian view of what an unfettered, lightly taxed market economy can achieve.

He would never put it this way, of course, but his approach looks forward by looking backward to the late 19th century, when government let market forces rip and a conservative Supreme Court swept aside as unconstitutional almost every effort to write rules for the economic game. This magical capitalism is the centerpiece of Romney’s campaign, and it may prove to be his undoing.

The 1900’s weren’t a perfect century economy wise: there were 4 big panics. But, the period from 1865 to 1900 are referred to as the “Gilded Age” in which “Many Americans came to idealize these businessmen who amassed vast financial empires.” And “The Gilded Age saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history.” And “From 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for real GDP and 4.5% for real GDP per capita, despite the panic of 1873.” Sounds like a pretty good age, eh? People

Here’s Romney’s problem. His best strategy is to cast President Obama as a failure because the economy has not come all the way back from the implosion of 2008. The most effective passages in his well-reviewed speech after his primary victories Tuesday were about the shortcomings of the status quo.

“Is it easier to make ends meet?” Romney asked. “Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more at your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Are you paying less at the pump?”

And E.J. blows right by those two paragraphs, not offering any sort of defense of Obama/Democrat policies, especially in light of saying that Romney’s problem is to cast (NMP) Obama as an economic failure. Not quite sure how that is a problem, Obama is a miserable failure. And he eats dogs.

But Romney, unlike Clinton, is not offering a program through which government would take specific steps to solve the problems he catalogues. Instead, he is calling on voters to share his faith that our difficulties would go away if the state simply got out of the way, allowed the market do its thing and counted on the success of the successful to lift up everyone else.

And there you go: Romney is radical for not pushing a government driven economy. Perhaps Romney has simply witnessed the malfeasance, recklessness, and incompetence of Central Government planning within the economy. The waste of trillions of dollars on failed projects which, furthermore, added enormous amounts of borrowed money to the debt and deficit. Oh, and saddled the US with huge unfunded mandates.

Romney is right in saying he has “a very different vision” from Obama’s, and this is where the magic comes in. He envisions “an America driven by freedom, where free people, pursuing happiness in their own unique ways, create free enterprises that employ more and more Americans. And because there are so many enterprises that are succeeding, the competition for hardworking, educated, skilled employees is intense, so wages and salaries rise.”

Damn him, damn him to Hell! What the heck does Romney think he’s pushing with this silly freedom crap? Doesn’t he know that Los Federales know best? I just can’t vote for anyone who lives so far in the past and believes in freedom. Chump.

Just like that, all would be well — as if we never needed the trust-busting of the Progressive Era, the social legislation of the New Deal, the health programs of the Great Society and the coordinated action of the world’s governments in 2008 and 2009 to keep the Great Recession from becoming something far worse.

And all those mentioned led to the modern mega-Central Government, in which too much government interference leads to the issue never being fixed. Things have to bottom out. Right now, most of the world is simply puttering along. Perhaps sputtering would be better. Perhaps E.J. could opine on Obama’s plan, which seems to revolve around raising taxes, spending more taxpayer money on projects that are bound to fail, and…..well, that’s it.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: E.J. Dionne: Romney’s Economic Plans Are Radical Because They Don’t Include Goverment »

Obama Vows To Make Climate Change (Hoax) A 2012 Campaign Issue

In all fairness, Obama may be a terrible and completely incompetent president, but the guy does know how to campaign, so, I think we can assume that he’s simply throwing a bone to his unhinged lefty base

(The Hill) President Obama is vowing to make the case for action on global warming during the 2012 campaign.

“I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way,” Obama told Rolling Stone magazine in a newly published interview.

Sorry, Warmists, Obama’s not that stupid. He’s paying lip service and attempting to get you excited, but, it won’t happen. He knows that this is a loser issue. All he needs do is look at what happened to the Queensland Labor Party…well, they aren’t really a recognized party anymore, having lost so many seats. And the last thing Obama wants is even more Democrats avoiding him during this election cycle. It’s not even a good issue to deflect from his atrocious record.

Besides, I don’t think his political base really gives a damn about the environment, as the First Street Journal points out.

clown

Read: Obama Vows To Make Climate Change (Hoax) A 2012 Campaign Issue »

If All You See…

…is an evil dog that is causing the air to be polluted with CO2, you might just be a Warmist

I should make Barack Obama’s campaign site, I Eat Dogs, the blog of the day, but, let’s make it Proof Positive.

Read: If All You See… »

FBI Investigates Anti-Muslim Letters, Still Not Investigating New Black Panthers Bounty On Zimmerman

Isn’t it nice that the politicized Obama DOJ can pick and choose which threats they will investigate? They aren’t investigating this

But, they are heavily investigating this

(WRAL) The Federal Bureau of Investigation is trying to determine the origin of a threatening letter, filled with racial slurs and insults toward Muslims, that was recently sent to several mosques in North Carolina.

