• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Having Convictions is a Masculine Gift. He, not She, is DNA’d to be a Problem Solver

……..and therefore  our American and Western cultural, political and religious  disease of the day is ditzy feminism  is IN…..problem solving is OUT

The following article was found at the American Thinker:

On Demanding Tolerance

Bruce Johnson


“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”
Gilbert K. Chesterton

And to be “without convictions” is to surrender to the Orwellian existence as depicted in “1984.”  Slack jawed.  No opinions, no convictions. To exist without convictions is to surrender to all.   Turn in your permit to be a thinking human being.

Chesterton suggests that people should have convictions.  He is correct. Pure tolerance would be to have no opinion, no conviction.  The Orwellian society in “1984”  demanded its members to be so. Those who sheltered convictions were forced to mask them.  Yet those in power were severely  “intolerant.” Is that where we are headed?

But Liberals have convictions do they not? I maintain that those demanding tolerance are actually saying  “don’t have convictions that conflict with mine.” Hence, tolerance or the state of being tolerant, really has little to do with discussion or being open minded.  When a liberal asks you to be tolerant,  he is commanding you to quit holding your conviction, likely the one that is countervailing to his own precious conviction.

Yet, if we are dealing with those who refer to themselves as ” liberals”, mustn’t they own up to the attributes of the moniker “liberal”?  Can a Liberal, or someone who calls himself such, demand tolerance? A liberal, by most definitions, suggests open mindedness. A person “favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms” (Oxford Dictionary). The word “respectful” is the key word. It seems  these liberals are not respectful of the opinions, or as Chesterton mentions, the “convictions” of others.

Today, liberals seem to demand.  They do not respect or allow for other reasonable stances. There are mandates. You must buy health insurance.  Where is the respect for “individual rights and freedoms” here?
There are decrees.  “Take your business elsewhere. Your values are not of our city.”

It is great sport to make these points to those who call themselves liberals and demand tolerance.  Use this  phrase to “Freeze” the liberal mind:

“Please be more tolerant of my intolerance.”

A cul de sac of reasoning for those requiring tolerance of others.  Zero divided by zero.  Computer lock up.  For, to demand tolerance is indeed to be intolerant.  When a liberal tells you to be tolerant, it is a double edged event. He is asking you to surrender your conviction, as he maintains his.

And, he is not being a “liberal” at all.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/on_demanding_tolerance.html#ixzz22dO4Zq3g

Roger Kimball’s Over Generous Tribute to The Gay of his Day, Gore Vidal upon his passing

Gore Vidal, 1925-2012

by Roger Kimball     at   Pajamas Media:

So Gore Vidal, once-famous novelist and preening, latitudinarian controversialist, has died, aged 86, of complications from pneumonia, the disease that in bygone years was called the old person’s friend.

I never had much time for Vidal — I found his novels unreadable (Burr, Lincoln) where they were not comically repellent (the jejune pornography of Myra Breckinridge), and his bad-boy polemicizing seemed to me to me barely distinguishable from simple hysteria.

My dislike hardened after I met and became friends with Bill Buckley, who had a long-running altercation with Vidal.  The high-point (from the point of view of histrionics) was during the 1968 Democratic National Convention.  Vidal described Bill as a “crypto-Nazi” and for perhaps the only time in his career Bill lost his temper and threatened to “sock” him.

I know Bill ever after regretted losing his temper, though Vidal’s provocation was sufficient to test the most patient soul.  Bill did not, however, alter his opinion of Vidal, and his long essay “On Experiencing Gore Vidal” in a 1969 number of Esquire provides what I regard as the last word on this curious specimen of self-absorbed, hedonistic fauna.  Hillsdale college maintains a huge, downloadable archive of Buckley’s work and the essay is available in PDF format here. It has all you need to know about G. Vidal. RIP.

Stirring Hatred is a Fundamental Part of the Left’s being Left

We Should Have Kept Our Heads Down Rather Than Support Chick-fil-

by Leslie Loftis    at   Pajamas Media:

If we stay quiet and don’t move, will they still think we hate them?

