Post-ObamacareApocalypse: The Way Forward Thursday

7:00pm: Jonah Goldberg, one of my favorite conservative columnists and a good guy with whom to share a serving of nachos at Appleby's, writes of leftist consternation at the conservative response to the passing of Obamacare:

A lot of people on the left cannot come to grips with the conservative "overreaction" to Obamacare. I don't think it's an overreaction, and I can help liberals understand what's happening. Just consider the Patriot Act. Here was a law that affected a teeny-weeny number of people. Almost all of the horrible things it did never happened. Remember all that teeth-gnashing about searched libraries? Totally bogus.

And yet, people all over the country got their dresses over their heads about the Patriot Act. Why? Well, I would argue partly out of addlepated paranoia, ignorance, and Bush hatred. They would argue it was out of deep-seated principle. Let's compromise and say that for many, it was both, and for a few, it was all about principle.

Well, opposition to PPACA seems vastly more rational to me. By its very design it affects everyone. It costs them money. It will cost them freedom. It will cost our country money, medical innovation, and mounds of debt. It involves far, far more government intrusion into our lives than the Patriot Act. And yet, many of the same people who considered the Patriot Act an American Nuremburg Law think this is one of the greatest moments in American history.

Do you get it now, progressives, why we are so up-in-arms about this little piece of legislation? It really will cost us money, time, freedom, and innovation--which means lives. This is a bad bad bill. By the time its costs are fully calculated and comprehended(the next generation of economic historians), it may well surpass Smoot Hawley.

Like I've said, the Brits declined because the cost to support their welfare state forced withdrawal around the world. This is our future if this thing stands and expands into Euro-social welfare. American decline.

BTW, you really should subscribe to Jonah's "Goldberg File." It's a real treat.

2:28pm: Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has a post up with some great quotes and video of Charles Krauthammer, doctor-genius, and Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute, warning about the coming debate about a VAT. If you don't know what a VAT is, I recommend you click the link and read the wiki entry. A VAT might be okay if it were to take the place of existing taxes like payroll taxes, but it won't be. It will be just another revenue stream for the feds to shove big government down your throat.

Meanwhile at Reason.com (free minds and free markets!) Jacob Sullum explains why this healthcare mandate is not exactly, you know, constitutional and why a legal challenge just may be successful.

There's hope yet.

Finally (for the time being), if you are pro-life and thought there was a home for you in the Democrat party, well, sorry, you're wrong. William McGurn explains how Obamacare exposes the Democrat Party as the Party of Death (also, you'll note, the title of a book by Ramesh Ponnuru).

1:37pm BST: The Dark Lord, Karl Rove, provided a good roadmap to electoral victory in his column today. I love the fact that we conservatives love this guy while leftists think he is the devil incarnate. Don't they know? This just makes us love him all the more.

Democrats claim they've rallied their left-wing base. But that base isn't big enough to carry the fall elections, particularly after the party alienated independents and seniors. The only way Democrats win a base election this year will be if opponents of this law stay home.

To keep that from happening, Republican candidates must focus on ObamaCare's weaknesses. It will cost $2.6 trillion in its first decade of operation and is built on Madoff-style financing. For example, it double counts Social Security payroll taxes, long-term care premiums, and Medicare savings in order to make it appear more fiscally responsible. In reality, ObamaCare isn't $143 billion in the black, as Democrats have claimed, but $618 billion in the red. And giving the IRS $10 billion to hire about 16,000 agents to enforce the new taxes and fees in ObamaCare will drive small business owners crazy.

Republicans have a powerful rallying cry in "repeal, replace and reform." Few voters will want to keep onerous mandates that hit individuals and taxes that hobble economic growth. Rather than spending a trillion dollars on subsidies for insurance companies and Medicaid expansion, as ObamaCare does, Republicans should push for giving individuals the same health-insurance tax break businesses get, which would cost less.

Republicans must also continue to press for curbing junk lawsuits, enabling people to buy insurance across state lines, increasing the amount of money they can sock away tax free for medical expenses, and permitting small businesses to pool risk.

Opponents of ObamaCare have decisively won the battle for public opinion. As voters start to feel the pain of this new program, Republicans will be in a stronger position if they stay in the fight, make a principled case, and lay out a competing vision.

