Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Busy day

Busy day

in politics and elsewhere, here’s some things:

Here’s the Todd Palin endorsement mentioned above:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



“•Be sure to check out the blog troll argument. I think I got someone’s attention.”

Excellent. Smoke out these weasels.

Henry Hawkins | January 9, 2012 at 4:30 pm

RE: The Todd Palin endorsement…. Before she declined to run, Sarah Palin had stated she’d jump in if she found the likely GOP candidate problematic, insufficiently cnservative. While there is zero chance of Palin becoming the GOP candidate, her endorsement and ongoing support and campaigning would indeed be a game changer (think of the $$$ in donations from TeaPs). While she’s a closer match to Rick Perry, his chances are not good, so I’d guess either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would receive any Sarah Palin endorsement. I suspect she’s waiting to see which of those two survive before she endorses. I cannot see her endorsing Romney. That would truly end her influence in conservative politics.

It ain’t over till it’s over. GOP nomination poll leader on January 9, 2008 = Mike Huckabee 21.3% (overtook Rudy Guliani… and Fred Thompson)

You’re welcome, for the RDS link, Professor.

I’m not sure why you think there’s a Newt Derangement Syndrome at NR. Some there have made their points against Gingrich, just as you have made your points against Romney. I see no problem with that in principle.

The “Derangement Syndrome” aspect of it comes when we cut our nose off. It escapes me why we would cheer when a candidate on our side uses the arguments of the Left against another candidate also on our side.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Ryan. | January 9, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    “I’m not sure why you think there’s a Newt Derangement Syndrome at NR.”

    I posted near daily at NRO, The Corner, for years and was a welcomed commenter – until I began expressing support for Newt Gingrich and committed the crime of evidencing my support along with my reasons for rejecting Romney. I was no more inappropriate there than I’ve been here at LI, which is to say, not at all.

    Over the course of about 4-5 weeks:

    -My posts started not appearing, despite my longheld ‘starred’ status, only appearing days later when that article left the front page.

    -My pro-Gingrich posts then began going straight to ‘moderation’, never to be seen again.

    -I lost my ‘starred’ status, no reason given.

    -I began getting involuntarily logged out every time I tried to post.

    -My emails to assorted staff at NRO/The Corner went unanswered, all of them.

    -I became unable to log in at all, effectively banned from The Corner. Never cussed, never got ugly at all, never committed anything like usual ‘ban him’ behavior.

    My ‘crime’ at The Corner was not that I argued in favor of Gingrich and against Romney. My crime, I believe, was that I argued **too well**, because there was no defense of Romney based on the points I made.

    There absolutely is Gingrich Derangement Syndrome at The Corner. The whole National Review has taken a lurch to the left, and is now the establishment GOP’s most reliable mouthpiece.

      punfundit in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 9, 2012 at 5:14 pm

      Come on, quit kidding around. You’re really talking about the Huffington Post, aren’t you? You’re just Joshing us!

        Henry Hawkins in reply to punfundit. | January 9, 2012 at 8:23 pm

        I wish I were kidding. It was the damnedest thing I’ve seen in Commentville on the internet.

        The Corner has moderators, identifiable by the policeman’s hat next to their name, where regular posters have a star. I noticed last spring or so that 2-3 of these moderators were decidedly liberal, often taking conservative commenters to task on this or that, along standard partisan lines. It seemed odd that NRO, The Corner, of all places, would have multiple moderators who were clearly liberals. It was a common topic among other regular conservative commenters. There is something going on with the National Review and I pretty sure William F Jr is rolling over in his grave over it.

    Actually, in terms of individual contributors, NR has done okay. There’s Thomas Sowell (pro-Newt), Steven Hayward (who compared Newt to Churchill), and Andrew McCarthy who stuck up for Gingrich’s virtues and took NR’s editors to task for their editorial “which derided Newt Gingrich as not merely flawed but unfit for consideration as the GOP presidential nominee.”

    However, NR’s editors (the official voice of NR) have “made their points against Gingrich” in a way they haven’t made points against any of the other candidates. Rep. Paul got a single sentence attack. So did Rep. Bachmann. Gov. Perry got a two sentence attack. Speaker Gingrich got four paragraphs with 20 sentences of attack. Then, of course, there’s the Marvin the Martian Newt cover. Compare that with the current Santorum cover.

