Thursday, January 12, 2012

Why I Hate Politics

 (AP/CBS News) WASHINGTON -- First lady Michelle Obama is challenging assertions she's forcefully imposed her will on White House aides, saying she's tired of people portraying her as "some kind of angry black woman," adding with a dagger-sharp glance at the unfortunate reporter, “and I’m going to start kicking some honky ass if it doesn’t stop.”
GOP Contest Suffers from Leftist Rhetoric Infestation

In other news, Mitt Romney is taking heat for his predatory capitalism, being called a “Vulture Capitalist,” not by poop-throwing OWS monkeys, but by big statist Newt Gingrich and inarticulate Texas Governor Rick Perry.

It’s helpful to remember that Bain didn’t swoop down in their flying Greedmobile and gobble up these companies. When a company or an investor group is in trouble (and everyone's job is in peril) they often turn to a capital group like Bain as their last chance. Sometimes they can save the patient, sometimes they can’t. Sometimes it takes an amputation. Bain’s job is to look out for the investors that hire them, not unfortunately, for the poor schlubs who have the misfortune of being deck hands on a sinking ship.

Capitalists do not enter the market to “create jobs” or destroy jobs. That doesn’t put food on the table; making money does, and that is the goal of a capitalist, or a cab driver for that matter. Asking why Mitt threw all those people out of work? You may as well ask why cab drivers don’t give rides to freeloaders, why restaurants insist on charging for their meals, and why retail stores don’t give away free stuff. Why don’t you work for free?
Yes, it's true that unlike some Republicans, Democrats don't "enjoy firing people." They enjoy "investing" your money in exploding electric vehicles, bullet trains and other highly unprofitable but morally satisfying economic misadventures. Venture socialism is certainly empathetic. (David Harsanyi)
Unlike Mitt, Obama’s Job Destruction has Cost us Hundreds of Billions

Romney beats Obama because Romney’s Bain actions didn’t cost taxpayers any money. Obama’s “job creation” programs have cost us hundreds of billions, and his job destruction programs even more, ending in solar panel company scandals, green battery factories closing down, and government-funded car fires.

The alternative to Schumpeter’s creative destruction is malaise-filled stagnation, where a society of government-protected betamax and rotary phone manufacturers goes down the economic tubes.

Finally, to wrap it all up and put it in Election 2012 perspective, I ask you this question: Which is worse, a candidate saying “I like to fire people who give me bad service!” while empowering ordinary Americans to choose their own health care, or a sitting Vice President declaring The Taliban is not our enemy?

Jim Manzi has a cogent summation in his National Review Article, Romney and Bain.

45 comments:

Always On Watch said...

I can't get all wound up about this Bain "scandal."

Maybe it's because I'm too sick to care about much of anything right now.

But I can see that this Bain "scandal" is going to be used to good effect in the propaganda war known as "the November 2012 election."

Sorting out the nonsense from what matters is going to be Herculean task. And most American voters simply will not make that effort.

Feeling very pessimistic these days.

bunkerville said...

Those who do not understand Free Markets will vote against Romney anyway. Those who do, will understand your post and how our system works. As for Gingrich and Perry, I have no further time for them.

Ducky's here said...

Unfortunately Mitt plays a zero sum game. He wins, you lose.

No it could be a more cooperative construct and at one time it was. What he did was illegal fifteen years ago.

So if I had been asking Governor Olympics the question at his press conference and he got pissy and asked where I thought the profits go I would have informed him.

"Equity bubbles, or have you been asleep for the last thirty years."

Governor Olympics or Obummer, we get the government we deserve.

Mark Adams said...

If Romney can't handle the heat of his record, he can get out of the kitchen. So everyone is all up in arms about Gingrich S-PAC and Bains. But of course, where was all the screamers when Romney (and Bachmann) told Gingrich that he should return the $1.6M for which Gingrich, as a consulting business owner, had charge Fannie/Freddie. Both are capitalist achievements... And I warned people about taking this route (bashing each other over free markets) a month ago.
And I will beg to differ on “Romney’s Bain actions didn’t cost taxpayers any money.” Cost us unemployment compensation.