This is as good a place as any to point out something that frequently gets forgotten.

I'm really really tired of people talking and acting as though the left wing of the Democrat party is on par with the right wing of the Republican party.

When the country breaks down 40% conservative, 40% moderate, and 20% liberal, the left wing of the Democrat party is not only a hell of a lot smaller than the right wing of the Republican party, it is a hell of a lot further from the natural ideological center of this country.

So all you self-styled post-partisan centrist moderates, who keep trying to say, "well, they're both extremes and bad" and like to pound on conservative wingers as being as "damaging" and as far out of the mainstream as liberal wingers, you're wrong.

Did anyone (besides me) happen to watch the Obamacare debate (limited, though it was) Sunday night on CSPAN? I think Dan Henninger's characterization of the Republicans and Democrats that night is spot on:

Spring renewal and baseball's new season are upon us, so let's quote the optimism of Yogi: It isn't over until it's over. I thought 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday night in Washington was the Republican Party's finest hour in a long time. When the voting stopped, the screen said the number of Republicans voting for Mr. Obama's bill was zero. Not one. Nobody.

Pristine opposition is being spun as a Republican liability. It looks to me like a Republican resurrection. The party hasn't yet discovered what it should be, but this clearly was a party discovering what it cannot be.

Put it this way: If you produce a bill that Olympia Snowe of Maine cannot vote for, you have not produced legislation "for the generations." You have not even produced legislation that is liberal. You have produced legislation from the left. You have produced once-in-a-lifetime legislation that no Republican from any constituency across America could vote for.

Watching Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Mike Pence I was as happy with Republican leadership as I have been in a long time. Finally some backbone. Finally some principle. Finally they stood up to the Democrats and exposed them as the out-of-touch, tax and spend statists that they are. As Henninger points out, this whole debate puts liberals who aren't employed by the government in a tough spot.

Liberals in the private sector have to come to grips with the fact that what they do for a living is an abstraction to the people they are sending to Washington. Nobody at the top of the party is much interested in them anymore. House and Senate Democrats hammered insurance, pharma and medical-device makers with taxes and intimidation. It wasn't just politics. It was belief. With this bill, the party made the transition from market unionism to Alinskyism, from a politics tempered by the marketplace to one that milks the marketplace.

Count Henninger and myself among those who think "Repeal!" is a good rallying cry in the run-up to the 2010 election. First repeal the Democrats in Congress, then in 2012 the Democrat in the White House then, once he's gone, Obamacare will quickly follow him out the door.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit Of Happiness'

It feels good to be back in the United States. In 2006 & 2007, I spent the 4th of July in Cambridge (UK) & London, respectively.

Though we found appropriate ways to celebrate--BBQs, impromptu tea parties in the river Cam, viewing Live Free Or Die Hard, etc.--there is nothing like being home on the 4th of July.

I love this country and everything for which it stands and I am grateful to everyone--from the Founders to the soldiers--who who has given the "last full measure" to build her and defend her.

Image link

Nathan Hale

"I only regret that I have but one life to give my country."

Independence Day Must Reads:

Apotheosis of Liberty - Thomas Jefferson

A Day at the Beach - Peggy Noonan

Making History - Peggy Noonan

Celebrating and Safeguarding Our Freedom - Fr. Roger J. Landry

A Family's Valor, A Nation's Freedom - Karl Rove

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Karl Rove: 'From 1998 To 2002 Nearly Twice As Many New Drugs Were Launched In The U.S. As In Europe'

From the Evil Genius's column in Thursday's WSJ:

Nearly everyone agrees that some reforms are needed. But it is also vital to protect areas of excellence and innovation. Stanford University professor Scott Atlas points out that from 1998 to 2002 nearly twice as many new drugs were launched in the U.S. as in Europe. According the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry Report, some 2,900 new drugs are now being researched here. America's five top hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country, according to Mr. Atlas. And a McKinsey Co. study reports that 40% of all medical travelers come to the United States for medical treatment.

These are some of the costs--the unanticipated consequences (diminished drug research)--associated with a single-payer system.

