Welcome, one and all to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the ‘sphere… The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble
This is the Bumper Sticker Edition.
- It’s Society’s fault:
[1]It strikes me that this is emblematic [2]for the excuse making that liberals make in world affairs, too. - Working class dog? Speaking of excuse making, I note word on the wire [3]that Michael Vick’s lawyer is telling the courts he has a job in Construction lined up. Yeah, right. Let me know if you see pictures of him actually working, OK? Links would be nice.
- It’s a matter of what you believe: Rich Lowry says [4]Obama’s faith that his fresh attitude — more flexible and thoughtful — will in itself open new international vistas is unshaken. It’s also mistaken, of course.
- Goddard, it aint: We’ll likely see NORK launch that missle tommorrow from all indications. And from all accounts, the Administation instead of responding correctly, will do some finger shaking. I loved Krauthammer’s line:
[5]But there’s always an amusing event in any of these, and my favorite today was when Obama met with the president of South Korea, and afterwards, the South Koreans issued a statement that the presidents agreed that if the North Koreans launch a missile, which will happen probably on Saturday— the two countries will come together with a, quote, “stern and united response,” which means there will be a useless Security Council resolution with six adjectives instead of the usual two.But that wasn’t the hilarious part. The hilarious part is that the U.S. communique left out the word “stern.” So it looks as if our position will be that we if the missile is launched we are going to have a flabby united resolution at the U.N.This is an improved foreign policy?
- It’s a matter of what you believe II: VDH, as always is worth the read. Today, particularly so. [6]?
[7]If you believed that average Americans are not well educated, do not think in sophisticated and rational ways, and cannot be trusted to make good decisions, whether for themselves or for their nation, then you would expand the power of better-educated and wiser government overseers. This would ensure that, instead of millions of private agendas that lead individuals improperly, and at times recklessly, to acquire and consume, we would have benevolent and far-sighted powers directing our lives in ways that benefit the environment, the economy — and themselves.If you believed that highly educated and sometimes distracted liberals occasionally slip on rather mundane questions of taxes, lobbying, and conflict of interest — but not at all in the felonious, premeditated manner of the corporate hierarchy — then it would be necessary to overlook such minor lapses for the greater good of marshalling talented and well-disposed experts into progressive government.Victor seems in rare form on this one. Very worth your while.
- Farce: I commented yesterday at the facical nature of the pictures coming from outside the G20 [8]… The protestors blaming their ills on Capitalism… (Irony abouds… without the fruits of capitalism, their protests wouldn’t have been possible -Bit) … outisde what I called the biggest collections of Socialists since the Kremlin was so infested. And what does the G20 do? They prove me correct. [9] And, of course, Obama is busy playing to the crowd [10], there, trying desperately to live up to their leftist expectations. [11]
- Oops. Now what? For all the screaming about how the Blackwater types were murderous thugs, it turns out that the bullets don’t match [12]. Now, of course mere facts won’t overturn some people’s positions, but those are the facts.
- Blago to Disneyworld: Blago got indicted yesterday, to the shock and amaze of nobody. And to equal surprise the press mostly ignored it. But this things going to get very large and very ugly in the near future. Congressman A [13] for example.
- Third party?
[14]So Gingrich is leaning toward a third party [15]? I dunno, Newt. Seems to me that amounts to little more than an effective way to split the vote. Still, as Reynolds notes [16]:
People think the Tea Party protests are pro-Republican, but they aren’t, really, and they could easily turn pro-third party if the GOP doesn’t live up to its small-government claims. And that’s not a living-up it’s been very good at in recent years.
It’s true, the Republican party has gone too far left. It has been the biggest complaint I’ve had about the party since 1987. Thing is, Gingrich, while he has been largely encouraging [17]for the conservatives, hasn’t been immune to that charge of going too far left, either. I would point to his arguments with Limbaugh And Palin. as a prime example. It’s those events that have me thinking Gingrich is about pulling the usual Democrat trick of getting out in front of the mob and make like he’s leading it. But he’s got this part correct at least: 2012 will not be won by a middle of the road type.
- Third Party II? It must be said, though, that that party unrest has been around for a long time, now… since Reagan at least. A reader forwarded a response to one of my older Pajamas Media posts [18], from Jerry McConnel over at Red County. [19] Says Jerry:
There’s no question that the conservatives will never control the Republican party; NEVER!. Even though I am convinced that they outnumber the ones who are definitely not REAL conservatives, like McCain, as they are tired and flawed Republicans.
I keep hearing this and yet I don’t ever hear from conservatives, “Let’s take over the party and insist that the conservative standards be enforced.” Why is that? Why are they so reluctant to take charge of a faltering party?
Why doesn’t some conservative leader conduct a “Yes” or “No” survey asking all those who claim to be Republicans if they consider themselves to be conservative Republicans; would they join in creating a new party called the Conservatives of America Party; a party that would expel all RINO’s and those who would refuse to swear they would uphold the Conservative Party principles?
If the results show what I feel they would, i.e, an overwhelming majority in favor of a new Conservative Party, it would give the conservatives the upper hand and force people in or out as the case might be. If we continue as we are right now, 2010 is lost.
We conservatives are not going to change some of the big government Republicans who become Democrats on the most crucial votes that harm our country, so let’s move on without them. I do believe they would be in a very distinct minority, probably less than a dozen. Some would easily morph into the liberal Democrats that they cowardly will not admit to being, while others would timidly agree to join the conservatives and move ahead.
To my way of thinking, this “put it on the table” position would attract a good number of Democrats who now are reluctant to speak out against their socialist/liberal leaders in fear of losing ground within their party….
Well, Jerry, we come back to Reagan, again. Reagan was never very popular among a subset of the Republicans I like to call the Rockefeller Republicans. Putting it on the table was exactly what Regan did, and the result was a success beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. Granted that as I’ve indicated before Reagan wouldn’t have won save for the disaster tha was Jimmy Carter, but I’m of the view that what we have is the second term of Carter just now, and thereby 2010 and for that matter 2012 will be similar, if we follow the pattern of going strongly conservative. Jerry is of the view that a new conservative party is needed. I disagree, there. As I say, I suspect that will simply split the vote. I submit that people of courage in the party will be able to take it in the direction we need to go. The problem is we haven’t been fighting for our views. Party leaders need to understand that they are conservatives first… and Republicans second. And we need to deliver that message to people like Eric Cantor who is revealing himself as just another Mccain/Rockefeller Republican. It’s time for the grass roots to take over. We’re not going to do that by being gentle.
- Aha! A shaft of light! Jen Rubin says [20]there are openings for the GOP in the age of Obama and points to NY20 as her example. Where, I should add, Tedisco leads by 12 as of last night [21]. Haven’t heard anything fresh from there, but I’ve been in and out of pocket today, so I may have missed it. She’s right, though. But again, only if we stand up, and take names.
- When you come around: Nice to see Rick Moran understands [22]what we were trying to tell him [23]about the Republican budget. That’s a bit less snarky than it sounds.
- TWEET! Google trying to buy up Twitter? Apparently so. [24]
- Guess Not: Joyner pulled that comment section [25]I spoke of last night. Just as well.