FREE WILL

You Can't Say That: Pat Buchanan Out At MSBNC

2012-02-17T23:43:00.000-08:00

The oddly unpublicized suspension of Pat Buchanan from MSNBC - odd because there was no triumphalist chest thumping from the Pat H8'ers or quisling press releases from the suits - has turned in to an out and out termination, all because the contents of his new book were just too much to handle. As you would expect, Pat went out with dignity and with guns blazing:

My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.

After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.

The calls for my firing began almost immediately with the Oct. 18 publication of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" A group called Color of Change, whose mission statement says that it "exists to strengthen Black America's political voice," claimed that my book espouses a "white supremacist ideology." Color of Change took particular umbrage at the title of Chapter 4, "The End of White America."

...

Consider what it is these people are saying.

They are saying that a respected publisher, St. Martin's, colluded with me to produce a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic book, and CNN, Fox News, C-SPAN, Fox Business News and the 150 radio shows on which I appeared failed to detect its evil and helped to promote a moral atrocity.

If my book is racist and anti-Semitic, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs and Ralph Nader miss that? How did Charles Payne, African-American host on Fox radio, who has interviewed me three times, fail to detect its racism?

How did Michael Medved miss its anti-Semitism?

In a 2009 cover story in the Atlantic, "The End of White America?" from which my chapter title was taken, professor Hua Hsu revels in the passing of America's white majority. At Portland State, President Clinton got a huge ovation when he told students that white Americans will be a minority in 2050.

Is this writer alone forbidden to broach the subject?

That homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral has been doctrine in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.

Is it now hate speech to restate traditional Catholic beliefs?

First off, I wasn't planning to read Suicide of the West, but I am now!

Second, can we please take a moment to note that Color of Change is a group founded by the redoubtable self-avowed communist Van Jones? Nice to see what sort of people are now able to impact the public debate, such as it is, as it plays out in the mainstream media.

And, third, this is really a new low. Normally, media figures lose their jobs for making crass jokes at an unguarded moment. I can't recall the last time someone lost their political analyst job over a book, especially a book that, as Pat notes, was published by a major publishing house.

Pat appears to have lost his job over commentary made about illegal aliens and homosexuals. His comments were, essentially, that the promotion of the interests of these groups at the expense of others - often in the face of popular opposition - will have a negative impact. I think a lot of folks silently agree with Pat on this, but we apparently are not allowed to discuss such things.

One of Pat's overarching themes the last 20 years has been that we are making a mistake by allowing in millions of illegal immigrants who do not assimilate and do not participate in society. (that's the root of his "notorious" comment about comparing the problems of assimilating 1 million Zulus to that of 1 million Englishmen). Experience, especially here in California, is teaching us in real time that Pat has a point. This is nothing new. Pat's been talking about it a long time. But now, in 2012, we cannot discuss this any more.

Another of Pat's overarching themes is that we are being morally weakened by a decadent approach to sexuality, an approach where among other things liberal elites are making every effort to promote a "right" for men to marry one another (and where the majesty of the office of the president is now being used to promote condom use). Pat has argued, as has the Catholic Church (and Jews, and Muslims, and Buddhists, &c) that homosexual sex is unnatural and against God and not deserving of any sort of special legal privileges. Again, there is nothing new here. But, as of February 2012, we can no longer discuss these things.

We can't talk about these things, but that doesn't mean folks don't talk about them. Here in California, there isn't any wide ranging anti-immigrant sentiment. But, it's not hard to hear people speak sotto voce about how they are reluctant to put their kids in the formerly high performing local high school because the student population has suddenly become 30/40/50% Mexican. And, it's certainly not hard to find people who voted for Prop. 8 while simultaneously voting for Barack Obama. The conversations are happening, even if we can't talk about it.

What's even stranger is that there was little talk of Pat's suspension and termination. All bet most people didn't know there was a movement to remove Pat until they noticed he hadn't been on the air for a few weeks. MSNBC issued some terse statements, but these weren't heavily publicized. It wasn't until now, when Pat published his column, that there has been any sort of response to an alleged controversy so awful that a man must lose his position.

There was no great popular clamor to have Pat removed from MSBNC. Instead, it all played out behind closed doors. If the ideas Pat attacked were so wonderful, they wouldn't need to be defended with the rhetorical equivalent of a knife in the back in a dark alley.

Taking Offence: Does Rick Santorum Want To Ban Birth Control

2012-02-16T19:48:00.001-08:00

Rick Santorum's money man (well, the Santorum Super-PAC's money man) sent liberal women to their fainting couches during an appearance on MSNBC.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s big mega-donor kicked up a controversy over the issue of contraception today when he urged a return to the good old days when gals had a simple solution for it: aspirin between the knees.

We’re not kidding.

Wealthy entreprenuer Foster Freiss, who’s backed Santorum’s Super-PAC, made the statements to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell today, after being asked if his candidate has expressed some extremist views on contraception.

He appeared to express wonder that women even have to worry about the issue of paying for contraception these days, Politico reports. “On this contraceptive thing, my Gosh it’s such [sic] inexpensive,” he added. “You know, back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.

Lost amid all the bogus outrage was that Freiss was telling a joke, admittedly a tacky one, but a joke nonetheless. Also lost, because everyone on the left is desperate to ignore it, was Freiss's main point that the question of a putative contraceptive "ban" is as absurd now as it was when George Stephenopolis first flummoxed Mitt Romney with this issue last month.

“Aren’t we going back decades with some of the social issues that he’s espoused?,” she said.

Freiss was unfazed.

“Who cares?” he shot back. “Do you honestly think that if Senator Santorum becomes president, we’re going to get rid of contraceptives?”

“I’m amazed at some of the approaches that [you] come up with,” he added. “I think the media has created this ‘extremist’ idea.”

Liberals in and out of the media love this issue because they think it's the quickest way to get precious independents to become convinced that Republicans want to bad all forms of sexual pleasure. Back in the swingin' Nineties (when presidents were receiving BJ's instead of watching them), Dems raised this sort of thing to an art, such that any deviation from the feminist line would be met with full bore "Year Of The Woman" dudgeon.

Now? I'm not so sure this stuff works as well. Santorum gets asked all the time whether he is going to "ban" this or that, and he always meets these questions with laughter and a joke...because the question is a joke. Same with Freiss. 20 years ago there would have been calls for Santorum to disavow Freiss and refuse to accept any more $$ from him. I'm not hearing similar calls now, and if there were any I think Santorum and Freiss wouldn't think twice about ignoring them. If asked, Santorum can go on at length about how Griswold was wrongly decided, about Catholic doctrine, and about the moral dimensions of contraception use. But that's a far cry from trying to "ban" contraceptives as president.

On the other hand, look at the smug certitude of Obama, Sibelius, Pelosi, et al. They are enjoying this controversy, even as they make a big show of "accommodating" the Catholic bishops. Part of their smugness comes from their certitude that the public debate as it plays out in the news media will be in their favor because journalists, like left-wing politicians, are long practiced at presenting these issues in as one-sided a way as possible. But they are also smug because they are absolutely convinced that they are in the right, and the objections of the Rick Santorums of the world are ludicrously wrong. Yet, it is Santorum who has the light touch, even as he presents the multi-facets of a complicated issue.

What a world where now the humorless scolds are the liberals, and the witty nuanced thinkers are the conservatives.

Di$$ident$: Michael Moore Settles His 9/11 Lawsuit

2012-02-14T23:53:00.000-08:00

You'll be relieved to know that Michael Moore and the Weinsteins have settled their lawsuit over Fahrenheit 9/11 profits.

Michael Moore and Hollywood titan Harvey Weinstein have settled a lawsuit filed by the controversial director, who alleged that “financial deception” resulted in him being rooked out of millions in profits from the hit documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11.

Details of the Moore/Weinstein settlement agreement were not disclosed in a "notice of conditional settlement”filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Moore’s Westside Productions company sued Weinstein, his brother Robert, and the pair’s Fellowship Adventure Group last February in the midst of the Weinsteins’s Academy Awards campaign for “The King’s Speech” (which eventually copped the “Best Picture” Oscar).

Moore claimed in his lawsuit that he was owed a minimum of $2.7 million in connection with “Fahrenheit 9/11.” In denying Moore’s claim, the Weinsteins branded their former collaborator as greedy, noting that the filmmaker has pocketed more than $20 million from the 2004 film.

I guess Moore is technically sticking it to The Man by taking a studio to court like this, but really this is more sad than anything else, the great anti-capitalist grubbing after a couple stray millions (earned libeling the former president and the military, I might add). Who wants to bet that Mr. 99% will not be spreading the wealth around, but will use every deduction and loophole available to reduce his tax bite?

Rough Trade: What's Going On With Bill Lockyear's Wife?

2012-02-13T00:00:00.000-08:00

Odd doings in the East Bay, as a member of the Board of Supervisors for Contra Costa County, who is married the State Treasurer (and former AG) was apparently beaten up when she met up with a former boyfriend at a Newark motel. Yes, you read that right:

Alameda County Supervisor Nadia Lockyer, wife of state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, was "violently assaulted" by an ex-boyfriend she met up with at a Newark motel after the Lockyers fought, her husband says.

Newark police confirmed to us that they investigated a "politically sensitive" incident Feb. 3 after receiving a late-night 911 call from the motel on Newark Boulevard. When police arrived, they found a woman who was "despondent," a police spokesman said Friday.

Police would not identify the woman, but Bill Lockyer confirmed that it was his wife.
He said he and Nadia Lockyer had recently been separated but had gotten back together before the Feb. 3 incident.

The trouble that night began when they were arguing over the phone, he said. Nadia Lockyer hung up and headed off to the motel to meet with her former boyfriend, Bill Lockyer said.
She portrayed the boyfriend as "a troubled person," he said. "She thought he was having a crisis and she thought she could get him to calm down and to be OK and not to threaten suicide.

"And he turned out to be angry ... and she was violently assaulted by someone she was trying to help," he said.

But she wouldn't have gone to the motel, Bill Lockyer said, if he hadn't said "something to her that was unkind and hurt her feelings. ... That's what caused her to go."

I'm leaning on treating this less as a political story and more a psycho-sexual one. Nadia Lockyer made her name as an attorney with an interest in domestic violence issues, and yet here she is apparently getting beaten up herself by a romantic interest. I'm sure there are people out there who are just baffled that an beautiful, accomplished wife and mother (and daughter of a prominent Latino civil rights attorney) would end up making her way to an anonymous motel to meet up with her ex-boyfriend with a criminal record. Attention bafflees: chicks dig jerks. It's just the way of the world. Don't make me expand on this any more than I need to.

It's hard to know what effect this odd story will have on Lockyer's career, not to mention her marriage. I guess she's lucky that the police are treating this as a "politically sensitive" case, but don't seem to be turning over every stone looking for the ex-boyfriend who has conveniently vanished from the face of the earth. And, I guess she's lucky her husband* is loyally blaming himself from for driving her into the arms (and fists) of said boyfriend via some unkind comments made over the phone.

Right now we are being carefully spoon-fed information, but what little we know is sordid enough. The fact is that members of the Board of Supervisors, whether of Contra Costa County or anywhere else, probably shouldn't be meeting up with their ex-boyfriends-with-criminal-records at motels, whether in Newark or anywhere else, if that is, indeed, what happened. And I kind of have my doubts. Isn't it odd that the wife of California's former AG would have a boyfriend with a criminal past? And isn't it odd that, though we know of the boyfriend, we don't know his name or have a picture? (the linked article lacks both) Doesn't anyone want to catch this guy? Or is he just a fall guy for the real story as to how Lockyer ended up getting roughed up at a motel, rather than staying at home with her husband and child?

Look for this story to get a lot uglier.

UPDATE: right on cue, Nadia Lockyer has announced she is entering a program to treat an unnamed chemical dependency.

Lockyer, 40, the wife of state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, said in a statement that she entered a “wellness and recovery center” last week for treatment of the unspecified chemical dependency and “my injuries from the assault.”

She also said she was being treated for “chronic pain from a past debilitating car accident,” without giving specifics.

“Alcoholism and addiction are diseases from which many of us suffer, and unfortunately I have not been spared,” Nadia Lockyer said. “I understand that the public and the press have an interest in the health of their elected officials. That is why I am publicly disclosing my medical condition and that I am seeking treatment.”

The statement did not say how long the treatment may take, only that she planned to continue “doing the work I was elected to do.”

Few details have been released about the incident that apparently led Lockyer to enroll in the treatment center.

According to Newark police logs, a 911 call came in at 2:40 a.m. Feb. 3 from the Homewood Suites on Cedar Boulevard regarding an altercation involving a man and a woman.
“The male left prior to officers arriving,” the log said. “The female suffered injuries to her head and neck. She was medically treated.”

Again, it's all the fault of the evil ex-boyfriend who continues to go unnamed and unphotographed despite everyone's professed desire to catch the SOB. And, you've gotta love the discretion and circumspection with which the media is treating this story. If a Republican politico's wife was beaten up by her drug dealer at a motel...

*who gained a degree of fame in his AG days by blustering that he wanted to prosecute Enron's Ken Lay and then introduce him to his cellmate "Spike." Haw! Haw! What an ineffectual little man.

Get Back In The Van: Van Jones Takes Star-Making Turn At Democrat Convention

2012-02-12T22:46:00.000-08:00

The CA Democrat Party held its convention over the weekend, and you'll never guess who was the star of the con-fab, drawing praise from bigwigs like John Burton and Nancy Pelosi:

Van Jones, the former Obama Administration green czar who resigned in controversy, appears on the fast track to a political comeback — emerging as a star at this weekend’s California Democratic convention and lauded by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as a “leader of the future.”

Jones, who as head of an activist group called “Rebuild the Dream” has become a leading voice of the Occupy movement, was given the star speaking slot to address hundreds at the kickoff Friday night reception here sponsored by state party chair John Burton.