Where's the incentive to develop new drugs if there is no profit to be made? If government is going to pay for research & development of new drugs, well, how is it going to pay for it? And if government does pay for it, who decides which drugs to develop?

When healthcare is rationed, so is R&D for life-saving drugs. And when government controls the R&D decisions, then government picks the R&D "winners."

Who donated the most to a powerful Senator? Here comes your funding. What is the hated disease de jour? Here comes your funding.

Unlike the millions or billions made when government picks the winners (and bankruptcy for the losers) in a financial crisis, in this instance, the losers die.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Arlen Specter, Democrat (UPDATED)

In case anyone out there still believed that these guys (& gals) made decisions based on principle, Specter's decision to switch parties should open your eyes. As Karl Rove just got done saying on FNC, this is pure political self interest.

Or, as my brother put it, "I suppose we should always assume self-interest of all politicians, that way these moves never surprise us." He--Specter--saw the writing on the wall with regards to Pat Toomey and made the logical, self-interested decision--he went Democrat.

He did what he had to do to remain in office.

Lots of people are saying that this is evidence that there is no room in the Republican party for people with politics like Specter's. If by "politics like Specter's" you really mean Republican In Name Only, then, the Democrat party is a friendlier place for guys like him--"friendlier" in the sense that they are the party in power, not that they like your positions anymore than the Republican party.

It is not as though Specter was super sympathetic with Republicans on one of the big 3 tent poles in the Republican party--fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, hawkish on foreign affairs/national security. On all of these issues, he is almost a doctrinaire Democrat.

There's room in the Republican party for those who like 2 of 3 or even 1 of 3 (of the 3 tent poles), but if you're moderate-to-liberal on all three of those issues, yeah, the Republican party is not the place for you and good riddance.

UPDATE 5:57pm MST: My friend Dan Kim, for whom I have a lot of respect, addresses Arlen Specter's switch, what it means for the Republican party, & responds a bit to my post.

It's one thing to say that the Republican party holds no appeal to centrists--something which which I heartily disagree--and a whole other thing to say that Specter's defection is emblematic of Republican's lack of appeal to moderates.

Specter moved because Pat Toomey was going to destroy him in the Republican primary. Specter isn't a principled anything--apart from being a principled political survivalist. His quote about not letting the voters of Pennsylvania tarnish his 29 year career by voting him out clearly demonstrates the esteem (or rather, the lack thereof) he holds for the will of the voters. The arrogance manifested by this statement is right in line with what it means to be a career politician.

I didn't like him as a Republican. I like him even less as a Democrat. Arlen Specter is the definition of political opportunism--at least his defection means there is one less opportunist in the Republican party and one more in the Democrat party.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

CPAC Day 2

So I guess this is going to be more end-of-the-day review than RNC periodic update. Blame it on the fact that I have few NewsBusters duties and the limited internet access. You'd think they would have wireless access in every conference room so that anyone could sort of liveblog whatever was happening at the moment. To my mind, that would improve the connectedness between the conservative community at large and whatever is going on at CPAC.

I passed my opinion along to people who have marginally more clout than me. Which is to say that they have "no" clout rather than "negative" clout.

Let's see, what was interesting about today? We started off with a blogger meeting with Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Nothing earth shattering emerged from that meeting. The Leader, as he is known, pointed out the obvious--that it is hard to oppose the Democrats and maintain the filibuster with just 41 Senators.

We (Matt & I) attended a luncheon with Tony Blankley. I interviewed Tony at the RNC and he was as gracious today as he was then. He encouraged Republicans to quit being so earnest & make fun of the opposition. His point was that we sometimes get so caught up in the principle and winning the point, that we lose the debate and are unpersuasive. If we can poke fun at the other side--especially if it is genuinely humorous--then that can be an effective tool. I think he's right, I am sometimes guilty of being too earnest in my advocacy.

In the afternoon we listened to Ron Paul (why do so many people love this guy?) and Mitt Romney. Dear readers, the CPAC folks love Mitt Romney. We missed Newt because of the luncheon (free food), so I can't say without absolute authority, but Mitt received louder & more sustained applause & more standing ovations (several, throughout his speech) than any other person at the conference. And in line, while we waited to get into and out of the various convention rooms, everyone was talking about Romney.