    Individual writers at NR have written strong, if not nasty, things about other possible candidates. Mona Charen comes to mind. But, fortunately, Charen isn’t the editorial board. Andrew McCarthy hit the nail on the head about NR’s “tone of alarm” over Gingrich:

    “Nevertheless, if the [NR] Editors were enterprising enough, they could just as easily write a similar editorial, with the same tone of alarm, about, say, Governor Romney or Governor Huntsman. Their heresies, too, are notorious — and their explanations no more satisfying. I am not suggesting that such editorials be written — particularly with respect to Romney who, like Gingrich, would make a superb president. I am just saying that it could be done. For the Editors to single out Gingrich for this kind of raking — particularly when his accomplishments in government dwarf anything his rivals have managed to achieve — fails the test of judgment conservatives expect from National Review. The transcendent mission of our founder calls for explicating principled conservative arguments about the great issues of the day, not ‘winnowing’ intra-GOP primaries. I appreciate, as Jonah Goldberg recounts, that the magazine has made endorsements in some prominent contests throughout its history. In this instance, however, we are talking about clearing a seven-person field — eliminating strong conservatives, preserving spots for two moderates (and one solid conservative who is a very long long-shot) — before a single vote has been cast.”

“It escapes me why we would cheer when a candidate on our side uses the arguments of the Left against another candidate also on our side.”

Then take a closer look. The first to use leftist talking points was Romney, against Newt in his “child labor laws” smear, and against Perry with the hoariest and most egregious Leftist scare tactic of all over social security. This was pure leftist inversion: Perry as talking about SAVING social security. Disgusting. It wasn’t merely the use of the slurs, but the reflexive and intentionally deceptve way he used them.

Gingrich, on the other hand, maintained remarkable comity from the start.

Gingrich’s critiques of Romney have so far been compare-contrast. As to Bain, he may include aspects of leftist narrative but he has been careful to make distinctions about capitalism — legitimate and politically topical ones. There are many conservatives not crazy about the scavenger and exploitive nature of certain venture capitalism.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to raven. | January 9, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    When a candidate can’t win on merits, you see what we saw from Obama in 2008 and what we’re seeing from the Romney camp this cycle.

Missed the troll argument from the Mia thread earlier, but aside from the troll aspect, Sovereign Joe missed a few things about politics, American history, and the history of the Democratic Party.

Sovereign Joe asserted that “…Ms. Love is in her first term as a small-town mayor; hardly a comprehensive training ground for national leadership.” He perhaps has never heard of Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President of the United States.

Cleveland ran for mayor of Buffalo, NY in 1881. He won. The next year Cleveland ran for Governor of NY. He won. Two years later, 1884, Cleveland ran for President. He won.

Henry Hawkins | January 9, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Sovereign Joe (Wimmer sock puppet) is trying to nip a narrative in the bud, that of a citizen candidate with the combination of conservative politics and personal demographics capable of bulldozing right through the local established GOP guy (Wimmer, he with the hand in the hole in Joe’s back), indeed, the sort of candidate that makes the Democrats tremble in how she shatters Dem stereotypes.

The global warming foolishness has always had a rather dumb problem: the amount of CO2 from natural sources dwarfs man-made CO2. Here’s one of the giants:

This is why the FCC and many in congress want to control the internet. It is just too difficult to control all of the message all of the time.

The problem with nominating Newt is his lack of discipline and tendency to make statements carelessly which could be twisted against him creating distractions.

From the link:

1. Speaking to the Nashua Greater Chamber of Commerce, Romney said, “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,” adding that if he isn’t getting “good service, I want to say, ‘I’m going to get someone else.’ “

1a. There is an alternative, Mitt: check that the service provider is qualified before you hire them. The Democrats will urge us to do exactly that with you. The attack ads write themselves.

1b. Romney’s hamhanded way of expressing it serves to discredit a valid point.

1c. Is Romney a bully who gets his way by throwing his weight around? That might be why he is so scripted.

2. But Romney expanded on his “pink slip” remark, using it as part of his new campaign speech that he came into the business world in an “entry-level position.”

Of course George Romney’s son did: like Pinch Sulzberger, Meghan McCain, and Chelsea Clinton (and, for that matter, George H.W. and George W. Bush).

Off topic, but thought you’d love this bumper sticker pic (Obama-BinLiden ok, Biden and a personalized license plate that reads “My Badddd”

13 points and not a single mention of the BCS Championship Bowl featuring LSU an that other college from Alabama? Frankly, this site has the WORST sports coverage of any blog I frequent! You need to do something about this, pronto!

Henry Hawkins | January 9, 2012 at 9:19 pm

That’s not the nat’l championship, it’s the SEC championship redux. Everybody knows Appalachian State is the best football team in the country.

The National Review pro-Romney apologia was written by Avik Roy, who admits that he was employed at Bain Capital.

Straight from the horse’s mouth:

“Lost in the weekend’s back-to-back debates in New Hampshire was this illuminating remark by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile after Saturday night’s soporific contest in Manchester: “Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him. And for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us . . . because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attacking.