To the cheers of the grassroots activists, Jones endorsed a “millionaires’ tax” as a means of firing up younger voters in the 2012 election, saying “that will get their attention.”

That's right, baby! Van Jones is back! And he's ready to make up for lost time after the unpleasantness of a couple years ago:

The effusive reception given to Jones underscores that the former community activist appears in resurgence since the days after the Obama Administration green czar was forced to resign after controversial statements and ties with grassroots groups that Republicans claimed had radical roots.

Jones apologized for some of his actions, including signing a petition for 911Truth.org which appeared to suggest the Bush Administration “may indeed deliberately have allowed 9/11 to happen.”

The activist himself joked Friday that the stint with the White House represented “the best six months of my life..followed by the worst two weeks.”

Pardon me, but wasn't the problem with Jones the fact that he was an avowed, unapologetic communist? A communist who gave speeches explicitly calling for the overthrow of "The System" in favor of a "new System?" That 9/11 stuff was just icing on the cake, the bridge-too-far even for his leftist protectors in the White House and in the media. But, no matter, he is ready to fight to re-elect Mr. Moderate himself:

Jones repeatedly won cheers when he defined what he said were the issues and challenges faced by Democrats — and President Barack Obama — as the 2012 election approaches.

“I’m tired of being accused of being anti-American,” said Jones. “”They call it class warfare…if anything, it’s warfare against people who have no class…they won’t even return our phone calls when our houses are underwater.”

But don't call Obama and Pelosi socialists! (or even leftists) That's H8!

Honestly, this stuff is more funny than anything else. Go ahead and try to get on a state-wide ballot somewhere "Van." I have no doubt you could win a congressional seat in Oakland or some other left-wing hellhole, but if we ever get to the point where Van Jones is any kind of future star of the Democrat Party we'll be so far gone it won't be worth getting upset over.

Cautionary Tale: Whitney Houston Dead at 48

2012-02-11T23:13:00.000-08:00

The only thing more depressing than Whitney Houston's entirely predictable death by "partying" is listening to her (now 20+ years old) hits, especially "The Greatest Love of All" with its line about "they can't take away my dignity." Sadly, life rarely imitates art:

Whitney Houston, whose soaring voice lifted her to the top of the pop music world but whose personal decline was fueled by decades of drug use, died on Saturday in a Beverly Hills hotel room. She was 48.

Her death came on the eve of the Grammy Awards in Los Angeles and at the same hotel where her mentor, record mogul Clive Davis, was holding an annual pre-event party at which she was scheduled to perform.

A dramatic scene unfolded at the Beverly Hilton Hotel as music celebrities arriving for the party expressed shock at her death, while reporters swarmed the hotel and fans gathered to pay their respects.

A Beverly Hills police officer told reporters they were called to the Beverly Hilton at around 3:20 p.m. PST and that emergency personnel found Houston's body in a fourth-floor room, and she was pronounced dead at 3:55 p.m. The cause of death is under investigation.

"She has been positively identified by friends and family (who) were with her at the hotel, and next of kin have already been notified," Lieutenant Mark Rosen told reporters. Police said there were no obvious signs of criminal intent.

Tributes poured in from around the world for a singer whose remarkable vocal range produced some of the most memorable music of her generation, including her signature hit, "I Will Always Love You."

Show business is full of train wrecks, but you have to look long and hard to find a fall as epic as Houston's. Born into a show-biz family that included Cissy Houston, Dionne Warwick, and Areatha Franklin, Houston rose literally to the top of her profession, before throwing it all away in a death spiral of drug addiction and destructive behavior that destroyed her image and her voice, the two things in the world she needed to protect the most.

I can't say I was ever literally a fan of Houston's, but back in her heyday (1983 - 1991) she was inescable. Whatever you might think of big league diva showstoppers as a genre of music, you had to acknowledge her skills were close to unparalleled. But, the relatively brief period that Whitney ruled the pop world saw her project an image that was starkly different than the one she has showed in the years since. Check out her video for "The Greatest Love Of All" and then ask yourself whether you can imagine her being found dead in a Beverly Hills hotel bathroom

After watching 20 years of self destructive Whitney moments, what can you conclude, but that she must have hated the song, hated the sentiment, and hated herself? The Whitney "we" loved was the soaring songbird with the clear-as-glass voice and innocent smile. Houston went out of her way to destroy that image and replace it with a horror show. What demons drove her to do that are, of course, unknown, if not unknowable. (No, it's not "Bobby Brown's fault." They appear to have had a genuinely loving, if destructive, relationship). But, I will say this: as with Michael Jackson, it's not hard to imagine that Houston must have suffered some sort of abuse, whether sexual or psychological or what have you, during her climb to the top. What else would cause someone to destroy themselves like this?

Double Your Dose: Obama Compromises With the Catholic Church

2012-02-10T23:53:00.000-08:00

The Obama Administration's regulation ordering religious institutions, including the Catholic Church, to provide contraceptives and abortion services as part of their employees' health insurance programs started enough of a storm that he felt compelled to come out and announce a compromise. The new Grand Bargain? Well, let's see what you think:

President Obama on Friday announced that religious organizations will no longer be required to offer free birth control to female employees next year, a shift in policy aimed at tempering intensifying political backlash over religious freedom.

Under the new approach, insurance companies, rather than religious organizations, will be obligated to offer contraception for free to the institutions' employees

"The result will be that religious organizations won't have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly," Obama, who was flanked by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, said at the White House. "Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care. That includes contraceptive services no matter where they work."

Does this make any sense? The Catholic Church, among others, must still provide employee health insurance plans that cover birth control, but they don't have to "pay" for them. The insurance companies will! As if the objection is having to shell out $15-20! Newsflash genius: the Catholic Church doesn't want to offer any kind of birth control to their employees (or to anyone else). Also, is Obama so out of it that he doesn't realize that the "free" birth control that insurance companies are now being tasked to give away - is this even legal? - will not be free. They will simply increase premiums to cover the "free" stuff.

This compromise is so dumb, and so one-sided, it literally amazes. I honestly hope Obama et al. came up with this because they figured we were too dumb to know better. To think that the president and his team sincerely believe this is a workable way forward is too much. They can't be this ignorant about the insurance market and religious conscience. Can they?

Obama, by the way, couldn't announce his magnanimous compromise without his usual arrogant attack on the people who would interfere with his transformative vision for the US.

Obama said he ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last week to quickly come up with a new policy to satisfy the complaints of religious organizations because it was clear to him that some in Washington were turning the debate over religious freedom into "political football.

A political football?? Look in the mirror, jerk. No one was banning condoms and pills. Not one American alive today has been without ready access to birth control. You're the one who (needlessly) put the football up in the air. Not only that, I don't think there are very many people "in Washington" who have as loud as the Catholic bishops in condemning this nonsense. This is way beyond "Washington," bud.

The Thin Black & Blue Line: Racial Politics in The Richmond Police Department

2012-02-09T21:14:00.000-08:00

Richmond, CA is the ugly duckling among the four major Bay Area cities: a blue-collar city gone to seed. It's got the same left-wing politics as everyone else around here, but without the glamour of San Francisco, San Jose, or even (geesh) Oakland. About all you ever hear out of Richmond are stories about crime, lousy schools, and parochial unionism with the occasional oil refinery explosion thrown in (having said all that, I will concede there are some "nice" areas, and that some members of Psota's extended family live very well and happily there).

The latest drama out of Ditch-mond? Seven police high-ranking police officers are suing the Department and the chief over complaints related to hiring and promotions. The details are pretty ugly...for the plaintiffs:

Between tales of one police captain dropping to all fours to yell "don't beat me" and black and white commanders angrily proclaiming they were being discriminated against, jurors got a stark depiction Thursday of a Richmond Police Department consumed with racial tensions in 2006 when Chris Magnus took over as chief.

The revelations came as Magnus spent a second day testifying in a Contra Costa County Superior Court trial over a lawsuit claiming he had discriminated against seven high-ranking black officers.

Plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Jaffe tried to make Magnus look like a disconnected leader who revealed racist bents in quips and favoritism, while the chief attempted to portray himself as working to dispel racial tensions that he found when he took the job.

One of the most bizarre moments came when Magnus described an incident in which then-Capt. Cleveland Brown, one of the commanders suing him, came into his office to complain that he didn't want then-Capt. Lori Ritter to become deputy chief.

Magnus said Brown had told him he thought Ritter - who, like Magnus, is white and a defendant in the trial - was a racist, and then had pantomimed his displeasure.

"I remember him getting down on all fours and raising up his arms and saying, 'Don't beat me, Miss Lori!' " Magnus said. "It was kind of hard to tell if he was joking or if he was acting out a story.

He also said Brown had told him that "an African American captain shouldn't have to work for a white female."

Not surprisingly, "Captain" Brown was demoted soon thereafter. I would have wondered how such a clown could have become a police officer in the first place, let alone a commander.

The linked article dances around this quite a bit, but it's pretty clear that the seven plaintiffs, who are all black, have brought this lawsuit because they didn't like life under a white chief who didn't blindly promote people out of concern for some racial spoils system. I'm assuming having everyone take a test, and then promote people based on the test results would have been asking for too much.

Endeavors like fighting crime, promoting police officers, and running a police department aren't that complicated. But, they become impossible when liberals are involved.

Crying Over The "Hidden Tax" In The Payroll Taxcut Extension? Shoulda Listened To Stoopid Conservatives When You Had The Chance

2012-02-07T08:50:00.000-08:00

Here's an unintentionally funny story from CBS about new home buyers who are "surprised" to discover that the payroll tax cut extension passed with so much fanfare late last year includes a "hidden tax"

Just before Christmas, American workers got a rare gift from Washington politicians - the current payroll tax cut would be extended for two more months.

At the time, both President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner lauded the move to avoid a tax increase for millions of working Americans.

But there's something the politicians weren't bragging about - the fact that they're paying for the two-month tax cut with what has turned into a brand new fee on home buyers.

The new fee is a minimum of one-tenth of 1 percent on Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed loans, and is likely to go much higher.

It will be imposed for the next 10 years on most mortgages and refinancings and it lasts for the life of the loan.

For every $200,000, it amounts to an extra $15 dollars a month.

It's bad news for Patty Anderson, who's buying a home in Virginia.

Anderson will save a couple hundred dollars from having her payroll tax cut extended but her mortgage broker told her the new fee would cost her almost $9,500.

"I was absolutely startled that it would add up to that much," she said

It's only a surprise if you (1) don't pay attention or (2) rely on the regular media for your news. Alan West, for one, raised a stink about it, but was quickly shushed by the (all bow) Leadership. Talk radio blowhards were screaming about this for weeks leading up to the hustled passage of the two month extension. Rush even predicted outright that, while the payroll cut would expire on schedule, the mortgage tax (called a "fee," but come on) would be on the books forever, even after the extension had been fully paid for. Oh, but, ha ha, the mortgage tax doesn't go to the Social Security Trust Fund, but will simply go into the general fund black hole along with every thing else.

More important, I do seem to recall some news stories (and maybe even the president) mentioning in passing that the extension would be "paid for" by a modest mortgage fee. But, typically for this sort of thing, no one thought to ask about the size of the fee, the manner it would be imposed, the lifespan of the fee, etc. No, all the stories were the usual process questions about what legislative maneuver would be used to push the extension through.

It's the same way health care reform reporting was done. The bill was out there for all to see, but news coverage before the vote focused on the ephemeral moments of drama as the bill wound its way through Congress (remember the Slaughter Rule?) It was only after the bill passed that mainstream journalists began to tell us what was actually in the bill. And, two years later, we're still finding new stuff in there.

Technically, I know we have a free press, and certainly the MSM is not the only outlet for news. But, the big time media (the networks, the newspapers, CNN & MSNBC) really is a de facto arm of the government, reporting on legislation in a manner that virtually ensures its passage or defeat.

Anyone who purchases a mortgage will be paying hundreds or thousands of dollars because, in late 2011, Barack Obama's political team wanted a cute "tax cut" imbroglio to hang on their Republican opposition. The cut was the most penny-ante cut possible (and one that a Republican president could never obtain because it drains the sole funding source for Social Security) yet the funding mechanism lasts decades. And the Republican leadership went along with it for no better reason than the Democrats' allies in the media were screaming bloody murder, even as they only told half the story.

Pigs Fly: Oakland Liberals Protest OWS/Support The Police

2012-02-06T16:10:00.000-08:00

How obnoxious have the Occupy Oakland protesters gotten? So obnoxious that they have drawn liberal counter-protesters supporting the police (!) and denouncing the Occupiers as criminals (!!)

A tense face-off between Occupy Oakland activists and members of a new group formed to protest their tactics erupted this afternoon in front of Oakland City Hall, with both sides accusing each other of missing the point of the Occupy movement.

About 40 people calling themselves members of Stand for Oakland gathered at Frank Ogawa Plaza around noon to denounce what they said was violence and vandalism by Occupy Oakland protesters in recent weeks

They said they sympathized with Occupy Oakland's focus on economic disparity but said destruction during clashes with police was giving the overall Occupy movement a bad name. They cited in particular activists' trashing of parts of City Hall after their failed attempt Jan. 28 to take over the long-empty Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center.

The linked article captures the tragic divergence of views between dumb liberals and crazy liberals.

One young Occupier, who like many declined to give his name, argued with members of the new group that Occupy would have been eliminating blight by taking over an empty convention center.

"You are blight, don't you see it?" retorted Aaron Merritt, a 39-year-old graphic designer.

The young Occupier shot back: "You're in the matrix. You've been indoctrinated."

Frankly, none of this would be necessary except liberals, from the president on down, were happy to see disruptive street protesters so long as those protests were attacking "Wall Street" (AKA Tea Partiers, Republicans, people with jobs). Oakland bent over backwards to accommodate the Occupiers, and what they got were endless riots and criminality, including the murder of one Occupier in broad daylight across the street from City Hall.

We conservatives may be stoopid, but we had the Occupiers' numbers a long time ago.