Over the past day, I’ve seen more than a few discussions amongst Christians that we should not have done the Chick-fil-A event on Wednesday. After they ignore, reject, or exclude the free speech element of the event — which I will copy in order to counter their arguments — they have two lines of reasoning. First, this is Dan Cathy’s personal problem and therefore not “a hill to die on.” Second, the left feels like we hate them, and we are wrong to do anything that makes them feel that way. Whether we actually hate them is not the salient point. Both seem to think along the lines of one commenter, that this is a time to “keep our heads down” and practice our faith quietly.

Keep our heads down. I don’t recall such instructions anywhere in the Bible. I recall that we are to loudly proclaim our faith, that we are to offer succor to fellow Christians persecuted for our faith, and that we are to bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. As if my resolve to never keep my head down needed a boost, I received the “heads down” comment in my inbox as I walked out of my second viewing of The Dark Knight Rises, which is not exactly a modern morality tale about the “virtue” of keeping one’s head down.

A prominent Christan has been ridiculed and his company banned from certain public venues because of his Christian values. He needs our support, and we are called to give it. The left may feel hatred from our actions, but whether we actually hate is the paramount question. We are judged both by God and by criminal courts of law on our actual intent, not by someone’s perception of our intent.

Furthermore, is this not all backward?   They ridicule us, threaten us, heckle us. On Wednesday, they sent us many wishes that we would choke and die on our chicken sandwiches. What about the hate that we feel from those actions? Are we supposed to keep our heads down in the face of actual hatred because others feel hatred when we defend ourselves? What actions would society allow of Christians under these circumstances?

I’ve seen keep-our-heads-down suggestions that we should merely buy chicken without fanfare and give it to charity. That wouldn’t offend anyone, correct? Actually, it was just such a donation that put Chick-fil-A in the culture crosshairs. From Michelle Malkin back in February 2011:

Over the past month, several progressive activist blogs have waged an ugly war against Chick-Fil-A. The company’s alleged atrocity: One of its independent outlets in Pennsylvania donated some sandwiches and brownies to a marriage seminar run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which happens to oppose same-sex marriage.

Finally, we should be given credit for the nature of our protests, which typically support or champion an idea. But it doesn’t appear that society even notices the divide between the nature and goals of various protests.A morning email from my husband:

Almost without exception progressive protest movements are in opposition to something, are negative in character, or seek to punish someone or some institution for having a different belief or point of view. (I will leave observations about the heavy irony of a movement that considers itself the champion of “progress” being so negative in its methods.) Conservative protests on the other hand are largely in support of something, are positive or intended to defend a principle or person from attack.

The CfA protests – we now have 2 – typify the distinction. On Wednesday, thousands of people stood peacefully in lines at CfA restaurants around the country to show support for a company that had been attacked (cynically, for the political benefit of the attackers) over the company’s views and statements by one of its executives. They bought chicken, put their trash in the garbage cans, and went home or back to work. Today, there will be a second CfA protest: a“Lesbian Kiss-In” staged at CfA restaurants, with homosexual couples showing up, presumably to stand around kissing each other, the goal being to embarrass the company’s customers and workers and punish the company for daring to hold an opinion deemed unacceptable by the left.

There are lots of other examples. Read about the aftermath of OWS occupations around the country and look at the photos[there is a collection of such photos at the PJTatler] and contrast those with the Tea Party rallies. Then tell me which we should fear: the lawless mob who confiscates public property and yells “burn it down, eat the rich, and seize their money,” or the people who say “could we please enforce our laws and Constitutional limitations, stop spending money we don’t have, and elect officials who will support these principles” and then pick up their trash and go back to work?

Comment:   Leslie writes like a sweet Christian girl but who seems to know very little about the ways of the Left, much less the long hard line of nearly two centuries of Marxist tyranny.     Hate is a tool which has always been exercised by the Marxist.    The purpose is to avoid dealing with real issues, and stir up resentments, division and suspicion by charging their opponents with the actions of their own leaders.

President Obama is the perfect example of the  “projectionsist”, assalting others having the personality, traits, convictions, and dishonesty as he does……

The Hollow President Offers Neither Leadership or Vision…..only Marxism


The Two-Dimensional Barack Obama

By Reed Galen –   at realclearpolitics:

“Watching the Olympics from Southern California, where I live, I saw my first ad on behalf of Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. Titled “The Choice,” it is a rubber-mallet contrast spot, with the president speaking directly to the camera.

What I took away from it was how, in just four years, Obama’s famously cool demeanor now comes across as flat — just like the U.S. economy. That is not a coincidence, but it explains why his message seems so hollow.