Patrick, a friend of mine and a non-Mormon fan of Romney's believes that if the election were this year, Romney would, without a doubt, have been the Republican nominee and he probably would have beaten Obama. Given the current economic climate and Romney's perfectly suited skills, I find it hard to disagree.

I still have my doubts re: whether or not a Mormon can be elected President in this country, but if one is ever to be elected, Romney seems to me to have the best shot. He is a talent.

After Romney, I went to a reception with Ward Connerly (anti-Affirmative Action initiative guy) and Evil Genius Karl Rove. Connerly is one of that rare species of political being--the conservative African-American. Not only is he that, he is a leading opponent of Affirmative Action. Very impressive guy.

And of course I loved listening to Rove. He talked about his experience, sort of "growing up" in conservative politics and how much fun it had been. He gave lots of anecdotes and said that one of the best parts of the whole experience was the development of good relationships and friendships.

He said that he used to read the WaPo and NYT op-ed pages first thing every morning and then go in to talk about them with the President. He said he was the "hot head" of the White House and that the President used to get a kick out of how upset those editorials would make him. Everytime Rove would start to tell the President about how one of those papers got something wrong, Bush would say something to the effect of "in 50 years, the history books will get it right and we'll be vindicated and in 50 years we'll also be dead, so don't worry about it."

Yes, I asked Karl about the ongoing book challenge he had with the President and told him that we had taken it up. He said that they (he & the President) were giving it a rest this year because they were both busy writing their own books but that he was glad to see it was inspiring fellow challenges. My parting shot to him was that BYU would be Utah in the bball game Saturday. He just laughed.

More tomorrow.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Back At It (NewsBusters) Again

In case you aren't a regular reader of NewsBusters, my other writing gig, I thought I'd post a few links to my latest.

The first, and oldest, is a write-up of Karl Rove's videos of President George W. Bush's farewell at Andrew's Air Force Base:

Karl Rove Documents Bush's Farewell, MSM Absent

My second post explored the many wonderful possibilities of MSNBC filling their 10 o'clock slot with another personality as fantastic as Keith Olbermann & Rachel Maddow.

Rachel Maddow & Keith Olbermann Lonely, Look for New Friend

The 3rd post examines the excellent reportage of one Chelsea Isaacs, news editor for the Miami Hurricane. In it you will find a tour de force of fair-minded journalism as she reports on a speaking visit from Karl "Evil Genius" Rove.

Reporting Karl Rove: U of Miami J-School Student Gets It Right

The 4th & most recent post examines political cartoonists seeming inability to send up their man, Barack Obama. Apparently, they can't find anything satire-worthy about the man.

Liberal Cartoonists Complain: Obama Too Cool & Handsome to Satirize

So, enjoy those and keep sending me tips. I'm posting here about 5-6 times a week and there 4-5 times a week. If I had more time I'd write-up more of your good tips--but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate them, because I do.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

My New Year's Resolution

Evil Genius, Karl Rove, from whom all good Right Wing Stormtroopers take our orders, recently wrote about a competition in which he and President Bush have engaged for the last few years.

It all started on New Year's Eve in 2005. President Bush asked what my New Year's resolutions were. I told him that as a regular reader who'd gotten out of the habit, my goal was to read a book a week in 2006. Three days later, we were in the Oval Office when he fixed me in his sights and said, "I'm on my second. Where are you?" Mr. Bush had turned my resolution into a contest.

The president jumped to a slim early lead and remained ahead until March, when I moved decisively in front. The competition soon spun out of control. We kept track not just of books read, but also the number of pages and later the combined size of each book's pages -- its "Total Lateral Area."

We recommended volumes to each other (for example, he encouraged me to read a Mao biography; I suggested a book on Reconstruction's unhappy end). We discussed the books and wrote thank-you notes to some authors.

At year's end, I defeated the president, 110 books to 95. My trophy looks suspiciously like those given out at junior bowling finals. The president lamely insisted he'd lost because he'd been busy as Leader of the Free World.