Mega-piracy: Megaupload And When "Sharing" Becomes "Stealing"

2012-02-04T09:00:00.001-08:00

The dismantling of file-sharing service Megaupload, and the arrest of its executives, has elicited a lot of techno-libertarian commentary about the heavy hand of the state ("how can American law enforcement shut down a site based in Hong Kong?!" they ask querulously) and the even heavier hand of Big Music lobbying shutting down a competitor. The hipsters are up in arms, but when you look at what megaupload was doing, you can't help wondering what all the fuss is about. The fact is, these guys were, at the least, aiding and abetting in theft.

Possibly the biggest anti-piracy bust of all time took place on January 20th, when a global sting operation led by the FBI and the Department of Justice brought down the file-sharing giant Megaupload – and arrested its founder, the 38-year-old German hacker and playboy Kim Dotcom. "I defy anyone to go back and find something bigger than this," says a source at a major record label. "This makes LimeWire look like kindergarten."

Born Kim Schmitz, Dotcom was arrested in Auckland, New Zealand, where he lived in what is reportedly the country's most expensive private home. Six other Megaupload executives were also arrested. The crew is charged with "criminal copyright infringement and money-laundering on a massive scale" – an estimated $500 million of pirated content, with a combined $175 million in income. (Megaupload claimed to have 50 million daily visits and four percent of the Internet's total traffic.) Authorities seized Dotcom's mansion and 18 luxury cars, including a 2008 Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupé with a GOD license plate.

Dotcom, who was denied bail, is in an Auckland prison facing as much as 20 years if he's found guilty. Megaupload's U.S. attorney, Ira Rothken, insists that the company was a content-storage site, similar to Dropbox, and Dotcom had no knowledge of any of its users' piracy activities. "This is basically a showing of copyright extremism by the government, in taking down an entire site in an overbroad manner, without giving Megaupload an opportunity to be heard in court," says the attorney.

The actual service isn't hard to understand. They were providing server space for people to upload music and then share that music with anyone with access to the file. And that's fine as long as you're talking about sharing music with your buddies, but a lot of megaupload customers took things way beyond that.

A perfect example is the Plow That Broke The Plains, a well designed blog that used to post uploads of a ton of music. Most of the music was obscure and out-of-print, so no one's really going to care. But they were posting plenty of major label stuff as well. In the last months of its existence, they uploaded albums by Elvis Costello, Bob Dylan, Scott Walker, Earth Wind & Fire, and several others. The hosts provided you with a link and a password that took you to the Megaupload site where you actually downloaded the tunes. After about the 30th time they posted a Bob Dylan album I wondered, "how could this possibly be legal?" Their way of addressing this was an anodyne statement that the music was not hosted on their own servers and that you (the downloaders) should delete the files after 24 hours, which I am sure happened all the time (snort). Legal or not, I note that they are no longer there, the blog having gone down the memory hole, along with Megaupload.

Whatever its merits, Megaupload itself looks like it's up to no good. Clicking a Plow link would take you to the Megaupload site, which looked to me like the internet without spam filters. The thing had so many banner ads, "click-this-link" ads, and flashing pixels it was hard to see where to click for the download. Clicking the download button unleashed another torrent of ads. If you could digitize the concept of "The Hustle," then megaupload was a hustler's paradise. It looked more like a spam factory or a phishing farm than a legitimate business. (similar sites like Mediafire are not nearly as bad). I never finished a download from megaupload because they seemed fundamentally untrustworthy.

Megaupload's founder, "Kim Dotcom," (uh huh) doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Here is his house:

And here he is with a babe and a boat

The guy screams "Mafia!" not "Mogul!" I would advise those well-intentioned folks making a martyr out of Megaupload to search more carefully for your Jesus.

Set In Stone: Oregon's Timber Subsidies Coming To An End

2012-02-03T17:40:00.000-08:00

The WSJ reports on the coming end of subsidies paid to Oregon communities that were once part of hte thriving timber industry, but then found themselves on the losing end of an astro-turfed Green campaign to protect supposedly endangered species. The subsidies were supposed to compensate for the loss of real blue collar jobs, I guess, by buying the economically ravaged off with transfer payments. Now, the payments are going the way of the dodo (but not the spotted owl!)

The issue dates to the 1937 federal Oregon & California Lands Act, which said half of all timber sales from federal land in Oregon would go to 18 so-called O&C counties. With harvests across millions of acres, forest counties thrived here. Many Oregon counties—including Curry County—kept property taxes low, thanks to timber royalties.

That changed in the 1980s, with the rise of the environmental movement and a sharp fall in federal timber harvests. To compensate communities in Oregon, the state where logging relies most on public land, Congress in 2000 began authorizing payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Those funds were set to expire in 2006 and, though twice extended, the payments can't be renewed now without Congress's assent.

That is something locals doubt will happen, given the nation's budget woes and the partisan cast of an election year.

Outside Oregon, the decades of federal timber payments can seem like the epitome of wasteful pork spending. Oregonians see things differently, arguing that as long as federal rules hamstring profitable forest harvests, federal dollars should mitigate the pain.

It's actually amazing to see a government subsidy come to an end on schedule, but note that while the subsidy for jobs lost due to government fiat is coming to an end, the "environmental concerns" that are the cause of the subsidy are inviolate.

The human cost here has been met with little more than a Green shrug and some welfare payments. But, if president Romney (or whomever) tried to re-examine the issue of whether millions of acres of timberland should be idled for the questionable sake of some animals, watch out.

Systemic Failure: The LA Teacher Scandal

2012-02-02T13:08:00.000-08:00

You may have heard of the LA teacher accused of binding and gagging his students, covering them in roaches, and then feeding them his .... sorry it's too disgusting. If you wondered how he could get away with this for so long, you are not alone. The LA Unified Schools superintendent is curious too.

L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy has launched an investigation into how a veteran teacher charged with 23 counts of lewd conductwith current and former students could have escaped suspicion for so long.

Former Miramonte Elementary teacher Mark Berndt, 61, is accused of gagging students with tape, blindfolding them and spoon-feeding his semen to some current and former students in his classroom, in what he described to the children as a “tasting game.” He took hundreds of photos of the children, many with a milky substance around their mouths, authorities said.

The lewd conduct charges cover a period from July 1, 2005, to June 28, 2011. Most of the alleged crimes occurred from mid-2009 to mid-2011.

“How do I make sense out of the fact that this took place over a number of years and no one seemed to know about that?” said Deasy in an interview Wednesday morning. “I want to understand it. I’m definitely trying to understand how someone could not have known.”

Can we just make something abundantly clear? If this had happened in, say, a Catholic church...or Abu Ghraib... of a Duke University frat house...or, God help us, Guantanamo, we would be hearing all about systemic failures, and cultures of corruption from the same loudmouths who are responding to this bizarre torture of children with little in the way of loudmouthing and much in the way of deafening silence.

I know, I know. Most teachers are hard working, self-sacrificing paragons who would never torment their charges in such a manner. But, we all know that the "good" teachers are happily participating in a system that protects guys like Berndt, a system so protective of its rights and prerogatives that Berndt's bosses can't even withdraw the guy's retirement bennies. The system failed the kids, but it's not going to stop the flow of $$ to their abuser.

Unemployment Line: the President Talks About Finding A Job

2012-01-31T23:17:00.000-08:00

While Republicans were duking it out in Florida, the President appeared at a "Google+ Hangout," where he had this exchange with a woman who said her husband has not been able to find full time employment as a semi-conductor engineer.

During his Google+ hangout Pres. Obama tells a woman that her husband shouldn't be unemployed from the growth he has seen in the economy. Obama said he finds it "interesting" because he is getting "the word" that someone in her husband's job field "should be able to find something right away."

Obama offered to do something if she would just send him her husband's resume.
The woman wants to know why Obama is extending visas for foreigners when there is tons of demand for American jobs by Americans

"I don't know what your husband's speciality [is], but I can tell you that there is a huge demand around the country for engineers," Obama told the woman.

"I understand that," she responded. "But how am -- given the list that you're getting, I mean we're not getting that. You said in the State of the Union address for business leaders to ask what can they do to bring jobs back to America

Obama is, if nothing else, a pro. She first says her husband is an engineer which sends Obama off on a riff about civil engineers and how, if only we could pass his infrastructure bill, we could put some of those guys back to work. (I thought that's what the first stimulus bill was for). Then she says, no, hubby is a semi-conductor engineer so that's no good.

Really, though, for all of Obama's friendliness, his response to this woman is remarkably detached. He keeps saying that it's "interesting" that the husband can't find full time work. You see, all the information the president has - and, I guess he has all of it - says that engineers of all stripes should be able to find work! Well, problem solved! (Ace suggests that the president was saying "interesting" as a way to mask his real answer: "I don't believe you")

More important, he completely ignores her original question about why the US is handing out (and extending) H1-B visas when there are plenty of Americans out there who are out of work. Derbyshire calls this the "Abominable Question" and for good reason. While there is certainly a rationale for the H1-B visa, I don't think there's any doubt that every H1-B visa holder represents an American who was unable to find a job. Are out-of-work American semi-conductor engineers supposed to go to India to find work? That seems to be the sub-text.

Welcome To The Occupation: Occupy Oakland Attacks City Hall

2012-01-29T23:06:00.000-08:00

Oakland was beset by its Occupiers once again. This time, several hundred protesters wandered the streets, looking for something to occupy, before wandering back to City Hall, which they attacked and trashed.

Oakland officials and Occupy protesters confronted the fallout from their increasingly toxic conflict on Sunday, a day after the tensions reignited in chaotic, often violent demonstrations that resulted in at least 400 arrests. As usual, each side blamed the other for sparking the violence.

City officials took stock of the damage from Saturday's clashes, which included injuries to three police officers and several protesters, as well as vandalism inside City Hall.

There, dozens of protesters had broken in with a crowbar, grabbed an American flag, and ignited it on the front steps.

I thought the whole point of Occupy (This Space) was to protest Wall Street greed, but Oakland is about as far as you can get, physically and philosophically, from Wall Street. The real problem is that Oakland's city fathers have shown themselves to be real pushovers. Rather than arrest these clowns and keep them in jail, they let them out to do more harm, psychoanalyzing all the way

"It's like a tantrum," Mayor Jean Quan said while displaying the damage inside the building, which included a broken model of City Hall she estimated to be 100 years old. "They're treating us like a playground."

Quan said Occupy Oakland had "refused to be nonviolent" and, as a result, was "turning off the rest of the movement." She said police would step up efforts to obtain restraining orders against some protesters to keep them from approaching City Hall.

A "tantrum?" No, they are responding to weakness, something Mayor Quan has displayed in abundance these last few months. You have to admire the Oakland Police Department, which has to do battle with white-bread street anarchists on the one side, and a feckless fifth column worried about the "movement" on the other. I would have turned in my badge long ago.

Typically for leftist revolutionaries, the Occupiers are exploiting the idealistic dupes among the Bay Area's progressive community and beyond. Despite the manifest squalor and crime surrounding all of the Occupy camps, the "1%-99%" formulation remains media talking point for everyone from the president and Warren Buffet, all the way down to Boots Riley and Van Jones. Occupy Oakland's leaders engaged in some pretty sleazy chicanery to draw a crowd this weekend:

Saturday's demonstration, which brought more than 1,000 people downtown, began on a festive note. After a brief noon rally at Frank Ogawa Plaza, Occupy supporters, accompanied by a small marching band, filled the street with banners.

Jordan said he did not consider the rally to be peaceful, however, because of marchers' plan to seize a building and because some of the protesters slashed tires as they walked.

Most marchers had no idea where they were going, because organizers kept secret the building they hoped to seize. Tensions rose as marchers arrived at the long-shuttered convention center just south of Lake Merritt and began tearing down fences.

That's actually pretty typical among leftist protest leaders, who want to lead a revolution, but know they could never draw a crowd if people really knew what they were up to. Instead, they just lie, brazenly, hoping to bring enough people to provide cover for the destruction they plan to wreak.

Alone Again Or x 3

2012-01-28T23:08:00.000-08:00

Three versions of Love's Alone Again Or:

UFO's proto-metal version

The Damned's college rock version (which sounds nothing like the Damned)

And Arthur Lee himself at Glastonbery doing a full string 'n' horns version.

Surrogocracy: Mitt Romney's Awful Surrogates

2012-01-27T23:40:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney may have the worst taste in surrogates of any major presidential candidate in my lifetime. We've had John Sununu, who gave us David Souter and the rationale for the 1990 budget deal. We've had Tom DeLay, who gave us a Congress filled with Republicans who used their pro-life voting records for cover to shovel money to their campaign donors. We've had Bob Dole, the ultimate "next-in-line" moderate who was at his best making a concession speech. We've had John McCain who is only willing to attack conservatives, never liberals. And, now, we have Norm Coleman - last seen losing a Senate race to Al Franken - telling us what he really thinks of the prospects of repealing Obamacare when/if Mitt wins office:

Norm Coleman – the former senator from Minnesota and a prominent advisor for Mitt Romney – suggested over the weekend in an interview that no matter who the Republican nominee is, they are unlikely to fully repeal Obamacare.

"We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare… It’s not a total repeal... You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president... You can't whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what's been done

He goes on to say: "The Supreme Court first of all will have to deal with it. If you get rid of the individual mandate, then this whole thing may collapse." Asked by the moderator whether this means other provisions will go away as well, Coleman says: "I don’t think they will go away, because I don’t think the Act works financially, it simply doesn’t work, if you have severability." Coleman maintains that Republicans still "need to do health care reform" and suggests that he supports the approach put forward by Paul Ryan and Ron Wyden.