Silverfiddle said...

Mark: My only quibble with your comments is about unemployment compensation.

Those companies were on their last leg, otherwise they would not have turned to Bain for help.

It was a choice between downsize and lay off some, or do nothing and everybody is unemployed.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Can you elaborate on the alleged illegality?

Anonymous said...

POLITICS?

I've come to the conclusion that ALL of it is a bunch of crap.

I'm just about done.

~ FreeThinke

Lisa said...

I wouldn't mind Romney laying off a good number of government workers,particularly those in the Senate and Congress and the unions who get special favors the rest of us don't get.

LD Jackson said...

I don't blame you one bit, Kurt. The dirtiness and negativity of it all is nearly more than I can stand. I have no problem with the candidates pointing out each others weaknesses, but to raise such a fuss over what Romney said about firing people is really getting in the gutter. Not to mention, taking and twisting his words completely out of context. Methinks several of them need to grow up.

Anonymous said...

Apparently nothing new. take a look at this review of an account of the election of 1800:

Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800

(Pivotal Moments in American History)

by John Ferling

Format: Paperback, 288pp.
ISBN: 9780195189063
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Pub. Date: October 20, 2005

Description:

It was a contest of titans: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two heroes of the Revolutionary era, once intimate friends, now icy antagonists locked in a fierce battle for the future of the United States.


The election of 1800 was a thunderous clash of a campaign that climaxed in a deadlock in the Electoral College and led to a crisis in which the young republic teetered on the edge of collapse.


Adams vs. Jefferson is the gripping account of a turning point in American history, a dramatic struggle between two parties with profoundly different visions of how the nation should be governed. The Federalists, led by Adams, were conservatives who favored a strong central government. The Republicans, led by Jefferson, were more egalitarian and believed that the Federalists had betrayed the Revolution of 1776 and were backsliding toward monarchy.


The campaign itself was a barroom brawl every bit as ruthless as any modern contest, with mud-slinging, scare tactics, and backstabbing.


The low point came when Alexander Hamilton printed a devastating attack on Adams, the head of his own party, in "fifty-four pages of unremitting vilification."


The stalemate in the Electoral College dragged on through dozens of ballots. Tensions ran so high that the Republicans threatened civil war if the Federalists denied Jefferson the presidency. Finally a secret deal that changed a single vote gave Jefferson the White House.

A devastated Adams left Washington before dawn on Inauguration Day, too embittered even to shake his rival's hand."


Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose. C'etait oujours vrai, malheureusement.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

"but to raise such a fuss over what Romney said about firing people is really getting in the gutter."

-----

Well maybe not the gutter but it was taken out of context.

What was neglected was the fact that Governor Olympics was feeding the suckers the pure stinky cheese. He was talking about competition in the health insurance industry while failing to mention that baseball is the only other business to have a legislatively mandated antitrust exemption.

They pull the same stunt when they send someone like Charles the Krautzenjammer Kid to talk about tort reform knowing that malpractice insurance is a monopoly that will never willingly lower premiums.

But the right wing suckers slurp it up.

Z said...

I think it's interesting that Mrs Obama's negative press from this new book and the subsequent coverage are so forgiving; remember Nancy Reagan and how they treated her?

Dennis Prager, rightfully so, talked about how creepy it was for the Right to jump on Romney's comment about firing people (Huntsman being the first, of course) when it was so very clearly out of context. Plus, of course, we must fire when people aren't being productive...unless you're a socialist and want to give your pay check to those who aren't being productive.

tha malcontent said...

Sorry Off Topic
But I thought this News Story was important enough to change the topic.