Mr. Bush's 2006 reading list shows his literary tastes. The nonfiction ran from biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, Babe Ruth, King Leopold, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, LBJ and Genghis Khan to Andrew Roberts's "A History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900," James L. Swanson's "Manhunt," and Nathaniel Philbrick's "Mayflower." Besides eight Travis McGee novels by John D. MacDonald, Mr. Bush tackled Michael Crichton's "Next," Vince Flynn's "Executive Power," Stephen Hunter's "Point of Impact," and Albert Camus's "The Stranger," among others.

Fifty-eight of the books he read that year were nonfiction. Nearly half of his 2006 reading was history and biography, with another eight volumes on current events (mostly the Mideast) and six on sports.

To my surprise, the president demanded a rematch in 2007. Though the overall pace slowed, he once more came in second in our two-man race, reading 51 books to my 76. His list was particularly wide-ranging that year, from history ("The Great Upheaval" and "Khrushchev's Cold War"), biographical (Dean Acheson and Andrew Mellon), and current affairs (including "Rogue Regime" and "The Shia Revival"). He read one book meant for young adults, his daughter Jenna's excellent "Ana's Story."

A glutton for punishment, Mr. Bush insisted on another rematch in 2008. But it will be a three-peat for me: as of today, his total is 40 volumes to my 64. His reading this year included a heavy dose of history -- including David Halberstam's "The Coldest Winter," Rick Atkinson's "Day of Battle," [ed. note: am currently reading this and it, as well as its preceding volume in the trilogy, is excellent] Hugh Thomas's "Spanish Civil War," Stephen W. Sears's "Gettysburg" and David King's "Vienna 1814." There's also plenty of biography -- including U.S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs"; Jon Meacham's "American Lion"; James M. McPherson's "Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief" and Jacobo Timerman's "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number."

Each year, the president also read the Bible from cover to cover, along with a daily devotional.

The reading competition reveals Mr. Bush's focus on goals. It's not about winning. A good-natured competition helps keep him centered and makes possible a clear mind and a high level of energy. He reads instead of watching TV. He reads on Air Force One and to relax and because he's curious. He reads about the tasks at hand, often picking volumes because of the relevance to his challenges. And he's right: I've won because he has a real job with enormous responsibilities.

In the 35 years I've known George W. Bush, he's always had a book nearby. He plays up being a good ol' boy from Midland, Texas, but he was a history major at Yale and graduated from Harvard Business School. You don't make it through either unless you are a reader.

There is a myth perpetuated by Bush critics that he would rather burn a book than read one. Like so many caricatures of the past eight years, this one is not only wrong, but also the opposite of the truth and evidence that bitterness can devour a small-minded critic. Mr. Bush loves books, learns from them, and is intellectually engaged by them.

(emphasis added)

As Christopher Hitchens suggested on that idiot Bill Maher's show recently (h/t Morgan H. also, beware language--f-bombs--and colorful hand signals), it has become the stupid person's easy joke to send up President Bush's supposed lack of intelligence.

This isn't the point of this post, but I don't know many stupid people who read as many books as President Bush.

The point of this point is this: My dad, brother and I have all taken up Evil Genius Karl Rove & President Bush's challenge. We will read a book a week and compete on number of pages read (thus, reading a bunch of children's books won't cut it). And I'm opening up the competition to any of you, dear readers, who would like to join us. Periodically, say, monthly (maybe weekly) I'll update with a list of books and pages read by those who throw their hats in the ring. We can also do mini book reviews.

This is, I think, a good New Year's resolution. Sacrifice a little time every day--time you might have spent watching TV, movies, whatever else you do--and read.

(h/t Matt L., Scott L.)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

The Big GOP Comeback: Rove's Blueprint

This is good stuff.

Evil genius, Karl Rove, laid out 7 areas of focus for Republicans:

1. Create something like James Carville's Democracy Corps--an institution designed to identify popular issues through polling and further, how to give those issues a conservative spin.

2. Train the next generation so that they can match conservative principles to the problems of today.

3. Follow the Texas model and register new Republican voters--Catholics, Hispanics, suburban & ex-urban families.

4. Create cost-effective 3rd party organizations to help elect Republicans to the House & Senate.

5. Focus on state legislative races: 2010 will bring redistricting and with it, the power for state legislatures to be game changers.

