Political Metastasis: A Stage Iv Cancer of Political Lawlessness

Sadly, someone I care deeply about was recently diagnosed with a very aggressive cancer — one that is difficult to survive. The problem with this cancer is that it is rarely found until it reaches what oncologists call Stage III or Stage IV, meaning that treatment options are limited and the prognosis is guarded at best — with even “guarded” representing sometimes unjustifiable optimism.

What was so shocking about the diagnosis is that there was no prior indication of illness, certainly none that a person would attribute to a serious ailment rather than to an insignificant virus or just getting a poor night’s sleep. As the unknowing victim moves through life thinking all is well, he is being killed from the inside out. The same is now happening to our national body politic.

The rise of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States suggested a slightly sick country: A completely unaccomplished man elected to the highest political office on the planet on promises of “hope and change” based on radical and ignorant ideas.

To be sure, signs of at-least-minor political illness predate Obama: the Republican brand was (and to a large extent remains) deeply tarnished by years of Republican big spending, corruption, lack of legislative achievements, and did I mention big spending? 

No doubt you can name even earlier symptoms.

Despite all the current noise, our national political illness is not defined by the behavior of the president; instead, the cancer is the mindset of the public and of politicians who tolerate or justify the behavior. It is not what you see on the surface but what is happening underneath.

Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator here:

Hillary Clinton: The Biggest Loser

Andrew Romano, a California-based writer for Yahoo News, spilled a lot of ink in recent weeks explaining why Latinos were not ditching the Democrats in this election (they moved toward the GOP by six percent overall, and more in some tight key races), why Mark Udall might “still have a shot in Colorado” (he didn’t), and why Republican governors were “flailing” in their quests for re-election (four of the five he named won, and the one who lost, the extremely unpopular Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, had long been a fifteen to twenty point underdog).

So he’s not exactly a credible pundit when he pens his newest morsel of Democratic hope-over-reality naïveté: that the big winner of the 2014 midterms was Hillary Clinton.

Romano’s wishful thinking is being echoed by many on the hard and soft left, including Forbes contributor Rick “I write from the left” Ungar, Cosmopolitan’s senior political writer Jill “Feministe” Filipovic (I didn’t’ know Cosmo even had such a position, though I suppose a magazine so focused on positions would have one of each…), Reuters political reporter Gabriel Debenedetti, AMERICAblog’s Progressive editor-in-chief John Aravosis, and editor of the National Interest, Jacob Heilbrunn.

The standard version of the “Hillary won the midterms” myth goes something like this:

1. The midterms’ massive repudiation of President Obama and what Charles Krauthammer calls “Obamaism” means that pressure from Hillary’s left including fear of a presidential run by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has all but vanished, allowing Hillary to campaign in the center rather than continuing on her “businesses don’t create jobs” idiocy. (Ungar)

2. The 2014 results were “more of a referendum on questions about Obama’s leadership rather than a sweeping rejection of Democratic policies” (Debenedetti), allowing Clinton not only to run against Republicans but also giving her more political leeway to contrast herself with President Obama.

3. Republicans will govern like right-wing nuts, including “two long years of attacks on women’s rights” (Filipovic), engaging in “shenanigans” led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) such as voting to repeal Obamacare — “just imagine the crazy things Ted Cruz and the Tea Partyers are going to come up with” (Aravosis) — while “pushing for a renewed military surge in the Middle East” (Heilbrunn), thereby allowing Hillary to campaign against an “impetuous” Republican Party that will be just as unpopular as the GOP was in 2008.

Republicans aren’t buying it. Some likely GOP presidential contenders, assuming that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee in 2016, came out of the election swinging at Hillary.

Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator here:

Pre- and post-election lessons

Two large cross-currents in American political opinion will be the driving forces in today’s elections: A general dissatisfaction with government and politicians and a specific dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama.

These trends reinforce each other where a Republican candidate is challenging a Democratic incumbent but work against each other where the incumbent is a Republican. Overall, the dissatisfaction with Obama will be a stronger force in national elections, but on the state level incumbents of both parties will go into Tuesday night with trepidation.