Michelle Obama is very furious at being called am Angry Black
First Lady. Michelle Obama has denied reports of tension between her and White House staff, saying on CBS that people have tried to portray her as "some kind of angry black woman." Later she threw a plate against an East Wing wall, stamped her feet, rolled on the floor and screamed that anyone who dared imply at she was anything but gentle and polite would be boiled in trans-fat.

Ducky's here said...

The right wing base needs a little raw meat.

Truly one of the critical stories of the day.
Right up there with whether Beyonce or Rihanna is on Michele's iPod.

Mark Adams said...

FT: The battle between Adams and Jefferson, AKA Federalist and Jeffersonian Republicans was mostly over the Quasi-War. Later on in Adams life they both resumed their friendship.
Thanks for posting that. Shows this, and the battle with Clinton and Obama in 2008 are nothing but politics as usual.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Mark, for noticing the review -- for the added information -- and forgetting the point.

~ FreeThinke

Leticia said...

Hey Mal!

I am also getting a tad worn out on all the politics, but I just can't stop, I don't dare.

Romney won't be a good choice, but if that's who we wind up with, I'd rather him over Obummer and his low-life wife.

Why can't we just vote for the Mr. Stay-Puft. And be done with it.

Darth Bacon said...

Gotta say Ducky Boy, I enjoyed that more than reading the crap that you spew. But keep talking, someday you might say something intelligent.

beamish said...

I'm failing to see how Newt Gingrich is a "big government statist" and Mitt Romney is the incarnation of capitalism under assualt.

A lil' help here?

Infidel de Manahatta said...

This just goes to show you why this election is so strange. The Republicans, the so-called party of capitalism and big business are criticizing the front runner for doing his job.

There is only one party: The Democrats who have the propaganda wing (MSM) and the RINOs to count on.

We need a new viable third party.

Liberalmann said...

Oh Leticia, way to be a good Christian. Loser.

Romney:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/12/watch-when-mitt-romney-came-to-town/

Silverfiddle said...

The Raw Story didn't say what Romney did wrong. It's telling that the anti-Romnry film only talks about four companies Bain worked on.

As I say in this post, the company owners turned to Bain for help. Romney didn't just swoop down like some dracula and suck the money out of them.

Had they not already been in peril, they never would have turned to Bain.

Bring something real and we'll discuss...

Mark Adams said...

FT "forgetting the point." care to elaborate?

Deputy Queenish of the AIPac PC Blog Posting Enforcement Society said...

All aboard the Romney Express! That includes you, Deputy beamish. Did you REALLY think we'd let our Tea Party stalking horse steal the nomination from our chosen thoroughbred?

Ducky's here said...

Circle the wagon folks.

It looks lke Romney and the Black Messiah is going to tear him apart.

Romney will have 3 standing eights by September.

Anonymous said...

MITT v. NEWT?


Mitt Romney has been a successful businessman and entrepreneur who later went into government. As everyone knows, he managed to get himself elected Governor of Assachusetts as a Republican in probably the most heavily liberal state in the union.


Assachusetts invariably votes two-thirds to three-quarters Democrat. Assachusetts, however, has put Republicans in power before. Remember Edward Brooke -- a BLACK Republican who became a senator from Assachuetts. Then there was Bill Weld, another Republican who became a popular Governor of Assachusetts and latterly Scott Brown who took Teddy "Chap-my-dick-quick" Kennedy's seat after his long-awaited, oh-so welcome demise.


How Mitt and these others did it I don't know -- probably slung a superior line of bullshit. ALSO -- it might be significant to note that every one of these Assachusetts R's happened to be matinee-idol types extremely attractive to women. [One of many excellent reasons why it was a bad idea ever to give in the suffragettes. The country's been going downhill ever since.] };-)>


Newt Gingrich has been an academic, a writer, an "intellectual," and a member of the House of Representatives who played a powerful, highly significant role as speaker after the 1994 election.


Apparently, Newt has also become something of a wheeler-dealer since his ouster from the speakership, and has raked in some big bucks, but I don't believe he's ever run a business.