As with most campaigns today, every concept has been thoroughly focused-grouped, leaving little art and too much science. Obama, a compelling 2008 candidate who stirred passion in voters, today looks more like the cardboard cutout of a president whom tourists pose beside for the obligatory Washington, D.C., vacation photo.

In the spot, Obama first discusses “two plans” — his and Mitt Romney’s. He spends most of the ad recounting all of the terrible things Romney wants to bring back to the country, like deregulating banks — this was Bill Clinton-era legislation, mind you — and those hated tax breaks for rich people, which Obama and Democrats extended for two years to try and win the 2010 elections. (As Rick Perry might say: “Oops.”)

The president’s plan, however, appears to consist of little more than raising taxes on Americans that make more than $250,000 a year to “help pay down our debt.” This is where Obama and his campaign team begin wandering off the trail.

Even if undecided voters believe the wealthy should pay more, they aren’t likely to buy the specious argument that this will cure a soaring national debt that has doubled in the past six years.

Obama also criticizes Romney’s “top-down” approach to economic success: It hasn’t worked before, so it won’t work now. If Mitt’s ideas are top-down, what does that make Obama’s? The current administration is hardly known for extolling the virtues of small government or expanding local control. Barack Obama is the de facto head of General Motors. And what is Obamacare if not a “top-down” approach?

As with most modern political commercials, about halfway through this one the president starts rolling out the buzzwords political pros think Americans love to hear. He speaks about building the middle class, properly funding education, and making sure all those small business owners that sacrifice so much to build their enterprises have a fair shot.

This is a transparent attempt to ask entrepreneurs’ forgiveness for his (in-context or out-of-context) recent comments about who actually builds what and who’s responsible for it. Did you say thank you to the highway you sat on this morning while stuck in traffic? If so, call the White House and let ’em know you appreciate it.

Most disquieting, even to some of Obama’s 2008 supporters, has been just how ordinary a politician he’s become. Far from the passionate, lofty rhetoric and mesmerizing oratory of four years ago, his words have become thoroughly two-dimensional.

The things he says on a daily basis could come from anyone running for office in the United States today. Obama for America surely set up countless focus groups and spent millions on polling and, rather than using what they learned to create a compelling narrative, produced a product akin to Wonder Bread. It tastes good but has little nutritional value.

Americans don’t need more pablum. They need leadership and vision. That the president is perfectly willing to dumb down his re-election campaign erodes the brand he built during his first White House run.

For the next three months Obama and his campaign will point the magnifying glass at Romney’s perceived weaknesses and manufactured sins at the expense of explaining to voters why he deserves a second term.

It may work, but winning a race to the bottom ensures him only another four years. It doesn’t enhance his ability to govern, or help find solutions to the country’s problems. Barack Obama once looked larger than life. Now he looks like just one more politician on the television screen — and voters may decide to change the channel.” 

Reed Galen is a political strategist in California. He was John McCain’s Deputy Campaign Manager until July of 2007.


Go for the Gold, Mitt!



<!– [if !IE] end title

Mitt Romney will have many opportunities over the next three months to demonstrate to voters that they should choose him over Barack Obama: his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, the three presidential debates, major policy addresses, and more. But it may be that nothing will speak louder than his selection of a running mate.

Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio

Voters seem to care. In a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 74 percent of registered voters said the selection of a running mate will matter—48 percent saying it matters “somewhat” and 26 percent saying it matters “a lot.” In a close election, as this one seems likely to be, Romney’s pick could help determine the outcome.

It’s not the first time we’ve said it, but it could well be the last: Go bold, Mitt! Pick Paul Ryan, the Republican party’s intellectual leader, the man who’s laid out the core of the post-Obama policy agenda and gotten his colleagues in Congress to sign on to it. Or pick Marco Rubio, the GOP’s most gifted young politician, the man who embodies what is best about the Tea Party and a vision of a broad-based Republican governing majority of the future. Barack Obama was right about this (if only this): Modern democratic politics is about hope and change. Ryan and Rubio, more than anyone else, embody Republican hopes and conservative change.

But let’s descend from the Olympian heights of national aspiration to the bloody crossroads of practical politics. Here too the case for Rubio or Ryan is compelling.