Frankly, I could have guessed that a loser like Coleman (I mean an electoral loser. I realize he is an otherwise accomplished man) would quail at the thought of repealing Obamacare. It might be a "right" that is just two years old, but the left will fight like the dickens to keep it in place. Republicans like Coleman and, yes, Romney simply don't have it in them to carry on that sort of fight. For one thing, they are incapable of taking incoming fire from the media, which will be scorching. For another, they are nowhere near nimble enough to deal with the legislative roadblocks that will come up. Say what you will about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid; they got Obamacare passed by hook or by crook. When was the last time Republicans did that? (hint: the guy we are being told is not a "real" conservative was Speaker of the House back then).

Mitt Romney has already told us he'd look at imposing a VAT on the United States. He has hinted that he looks favorably at the idea of refinancing the nation's mortgages. He supported TARP. He supports, as near as I can tell, the auto bailouts. He has refused to repudiate Romneycare. And, all the while, he has touted his "business experience." Granted, Romney is a very effective advocate for the rights and values of the private sector. But, he has consistently governed and advocated for big government policies throughout his career.

Mitt says he will "repeal" Obamacare. He may say that, but I suspect we are going to need a lot of Tea Party congressmen to help him along.

Don't Be Illegal: The Feds Sting Operation Against Google

2012-01-26T23:39:00.000-08:00

You may recall hearing that Google paid a $500 million fine to settle a complaint arising from illegal drug ads that appeared in Google's search results. The WSJ finally has the gory details. The thumbnail: a government informant was able to work with Google executives in setting up ads for websites selling steroids, HGH, RU-486, along with Chinese bootleg Prozac, and the like. The ads (set up and paid for by the government!) were so lucrative that Larry Page was aware of them. Ever get the feeling that, were Google names "Exxon," this story wouldn't have dribbled out so slowly?

Posing as the fictitious Jason Corriente, an agent for advertisers with lots of money to spend, Mr. Whitaker bypassed Google's automated advertising system to reach flesh-and-blood ad executives. Federal agents created www.SportsDrugs.net, designed to look "as if a Mexican drug lord had built a website to sell HGH and steroids," Mr. Whitaker said in his account of the sting.

Google first rejected it, along with an anti-aging website called www.NotGrowingOldEasy.com. But the company's ad executives worked with Mr. Whitaker to find a way around Google rules, according to prosecutors and Mr. Whitaker's account.

The undercover team removed a link to buy the drugs directly—instead requiring customers to submit an online request form—and Google approved it. "The site generated a flood of email traffic from customers wanting to buy HGH and steroids," Mr. Whitaker said.

To pay Google's fees for the growing online traffic, undercover agents made payments every two or three days with a government-backed credit card.

Federal agents grew more brazen. They created a site selling weight-loss medications without a prescription, according to Mr. Whitaker and people familiar with the matter. They also added another site selling the abortion pill RU-486, which in the U.S. can only be taken in a doctor's office.

Google's ad team in Mexico approved the site, so U.S. consumers searching for "RU 486" would see an ad for the site. Google ad executives allowed the agents to add the phrase "no prescription needed."

Days later, federal agents added links to buy the drugs directly. Such sales broke U.S. laws prohibiting the sale of drugs from outside the country and without a prescription. "There were photos of the drugs, descriptions, labels that clearly printed out that we were shipping without a prescription and it was from Mexico," Mr. Whitaker said.

By the end of the operation in mid-2009, agents were buying Google ads for sites purportedly selling such prescription-only narcotics as oxycodone and hydrocodone. Agents also got Google's sales office in China to approve a site selling Prozac and Valium to U.S. customers without a prescription.

"Google's employees were instrumental in bypassing policy regarding pharmacy verification," Mr. Whitaker told the Journal. "The websites were blatantly illegal."

Amazing stuff. The government finally pulled the ads (which apparently generated a lot of customer response), and flew to Mountain View and told Google that the jig was up. The feds were ready to file criminal charges against Google executives, so the company wised up and hired (are you sitting down?) Jamie Gorelick to negotiate a settlement. They happily disgorged their profits from the ads and went on their way.

The late Larry Ribstein defined the "Apple Rule" in reference to the unusually circumspect manner in which the media, politicians, the SEC and the Justice Department handled allegations of backdating in Steve Jobs's compensation package. In the words of The Economist, "Mr Ribstein's rule “provides for an exception from corporate criminal liability when a popular business executive is accused of, or presides over a company that is accused of, misconduct. 'Popular' is defined here as 'liked by journalists'. In the event of allegations of criminal misconduct touching a ‘popular’ business executive, said executive or his company may avoid trouble by aiming the investigation toward an underling.”" It sure looks like Google benefited from a similar circumspection.

This isn't meant to excoriate Google, by the way. I think they are a great company whose products have aided in the spread of knowledge and freed many people from their desks. But, while their public face is all of their innovative products, their private one is that of a money grubbing company looking for profits at any cost. That's capitalism, of course, but we sure do hear a little too much smug sermonizing about not being "evil" from these guys.

Shot From Both Sides: The Left Targets Mitt Romney In Florida

2012-01-25T08:23:00.000-08:00

The DNC and labor unions (public and private) are apparently running a ton of anti-Mitt advertising in Florida this week. The plan seems to be to "take out" Mitt so that the more target-rich Newt Gingrich becomes the nominee. Hugh Hewitt lays out the dastardly details:

This reporting by Scott Powers in the Orlando Sentinel scoops the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico by pulling together in one place and charting the obvious implications of Team Obama's assault on Mitt Romney in Florida.

Obama is trying to prevent Romney's nomination:

The Democrats are targeting Mitt Romney as if he were already the Republican nominee running against President Barack Obama, with campaign ads, Internet videos, daily news conferences and dozens of news releases attacking the former Massachusetts governor.
Traditional Democratic partners are jumping in, too. Both the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees' and Service Employees International Union's political-action committees are running their own TV commercials in Florida this week — attacking Romney.

Gingrich and the other two Republican candidates, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas U.S.Rep. Ron Paul, are being all but ignored by the DNC and its allies.

Read the whole thing.

The Chicago Rules at work. Obama fears Romney so he is trying to eliminate him early. In the old days it would be called a "dirty trick," but MSM loves the president and won't criticize his operation.

And it is his operation. The president has had to approve of this attempt by the Yankees to get the Red Sox eliminated by sending players and cash to Tampa Bay in the last week of the season.

Hewitt declares this to be "cheating," and he's probably right, but there are no refs or red cards in politics, so no one is going to give a damn.

This isn't cheating. It's a test, and it's a test Mitt Romney has to pass or he really has no business being the nominee. News flash: the DNC and unions will be running ads against Romney sometime in the calendar year 2012. These ads will not be flattering. They will probably look like that dumb (but effective!) Gingrich Bain movie: full of quavering-voiced old folks who lost their jobs when Big Bad 15% Tax Rate Mitt blew into town. Mitt has to be able to defend himself forcefully, simply has to. Complaining about "Chicago-style politics" isn't going to cut it.

Unfortunately, what we've been learning is that Mitt can't even adequately defend himself from attacks on his business record and tax returns from the right, let alone the left. Oh, he gets off some good lines in speeches and debates. He even manages to come up with the sort of business friendly sound bite (corporations are people) that drive liberals crazy. But, most of the time, he doesn't do much at all to blunt these attacks. Is it really that hard to explain that, no, I don't pay a 15% tax rate, and that I have already paid the full 35% corporate rate when those investments made their $$? I don't think so, but Mitt sure has had trouble fitting that on to a 3X5 card.

Not only that, is Romney out of options and/or money? The Democrat ad buy amounts to about $800,000. NewtPAC (or whatever) is spending $5 million in Florida. Romney can't match this with some commercials of his own? This is why businesspeople often make lousy candidates. Romney could buy and sell Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul five times over, but at least the (shudder) professional politicians wouldn't have fallen into a trap this obvious.

Rotarian Red Meat

2012-01-23T23:43:00.000-08:00

I came to tonight's debate late, but... am I crazy or did Mitt Romney respond to the question "What have you done for conservatism?" in part by saying his 1994 Senate campaign was so tough that he forced Ted Kennedy to take a mortgage against his house?* Um, yay?

Look, anything that discomfited the late Lion of the Senate is fine by me, but Kennedy is, at last report, dead. He is no longer the big bad wolf of right wing nightmares. Now, if Romney were to force Harry Reid to take out a mortgage on his house, I'll be impressed, but Ted Kennedy is old news.

* (which one?)

Rain Parade: Occupy SF Fights The Elements

2012-01-21T07:54:00.000-08:00

I had a noon meeting in the Financial District, but forgot that Occupy (This Space) had promised to "shut it down." Luckily the geniuses who would re-order our economy didn't realize that January is the one month of the year you are likely to have a driving rain storm.

Lots of rain. Lots of noise. Few arrests, and smaller crowds than expected.

All in all, Friday's big Occupy movement attempt to shut down San Francisco's Financial District was a mixed success for the protesters who led it - and something of a relief for those who had feared it.

Occupy San Francisco organizers mustered several hundred participants for their all-day protest against economic inequality, and as they marched throughout downtown staging rallies and skits and civil disobedience, they did manage to slow traffic and force a couple of businesses to shut down, including the headquarters of Wells Fargo Bank.

Unlike some major Occupy actions last year on both sides of the bay, nonviolence prevailed - although tensions between police and protesters flared after night fell as activists briefly occupied the vacant Cathedral Hill Hotel on Van Ness Avenue. Two officers were injured by thrown objects there, and at least five people were arrested before the demonstration ended around 11 p.m.

No, I don't know what the point of trying to occupy the vacant Cathedral Hill Hotel was. The hotel closed a while back to make way for a health care facility. No Evil Banks or Teabaggers were involved.

Even with the driving rain, I saw one sizable crowd crammed on to a sidewalk in front of (I think) a Chase branch. There was a also a knot of folks standing in front of the Federal Reserve building. And, most oddly, there were a couple die-hards in front of the 9th District Court of Appeals building, calling for the repeal of the Citizens United case, (supposedly Friday's protests were timed to coincide with the second anniversary of that decision) which puts these clowns on the same intellectual level as the president who famously chastised the Supreme Court for daring to find that people don't surrender their free speech rights when they organize themselves into a group. But don't call Obama a socialist! That's H8!

I can't say I've done a comprehensive poll on this, but the self-righteous Occupiers have not endeared themselves to the 99% in San Francisco, something captured dramatically in this street vignette:

The first arrests came early, when crowds blocked entrances at the Wells Fargo headquarters at 420 Montgomery St. Seven people were arrested on the Sacramento Street side of the high-rise around 9:30 a.m. Several more protesters were arrested an hour later when they moved back in front of the service entrance.

On another side of the bank, a number of people covered themselves in a large swath of black fabric and undulated en masse in what they called a "black blob" representing "the security state enshrouded in ever more secrecy."

A man on his way to work dismissively shouted "Get a job!" at the blob. One demonstrator retorted, "Our job is the occupation!"

Do I like "Wall Street?" Not particularly. Do I like government bailouts of banks, not to mention of insurance companies and car companies? Hell, no! But I dislike squatting, squalid "revolutionaries" even more.

CNN Debate

2012-01-19T17:50:00.000-08:00

And then there were four: Newt, Mitt, Rick & Ron go at it again, this time for most, if not all, of the marbles.

FIRST BREAK: things are pretty heated between the four. Everyone's voice seems to be keyed up just a touch, especially Santorum who is really going at both Gingrich and Romney. He's doing a great job selling himself as the "true" conservative but Gingrich and Romney both overshadow him in personality and in - how should I put this - their sense of Destiny. Paul is almost a spectator, not a participant, but I'll bet he will be the last one of the three remaining to drop out.

SECOND BREAK: Newt: "you're right (Rick) I am grandiose. This is a grandiose country." Rick responds by b*tching about Newt not yelling loud enough about the House bank scandal. Newt's really laying out his history as an insurgent and a planner with the long view. Great stuff. Now Mitt's talking about his private sector experience, especially about DC's tendency for taking credit for job creation: great line - "I never spent one day thinking 'Thank God for Washington.'" Romney also does well on the tax return issue, essentially saying I'm not going to do anything just to play along with Democrat class warfare nonsense.

SOPA & PIPA get kicked around a bit. Newt and Mitt both criticize the bill. Ron says he was the first Republican to oppose it and makes a pitch about needing a civil libertarian who can work with coalitions. Santorum says, sure the bill is bad, but we need something to protect against piracy, and then says "where did this idea that everything on the internet must be free come from?"

Everyone's been really on-point, and on fire in this segment. No f*ck-ups or stumbles, although Romney ended a long point by asking "what was the question, again?" Luckily, John King couldn't remember either. Even Ron Paul has been quick and to the point.

THIRD BREAK: this is one of those debates with questions from the audience. Unlike past debates which featured plants, snowmen, and gay soldiers, these questioners look like actual Republican voters. Questions relate to repealing Obamacare, dealing with illegal immigration, and other topics of actual interest. The immigration question sends Newt off on his five bullet points, plus another pitch for local boards to decide on whether a 25-year illegal can stay in the country. Like the janitors, he's put a lot of thought into this.

Great sequence on the pro-life question. Newt accuses Romneycare of paying for abortions. Romney draws himself up and mutters about people questioning his integrity, says abortion isn't mentioned in the bill. Santorum brings down the house when he points out that "health care" is always interpreted by the courts to include abortion, and Romneycare makes no effort to carve out an exception. Romney responds with a list of pro-choice legislation he vetoed.

Note: when CNN tries to move on the crowd begins chanting "Paul! Paul!" Appreciative chuckles from "our constitutionalist" who offers his medical history and then makes a call to change morality, not laws. Still, Paul's pro-life credentials are solid, something that is an underreported aspect of his appeal. He also effectively slaps down Santorum, who chides Paul for voting against pro-life legislation. Paul: "I think abortion is murder, and laws against murder are a matter of state law, not federal." These two are actually fighting each other harder than the others are fighting amongst themselves. And Paul, all 100 lbs. and 75 years of him, is getting the better of the exchange.