And that’s Mitt Romney”

Mia Love post here and video on

One question I have in regards to the federal courts interfering with Texas’ redistricting.

When do we get out sovereign rights back? When does the federal court take its foot off our neck and stop interfering with drawing districts without a “by your leave” from some the black robed tyrants?

    WarEagle82 in reply to Kerrvillian. | January 9, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    The “thugs in robes” have to screw up Virginia’s GOP ballot access first. Then they can finish off Texas…

    retire05 in reply to Kerrvillian. | January 10, 2012 at 12:00 am

    Kerrvillian, there is a lot at risk in Texas for the Democrats. A Texas Democrat Congressman recently said that the Democrats were now an endangered species in Texas.

    With the 2010 ousting of two far left Democrats, Chet Edwards and Ciro Rodriquez, taken by Hispanic Republicans, Bill Flores and Francisco Canseco, the DoJ is trying to protect what territory the Dems have left in Texas. The DNC is not as blind as the rest of the nation. They see a movement in Texas where more and more Hispanics are voting Republican. That cannot be allowed and with Texas gaining four more representatives in the U.S. Congress, they are simply trying to guarantee that at least two of those districts are awarded to Democrats.

    Remember, Texas is one of the states that are required to adhere to Section 5. So the DoJ is arguing that the courts, and not the state legislature, should be allowed to draw district lines in the state. Considering that at least one of the San Antonio judges is a Obama appointee, that gives the Dems a slight edge.

    Basically, the DoJ is trying to make sure that no minority is under represented in any district, but that then leaves the question of disenfranchising white voters in districts like the one held by Shiela Jackson Lee.

    Will the court rule that a minority is based on color, or is a minority if they are the lesser number in any given district? If whites are the actual minority in Texas, should Section 5 still apply?

      Kerrvillian in reply to retire05. | January 10, 2012 at 8:57 am

      I understand that the Dems are threatened. The “set aside” is the only reason the major embarrassment of Sheila Jackson Lee is still in Congress. While perhaps not as insane as Cynthia McKinney she is just as insufferable as an elitist whose elite status is based solely upon being in office.

      Someone who is enamored with themselves for being in office (as opposed to showing true humility) should never have an office. Ever.

      But when does the federal tyranny of Section 5 end? When has Texas and the rest of the South been punished “enough”? There were injustices, in the past. The perpetrators and victims of those injustices are, for the most part dead of old age. When do those of us who never had any part in injustice stop bearing the punishment?

      You correctly point out that whites in SJL’s district are having their votes lessened in order to give her a set-aside. When does this end?

Every time the stupid Allstate ad comes on my PC locks up! Every stinkin’ time!!

This is the worst night of the year.

How could LSU let down the nation like this?

It is almost like Ron Paul getting the GOP nomination!

Professor, since you tagged it, I would like you opinion on the Texas Redistricting case now before the SCOTUS.

And I would also like you to comment on the Section 5 segment of the case since Texas is now a minority-majority state, where there is a risk that white voters will be disenfranchised. And, if the DoJ, that is arguing that the legislature’s maps are invalid due to Section 5, would there be a legitimate argument that Sheila Jackson Lee’s district, which is 90% black, would also violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

    William A. Jacobson in reply to retire05. | January 10, 2012 at 12:05 am

    I haven’t really followed the case. Just too much else going on.

      Well SEC football is done for the winter so you should have a bit of spare time since nothing else that important is going on right now…

      So commenting on Newt’s defense of Romney is more important than watching how the SCOTUS continues to violate the true meaning of the Equal Rights Act as it continues to fly in the face of one man/one vote and creates set-asides and protected classes?

      It the Dems can win on this one, and continue to punish states for what was deemed a violation of a certain class’s voting rights 50 years ago, how long before your state experiences the same type of pressure, for one issue or another.

      This case only proves that the harm done to us, and our Constitution, by Democrats continues long after that Democrat is dead and buried.

      I am considered a minority in my own state because I am white. Where are my set-asides and protection as a minority? Oh, I see, it doesn’t mean minority in the true sense of the word (numbers wise) just depends on what my skin tone is, right?

Poor Jennifer Rubin. She once did reasonable work though even her take down of the NYT lengthy anti-Palin article in 2008 (my first introduction to her) wasn’t as good or complete as it could have been. Still it had substance and humor. Her sense of humor, maybe her best feature as a writer, has dwindled as the screeching has increased.

    I wonder if she’s following FakeJenRubin. I have been for a while. Whomever it is is a real insider and pretty funny. I liked her when she was at Commentary. She was the most outspoken of the lot. I didn’t follow her to WaPo but every time I checked in she was on a jihad against Perry or whomever.