On April 15, Romney attended a private fundraiser in the backyard of a large home in Palm Beach, Florida. His remarks, not intended for public consumption, were nonetheless overheard by reporters traveling with him. And they were blunt. “We have to get Hispanics to vote for our party,” he said. Romney pointed to polls showing him trailing badly among Hispanic voters and said that if those numbers don’t change, “it spells doom for us.”

Those numbers haven’t changed. An NBC/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo poll released in late July shows Obama with a 67-23 percent advantage over Romney among Hispanics. Last week, a Latino Decisions poll had Obama leading Romney 63-27 percent among Hispanics in five swing states with significant Hispanic populations—Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Virginia.

That’s worrisome. But the core of the problem is Florida—a must-win state for Romney. According to Latino Decisions, Romney trails Obama among Latino Floridians 53-37. (Even more, among voters who say they’re “certain” to vote for their candidate, Obama leads 49-29.) This kind of margin might well doom Romney. 

In 2010, by contrast, Marco Rubio won 55 percent of Florida Hispanics. Rick Scott, who was probably helped by having Rubio running with him, won 50 percent of the state’s Hispanic voters in his successful bid to become governor. Even in 2008, while losing Florida 51-48, John McCain won 42 percent of the Hispanic vote. In 2004, George W. Bush defeated John Kerry among Hispanics in Florida by 56-44 percent. (Those numbers were no doubt inflated because Bush’s brother Jeb was the popular governor at the time.)

The bottom line: Mitt Romney almost certainly will not win Florida if he wins just 37 percent of the Hispanic vote there. And Mitt Romney almost certainly will not be president if he doesn’t win Florida.

What to do? The Latino Decisions poll offers one possible answer: Pick Marco Rubio as your running mate. Some 31 percent of Florida Hispanics say they are more likely to vote for Romney if Rubio is on the ticket (47 percent say it would make no difference, and just 17 percent say it would make them less likely).

Rubio’s appeal goes well beyond Hispanics and well beyond Florida, of course. At a recent appearance in Nevada on behalf of Romney, Rubio drew nearly 1,000 voters to his former elementary school, with lines out the door. His autobiography, An American Son, spent several weeks near the top of the New York Times bestseller list. A recent survey of Illinois delegates to the Republican convention found that nearly half of them want Romney to pick Rubio.

The two main arguments against Rubio—he’s too inexperienced and he hasn’t been adequately vetted—strike us as weak. It’s true that Rubio has spent less than two years in the Senate. But he’s hardly green. Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives for eight years, the final two as speaker. In his short time in the U.S. Senate, he has distinguished himself as a hard worker and a serious foreign policy thinker. He has participated in dozens of intelligence briefings—more than Barack Obama before he was nominated.

Moreover, Rubio has probably been subject to more intense critical scrutiny than anyone else Romney is considering. In his 2010 race, Rubio was the subject of massive opposition research conducted by his Republican opponent, the sitting governor of Florida, Charlie Crist; the National Republican Senatorial Committee (which supported Crist); his Democratic opponent, Representative Kendrick Meek; and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The campaign was covered extensively in the Florida press and nationally. Rubio sat for interviews or debates with David Gregory, Candy Crowley, Chris Wallace, Bob Schieffer, and many others. More recently, Rubio was the subject of a book by a Washington Post reporter who uncovered nothing that would disqualify him from higher office. Indeed, the book was on balance flattering. And though Rubio’s name has been mentioned in connection with the case against former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer, a nearly two-year investigation by the Florida Ethics Commission found that Rubio had done nothing wrong. Rubio would also have to expect questions about his troubled friend David Rivera. But the charge here is only one of too much loyalty to a friend, not of wrongdoing on Rubio’s part.

The moment he’s picked, Rubio will become by far the most prominent Hispanic politician in the country. And in a contest largely about competing visions of the American dream, against a president who has minimized the importance of hard work as a road to success, Rubio’s personal story, of a father who worked as a bartender and a mother as a maid to provide opportunities for their children, would provide a powerful counterargument.

The case for Paul Ryan is equally compelling. Since 1999, Ryan has represented a swing district in southeastern Wisconsin—a seat held for two decades by Democrat Les Aspin. And even as he has undertaken a crusade to reform the entitlement programs thought for so long to be politically untouchable, Ryan has won reelection in his purple district with more than 60 percent of the vote six consecutive times. Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, who believes that Obama will win Wisconsin, nonetheless acknowledged last week that putting Ryan on the ticket would make “the southeastern part of the state probably more competitive.”

