Velociman’s view from the tar pits is five minutes of reading extremely well-spent.
There is a strange poetry to his words.
Condi
I know that this is a little out of its moment, but I just wanted to note that is is strange to me that some people find this remarkable woman “scary.” Her resume and her achievements in life are nothing short of remarkable; she is a woman who should be celebrated.
Apologize for What?
I’ve heard that the Obama camp is calling for Romney to repudiate the release of the 2007 video of candidate Obama. This is a strange thing for Obama’s folks to be doing since it would be hard to claim that the video is anything other than what it is: candidate Obama working hard to capitalize on racial divisions and suspicions. Why should Romney repudiate the video release?
If Obama feels that his own words were wrong or that he struck the wrong tone, then it is he who should apologize and explain. If he stands by those words, then he should stand by the video, proudly, and welcome the additional sunlight.
Me, I don’t think it tells me anything I didn’t already know about the man and I absolutely hate the focus on race. But this is a recent video and it does change the way people should consider the President’s relationship with Reverend Wright (and, maybe, wonder a bit at just how willing he was to throw the man under the bus when he became a political liability). It’s fair game to release and discuss– certainly more so than the strange focus on Sarah Palin’s kids or Todd Palin’s pre-wedding DUI.
So, in all of this, what is it that Romney has to apologize for or repudiate? Not a thing.
That said, I’m sympathetic with Althouse’s view over on Instapundit. The racialist tones (including those coming from our president in the video– a notable reason that I refuse to support the man) aren’t where I want Republicans to invest their energy. I want to paint a positive, intelligent view for our future.
In politics, though, that’s a pretty rare way to win an election.
It Isn’t Just the Economy
From Kori Schake at Foreign Policy’s web site:
President Obama said last night that “the path we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place.” That is risibly inaccurate on national security issues — this administration has done the exact opposite: It has taken the easy path that leads to a worse place.
Of course, the meat of it follows that intro and I find it compelling. A good summation of some of the reasons that I will be voting for Mr. Romney this year.
A Rising Tide…
Click through and read:
Jay reminds us of an important point: The great achievement of the Reagan economy wasn’t that the rich got a lot richer (though they did, and good for them!) but that the poor got a lot richer, too. As Treasury figures from the era document, the vast majority (nearly 85 percent) of those who were poor in 1979 (meaning they resided in the lowest income quintile) were in a higher quintile by 1988; even more impressive, two-thirds of them had moved up two quintiles or more. And most impressive of all: Of the people who were in the lowest income quintile in 1979, more had moved to the top quintile by 1988 than remained in the bottom quintile. Which is to say, if you were on the bottom in 1981, you were statistically more likely to be on the top by 1988 than to remain at the bottom.
There is more and it acts as a good reminder of why we on the right continue to fight for our vision of America.
An Absence of Leadership (Updated)
I watch the video below and I suppose I should be grateful that even Axelrod can’t bring himself to bring forth the lie that Americans under President Obama’s term in office are somehow better off than they were four years ago. Even he isn’t willing to say “yes” when asked a blunt question– although the dance he does to avoid answering is a little funny. But I’m not grateful because it still comes packaged by a guy who insists that this President has somehow created jobs.
It’s hard to make a claim of significant job creation when unemployment is worse than it was when you took office and job participation rates are lower than when you took office. And all evidence says that the jobs that were created weren’t particularly good ones– and if you happen to be leaving college right now, you shouldn’t even count on getting one of the bad jobs.
But the roster of folks receiving government assistance has grown. The roster of folks who have simply stopped trying has grown.
Axelrod can’t say it– he wouldn’t get to keep his job if he did say it–but President Obama has failed. His economic policies had doubled our debt, his energy policies have left us all poorer, and he can’t even manage to encourage his own party to offer up so much as symbolic support for his budget. And his own party has simply refused to commit to any budget throughout his term in office. No, not even when they had majorities in the House, the Senate, and a President who would sign whatever they put in front of him. Obama’s failed presidency is marked by a lack of leadership and achievement.
We have suffered not just because of our President’s progressive vision– as poorly articulated and argued as it has been– but because of an absence of leadership that has left us confused, demoralized, and weary.
Former President Carter doesn’t look better by comparison, but their presidencies look remarkably similar. Men, feted by the left for their intelligence and character, who had no idea how to lead a nation through difficult times, who failed to stabilize the economy, and who left the country worse for their care.
With Carter, though, we had Ronald Reagan waiting with the vision, charisma, and powerful leadership to help us rebuild. I truly hope that Romney and Ryan can live up to that towering standard.
Updated: A little related video.
Reminder: Government Successes Tend to Look a Lot Like Failures, Pt 2
While we’re told that the auto bailouts were a wild success, the numbers tell a different story. Not a surprising story and some would still argue that the jobs and salvaging two-thirds of the American auto industry was worth the cost. No matter where you end on that particular conversation, the truth is this: this “success” cost far more than it was originally envisaged.
Government “successes” are rarely match up to the way real world successes might be measured.
The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That’s 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.
In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.
The report may still underestimate the losses. The report covers predicted losses through May 31, when GM’s stock price was $22.20 a share.
On Monday, GM stock fell $0.07, or 0.3 percent, to $20.47. At that price, the government would lose another $850 million on its GM bailout.
Of course, when you’ve got the Free Money Fairy in your pocket, you don’t always feel the need to worry over little things like budgeting properly.
Call Me Crazy, The Strawberry Pie Edition
Call me crazy, and I’m still not gonna vote for the guy, but this is a cute picture.
And I don’t much care what Michelle Obama thinks. So there.
(Yes, I’ll probably get tired of this particular game pretty soon. Just not quite yet.)
Call Me Crazy, The Blago Edition
Call me crazy, but I think the Democrats are really going to start hating Blago by the end of this election cycle.
The rest of us will just enjoy the free entertainment.
The Mark of Mitt
Here’s a little ha ha to get your day up and running. I mean, it’s a little late for that, but my morning coffee is just finally starting to kick in.
…[I]t’s not just that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid any taxes since 1975 and that Bain Capital is the planet’s largest distributor of E. coli which it manufactures in petri dishes offshored to Mitt’s safe deposit box in the Cayman Islands, but that Mitt will kill your loved ones five years after his minions lay you off. Just because he can. He doesn’t have to meet you. You might show no outward signs of ill health. You might even have a job and health insurance. But you bear the Mark of Mitt, and decades later when you keel over and expire it’ll be because he once laid off your brother, or your cousin, or your hairdresser’s sister, or someone who once heard something from someone who knows Harry Reid.