6. Revitalize conservative new media and use this medium to reach out to younger voters and others, mentioned above.

7. Strengthen the relationship between GOP policymakers and conservative policy thinkers--think tanks, scholars, academics, and others.

The GOP has the right principles to become the majority party again. What it must have are fresh, energetic voices who apply those principles to meeting the needs of American families. And it must put in place the infrastructure that will take that message and amplify it.

Like EG Karl said, we've had a few wins (Chambliss, & LA congressional races) since Obama's Big Win in November. Ever the party of eternal optimism, we are Happy Warriors.

Here's to our own Big Wins in 2010 & Romney (or Jindal or Palin) in 2012.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

First Read (UPDATED)

A few things jumped out to me while reading MSNBC's (breaking down my confirmation bias, one liberal publication at a time) First Read:

*** What's next Grand Old Party: It's hard not to look at the map -- particularly in the House -- and not view the GOP as a regional party right now. If it weren’t for the party's relative strength in the South, the party would be in even worse shape. Later this week, as the party deconstructs this election, the recriminations will begin. Who will emerge as the next group of leaders? Mitch McConnell survived re-election, but will he survive any leadership challenge? What about House GOP leader John Boehner? No doubt he'll be challenged. Still, will McConnell and Boehner be the true leaders of the minority party? There will be a spirited race for the RNC chairmanship. State chairs from Michigan and South Carolina will run as will some former governor, maybe even Newt Gingrich. A group of current and former governors will also get together and attempt to have a say in the party. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana even has an Iowa visit planned later this month; Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Jeb Bush could all also play roles. As will Mark Sanford and Haley Barbour. Bottom line, there is a massive leadership vacuum inside the Republican Party and there are no shortage of candidates who will attempt to fill that vacuum. The first thing to watch for: Will the fight be to do this from inside the RNC or will there be a DLC-like organization that emerges from the outside?

*** Some first clues: NBC-WSJ GOP pollster Neil Newhouse did a post-election survey last night, and here's what he found: Just 12% of those surveyed believed Palin should be the GOP's new leader; instead 29% of voters said Romney, followed by 20% who say Huckabee. Among GOPers, it was Romney 33%, Huckabee 20% and Palin 18%. Look for more from this survey later today.

I know I shouldn't say this, especially the day after America elected its first ever black President, but I don't think they would ever elect a Mormon President. I hate to say it, but I believe it's true. While this country has prided itself on looking at people and not seeing race, even though it has become more "enlightened," anti-religious fervor has increased--especially among the militant secularists on the left.

Anti-religion (along with agism) is one of the acceptable bigotries of liberalism.

For this reason, if I were calling the shots, I would make Romney the new RNC chairman. I think he could galvanize the entire party and put us in a position to take back seats in 2010 and win the White House in 2012. Plus, and this is just my gut feeling, I don't think Romney wants to run for President again.

Also, like my brother told me last night, Newt Gingrich needs to be more involved in shaping the direction of the party. He is wicked smart.

How about a little Back to the Future--Spirit of '94 in 2010, anyone?

I would feel very good about a team of Gingrich, Romney, & Rove running the RNC.

One last thing: We may very well see another Mormon run, but my guess is that it will be John Huntsman Jr. who will be just concluding his second term as Governor of Utah.

UPDATE 5:51pm BST: Ben T. responds:

The fact that you're still looking for people other than Mitt Romney to blame for Mitt Romney's loss is scary. The guy ran a poor campaign, and was consistently incapable of connecting to people due to his total lack of self awareness. The bias this country had against black people went, and still goes far deeper (in some circles) than any other. For a church with 7 million members domestically (roughly?), thinking that the political establishment actively keeps us out of politics is so narcissistic. Particularly when you consider the number of military brass, CIA, FBI, and other federal agencies whose upper echelons are traditionally stacked with members of the Church. If either party fields a candidate who is a member of the Church who can communicate, raise money, and build alliances within a party - like Jon Huntsman Jr. - they will face opposition on partisan lines like any other but it will not bring them down (or up) solely because of their faith.