A recent PPP poll seems to confirm this. President Obama leads Mitt Romney in Wisconsin 50-44 percent and is, according to the accompanying analysis, “the clear favorite to win the state.” But, the analysis continues, “one thing that could make this state look like much more of a toss up is if Romney chooses Paul Ryan as his running mate.” In that scenario, Obama’s lead shrinks to just 47-46 percent. “Ryan’s presence has the effect of further unifying the GOP base around Romney and also helping to bring some independent voters into the fold.” Romney’s internal polling, we are told, shows a similar shift in Wisconsin with Ryan on the ticket.

Like Rubio, Ryan has appeal beyond his home state. As Rubio would help with a key demographic group, Hispanics, Ryan would help in key states in the Midwest. And he has national appeal. Earlier this spring, he traveled around the country with RNC chairman Reince Priebus raising some $21 million for the RNC Presidential Trust. Ryan has raised $4.2 million for his congressional race this year and $4.3 million for his Prosperity PAC—with contributions coming from all 50 states. That’s more money than some Republican presidential candidates raised.

And, of course, putting Ryan on the ticket would ensure that the presidential race is a contest of ideas, not just personalities. In a country where conservatives outnumber liberals two-to-one and where President Obama is thought to be more likable than Mitt Romney by huge margins (+30 according to USA Today/Gallup, +38 in the Washington Post/ABC poll), this strikes us as a good idea.

Of course Democrats will demagogue the entitlement reform proposals in Ryan’s budget. But they’re going to do that anyway. Romney and Republicans already own those reforms—97 percent of congressional Republicans voted for them, and Romney has embraced them without much qualification. “I think it’d be marvelous if the Senate were to pick up Paul Ryan’s budget and adopt it and pass it along to the president,” he said in early April. In late March he declared: “I’m very supportive of the Ryan budget.”

If Ryan’s budget is going to be a central part of the debate over the next three months, who better to explain and defend it than Paul Ryan?

It’s become conventional wisdom that Ryan and Rubio would be “bold” picks, while other choices like Ohio senator Rob Portman and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty are “safe.” Perhaps. But what looks safe can be risky. Portman, a good man and respected public servant, was George W. Bush’s budget director. Pawlenty’s presidential campaign was a disaster. The 2010 election was the best for Republicans in a long time. Ryan and Rubio embody the spirit of 2010. Pawlenty and Portman don’t.

But beyond all of the calculations—beyond demography, geography, and the polls—is the most compelling reason for Romney to pick Ryan or Rubio: Doing so would signal that Romney understands the magnitude of the problems facing the country and would demonstrate that he has the will to solve them. It would suggest that Romney knows this is a big moment, and that he’s willing to run a big campaign. And at a time when the country so desperately needs real leadership, Romney would make clear that he’s ready to provide it by picking either Ryan or Rubio. 

Which of the two should Romney choose? One of us slightly prefers Ryan, the other Rubio. But this we can say in unison and with conviction: Go for the gold, Mitt! Ryan or Rubio!

Comment:    I do like Paul Ryan, period.   He is an intellectual, all right….and the right kind of thinker and persuader…….but pollitical instincts do not come smooth for him when public speaking.

Rubio sells values,  America,  economics,  future and dream all in one clear and persuasive sentence.    He is super quick of brain and speech……without embarrassments.    He is young, but fully adult.    He is young and has a great gift of speaking youthfully but provocatively to the college crowd of today to clear their minds about  voting for the Marxist Obama and four more years of Obamafrauds.    His youth and his success trump anything any Democrat has to offer all of our American young.

I do believe the Ronmey-Rubio team against Obama-Biden will be unbeatable.


J.F. Kerry, another Lefty Empty Suit, burps his brain again about CO2

When foreign president Obama noted the other day than without government no one could succeed in business or in health, he had John Kerry in mind….or maybe Al Gore, or Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel or Schumer, Arlen Specter, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd,  Elizabeth Warren, no of whom could accomplish anything honest on their own.    The president was thinking only of lefty contacts, so as it turns out, was quite accurate in his assessment.