Of course, candidates matter and just being not-a-Democrat will not always be enough for the GOP to knock off Democratic senators and congressmen for whom there remains some modest offsetting benefit of incumbency.

The good news for Republicans is that they do seem capable of learning: with a few exceptions such as the very weak Terry Lynn Land in Michigan, the party nominated electable candidates while mostly avoiding disasters like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock who harmed the entire Republican message and brand.

So let’s talk about what to look for on Tuesday night as returns trickle in to give a sense of just how large these trends are, not least because their impact will go beyond the next Senate session and into the 2016 presidential campaign, which will feel as if it begins hours after this election ends. This analysis will not be exhaustive; instead my focus will be on elections that I believe are close.

Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator here:

The Most Ridiculous Campaign Ad of the Year

Democrats and liberal organizations have put out a lot of hyperbolic, hyperventilating ads this year...almost all related to birth control, since they don't actually have a positive agenda to run on. This matches my predictions of several months ago...{patting self on back}.

One of the problems with what George Will called (speaking specifically of Mark Udall but the point can be generalized as well) "a relentlessly gynecological campaign" is that it treats women like idiots and takes their votes for granted based on a single issue (or single small cluster of issues) which is not at the top of most women's minds. After all, women every bit as much as men care about jobs, paying the bills, seeing (and having their kids see) the doctors of their choice. So while women still lean toward Democrats, they are doing so far less than before. It's not that I expect a majority of women to vote Republican in Colorado or in many other swing states. I do, however, expect many of them who have voted Democrat in the past to refrain from voting in 2014, giving a huge boost to Republican hopes in close races.

The left is getting absolutely desperate. And perhaps nothing shows it more than what may be the most ridiculous ad I've heard this year.

I thought it was a joke at first, but it's not.

Behold the wonder of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, and consider just what this ad implies about NARAL's view of the intelligence of voters:


Hillary's Clumsy Radicalism

Hillary Clinton’s Friday warning to a Boston audience, “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and business that create jobs,” felt like a “jump the shark” moment even within a Democratic Party that has adopted a similarly ignorant and harmful anti-capitalist mantra.

The most well-known recent Democratic dismissal of entrepreneurs came from President Obama during the 2012 election campaign season: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” The entire rant is equally inflammatory, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of economics and a reprehensible dismissal of those risk-taking businesspeople — with whom Obama never associates except when collecting their checks at Silicon Valley fundraisers — who power the economic engine of the free world.

But Barack Obama, not exactly a fountain of new ideas, didn’t come up with this by himself and he isn’t even the poster child for class warfare in the United States. That dubious honor goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) who in 2011 told a group of supporters that “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.” She went on in this vein for some time, discussing business and taxation without offering the slightest suggestion that society should be grateful to, not jealous of, the men and women who build the factories; they, not taxpayers funding roads, are what cause a nation to thrive.

Mrs. Clinton’s statement goes well beyond Obama’s and Warren’s muddle-headed formulations of Progressive class warfare into a level of speciousness so obvious that even most Democrats would not actually believe her: After all, who other than businesses or corporations create jobs in this country? Individuals who are not operating as businesses rarely create jobs. That leaves only the government.

Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator here:

Every Hemorrhagic Virus Should Have Its Own Lawyer-Lobbyist

Perhaps it’s not surprising coming from our first Community Organizer president that the trait the administration claims is most needed in an “Ebola czar” — not that it’s been shown that such a position needs to be created in the first place — is, as Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health put it, “somebody who’s a good organizer.”

It’s been proven that rabble-rousing on the South Side of Chicago does not qualify one to lead anything more significant than a golf foursome (though you have to give Obama credit for spending his time doing what he’s best at, showing a clear understanding of the principle of comparative advantage).

Similarly, one wonders just what the newly named czar, Ron Klain, has “organized” that should give the American people confidence that the most incompetent administration in modern U.S. history is doing what needs to be done to keep citizens safe from a virus that the media is turning into the biggest medical scare since the Spanish Flu.