I agree, Romney certainly didn't run the best campaign. But it was clear that some voters had a problem with Romney's Mormonism. I don't think anyone taking an objective view of the exit poll data would disagree with that.

It's not that I think the political establishment (whatever that is) 'keeps Mormons down,' I just don't think a majority of the electorate would ever vote for a Mormon. Granted, the numbers cited above by First Read are encouraging, but they are from people who voted for McCain. I remain skeptical.

If Obama's win isn't a repudiation of all the racist theories about this country, I don't know what is. Exit poll data strongly backs that up. McCain's age played a far larger role in people's decision than did Obama's race. This ought to signal the death of affirmative action in all its forms.

Discrimination against people of religion in this country gets far less play because of the MSM's obsession with racial differences. By and large the press is irreligious--in some cases outright hostile. It's why racists are bigots (justifiably so) and anti-Mormons (or anti-Jew, -Catholic, -Evangelical, whatever) have "legitimate" objections.

Though I disagree, I do appreciate Ben T.'s optimistically open-minded view.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Why Karl Rove Is So Awesome

We've been thinking about this one for awhile. If you've been reading for the last couple of months, you no doubt read our posted notes from Rove's visit to our hometown.

Dubbed The Architect, Rove is pretty much either loved or hated--with no middle ground--depending on your political persuasion. But even Democrats grudgingly admit that he is good at what he does, referring to him as an evil genius.

To our mind, there are two things that separate him from other social scientists--specifically political scientists. We have taken lots of classes from lots of different social scientists. We've attended conferences with them and TA'd for them and read articles by them and watched them comment on TV and on and on.

Obviously, there are lots of other smart poly sci guys--lots of other intelligent political consultants. But Karl Rove is arguably the most influential (according to the Telegraph, he's #1) and successful of his breed for two specific reasons: 1. he is an incredibly able communicator/teacher and 2. he is not condescending.

We watch a lot of political coverage on TV and we read countless articles a day--the point is, Rove is by far the best at explaining sometimes complex and nuanced concepts. No one else, really, comes close. And we suspect that he could explain complex things to anyone who took the time to listen to him. This is rare. We have listened to pundits explain things we already understand and thought, "they just made that even more difficult and complex than it already was." We never think that listening to Rove.

The second thing--not being arrogant or condescending--is of equal importance. This seems to be the cardinal sin of academics--especially social scientists and especially political scientists. Their know-it-alledness just bleeds into everything they teach and say and it is incredibly off putting. They may very well have all the answer to the world's problems, but no one is going to listen to them if they present it in an arrogant manner.

This is part of the reason Rove is so persuasive, he comes off as an average guy. And he is anything but average. This is a talent we wish we had: the ability to first understand and then explain for the average or casual observer, complex and nuanced concepts.

*UPDATE 14 May 12:52am MST: Karl Rove on John McCain in the Wall Street Journal. The more we learn about John McCain, the better we like him.

Can anyone say that about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

(note: this article may be subscription only. Email us if the link doesn't work and you'd like a copy.)


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Karl Rove Is Awesome

Image link

Yesterday a friend of ours attended the Karl Rove fundraiser we first linked to on Wednesday. We asked him to take notes and he obliged, writing down a number of interesting things Rove had to say about the current election and President Bush.

- Rove was introduced by Republican congressman, Doc Hastings, who said of Rove that he "understands policy." Ah, the power of understatement.

- Karl opened by saying that he had a lot of "fun" in the White House and then launched in to talking about Clinton and Obama.

- Of Hillary, he said that she was the first, and to his knowledge, the only First Lady to have an office in the West Wing. If anyone had anything they wanted to run past Bill, it went through Hillary first. We leave it to the reader to discern whether this was because Hillary had a lot of influence over Bill or if she just wanted to insert herself wherever possible.

- Regarding their politics, Rove said that Hillary was obviously a liberal Democrat but that Barack was a really, really liberal Democrat.

- Rove said that he first knew Obama through his former deputy, Ken Mehlman who had known Obama at Harvard.

- On their separate spending proposals (to date, not including any future general election bribes/commitments), of which Obama has pledged $662B and Hillary $695B, Rove said that such increases would cause the budget to increase by 25%. Do your own math on what that would require in the way of new and increased taxes.