Democrats, especially the president himself, are always in need of other’s  success and aid……or taxing from that success they have milked…..usually we tax payers.

The other day the president was complaining about the idea…..Obama’s own idea…….that Mitt Romney was plotting to double  the taxes of  all Obamafolk both in and beyond the Obama audience.

Strange…..the majority of Obamalove voters  pay no federal income tax at all.    Doubling income tax which the Obamafans pay would still remain at zero.   

I wonder if John F. Kerry would have made a better president than Obama the First…..both  men  well noted for  lies,  divisiveness,  deceit, stupidities,  and connivings.   I think John is greasier.   He has far less natural slickness to con folks as completely as the 44th.

California Cole, another JFKerry fan, sent me the following article:

Kerry: ‘Climate Change’

As Much Of A Threat As Iran’s Nukes

article captured at Breitbart TV:

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) on the Senate Floor: “I believe that the situation we face, Mr. President, is as dangerous as any of the sort of real crises that we talk about – today we had a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee on the subject of Syria, and we all know what’s happening with respect to Iran, and nuclear weapons and the possibility even of a war. Well, this issue actually is of as significant a level of importance, because it affects life itself on the planet,”

Obama, the Carbon Copy Personage of Hillary, to Seek Bill to Save Campaign?

Noonan: The Life of the Party

What Bill Clinton could add

to the Obama re-election effort


at the Wall Street Journal:

From a friend watching the Olympics: “How about that Michael Phelps? But let’s remember he didn’t win all those medals, someone else did. After all, he and I swam in public pools, built by state employees using tax dollars. He got training from the USOC, and ate food grown by the Department of Agriculture. He should play fair and share his medals with people like me, who can barely keep my head above water, let alone swim.”

The note was merry and ironic. And as the games progress, we’ll be hearing a lot more of this kind of thing, because President Obama’s comment—”You didn’t build that”—is the political gift that keeps on giving.

They are now the most famous words he has said in his presidency. And oh, how he wishes they weren’t.


There was lots of chatter this week about the decision to have Bill Clinton speak in prime time on the penultimate night of the Democratic Convention. Is it a sign of panic? Would the president give Big Dawg such a prominent spot if he wasn’t nervous? Does it gall him to ask for help from the guy who said of his 2008 candidacy, “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen”?

But all this kind of misses the point.

The central fact of Bill Clinton is that he is really good at politics. And he has every reason to want to give a really good speech—to show he’s still got it like nobody else, to demonstrate he’s still the most beloved figure in the party, to do his wife proud. And of course to rub Mr. Obama’s nose in it.

The central fact of the Obama campaign is that they have not yet made a case for re-election. They haven’t come up with a reasoned argument in common words that can be repeated by normal people. Ask an Obama supporter to boil it all down and he’ll flail around and then say: “But Romney is awful” or “The Republicans are bad.”

The White House and the campaign have not been able to make a case for their guy. They’re just trying to make a case against the other guy.

But Mr. Clinton might actually be able to make the case, and he just may do it by making a case for the Democratic Party.

No one has talked about the Democratic Party in a long time. Democrats don’t talk about it because they feel they’re on the run, and have brand problems. The president doesn’t talk about it either, which is remarkable. You’d think he’d want to rally the troops. But he doesn’t seem to love his party all that much.

Mr. Clinton does, though, and that ol’ man, with his white hair and reading glasses, can bring you back. He can ring. He can walk you back to FDR and JFK and Bobby, he can remind you why the party exists, what it’s done, what it has always meant to do.


Because he’s doing a favor, and because he’s now a wise man of the party, he could be more or less candid about the Democrats’ recent struggles and acknowledge a few things that haven’t fully worked. And then he could be delightfully mean: He could say: “Much holds us together, not only the past but our dreams of the future. And now those low, shadowy operatives, those bundlers and billionaires with their big PAC money—those cold scoundrels are trying to steer us off course. But you can’t make progress by going backward, you can’t move forward by taking U-turns.”

It could be a barn-burner. Love him or hate him, it could wake things up. Like there’s an election going on. Which, by the way, there is.


In Mitt Romney’s campaign—well, his supporters had high hopes for his overseas trip. It would show his size, show that he can move in the world, that he has the heft, weight and ease to be international. He didn’t do as badly as his critics say, but he probably didn’t do himself much good.