FINAL THOUGHTS: I don't mean to be insulting, especially after the graceful manner in which he bowed out of the race, but Rick Perry's absence from the debate really raised the tone of the proceedings. I thought all four candidates performed at a high level, although no one quite achieved the instant iconic status that Newt managed last Monday.

Mitt Romney showed a lot more fire and energy tonight compared to Monday night when he seemed besieged. His promise to "shove capitalism down Barack Obama's throat" was about as much red meat as you're ever going to get from him, but it was a good line. He was most effective in defending his business experience, which makes me think that his Bain record is not going to be the giant killer of liberal imaginations.

Newt Gingrich had another great night, kicking things off with a blunt "No" when asked if he would like to discuss his ex-wife's appearance on ABC News. He defended himself and his career as ably as anyone could (and, frankly, no one else is going to help him to do so). You have to love Gingrich's confidence and larger-than-life persona. He hasn't won anything yet (and has been running behind Santorum) yet everyone is acting like this is a Romey-Gingrich contest.

Rick Santorum has run a fantastic campaign, given his limited resources, and if this were 1996 or 2000 he would be running away with it. No one else has as consistent a record as a conservative. More important, no one else has been simultaneously appealing to social cons, fiscal cons, and security hawks. His only problem is no one can quite imagine his being the nominee, let alone becoming president.

Ron Paul was as effective in debate as I have ever seen him, no doubt because none of the questions focused on national security matters. Not that this stopped him from repeatedly saying we should stop fighting "all these wars." He repeatedly got the best of Santorum, who was riding Paul all night. He even showed a rare human side, saying his one regret was he lacks the speaking skills to be a truly effective advocate for his cause. (yes, and you might also want to tone down the "we should have arrested Bin Laden" stuff) I also liked when he said he wouldn't release his tax returns because he would be too embarrassed when everyone saw how little he made as compared to Newt and Mitt.

It goes without saying that, for all the complaining about the weak field, that these four put on a tremendous performance, forcefully advocating Republican and conservative positions of one degree or another. Ron Paul has been derided as "crazy." Both Gingrich and Santorum have been called "extreme" at various points in their careers. Romney is, of course, a member of the Evil Rich. But, honestly, I don't see how anyone could watch their presentations and conclude that they were part of some kooky fringe. Each of them, in their way, were advocating for free markets, free people, the rule of law, fiscal responsibility, and above all respect for the Constitution. It's heartening to think that such values will have a strong advocate no matter who wins the nomination (all four of these guys are ready). But, it's depressing to think how hard they'll have to work to beat the Democrats who oppose everything we hold dear.

Leverage: Why Is Sheriff Mirkarimi's Wife "This Way/That Way" About Pressing DCV Charges?

2012-01-18T08:34:00.000-08:00

A theory is developing as to why it is that San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi's wife was willing to allow "Ivory Madison" to videotape a bruise on her arm, allegedly caused by the sheriff, but then refuse to press charges against him. She may have been trying to create a get-out-of-jail card in the event of a custody battle over their son.

Ever since domestic abuse allegations were raised against San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, one mystery has been why his wife would let a neighbor videotape her damaging story and proceed to deny in public that anything was wrong.

The police affidavit in support of Mirkarimi's arrest warrant that came out Tuesday provides an apparent answer - Mirkarimi's wife, Eliana Lopez, wanted the videotape as leverage in case he tried to gain custody of their young son.

Lopez allowed her neighbor, Ivory Madison, to videotape a bruise Jan. 1 that Mirkarimi allegedly inflicted on her the day before. She told Madison that Mirkarimi had acted violently toward her once before and that "I (have) been telling him we need help," the arrest warrant affidavit says.

Lopez told Madison she needed the video "just in case" Mirkarimi tried to win custody of their 2-year-old son, the affidavit says. Mirkarimi "is very powerful and he can do it," the affidavit quotes Lopez as saying.

Madison, of course, screwed up this brilliant plan by taking the tape to the police, and the investigation left the station without Ms. Lopez. If it makes her feel better, Lopez does have (temporary) custody of the Mirkarimi child; the DA obtained a restraining order against the sheriff which effectively separates him from his family. Nice, under the circumstances.

Deborah Sanders also reminds us of another high-profile San Francisco public safety officer who was involved in a DV mess a few years ago:

As a point of interest, a San Francisco department head has survived a similar episode. In 2005, the husband of S.F. Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White called 911 and accused his wife of hitting him on the head twice with a pint glass. He told dispatchers he wanted to file charges. According to the Chronicle story, the husband feared for his children’s safety.

A second dispatcher came on the line, and said: “Sir, you’re saying that your wife is Joanne Hayes-White, the fire chief?”

“The fire chief,” White replied. “She just hit me in the head with a pint glass, twice.”
He then said he wanted her out of the house. Asked whether anyone else was in the home, White said: “My three children are, yes, that’s why I’m afraid of it.”

Later, the Chronicle reported, the husband recanted as:

Hayes-White told police that her husband had hit himself over the head with the glass, investigators said.

District Attorney Kamala Harris chose not to file charges.

"Hit himself over the head with the glass??" Presumably after walking into a door? I guess the attitude back then was, hey, Irish lady fire chiefs, whaddayagonnado?

Post-Racial: Newt Gingrich Takes On the Food Stamp-Industrial Complex

2012-01-16T23:50:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich was at it again, calling Barack Obama the "food stamp president" and arguing that poor kids would be better off working entry-level jobs as janitors than slouching through another day at schruel. No doubt the beautiful people will be outraged, but Newt won't be able to hear them over the thunderous applause from everyone else.

This is the sort of talk that gets people like Newt Gingrich tagged as "extreme." We are told that only the dreaded Angry White Male could possibly agree with Newt's "extreme" theory that poor kids would be better off with a part-time job cleaning schools than they are with yet another government program. Honestly, I would love for someone (anyone!) to tell me what in Newt's presentation is at all controversial, let alone extreme. Juan Williams tries to do some race-baiting, but I would like to think he was embarrassed to have to do so.

(btw, I love this recurring theme about kids working as janitors. I don't recall when it first came up, but I do think it started as little more than a little off-the-cuff comment about how schools could save money by getting rid of the expensive union janitors and having the kids clean the schools. But, as you can see from the above clip, Newt has really developed this into a theme about schools, unions, opportunity, and everything else you can imagine).

Newt's been rightly criticized for his attacks on Bain Capital (although he is right to raise the issue in the first place), but he has also been wrongly criticized as being on little more than an extended book tour, rather than a presidential run. I don't know, he seems to be taking it pretty seriously.

Get Back: Occupy SF Protesters Return

2012-01-15T21:41:00.000-08:00

Occupy SF returned on Saturday afternoon, "occupying" the roof of a Wells Fargo in the Mission District. Since real San Franciscans were inside watching the game, we can assume these are outside agitators.

Police arrested at least four people who had climbed up on the roof of a Well Fargo bank in the Mission District today as part of a protest to end to home foreclosures.

The arrests came after the protesters, part of Occupy SF Housing, demanded that the manager of the bank at Mission and 16th streets fax a letter to Wells Fargo's chief executive officer, John Stumpf, calling for a moratorium on home evictions and foreclosures.

"This protest today was about Wells Fargo's role in evicting and foreclosing on our neighbors in the Mission and other neighborhoods in San Francisco," said a man who identified himself as "Stardust," an organizer with Occupy San Francisco and Occupy SF Housing, who witnessed but was not arrested during today's demonstration. "We're demanding an immediate moratorium on for-profit evictions and foreclosures."

Occupy SF Housing, a coalition that includes Occupy SF, San Francisco Tenants Union, Housing Rights Committee of SF and other groups, organized the noontime protest. As many as 200 protesters had gathered in the streets, according to observers.

Very cute, but I'll ask for the one millionth time: what are these guys doing that is so remarkable that they are deserving of the arms-length treatment they are receiving from Wells Fargo and the cops? The linked article doesn't mention this, but radio reports indicated that the cops were pretty much spectating the whole time, watching the protesters prancing around, and "waiting" for Wells Fargo to ask them to make some arrests. Lame.

This was apparently a dry run for a planned "shut down" of SF's Financial District this Friday. Looks like the good guys are already planning to surrender to the mob.

Sleeping With The Enemy: SF's New Sheriff Arrested for Domestic Violence

2012-01-14T15:54:00.000-08:00

I know that we've all been distracted by the GOP primary but I'm surprised the story of San Francisco's newly elected sheriff being arrested on a domestic violence charge hasn't received wider notice:

As San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi fights three criminal charges stemming from accusations that he physically abused his wife, he also is battling for his political future.

District Attorney George Gascón on Friday charged Mirkarimi with domestic violence battery of his wife, child endangerment and dissuading a witness in connection with an incident that prosecutors believe happened on New Year's Eve.

"No one is above the law," Gascón said. "Whether this was the elected sheriff or any other San Francisco resident, this type of behavior is inexcusable, criminal and will be prosecuted."

The sheriff was booked and released from the jail he oversees on $35,000 bail. He will probably be arraigned on Tuesday.

Mirkarimi, who was sworn in as sheriff less than a week ago, said he is innocent of the charges and refused to step down while the legal case plays out.

"I believe in the system. I've said that all along," Mirkarimi said. "I believe that these charges are very unfounded, and we will fight these charges. I'm confident that in the end that we will succeed in showing the missteps."

"Sheriff" Mirkarimi was elected to office last November, and was sworn into office just last week. He is no law enforcement officer. Rather, he is former member of the Board of Supervisors who was termed out of office, and looking for another elective post. Color me skeptical as to whether an SF Green could ever be an effective sheriff, although it looks increasingly unlikely his term will last 4 weeks, let alone the full 4 years.

The DV charge arose after his wife, Eliana Lopez, who is some kind of Venezuelan soap opera star, went to a neighbor's house to commiserate over a New Year's Eve fight between the couple, and the neighbor - an attorney with the improbable name "Ivory Madison" - saw a bruise on the wife's arm that the wife admitted was caused by Mirkarimi grabbing her during the argument. Ivory took some pictures and went to the police. Supposedly, Lopez is not enthusiastic about making charges against her husband. Then, again, she was seen wandering around the periphery of an anti-Mirkarimi rally last Thursday, so I think it's safe to say she is of two minds on the issue.

(btw, what kind of social justice can there be in the world when a whiny progressive like Mirkarimi can be married to a Venezuelan TV star and be elected sheriff, despite a complete absence of any crime fighting experience?)

Mirkarimi says he's going to fight this thing tooth and nail, which is fine, but who is he fighting? It's not like evil Republicans are making trouble for him. Some of the earliest calls for him to step down have come from his (former) supporters! Is he going to call his wife a liar? Or his neighbor?

Like it or not - and count me in the "not" faction - Mirkarimi is a law enforcement officer, which requires a higher standard of behavior than we typically expect from politicians, even by the lax standards of San Francisco. Among other things, the Sheriff's Department operates the jail, transports prisoners, and provides baliff's for SF's courtrooms. The SF Superior Court's presiding judge already refused to swear Mirkarimi in precisely because of the seriousness of the charges against him. The longer this goes on, the more Mirkarimi and his colleagues are going to run into these sorts of awkward problems. Having Ross Mirkarimi serving as San Francisco's sheriff was already something of a joke. This mess pushes things up to the level of tragic farce.

Bain, Romney, and Huntsman

2012-01-12T15:20:00.000-08:00

Tweet of the week, as far as I'm concerned:

@baseballcrankDan McLaughlin

Hey, guess what company was once rescused by vulture investors? Huntsman Corp. onforb.es/wfy4ri

I heard snippets from Newt Gingrich's Bain Capital movie. It literally sounds like a Mondale-Ferraro ad produced by Roger and Me era Michael Moore. Lots of scary music, lots of quavering-voiced folks (most of them senior citizens) talking about how Bain Capital came to town and closed down the factory/mill/rendering plant/etc, plus occasional snippets from Romney speeches taken so wholly out of context as to sound like broadcasts from Mars. Newt really should be embarrassed.

The problem for Bain, and for Romney, isn't that they were "vultures." (caw!) It's that they came in after businesses either failed or ran into problems that proved difficult or insurmountable. Every failure has a story behind it. Markets change. Regulatory burdens increase. Unions drain profits. Patents expire. Sometimes, companies just ossify. Sometimes you can't even finger a particular villain. If you read the Forbes article McLaughlin links to, you'll learn that Huntsman Corp. was nearly bankrupted by sudden, unexpected increases in their raw materials costs. Huntsman pere was urged to file for bankruptcy, but was too proud to do so, and instead worked with a private equity firm to buy out his debt in exchange for a 49% equity position. Did people lose their jobs? Dunno, but everyone would have lost their jobs (or at least would have been on the chopping block) had the company been liquidated.

Bain's targets were already on the ropes. Bain was there to try to spin gold out of lead, to make lemons out of lemonade. That's not Mitt Romney's fault, and it's not worthy of an attack from a purported conservative.

Capital Crime: Mitt Romney's Foes Denounce Creative Destruction

2012-01-10T00:04:00.001-08:00

The Wall Street Journal had a Big Story purporting to analyze Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital. Not surprisingly, some of Bain's investments failed, while others did exceedingly well.

Mitt Romney's political foes are stepping up attacks based on his time running investment firm Bain Capital, tagging him with making a fortune from the rougher side of American capitalism—even as Mr. Romney says his Bain tenure shows he knows how to build businesses.

Amid anecdotal evidence on both sides, the full record has largely escaped a close look, because so many transactions are involved. The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward.

Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost.
Another finding was that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors—yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains.

Some of those companies, too, later ran into trouble. Of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court.

The WSJ did not find any widows and orphans whom Mitt had thrown out into the snow. They also did not make much of an effort to double-check Mitt's claim that he had created 100,000 net jobs over the course of his career. Still, this is a valuable, comprehensive look at an aspect of Mitt's career that will not escape scrutiny should he face Obama in the general election. In anticipation of this, Romney's GOP rivals have raised the Bain issue (you could say they're "Raising Bain"), each in their own ham-fisted way

It was unclear how much damage had been done by a mess of his own making in which Romney declared "I like being able to fire people," in addressing his desire for greater competition between health insurance companies.