To wit, Ron Klain — no doubt a very smart man and talented lawyer, including having graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and clerking for a Supreme Court justice — is best known for organizing and advising Democratic politicians from Ed Markey to Bill Clinton to Al Gore to Gen. Wesley Clark to John Kerry, and most recently serving as Chief of Staff to Vice President Joe Biden (proving that intelligence cannot be gained by proximity) before taking a job in the private sector.

Other notes of interest about Mr. Klain include his membership in the Algore Cult of Global Warming and that he was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, helping a firm that required tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts with “regulatory issues,” according to the Washington Post. He has publicly supported the ill-conceived “Buffett Rule” — calling for higher taxes on the wealthy — although within an analysis that at least recognizes that the “middle class” is as skeptical of Democrats as it is of Republicans.

Clearly the man is indeed a qualified organizer — of the office workings and spin machines of liberals.

Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator:

George Will mentioned me in his column today!

If You Don't Have Anything Nice to Say

Here in Colorado, a funny thing happened on the way to the ballot box: The reliably liberal Denver Post endorsed Republican Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner over incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Udall.

Why did this happen? Because Mark Udall’s campaign has been — as I predicted three months ago on these pages — an unrelentingly negative and mindless barrage of “war on women” drivel.

Even the Post, whose editors noted that “we disagree with (Gardner) on same-sex marriage and abortion rights,” recognized that “Udall's campaign has devoted a shocking amount of energy and money trying to convince voters that Gardner seeks to outlaw birth control despite the congressman's call for over-the-counter sales of contraceptives. Udall is trying to frighten voters rather than inspire them with a hopeful vision. His obnoxious one-issue campaign is an insult to those he seeks to convince.”

Political campaigns have never been welcoming of your mother’s maxim that “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” But Mark Udall, unable to conjure up even a mirage of an accomplishment during his Senate tenure, has offered nothing but what I called in July “a cynical, disgraceful scorched-earth campaign” to those of us who suffer daily through his television and radio ads as we watch Monday Night Football or listen to (shameless plug warning!) the Ross Kaminsky Show.

Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator here:

Two Great Books for Capitalists and Lovers of Liberty

When you pick up Jason Mattera’s eye-opening new book Crapitalism and Daniel Hannan’s masterful Inventing Freedom, you wouldn’t expect such different works to lead you to the same destination. But despite the former being about “Liberals who make millions swiping your tax dollars” and the latter being the story of “how the English-speaking peoples made the modern world,” each leaves the reader with a palpable combination of anger and inspiration at what the U.S. could be as compared to what it currently is.

Jason Mattera, best-selling author and “ambush journalist” (you’ve no doubt seen his recent attempted conversation with former IRS thug Lois Lerner), is one of the few conservative writers who consistently brings humor to his work and targets young adults with a message of “open your eyes while you still have a country to save.”

Crapitalism is a full-throated utterly vernacular defense of free-markets explained through maddening contrast with 27 Crapitalists — almost all Democrats — who use the power of government to benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of us. The ways that these people, ranging from members of Congress to lobbyists to entrepreneurs, are able to fleece taxpayers vary widely in method but share a common stench.

Congresswoman Maxine “Money” Waters steered bailout money to a bank her husband invested in, procured an earmark for a college that then became a major donor to her campaign, and makes sure that her children are hired by business and politicians who want her support, earning millions of dollars for her Mafia-like family business. As Mattera puts it, “You’d think being affiliated with Waters would be some sort of political STD, with only distance, time, and a healthy dose of penicillin being able to make it all better.”

But Waters is a piker compared to the serious Crapitalists whose pilfering of the taxpayer ranges into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Please read the entirety of my article/review for the American Spectator here:

With Friends LIke Us

On Wednesday morning, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama to discuss, according to the White House schedule, “the situation in Gaza; developments related to Iran; and the international effort to combat ISIL.” The schedule effusively claimed that “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit is a demonstration of the deep and enduring bonds between the United States and Israel, and our close consultations on a range of regional issues.”

We’ll never know the tenor of the private meetings between these men who have a famously prickly relationship. But if by the end of the day Bibi wasn’t saying (or at least thinking) that the Obama administration should shut the #&%@ up or perhaps perform some unnatural physical acts on themselves, he certainly should have been.

Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator here:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 455 »