Suddenly Newt is portrayed as a cynical, crooked "insider" who's only out for everything he can get for himself -- just because he's been smart enough to play the game he was virtually forced into to his advantage. For that I applaud him. I've always liked bright people. And I love it whenever anyone gets rich -- unless they did it by trampling on decent people or by out-and-out theft.


How quickly we forget that it was Newt Gingrich who stopped Bill Klintoon’s Big Government Agenda dead in it’s tracks with the Contract with America that gave us the Big Surplus for which Klintoon still takes all the credit!


There isn't a soul alive who hasn't got something he'd rather not have made public. We are a flawed species. There never has been and there will be a “perfect” candidate, so it’s long past time we got real, and supported whoever might be able to topple The Black Knight.


This perpetual game of GOTCHA!!! has must to stop. Internecine warfare within the only party that has a faint chance of improving our prospects. Politics has become nothing more than a marathon DENIGRATION DERBY. When we become preoccupied with nothing but poisonous gossip and flaunted faults, there could be no hope that genuine reform could ever take place.


Why we feel compelled to discuss these things every day escapes me. We have no influence whatsoever over the Power Elites, and they couldn't care less what we think or feel. I'm not even sure there's any integrity left in the electoral process -- if there ever was.


Nevertheless, two quotations come to mind:


"Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse. As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State, 'What does it matter to me?' the State may be given up for lost."

~ Rousseau (1712-1778)


"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye upon [public office] a rottenness begins in his conduct."

~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


However feeble we feel our power may be, we must participate in what-is-left-of our democratic, representative republic, or it will soon be lost and gone forever.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Mark,

Spacing with italics can be a problem. Of course I meant "for GETTING the point."

More proof that the tiniest detail out of place can completely obscure one's intended meaning.

"For want of a nail a shoe was lost ... etc."

No. I was thanking you for noticing and understanding what I meant, that was all. Such acknowledgement is very rare in the blogosphere where adverse criticism is usually the order of the day.

All the best,

~ FreeThinke

Mark Adams said...

FT Spacing and punctuation make all the difference in the world. :) Just wanted clarification because I was a little bewildered. Thank for clearing that up.

Ducky's here said...

Ducky: Can you elaborate on the alleged illegality?

------

The tactics similar to what the New York Times did when purchasing the Boston Globe.

They transfered the assets to the parent company and left huge debt in the subsidiary which it often can't pay off resulting in bankruptcy.

These tactics were restricted until Clintoon dropped the regulations.

Finntann said...

Ahh... Capitalism:

Mercedes apologizes for using Che Guevara image.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/12/10142807-mercedes-apologizes-for-using-che-guevara-image

Me... I think the Mercedes star on the beret was a touch of genius!

Viva la Revolucion!

Cheers!

MK said...

"....saying she's tired of people portraying her as "some kind of angry black woman..."

Well she certainly seemed very bitter with the - finally proud of her country because they voted for her partner - comments.

"Capitalists do not enter the market to “create jobs” or destroy jobs."

It's a popular misconception among stupid leftards that companies form to create jobs. Unfortunately this belief also extends to other parts of the electorate as well. They're either too stupid to know otherwise or too intellectually lazy and cowardly to admit otherwise. It's easier to blame others when the masses are so easily fooled i suppose.

"They enjoy "investing" your money in exploding electric vehicles, bullet trains and other highly unprofitable but morally satisfying economic misadventures."

And i'm sure they get a lot of money coming back their way too, probably not directly, but we know leftist scum, they always want something in return.

Silverfiddle said...

They transfered the assets to the parent company and left huge debt in the subsidiary which it often can't pay off resulting in bankruptcy.

So the fault lies with the federal government that signs up to clean the diapers of the crapitalists who crap themselves. And that is Bain's fault how???

Teresa said...

Biden is an idiot. And, people consider him an expert on foreign policy? He hasn't got a clue.