His opponents, Republican and Democratic alike, quickly seized on the comment as evidence of an out-of-touch politician and coupled it with attacks over his record at Bain Capital, a firm that bought companies and restructured them.

"Governor Romney enjoys firing people. I enjoy creating jobs," Huntsman said.
In a remarkable turnaround in a party known for being friendly to business, Republicans seeking to slow Romney down sounded more like populists as they bashed Romney's work as a venture capitalist.

Gingrich, brooding over negative attacks from Romney and his backers that knocked him out of the front-runner position, has launched the toughest onslaught on Romney.

"Mitt Romney was not a capitalist during his reign at Bain. He was a predatory corporate raider," says a video produced by a pro-Gingrich group.

Criticizing Romney for "firing" people is all the rage, and it's certainly true that Democrats will demagogue the issue, but it is truly disheartening to see Republican politcians, especially ones fighting for the mantle of "conservative," to attack Romney for firing some folks. Sorry, boys, that's how the system works. I thought it was Democrats who wanted to create "permanent" employment, which experience has taught only leads to permanent stagnation.

That's not to say Romney's business background should be treated as a net plus. In fact, wealthy business people like him are often mediocre (at best) at politics, both in getting elected, and at serving in office should they actually win. The ability to amass millions of dollars simply does not translate into the ability to amass millions of votes. We learned that anew in California when we ran, not one, but two moderate CEO's from the cutting edge tech industry against moss-backed liberals. In retrospect, neither Meg Whitman, nor Carly Fiorina had a chance, although Fiorina proved to be a feisty scrapper. They might have checked the correct ideological boxes, and presented comprehensive plans to reform the state, but when the first political challenge came - like, say, Gloria Allred showing up at a press conference with a rogue illegal immigrant maid - they were flummoxed, fatally so.

Romney's a little different. He came from a political family and saw governance and campaigning from the ground up. He even had a front row seat for one of the great political implosions of all time. And, Romney did win one election and served a term as governor of Massachusetts. He's not a neophyte and it shows. The guy is extraordinarily well prepared. He's also been very good at defending the theory and practice of capitalism. His comments like "corporations are people" and "I like being able to fire people" may sound like they're drawn from an Oliver Stone script, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. He's right! In fact, Romney's been at his best challenging the political shibboleths of the modern era, which used to be the sole provenance of the left, but apparently have been adopted by some on the right as well.

But, there are times when Romney's lack of political knowledge really shows. A perfect example came during the now infamous exchange over banning contraceptives. Romney handled the question very well, in fact, saying it was a silly hypothetical because no states were presently planning to ban contraceptives. But, he has no idea how close he came to falling into a trap, and that only George Stephanopolus's inept questioning saved him. You see, George (or whomever it was who drafted the question) was trying to get Mitt to agree that, no, a state does not have a constitutional right to ban contraceptives. If they had gotten that, they could have moved on and said, "but doesn't that mean you accept the idea that there is a constitutional right to privacy?" (which was the basis for the Griswold decision overturning a Connecticut law banning the sale of contraceptives). And, then it's just a short walk to asking on what grounds could you possibly disagree with the right to privacy protecting abortion? Believe me, I was on the edge of my seat during that exchange, waiting for Mitt to fall into the trap, but he managed to avoid it. I shudder to think what would have happened to Rick Perry.

Rick Santorum, by contrast, gave an excellent response to the "condom question;" Santorum addressing the legal and constitutional issues head on. (and Newt Gingrich gave a similarly excellent response to the gay marriage question, another where Romney had looked uncomfortable and flummoxed). Romney can buy and sell Santorum and Gingrich twenty times over, but these two (shudder) professional politicians have been marinating in these issues, and others, for a long time. They not only know the subtleties involved, they also know the code words and the concepts in a way you cannot learn simply by reading a briefing book.

That's a much bigger danger for Mitt Romney than his record at Bain Capital.

Legends

2012-01-09T00:25:00.000-08:00

I'm beginning to think the people who saw no future in the NFL for Tim Tebow may have been talking through their hats, if not their a**es.

"Pull the trigger," John Elway told his Denver Broncos star, Tim Tebow, trying to shake the quarterback from a three-game funk

Tebow went one better -- he pulled off an upset

A rejuvenated Tebow connected with Demaryius Thomas on an electrifying 80-yard touchdown pass on the first play of overtime and the Broncos defeated the stunned Pittsburgh Steelers 29-23 in the AFC wild-card game on Sunday.

Wild doesn't begin to describe it. The play took 11 seconds and was the quickest ending to an overtime in NFL history.

Thomas hauled in a high play-action pass at the Denver 38, stiff-armed Ike Taylor and then outraced backup safety Ryan Mundy to the end zone.

"I was just saying, 'Man trust your speed. Trust your speed. Don't cut back. Don't cut back.' And he kept it straight. He outran the guy," said Willis McGahee, whose fourth-quarter fumble helped Pittsburgh tie it

"I was like, 'Oh my God, is he still running?' Please just go. Please. Please."

Tebow, who had done next to nothing in the second half after a 20-point explosion in the second quarter, looked as startled as everyone else. He chased down Thomas and knelt on one knee -- Tebowing as it's known -- in the end zone while the crowd was going crazy. Then he pounded a fist in triumph and took a victory lap.

"When I saw him scoring, first of all, I just thought, 'Thank you, Lord,' " Tebow said. "Then, I was running pretty fast, chasing him -- like I can catch up to D.T.! Then I just jumped into the stands, first time I've done that. That was fun. Then, got on a knee and thanked the Lord again and tried to celebrate with my teammates and the fans."

Great stuff, but a little spooky because that Tebow highlight reminded me of an overtime win from 2007, which, funnily enough, also happened at Mile High Stadium:

GOP Debate Comments

2012-01-07T19:36:00.000-08:00

The Free Will Wife and I are watching the live stream of the GOP debate, and I wanted to quickly comment on the incredibly lame line of questioning, directed mostly at Mitt Romney, about whether a state could ban contraception. Give me a break! The Supreme Court's Griswald decision (which was the first application of the new found "right to privacy" to a state's efforts to legislate morality) came back in 1965! Not surprisingly, Mitt was flummoxed at first for two reasons:

1. he didn't remember the Griswald decision

2. it was an absurd question because there are no states in the year 2012 that are considering a ban on contraceptives.

The fact is this was a question intended to make Republicans look like grim-visaged Cotton Mathers, and nothing more. The focus on contraception (?!) at this late date is just ridiculous. Mitt handled this about as well as you could expect, saying first that he preferred to defer to "our constitutionalist" before finally saying "I think things are working just fine" to appreciative laughter from the crowd (which vigorously booed Stephenopolous's continued harping on the condom question).

Ron Paul, by the way, turned the "right to privacy" question into a 4th Amendment diatribe about the Patriot Act. If all you have is a hammer...

QUICK HITS:

Rick Santorum is standing in the middle dais next to the front runner. What a difference a week makes. He sounds great, too. Maybe not presidential, but he is absolutely ready for his close-up.

John Huntsman sounds a lot like Mitt Romney. He also got a lot of applause when he basically made the Obama argument in favor of pulling troops out of Afghanistan by 2013. National security hawks who have been b*tching about Pentagon cuts do not have the sort of automatic support from Republicans that they used to have.

Huntsman also said that he worked in the "most complex" embassy in the world (meaning China's). What's complex about it? Are there secret tunnels? Hidden passageways? A guest house?

In defending himself from the "racist newsletter" question, Ron Paul mentioned his efforts to end the war on drugs and the war of terror, which he claimed have disproportionately fallen on minorities. That is pure left-wing cant.

Still give the guy his due: he's out there, at age 80+ kicking a** and putting his ideas out as vigorously as a 20-year old.

Rick Perry is doing great, even though he's stuck off on the edge of the stage where they used to put Michele Bachmann. But, am I imagining things, or did he just say he wanted to re-invade Iraq?

You can probably get pretty drunk playing the Newt Gingrich drinking game. That's where you take a drink every time he begins a response by saying "we need to fundamentally re-think how we (implement this or that policy)."

Gingrich and Huntsman are really taking it to Romney. Gingrich is using the "too timid" argument, while Huntsman is contrasting his stewardship of Utah against Romney's in Massachusetts.

It's 7:30 PST, and Rick Santorum just gave a rousing 60-second statement on the economy and the opportunity society.

Romney and Huntsman really got into a fight over China policy. Huntsman got the best of it, making the free trade argument against Romney's trade-war mongering. But, Romney "won" with his harsh (in a nice way) reminder that Huntsman just spent 2 years implementing Obama Administration policy in Beijing.

For the "personal moment" phase of the questioning, the query was what would you be doing tonight if you weren't running for president?

Perry said he would be at a shooting range.

Newt said he would be watching the "college basketball championship,"

Santorum and Romney said they would be watching the college football championship

Ron Paul said be would be spending time with his family, but if they went to sleep, he would read an economics textbook.

Huntsman said he would be on the phone with his sons in the Navy, who give him faith in the coming generation (cue grateful applause).

The Shop On The Corner: X-mas Retail Sales Down For The Year

2012-01-07T10:41:00.001-08:00

We heard a lot back in late November about how Black Friday had been a great success and that retailers were quietly optimistic about the Christmas shopping season. As it turned out, a lot of big retailers ended up having down years:

New Christmas-season retail sales reports show that the period was far less robust than many retailers had expected.

The numbers for some two dozen merchants came in relatively weak, falling below the returns of 2010.

Target Corp., Gap Inc., Kohl's Corp. and J.C. Penney Co. all fell short of their own sales targets and in some cases slashed their profit forecasts, reflecting slow traffic in the middle of the month and heavy discounting to clear inventories.

The results show that middle-class consumers remain cautious in the face of a weak jobs market and a still-tepid economic recovery. And while they did show bursts of willingness to spend during the holiday season, the largess wasn't spread around evenly.

Among companies targeting those consumers, Macy's Inc. was a clear winner, beating expectations for the month's sales, raising its dividend and increasing its earnings forecast for the year. The company was helped as well by its Bloomingdale's division as luxury chains, including Saks Inc. and NordstromInc., posted strong sales gains.

"Even though consumers are willing to spend, they will only spend when there is huge discounting," said David Bassuk, head of the retail practice at AlixPartners. "A number of retailers couldn't bring in enough dollars in that environment."

It goes without saying that the strong Black Friday numbers were shouted from the rooftops, while the more sobering numbers have received, ahem, more muted coverage.

This isn't meant to "talk down the economy." (hey, I use the powerful Free Will soapbox judiciously, unlike Ben Bernanke, et al.) I want the US to do well, even if it gives Obama the chance to strut around like he's some kind of captain of industry. Maybe people just bought more stuff on-line this year, although information about, say, Amazon's sales results are oddly difficult to come by. But, the facts are that the US is still in a slump from which it is trying to awake.

Just Palin In A Suit: The Left Goes After Rick Santorum

2012-01-06T08:51:00.000-08:00

After Rick Santorum's surprise showing in Iowa, the world is getting a quick introduction to the former Senator from Pennsylvania. Santorum is still a long-shot, but he's a serious candidate who has run, from a policy perspective, the most complete campaign of any Republican in the running (Romney has really only emphasized jobs and economics. Santorum has emphasized jobs + nat'l security + a smattering of social con earnestness). So, naturally, the first thing we must discuss whether the manner in which the Santorum family mourned the death of their baby was "weird."

Over on RealClearPolitics, they have video of Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post bringing up the Santorums’ deceased child and labeling the family’s handling of the matter “very weird.”

“He’s not a little weird, he’s really weird,” Robinson said of Santorum. “And some of his positions that he has taken are just so weird that I think that some Republicans are off-put. Not everybody is not going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the stillborn child. It was a body that they took home to kind of sleep with it, introduce it to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.”

(The child, by the way, was not stillborn; he lived for several hours.)

Alan Colmes brought it up last week, earning a well-deserved stinging rebuke from the boss. (Video of that exchange and Santorum explaining why his family handled the infant’s death in that manner can be found here. Asked about it on the trail in Iowa, he explained that it was important for his other children to “know they had a brother.”)

Certain liberals cannot help themselves but to bring up this intensely personal incident and showcase it as evidence that Santorum is somehow unfit for the presidency. This is who they are. When they cite the old phrase “the personal is political,” they mean it; no personal act, thought, or moment is off-limits in the name of their agenda. Pundits opine on all kinds of topics, but God help the newspaper columnist who believes his purpose in life is to decree which forms of mourning the loss of a child are okay and which ones are too “weird” for a potential president.

That is, of course, disgusting. Just as disgusting as that guy who showed up on Bill Maher's show and said he wanted to have hate sex with Santorum. And, for all the "sorry if anyone was offended" apologizing out there, I think we all know that there are a lot of people among the enlightened left who would have no problem with the Santorums aborting the child minutes before his birth, but are scandalized that his family mourned the death of a baby who lived just a few precious minutes. That's life in the post-modern era: even if you are someone with a sterling first-rate character, you are not immune to character assassination because your very rectitude will be held against you.

For the moment, the Santorums are alone in fighting off these sorts of attacks. I realize that there's a campaign going on, but I don't think that should stop, say, Mitt Romney from offering a full-throated defense of Santorum on this matter. Indeed, there ought to be some sort of 12th Commandment: thou shalt defend any Republican candidate who comes under intensely personal attack from the left, even if that candidate is your direct rival. You see, once the "weird" stigma attaches to Santorum, it will be on to Romney. And regardless of what we might think of him, we absolutely need to defend him (and anyone else) from that sort of base character assassination.

Train In Vain: California High Speed Rail Declared "Not Financially Feasible"

2012-01-05T18:03:00.000-08:00

A blue-ribbon panel of, natch, "experts" has released a study on the financial feasibility of California's high speed rail project. Incredibly, this study group actually appears to have done some studying. Rather than take safe "full speed ahead!" position, they have declared the project to be financially and technologically impossible as presently conceived.