The letter writer says that he or she would have no problem killing Muslims. (snip)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations wants the case to be investigated as a hate crime.

Now, there is no doubt that the letter should be investigated, and the FBI can technically investigate, since the letters were sent through the mail. Usually, though, local or state authorities investigate, or the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. What of the NBPP? According to Tommy Christopher, the FBI may possibly kinda sorta be investigating the threats. Interestingly, he writes

As I said on Tuesday, the decision not to charge the NBPP over the flyers is probably due to a failure to meet the legal standard required, or at least to meet it sufficiently. The Supreme Court ruled, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, that in order to punish this kind of speech, it must meet three tests: intent, imminence, and likelihood to incite “lawless action.”

My guess was that the New Black Panther flyers failed to sufficiently meet the “likelihood” standard, and/or that such a case would have been more trouble than it was worth to prosecute.

Got that? Wanted Dead Or Alive posters aren’t really threat threats, not when they threaten George Zimmerman. Pretty much anonymous letters to mosques? Well, massive threat, and a possible hate crime.

The FBI is also not investigating the death threats on Twitter. They’re not investigating the incident where black youths set a white kid on fire. They aren’t investigating the recent incident where a white man was nearly beaten to death for “justice for Trayvon”. They are investigating possible wiretapping by the Saints, though.

Read: FBI Investigates Anti-Muslim Letters, Still Not Investigating New Black Panthers Bounty On Zimmerman »

Obama Admin. Proposes Rule That Stops Farm Kids From Performing Chores

The Lonely ConservativeI was really hoping this was an article from The Onion, alas, no, it’s real news

(Daily Caller) A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district member of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

“Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

Good grief. The strong arm of the Central Government reaches out to get involved with things that are none of their business yet again. But, I think we can all understand that Liberals really hate the idea of people actually having to work. And that they probably will require that unionized labor be hired in place of these kids doing chores.

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.

So, not only would the regs restrict kids doing farm work that they’ve done basically forever, but, put safety training and certification in the hands of government bureaucrats.

The Lonely Conservative has more on the subject.

Read: Obama Admin. Proposes Rule That Stops Farm Kids From Performing Chores »

Politico Runs Racially Charged Headline, Calls Rob Portman “Vanilla”

The headline is a multiple entendre, but one of those entendres, intentionally or not, that is evocative of a nasty racial stereotype about white men*: Politico

When I first saw the headline this morning, the multiple meanings were clear: Rob Portman is in serious need of some sunlight, the notion of a Portman VP is unexciting, Rob Portman is…..whiter than white bread. That’s not a nice thing to say about any potential VP pick, but like it or not, it becomes a more loaded accusation when leveled at a guy who is whiter than Casper the Friendly Ghost.

Just to be sure it wasn’t just me, though, I asked several friends about the banner, and four out of four pointed out, unprompted, the stereotype of the “honky,” “good grief, the man should hit the tanning bed” white man. One of the people I called was John Boehner, who, upon hearing my description of the headline, said “Are you kidding me? You have got to be kidding me.”

The two Politico writers should immediately be suspended for this racially charged headline, which reinforces ugly stereotypes about white guys who’ve apparently never stepped outside.

What’s that? That’s not what the article is about? I’m reading too much into it? Well, my goodness. But, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Portman, in contrast — possibly reflecting his strategy but certainly reflecting his personal style — is following a different approach: making himself one of the most boring characters currently on the national stage.

Portman is vanilla, wonky and unflappable. Maybe he’s a safe, conventional, swing-state pick for Mitt Romney, but he’s not exactly the guy who would bring down the house at the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

I don’t know, that seems to be stereotyping boring middle aged white men who are boring as….zzzzzzzzz…..where was I? Oh, yes, boring as water.

Just in case, the * leads to a post on a race baiting article by Christopher Hitchens.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Politico Runs Racially Charged Headline, Calls Rob Portman “Vanilla” »

Snap! Climate Change Is A Human Rights Issue Or Something

Now, if only the Warmists would tell us exactly what the proper temperature should be for the Earth

Climate change is a human rights issue – and that’s how we can solve it

We can overcome the problems of delivering collective action on climate change by treating mining, deforestation, ocean degradation and more as violations of human rights

So says Warmist Olivier De Schutter

Global climate-change talks often resemble the scene of a traffic accident. Multiple voices shout each other down in a bid to tell their own version of events. What is the real damage, how quickly must it be repaired, and who should foot the bill? (snip)

If our political processes cannot conceive of a non-growth future, and yet a fundamental rethink of growth is the only honest starting point for the fight against climate change, then those political processes are clearly not fit for purpose.