The GOP candidates need to stop resorting to political opportunism just to score points. Their attack on capitalism just because its Mitt is pathetic and disturbing. They are playing into the hands of the class warfare nuts.

Anonymous said...

PART ONE

This column first published in 2002 by the late, great Joseph Sobran, a brave, wonderfully articulate columnist who was severely punished for daring to tell unpleasant truths in print, presents a challrnging view of modern conservatism, and makes numerous thought-provoking observations. It may very well shed light on why things seem so hopelessly wrong today and what influences are at least partly responsible.

~ FreeThinke

DEFINING CONSERVATISM DOWNWARD


by Joe Sobran


In the late Sixties, the liberal cartoonist and wag Al Capp suddenly turned against the Left. People were startled by his apparent rightward swing. "I haven't changed," he insisted. "Liberalism has."


Today it's conservatism that has changed. The conservative movement of yesterday has moved like a migrating herd from most of its old principles. Staunch conservatives like Patrick J. Buchanan and Samuel Francis have been excommunicated, attacked, snubbed, and blacklisted.


Once upon a time, conservatives stood for limited government, the rollback of the welfare state, strict construction of the Constitution, and traditional morality. Today they merely want their own people to run big government.


They used to oppose needless military intervention abroad; today they equate militarism with patriotism. They used to demand that the U.S. Department of Education be abolished; today they want to expand it. They used to denounce Franklin Roosevelt; today they venerate him.


Constitutional government? Conservatives have simply dropped the subject. They can live with the status quo, which is not conservatism's legacy but liberalism's. Yesterday's heresy has become today's orthodoxy.


Traditional morality? Again, conservatives have dropped the subject. Their new hero is former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who supported legal abortion and homosexual rights and brought his mistress to official functions. Giuliani is a winner. He knows how to get and use power. The media have adored him since the 9/11 attacks. So conservatives have adopted him as their poster boy.


When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, conservatives (including me) wanted to feel they had triumphed, that a victory for their movement meant the permanent vanquishing of liberalism. Even liberals thought Reagan had "turned the country around." But Reagan, while repeating conservative platitudes,challenged very little of the institutional structure of liberalism and in fact embraced most of it. During his eight years in office the Federal Government continued to grow, nearly doubling its spending. As Federal deficits mounted monstrously, conservatives dropped another subject: the evils of deficit spending and unbalanced budgets.


Still, conservatives pretended they had conquered. They equated Reagan's minor gains with the radical and lasting changes Roosevelt had effected. Reagan himself encouraged this feeling by inviting conservative leaders to White House dinners. That was all it took to sustain their delusions. After all, most of them had never been beckoned to the White House before. What better proof that they now reigned?

(CONTINUED)

Anonymous said...

PART TWO

Meanwhile, a new breed was emerging: the "neoconservatives." These were former liberals, mostly pro-Israel and anti Communist Jewish intellectuals. There weren't really very many of them, but they had disproportionate influence; conservatives welcomed them as allies with awe and gratitude.


In the conservative press, support for Israel suddenly became mandatory and criticism of Israel became taboo. Conservatives stopped complaining about "foreign entanglements" and foreign aid. Yet another inconvenient subject had been dropped, to be replaced by embarrassing fawning on Israel. Just as liberals had once turned a blind eye to Soviet spies and agents, conservatives ignored Israeli espionage.


The neoconservatives were still basically liberals, albeit Cold War liberals. They favored the New Deal legacy and looked back at Harry Truman as a great president. The old conservative agenda of a return to constitutional government left them cold; limited government would hamper military action abroad. But they have moved to the head of the conservative movement, and their chief followers are conservative "leaders."


In short, conservatism has been swallowed up by neoconservatism. THE WEEKLY STANDARD, a neoconservative magazine, has made William Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW redundant. The founding generation of NATIONAL REVIEW included men of the stature of Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, Henry Hazlitt, Frank Meyer, and Brent Bozell; none of them could write for the magazine today. It has no room for independent or original thinkers -- or even for writers who espouse its own founding principles.


Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan has observed that we have "defined deviancy downward" -- that is, we have become so inured to behavior formerly recognized as deviant that we have tried to cope by lowering our standards. In the same way, conservatism has been "defined downward." The principles conservatives once upheld have been defeated politically, so conservatism has abandoned them, adopting instead the old liberal positions and calling them conservative.


How odd, and sad, that a movement professing to fight for tradition should drop its own past down the Memory Hole.


[NOTE: This column was published originally by Griffin Internet Syndicate on January 2, 2002.]

Submitted by FreeThinke

dmarks said...

"In the conservative press, support for Israel suddenly became mandatory and criticism of Israel became taboo"

An antisemitic myth, really.

Legitimate criticism of Israel is never discouraged. Like, criticizing their tariff policies.

What is called into question is criticism if Israel that is way beyond the criticism of other nations, and goes beyond the pale: such as criticism of Israelis for daring to exist, or to fight back when they are attacked.

You make a pretty good addition to the case that the miss-used "neoconservative" label is often an antisemitic slur.


And what is wrong with "support for Israel"? I support every nation's right to exist, in the face of those who want to wipe them off the map.

dmarks said...

And yes, in summary Joseph Sobran is pretty unhappy that there are more Jews in the ranks of conservatives. He must have been thumbing the Protcols of the Elders of Zion when he wrote this one.

beamish said...

Not only that, DMarks, but to criticize "neoconservatism" as a whole tosses luminaries like Jeane Kirkpatrick aside as "traitors" and such.

Personally, I think the paleoconservative / neoconservative distinction is artificial, contrived, and very much a leftist trend away from conservatism's eschewing of ideology. You're either conservative or not. There is no "all conservatives must be anti-Semites" dogma except among poseurs.

beamish said...

Here's Jonah Goldberg's (arg! a Jew!) three-part series on "neoconservatism."

Part One: State of Confusion
Part Two: The Neoconservative Invention
Part Three: The End of Neoconservatism

It's a great read in full. No canard is left undemolished. People deploying the term "neoconservative" are pretty much screaming that they hate conservatism, as well as Jews.

Teresa said...

Thanks for the links Beamish. I'll be taking a look at them soon. The labels are used as pejoratives used to discredit a position. I don't think any conservative should be doing that. That's what progressives do. We shouldn't resort to their gutter low tactics.

beamish said...

Teresa,

It's good to know where conservatism is coming from, indeed where it came from and where it is going.

Those that bailed off the train to go be "paleoconservatives" with their fellow leftists should hardly be considered authorities on conservatism as a whole.

Inspector AIPac said...

Don't you DARE let her think for herself, Deputy Beamish. Either shame her properly into believing in OUR brand of TRUE grandma killing conservatism, bully her, or drive her out of here! Accuse US of gutter tactics. The NERVE!

Deputy Queenish of the AIPac PC Blog Posting Enforcement Society said...

Paleo-conservtive SCUM! Leftwingers! Socialist! Entitlement junkies... Grrrrrrr.

republicanmother said...

I thought that the Bain scandal was on how Bain received government bailouts and thus was not an example of true capitalism.

As far as the neocon thing goes, its a fact that it is liberalism in disguise promoted by fans of Leon Strauss. It's just another statist mentality.

Of course, I'm a paleocon I reckon, although I don't like labels. My favorite label however is "rebel scum".

So we can call each other leftists, which is hilarious, I never thought I'd live to see the day someone would regard me as a leftist. lol. Or we can actually dig deep, follow the money and find out what is going on in this country.

I invite you all to join my study of FDR and Wall Street where socialism meets corporatism.

Hugh Farnham said...

Ducky sez:

"The right wing base needs a little raw meat."

Yeah, the daily beatdown of the Obamas needs a dedicated venue. Perhaps I'll branch off into "Western Nero . Blogspot"