In a scathing critique that could further jeopardize political support for California's proposed $98.5-billion bullet train, a key independent review panel is recommending that state officials postpone borrowing billions of dollars to start building the first section of track this year

But in a report Tuesday, a panel of experts created by state law to help safeguard the public's interest raised serious doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan "is not financially feasible." As a result, the panel said, it "cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for this project."

Although the panel has no legal power to stop the project, its strong criticism, coupled with recent polls showing public opinion has shifted against the proposal, is giving some key political leaders pause.

"The peer review group report raises important issues for the Legislature to weigh as we consider any appropriation for the project during this year's budget process," said the leader of the state Senate, Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), a longtime supporter of the program.

Gov. Brown, who ought to be thanking God for this sort of cover to dump the project, instead said we're going to build this thing, even if it kills us.

Gov. Jerry Brown has said he will ask the Legislature in the coming months to issue the first batch of $9 billion in voter-approved bonds for a high-speed rail network that backers say will create jobs, help the environment and transform the state's economy.

What's funny is that everybody (or at least every adult) knows - or should know - that the astronomical $98 billion figure for constructing this thing is a low-ball estimate that won't survive its first contact with an endangered species review. I'm not saying that because I'm an evil conservative. I'm saying that as a statement of fact based on experience.

Adding to the comedy is that the whole raison d'etre of high speed rail is environmental: we were going to stop "climate change" with a choo-choo train. But, everybody (or at least every adult) knows - or should know - that global warming/climate change is bogus, unproven, and ultimately unknowable. Not only that, high speed rail as it exists in Japan and France is heavily subsidized. And high speed rail in China has been the locus of corruption and corner-cutting, as well as being spectacularly accident-prone.

We all know this, even high speed rail's proponents know this, but for the enlightened progressives pushing this thing, reality simply need not apply.

Shocking The World: The Iowa Caucus Results

2012-01-04T00:46:00.000-08:00

Back in September, I predicted that Rick Santorum (or Herman Cain) would "shock the world" in Iowa and emerge as this cycle's Mike Huckabee. Still, now that we're here I have to pronounce myself shocked:

Rick Santorum, whose determined Republican presidential campaign offered strong fiscal convictions and conservative social values, was rewarded with a dead-heat finish for first place with Mitt Romney in Tuesday night’s Iowa Caucuses.

The former U.S. senator, who wore a blue suit and a red striped tie, beamed with enthusiasm as he was joined by his wife, Karen, and six of their seven children as he spoke at the Stoney Creek Inn in Johnston.

“Game on,” Santorum said to cheers from the feisty crowd of about 500 supporters. He thanked his wife and he publicly thanked God, and he expressed his appreciation to Iowans.
“Thank you so much Iowa. By standing up and not compromising. By standing up and being bold and leading; leading with that burden and responsibility that you have to be first; you have taken the first step of taking back this country,” Santorum said.

The crowd chanted “We pick Rick. We pick Rick” and waved blue and red Santorum signs as Santorum described the upcoming November election as a choice for Americans between freedom and a government that wants to decide for people what’s best for them.

Santorum overcame long odds to achieve his strong showing. Just a month ago, his campaign appeared stalled with single-digits in Iowa polls.

To be honest, I also thought Santorum would slightly under-perform tonight, given how quickly his surge arose. But, give the guy credit: he is probably the one candidate, besides the doomed Michele Bachmann, who sought to run a traditional Republican campaign by appealing to all three legs of the conservative stool. Santorum may be famous as a social con, but he spent most of his time talking national security, debt, and fiscal restraint. Plus, he did literally hundreds of town halls and other events. You ever get the feeling that Rick Perry (now heading back to Texas to "reassess" his campaign) or Mitt Romney have been doing that? Yeah, me neither.

For much of this year, Santorum's campaign was little more than his wife and kids knocking on doors. Stacy McCain reports that, contrary to most media reports, Santorum does have an organization outside of Iowa, including a ground game in South Carolina. That's good to hear because he's going to have to ramp up pretty quick to meet what's coming. Because Santorum isn't just going to have to deal with Mitt Romney. He's also going to have to deal with the deranged leftists who think "Santorum" is just another way of saying "Palin without a uterus."

Whether he intended to or not, Rick Santorum is going to spend the next week as the center of the American political universe. Hope he's better equipped to deal with it than Pawlenty, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich were able to.

Predictions: GOP 2012 Edition

2012-01-02T00:31:00.000-08:00

I wasn't going to do one of those 2012 predictions, but I just can't resist. Herewith are the official Free Will predictions for the Republican presidential nomination race:

1. Newt Gingrich will fail to reach 10% in the Iowa caucuses. He will also fail to reach 10% in South Carolina or Florida. Like Howard Dean in 2004, he will continue competing, but will not be a factor.

2. Michele Bachmann will fail to crack 5% in Iowa, and will drop out of the race. Which will be too damn bad.

3. John Huntsman will fail to crack 10% in New Hampshire and will drop out of the race.

4. Rick Satorum will slightly under-perform in Iowa (I'd say 15%). His message and persona will fail to spark any interest in South Carolina, and he will drop out of the race.

5. Rick Perry will slightly over-perform in Iowa, and then do very well in South Carolina. He will try to make a serious play for the Tea Party/Sarah Palin/Ron Paul vote, and even succeed at that for a while. But, when it comes time to slam Mitt Romney as Mr. Wall Street, he will be unable to do so without coming across as anti-business, not to mention inarticulate. (cue sound of Tim Pawlenty kicking himself in the a**).

6. Ron Paul will get over 20% of the vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and several other states (but no big ones like Florida or Ohio). He will be the subject of withering media scrutiny previously reserved for the likes of Sarah Palin and Pat Buchanan, which hurt him, but not kill him outright. He will be joining Rick Perry and Mitt Romney on the debate stage for months. While much will be made of his "crazy uncle" ravings and his racist newsletters, no one in the professional media and political classes will wonder why his message is so potent as to attract significant support despite his manifest deficiencies. Look for Paul to have a major speaking slot at the convention as the price for keeping away from a third party run. Look also for that speech to be a 21st century version of 1992's "we are in a cultural war" barn burner.

7. Barring death, incapacity, or a thermonuclear-grade gaffe so embarrassing as to make him literally vanish into a hole in the ground, Mitt Romney will be the nominee. But, he's going to have to break a sweat to earn the nomination. Romney will rise to the occasion and take on Obama on his own turf, but it will be a close run thing. Conservative voters will turn out to vote for him in November, but will put most of their energy (and $$) into House and Senate candidates who promise to be "independent voices" in Washington, meaning they will run - in part - to act as a counter-weight to the Republican nominee.

Spare Me: Obama Expresses "Reservations" About Signing Defense Bill

2012-01-01T22:23:00.000-08:00

Pres. Obama took time from his vacation to sign the defense authorization bill. In doing so, he issued a signing statement expressing "serious reservations" about provisions dealing with the prosecution, detention, and interrogation of terrorist suspects.

President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.

Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president's terrorism-fighting ability.

"Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded," Obama said in the signing statement.

Jesus, just sign the f***ing thing! But, don't go trying to give yourself a fake civil liberties fig leaf over civil rights for terrorism suspects. Military tribunals and the law of war should have been more than enough for the KSM's of the world, and their foot soldiers. Instead, Democrat politicians - from then-Senator Obama on down - whipped up hysterics over "torture," such that common sense Bush-era terror prosecution rules became a hopeless muddle. Yet, when the time came to change course, Obama and virtually the entire left adopted Bush's policies in their entirety.

This signing statement isn't just an impotent distraction; it's a sign that the left would themselves prefer to be tortured, rather than admit that Bush was right all along.

Happy New Year

2012-01-01T08:02:00.000-08:00

WAKE UP!

Tears In The Eye of Newt

2011-12-30T23:09:00.000-08:00

Today's caucus news appears to be the unexpected tears of...Newt Gingrich??

Newt Gingrich choked up while discussing his mother's struggle with mental illness during a town-hall meeting in Des Moines.

Gingrich was asked to speak about a time his mother affected him at the event sponsored by CafeMom, a social networking website for mothers.

"You'll get me all teary-eyed — Callista will tell you, I get teary-eyed every time we sing Christmas carols. My mother sang in the choir and loved singing in the choir," Gingrich said, referring to his wife, as he fought back tears.

"But I identify my mother with being happy, loving life, having a sense of joy in her friends, but what she introduced me to, is late in her life she ended up in a long-term-care facility.

She had bipolar disease, and depression, and she gradually acquired some physical ailments, and that introduced me to the issue of long-term care, which I did with [Former Nebraska Sen.] Bob Kerrey for three years, and that introduced me to the issue of Alzheimer's, which I did with Bob Kerrey for three more years, and my whole emphasis on brain science comes indirectly from dealing with the real problems of real people in my family," the former House Speaker continued, at moments stopping to cry.

The audience sympathetically cheered for Gingrich as he spoke about his mother.
"I do policy much easier than I do personal," Gingrich joked.

(btw, remember when Newt's mom was being interviewed by Connie Chung? And Connie Chung asked, what does Newt say about Hillary Clinton? And Newt's mom said she didn't want say? And Connie leaned in and said, oh it'll just between the two of us (and the large camera over my shoulder)? And Newt's mom leaned in and stage-whispered, "She's a b*tch?")

Everyone's reaction seems to be, wow, Newt's human. Well, that's the thing about politicians. They do come from somewhere, and not all of them born into the family business like the Bushes, Romneys, and Kennedys of the world.

Often Republican politicians are strivers with unhappy, or at least difficult, backgrounds who buried themselves in work to escape a depressing situation. Rick Perry grew up more poor and uncomfortable than any of the food stamp whiners on the welfare rolls today. Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain were even poorer, and had to survive Jim Crow, as well. Karl Rove had a periphrastic childhood that ended with his mother's suicide, and the discovery that he was adopted. Newt, apparently, was the product of a one-night stand, raised by an adoptive father who plainly resented having to take responsibility for another man's child. And so on.

Democrat politicians, of course, would kill for these sorts of tales of woe, and will embroider them when their boring lives aren't colorful enough. But, Republicans react to their miserable surroundings by burying themselves in their work in order to get the hell out. And once out, they want to pull other people out with them, rather than leave folks behind to collect government cheese.

Nannystate: California's New Car Seat Law

2011-12-29T09:53:00.000-08:00

The WSJ highlights California's new car seat law, which requires kids to sit in boosters until they are eight years old or four-feet-nine-inches tall. There's a lot of complaining within the juice-box set. Hey, kids, start your own million-dollar lobbying effort and maybe you can get laws written the way you like.

Friends Julie Mayer and Julia Bolcerek gathered their respective 7-year-old sons together recently and broke the bad news: The boys had to regress to booster seats.

Under California law starting Jan. 1, children must use car seats until they are 8 years old or 4-feet-9 inches tall, up from the current requirement of 6 years or 60 pounds.

"That's bad," responded Ms. Mayer's son, Josh, who has been out of his car seat since turning 6. Ms. Bolcerek's son, Aaron, shouted, "No!"

The upshot: Ms. Mayer and Ms. Bolcerek aren't quite sure what they'll do about putting their sons back into car seats, and the boys aren't satisfied. "It's not fun to be in a booster seat," says Josh in an interview. Aaron adds that he "feels really sorry" for kids who have to be in the "uncomfortable" contraptions.

Parents face a squirm-inducing dilemma across the nation's most-populous state. Under California's old law, many 6- and 7-year-olds—there are nearly 1.1 million of them in the state—proudly graduated out of car seats to big-kid status on their sixth birthdays. Getting those wannabe tweens back into kiddie seats is inspiring tantrum

The angle on the story is the effect on kids who have "graduated" from boosters and can now use a seat belt like a regular person. Hey, how about some information on the politicians who passed this thing? The legislative sponsor for the bill goes unidentified. Governor Jerry Brown, who signed the bill into law, is not mentioned. It's just "the state" who is demanding that kids be treated like babies.

It's probably too much to ask for the repeal of this sort of thing, let alone expecting legislators to reject it outright. "Child safety" is a magical incantation that can clear the way for all manner of well-intentioned, but intrusive, law. You can't expect mere humans, let alone Democrats, to resist its allure.

The Forgotten Years

2011-12-28T07:24:00.000-08:00

A rousing anthem from a band that's been kind of forgotten, at least in this country. (and, yeah, Midnight Oil were/are leftists, but unlike virtually every other multi-platinum group that played at socialism, these guys (1) put their $$ where their mouths were (2) knew what they were talking about and (3) wrote a lot of great music. Have to respect that.)

Mitt Romney To Raise Taxes. You Heard It Here First

2011-12-26T00:30:00.000-08:00

While Mitt Romney fans have a million excuses to explain why their guy can never rise above 25% in the polls, the simplest explanation is the best: for all his competence and decency, the man is simply unreliable, not just as a conservative, but as a Republican. The latest example? In a Christmas Eve interview with the Wall Street Journal Romney refused to rule out imposing a VAT tax on the United States:

What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like—I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions."

Since Mr. Romney mentioned a consumption tax, would he rule out a value-added tax?

He says he doesn't "like the idea" of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But he adds that, philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, "particularly at the corporate level," as Paul Ryan proposed several years ago. What he doesn't do is rule a VAT out.

Dan O'Neil, who is the only major commentator who has picked up on this, wonders aptly, "Since Romney Is Willing To Consider A VAT, Should Conservatives and Libertarians Consider Him?" Good question, and one I think many people would answer in the negative, but only if one of Romney's conservative rivals would be willing to challenge him on it. And, there's the rub. So far, it's been crickets chirping. I realize that Christmas intervened, but surely this is worth some dreaded "negative advertising" over the next 9 days.