But, no, he’s not suggesting democracy has failed

Does this mean that democracy has failed, and must be sacrificed for authoritarian solutions? The solution may in fact be the polar opposite. A system where failing governance procedures are forced to think long-term does not necessarily require anti-democratic “climate tzars”. Instead, this revolution can be hyper-democratic and guided by human rights.

And who makes the decisions? Perhaps we can involve the UN Human Rights Council, which has included such bastions of human rights such as China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia, among others. And, he states that governments would be “obliged”, ie, forced, to adopt measures to “battle” climate change…..sounds rather fascistic, doesn’t it? What of those who do not believe in anthropogenic global warming? Will our opinions be listed to, or simply shut down?

And, as for De Sschutter himself?

Olivier De Schutter is the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. He will deliver an Oxford Amnesty lecture, entitled Human Rights and the Post-Carbon Economy, on 26 April.

He teaches and lives in Belgium. He’s also a visiting professor at Columbia University and visiting scholar at Washington University. That sure seems to involve quite a few unnecessary fossil fueled flights.

Read: Snap! Climate Change Is A Human Rights Issue Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a dog which has the same carbon footprint as a Toyota Land Cruiser, you might just be a Warmist

I should make Barack Obama’s campaign site, I Eat Dogs, the blog of the day, but, let’s make it Jake Finnegan.

Read: If All You See… »

Oops: James Lovelock Admits That Warmists Have No Idea What They’re Doing

Well, I’m sure he must be in the pay of Big Oil and Big Coal, and he’s part of the disinformation campaign or something (via The Lonely Conservative)

(MSNBC) James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.

He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” (snip)

It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

Don’t misunderstand, Lovelock hasn’t abandoned being a Warmist, he’s just espousing on some issues. But, it is interesting to learn from such a big wig in the envirowacko movement (I was never a fan, despite being an environmentalist myself, or, perhaps because I am one, since he tended to lean towards the barking moonbat side, which tends to hurt environmental issues) that globull warming isn’t happening right now, and that they have no idea what they’re doing. If they don’t understand why the climate has leveled out over the past decade plus (really, since 1998), why should we believe them?

Lovelock is also claiming that other Warmists, like Al Gore, went overboard in their alarmist beliefs, too.

Climate Depot has much more on this and background of Lovelock.

Read: Oops: James Lovelock Admits That Warmists Have No Idea What They’re Doing »

MSNBC’s Bashir Suggests Romney Not Drinking Alcohol Could Put Country In Jeopardy

Of course, having a president who was uniquely unqualified for the position, as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden told us, one who has seen historic long term 8%+ unemployment, record debt and deficits, record spending with no reward, wasted billions on failed green companies, wasted $800 billion on his failed Stimulus, has annoyed our allies, and passed a very unliked health care bill, among others, doesn’t put the country in jeopardy

(Daily Caller) On his Monday MSNBC program, just a week after condemning former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to hell based on the Book of Mormon, afternoon host Martin Bashir cited a column from The New York Times’ Timothy Egan to suggest that Romney isn’t fit for the White House because he does not drink.

“A teenage taste of beer aside, Mitt Romney does not consume alcohol, which begs the question — will total abstention put his candidacy, perhaps even this great nation, in jeopardy?” Bashir said. “That’s the conundrum that could be drawn from a column by New York Times writer Timothy Egan, who does not deal in half measures.”

Got that? Because Romney doesn’t drink booze, this country could be in extreme danger!!!!!!1!!!! From the NY Times idiocy

I’ve always thought the beer buddy threshold was nonsense. Still, it’s worth considering what a White House without a tippling tenant would be like. Sobriety, laudable in many respects, does imply rigidity of thought. The best presidents were open-minded, and generally open to a drink. The nondrinkers, at least over the last century or so, were terrible presidents.

See? What we need in the White House is a drunk. Of course, as both Bashir and the Times article point out, both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were non-drinkers. Carter was an abject failure. With Bush, liberals attempt to paint his presidency as a failure, forgetting about the way he turned around the recession he was left with (no blame on Clinton, recessions happen), the way he responded to 9/11 to get America back on track, and turned the economic downturn which resulted from 9/11 around, the way we had historically low unemployment, and how he freed tens of millions from violent and murderous despots/regimes. Everything was going well until the Democrats took over Congress, then things imploded.

Liberals will try anything to deflect away from the pathetic policies of (NMP) Obama, so, expect more as we move towards the general election. At least Romney didn’t eat a dog.

Read: MSNBC’s Bashir Suggests Romney Not Drinking Alcohol Could Put Country In Jeopardy »

Pirate's Cove