- When Justices Alito and Roberts reached the Senate floor for confirmation (both of which, mind you, had broad bipartisan support), both Hillary and Barack voted against their confirmation.

Yeah, that Barack, he's such a bipartisan unifier.

- Rove also noted that Obama voted against increased spending to give soldiers much needed body armor, MRE's, and fuel.

We think this is called supporting the troops without actually, you know, supporting the troops.

- He said that he didn't like Hillary, but he grudgingly admitted that she could handle the presidency.

- Rove said that Barack was "one of the most cooly arrogant people in politics." He said that he was "smart and arrogant but he doesn't do his home work." Because of this, Rove doesn't believe that Obama is up to the task. He does not believe that Obama is competent.

- Talking about Obama's background, he said that Barack was a "Chicago machine politician." We suspect there will be more stories about his Chicago background as the election continues.

- Karl predicted that Obama will win the Democratic primary. He admitted that he had first predicted a win for Hillary and that the reason he was wrong was because her "fatal flaws" had emerged earlier than he originally anticipated.

- Switching gears a little bit, Rove talked about Dino Rossi's run for Governor in 2004 in which high shenanigans in King county caused Rossi to lose the election by just over 100 votes. This wouldn't have happened, Rove pointed out, if the 6000 voters in Eastern Washington who voted for President Bush had also voted for Dino Rossi.

With Governor Christine Gregoire's approval rating at an all-time low, those voters will be the key to getting Rossi elected this fall.

- Observing John McCains crossover appeal, Rove suggested that for the first time in a number of years, the Pacific Northwest--specifically Washington and Oregon--could be in play. In our opinion, Oregon has a greater chance of voting for McCain than does Washington, but hey, there's always audacious hope, right?

- For those worried about increased threats from Iran and North Korea and a retreat in either Afghanistan or Iraq, Rove said that "President Bush will exercise all the power available to him to accomplish these goals and keep America safe."

- Widely criticized as an uncaring warmonger, completely out of touch with reality or the impact of the war on soldiers and their families, Rove pointed out that President Bush has in fact met with the families of nearly 3000 soldiers who have lost their lives in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Rove said it was the President's habit to schedule these meetings as the last item of the day so that he would not have to leave early. He further said that it was his habit to give these families as much times as they needed and let them say whatever was in their hearts.

The picture of an uncaring President Bush could not be further from the truth.

Rove spoke of one meeting with the family of a soldier from Reno, Nevada. He attended the meeting with President Bush. This story echoes pretty much exactly what Rove told my father and those with him at the dinner yesterday.

He said that President Bush typically asks each member of the family if there is anything he can do. He finally turned to the father who, Rove noted, seemed a little reserved, to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Rove assumed the father would say something critical of President Bush and the war, which happens from time to time. Instead, the father was angry that Navy regulations prohibited him from serving.

His oldest son, a Marine, had died while serving near Fallujah. His second son was also serving in the military and he wanted to join to honor his sons and provide medical service to hurt soldiers.

So, he asked President Bush to grease the wheels so that he could join the Navy Medical Corps. Krissoff said that his "goal is to work in a combat surgical unit, a forward unit."


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Meet With Evil Mastermind Karl Rove (TIC)

We don't normally post these things, but we got an email from Luke Esser asking us to pass this along. And, since it's taking place in our hometown, we decided to oblige.



If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

George Bush Hates SoCal Democrats

Pictured above is a map showing the election results, by county, of the 2004 Presidential election. If you compare it to news of the fire in Southern California fires found on CNN, you'll note that most of the aid and fire support is going to "Red" counties--counties that voted for President Bush. Nevermind that most of the fires are burning in "Red" Counties, this is probably just because Karl Rove screwed up when he had the fires started.

Obviously George Bush hates Democrats in Southern California.

And to those who think the fires were caused by Global Warming--you've got it backwards. Bush and Rove started these fires because they wanted to make Global Warming worse. Why, you might be asking yourself, would they want to do such a thing? Because Rove has figured out a way to gain electoral advantage from Global Warming, of course.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.