It was a Big Issue when Michele Bachmann went overboard on her vaccine battle with Rick Perry. It was a Big Gaffe when Rick Perry couldn't remember the three cabinet departments he wanted to close. It was a Big Deal that Herman Cain could not explain Obama's inexplicable Libyan policy. It's Deal Breaker that Newt Gingrich was paid $1.6M by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (funny that the one Republican who managed to extract some $$ out of those liberal sinecures, is the one person connected to the GSE's whose political career has been hurt).

But, Mitt Romney essentially offers up that he thinks a VAT might be an option in his "data driven" presidency and it's no big deal. Yes, it is. This is a real "spread the wealth around" moment, a window into his approach to governance. Mitt Romney is not going to shrink the size of government, he's going to raise taxes. That's because he lacks the core convictions needed to survive the media/PR onslaught that will accompany even the most penny-ante cuts to the federal budget. It's going to be "read my lips" all over again.

If Romney is indeed the nominee, we are going to need a lot more Tea Party Congressmen - to keep a leash on the president, no matter who he might be.

Merry Christmas...

2011-12-25T08:22:00.000-08:00

... a time to reflect on where we've been, where we are, and where we are going.

Larry Ribstein, RIP

2011-12-24T21:27:00.000-08:00

Larry Ribstein, who was Free Will's favorite law blogger, has died unexpectedly. This is one of those losses inevitably described as "incalculable:"

This morning our dear colleague, Larry Ribstein, passed away. The intellectual life of everyone who knew him, of this blog, and of the legal academy at large is deeply diminished for his passing.

For me, as for many others, Larry was an important influence, not only intellectually but personally, as well. Larry was the godfather of this blog, which got its start when a few of us, including Bill Sjostrom, Josh, Thom and me, pinch hit for Larry at Ideoblog in November 2005. It took eight of us, including my dad, to fill his shoes, and still his traffic went down. More than anyone else, Larry was instrumental in my decision to leave law teaching to work at Microsoft. Completely unsure what to do and worried about how it would affect my ability to return to law teaching, I called Larry, who had no doubt. He sealed the deal by pointing out that a move like that one would open some completely unanticipated, and potentially great, career paths and telling me not to worry so much about getting back to law teaching. He was right, of course, and, thus also an important influence on the creation of the International Center for Law and Economics. And Larry was a friend, one of those I always looked forward to seeing at ALEA and other conferences, more than once providing the necessary marginal incentive to attend.

We grieve for Ann, Sarah and Susannah and mourn his passing.

Ribstein was almost unique as a legal scholar in that he focused on the business of practicing law, which means he was the only legal scholar I have read for anything resembling practical advice. His Big Theory of the last few years has been the decentralization and demystification of legal practice; rather than a bunch of big firms dominating the landscape, Ribstein saw the emergence of smaller, nimbler practice groups marketing themselves to the general public. Intellectually speaking, this is someone who died with his boots on, leaving a lot of unanswered questions and unwritten papers with his departure. A sad loss for us all.

Draw The Line: Congressional Democrats "Win" CA's Redistricting Wars

2011-12-23T09:24:00.000-08:00

Gerrymandering is a time-honored political tradition, but computers and racial vote rigging have made the process in CA so tilted in favor of the left that voters passed an initiative taking redistricting out of the hands of Sacramento in favor of a "non-partisan" citizens' group. Would you be surprised to learn that the CA Democrats' congressional delegation still managed to come out on top?

This spring, a group of California Democrats gathered at a modern, airy office building just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol. The meeting was House members only — no aides allowed — and the mission was seemingly impossible.

In previous years, the party had used its perennial control of California’s state Legislature to draw district maps that protected Democratic incumbents. But in 2010, California voters put redistricting in the hands of a citizens’ commission where decisions would be guided by public testimony and open debate.

The question facing House Democrats as they met to contemplate the state’s new realities was delicate: How could they influence an avowedly nonpartisan process? Alexis Marks, a House aide who invited members to the meeting, warned the representatives that secrecy was paramount. “Never say anything AT ALL about redistricting — no speculation, no predictions, NOTHING,” Marks wrote in an email. “Anything can come back to haunt you.”
In the weeks that followed, party leaders came up with a plan. Working with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — a national arm of the party that provides money and support to Democratic candidates — members were told to begin “strategizing about potential future district lines," according to another email.

The citizens’ commission had pledged to create districts based on testimony from the communities themselves, not from parties or statewide political players. To get around that, Democrats surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party’s interests.

When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party.

Amazing stuff. Here's my favorite detail.

For those who could stay engaged, the Sacramento phase of the commission’s work proved rewarding. One politician who benefited was Southern California Congresswoman Judy Chu.

When it appeared that Chu would get an unfavorable district late in the game, a group with ties to the congresswoman went before the commission in Sacramento and convinced the commissioners to draw a favorable map that included her political stronghold, a town called Rosemead. Chu enjoyed broad support in Rosemead, where she was first elected to the school board in 1992 and later served in the state assembly.

The group, which called itself the Asian American Education Institute, worked with Paul Mitchell, the same consultant who helped engineer the triumph of Northern California Democrats.

Records show that crucial last-minute testimony in favor of Chu’s district was delivered by Jennifer Wada, who told commissioners she was representing the institute and the overall Asian-American community. Wada did not mention that she lives and works as a registered lobbyist in Sacramento, 400 miles from the district, or that she grew up in rural Idaho, where most of her family still lives. Wada says she was hired by the institute to “convey their concerns about Asian and Pacific Islander representation” to the commission.

Beyond this sort of chicanery - an Asian-American lobbyist from Sacramento via Idaho? - doesn't anyone wonder how any of this could be legal? There's a pretty significant amount of coordination described in the article. I doubt Wada's testimony was off-the-cuff. She no doubt worked with some to prepare it. I also doubt she worked for free. Who paid her (and the other consultants discussed in the article)? It's be nice to know.

The article notes that Republicans did not make a similar attempt to engage the redistricting commissioners (who, I hope, are feeling like idiots right now). At first, I thought "The Stupid Party strikes again." But, then, I realized that - even if CA Republicans were devious enough to try something like this - they would never get away with it. The LA Times would blacken the skies with headlines you could write in your sleep:

"GOP Schemes In Secret!"
"End Run Around The Will Of The Voters!"
"Front Groups Pose As Ordinary Voters!"
"Issa Led The Effort!"
"Funding For Massive Redistricting End Run Came From Kochs!"
"NAACP Calls On Boundaries To Be Thrown Out!"
"Holder Sues Redistricting Commission For Civil Rights Violations!"

Fill In Your Headline Here:_________________________

OK, so Republicans would be crazy to try a scheme like this, but that shouldn't stop them from banging the drum on the Democrats' coordinated end-run around the electorate. Democrat redistricting lawsuits are common in places like Texas. There's no reason, besides simply being too dumb to try, for CA Republicans to not do the same here.

Back On The Blog & Catching Up

2011-12-22T12:54:00.000-08:00

Free Will HQ is now moved into its new space, and its wi-fi now fully operational, which means it's time to get blogging. I've had posts stacked up like late flights out of O'Hare:

1. The Newt Surge hasn't exactly faded, but he's measurably lost a step in the last week. That's not surprising as he's been getting it pretty hard from both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Newt also set off alarm bells about his repeated comments about sending US Marshals to haul activist judges to testify before Congress. That's what people mean about Newt's tendency to shoot himself in the foot. He starts off saying something unimpeachable like, say, "welfare as we know it must be reformed," or "the judiciary is out of control and Congress should be more aggressive in asserting itself against judges that act as a second veto against legislation." But, then someone - no doubt with a twinkle in their voice - asks Newt what he would do to accomplish this, and Newt starts babbling about re-opening orphanages, or arresting judges, or hiring kids to work as janitors. He's obviously making it up as he's going along, but his off-the-cuff solutions often harm the cause (although, we did get a balanced budget and welfare reform, regardless).

2. I loved Mitt Romney's comment about how Newt's complaining that it's getting a little hot in the kitchen. Wait 'til you have to enter Obama's Hell's Kitchen in the fall, says Mr. Mitt. Romney's definitely been feisty these last few weeks.

3. Looks like Ron Paul's racist newsletter past has finally caught up with him. Everyone was critical of Herman Cain for failing to have a rapid response ready for the Sharon Bialek's in his past. But, Paul has looked just as surprised to find out people are finding offensive passages in newsletters written within the last 20 years.

4. Still, Paul's economic message is so compelling to many voters that the newsletters haven't caused much trouble (yet). It's a measure of how much Paul's issues - The Fed, the overweening government, etc. - resonate with voters that they will overlook his truly backwards approach to foreign policy and, apparently, race relations. Rick Perry has been actively chasing after Paul's voters, and if Paul implodes that might benefit the governor.

5. Speaking of the judiciary and the overweening federal government, Newt's attack on the judiciary, while bracing, was really targeting the wrong bad actor. 99% of the time, judges are enforcing laws drafted by Congress and signed by the president. The problem often isn't out-of-control judges. It's out-of-control laws that grant too much legal power to activist litigants like the Sierra Club or ACORN to act as private attorneys general to enforce liberal legislation.

6. Also speaking of the judiciary and the overweening federal government, former SF baseball god Barry Bonds was sentenced to probation and a month's home detention in his fabulous Beverly Hills mansion. The full weight of the US Dept. of Justice came down on Bonds, and he emerged...pretty well. Given what we now know about the Bernie Madoffs of the world, it's starting to look like the federal government's expensive grandstanding on the Very Important Issue of steroids in baseball was a colossal misuse of resources. A DJ on the local classic rock station put it best: $70 million to prosecute Bonds and other steroid users, $15 million for the 9/11 Commission.

7. And, Free Will Nobelist Vaclav Havel died. Normally, the left loves literary dissidents, but they didn't have much use for Havel, who was unabashedly pro-American, pro-Reagan, and anti-socialist. In a just world, he would have won the Nobel for Literature, as well as the Peace Prize for presiding over not one, but two, bloodless revolutions - the Velvet Revolution and then the subsequent break-up of Czechoslovakia. That's the thing about the free-markets for free people Right: we might not have as many icons as the left, but the ones we do have - our Churchills, Thatchers, Reagans, and Havels - can beat out a dozen Che's, Chavezes, Castros, Mandelas, Menchus, Arafats, Sartres, Malcolms, Hillarys, Jesses, Maos, and Obamas

Sorry For The Light Blogging

2011-12-18T12:28:00.000-08:00

The Free Will HQ moved again, and we won't have regular internet service until this Wednesday. Hang in there.

Rise & Fall, Rise & Fall: The GOP Primary

2011-12-14T09:07:00.000-08:00

Hugh Hewitt, and others, are starting to declare that the Gingrich surge has already peaked and is losing air thanks to a brusque comment Newt made RE: Mitt Romney's previous life as an investment banker:

MSM is always behind when it comes to recognizing significant stories on the center-right. Even now most of them are unaware that Newt's campaign is in grave danger of bleeding out, though if they listened to talk radio or watched FNC's Special Report they would have been in the know for two days.

When on Monday Newt Gingrich attacked Mitt Romney's time at Bain, I posted the video first posted by Time's Mark Halperin (nearly alone among the MSMers in sensing it was important) and devoted my entire show to the significance of the one-minute self-immolation. As my radio show began, so did Brett Baier's television show and during my breaks I listened in as I usually do to see what that superbly produced program is covering, and found that the shock at Gingrich's remarks had instantly struck two of conservatism's most influential television presences. I thus wove into my show the audio of the critiques that occurred simultaneously from Charles Krauthammer and Brit Hume. All three of us and many in the audience had reacted the same way to Newt's outburst: That wasn't a "gaffe," a 57-state $10,000 bet on naming three agencies; that was a defining moment.

Gingrich supporters called the show to protest that it wasn't a big deal. Even yesterday pro-Newt callers gamely tried to explain the Laws of Newtonian Rhetoric and why under them the former Speaker didn't mean what he had said. Gingrich himself released a letter promising to stay positive and exiled an Iowa staffer who had played a Mormon card in Iowa.

That pledge to stay high road won't save Newt's surge because the shock wasn't at taking a swing at Romney. That's to be expected. It is because of the substance of the attack, the adoption of class warfare rhetoric at exactly a moment when the conservative movement is sick-to-death of the OWS and the president's serial assaults on the private sector.

Could be. Many of us have been sitting around waiting for the "new Newt" to self-destruct. In the time-compressed world of 24-7 news, this one's right on time. However, Romney fans eagerly looking for the tell tale signs of Newt-mageddon might want to check their wishes at the door, as the next in line in Iowa is not Mitt, but ... Ron Paul

Ron Paul, the once-forgotten presidential candidate, is picking up steam in Iowa and now appears poised to overtake frontrunner Newt Gingrich, according to a new survey released today from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling.

The poll finds support for Gingrich has slipped to 22%, with Ron Paul just behind with 21%. Mitt Romney trails in third place with 16%.

That's a five-point drop in favorability for Gingrich, who has raced to the top of the Republican presidential field over the past month. PPP found Gingrich's favorability numbers have fallen 19 points over the past week.

A funny moment in the Drake University debate was when the candidates were asked what they had learned from one another. I thought everyone, especially Rick Perry, went out of their way to be verrrry nice to Congressman Paul. No doubt, that's to keep him on the reservation and off the third party trail. But, the man also has some serious king-maker potential.

I think we can all agree that, on foreign policy, Paul is worse than a Democrat. But on economics and domestic policy? I don't think I'm alone in thinking we should have spent more time in 2008 listening to "crazy uncle Ron" who spent an inordinate amount of time warning us about the Fed, the housing bubble, and the impending financial crisis, something that Mr. Wall Street - that's Mitt Romney to you - seemed absolutely clueless about. And how much of a deal breaker is Paul's ramblings about the war machine? His most prominent critic this time around has been Rick Santorum who has languished as much as Paul has risen.

All of this remains academic, of course. This time, four years ago, John McCain was running in third in Iowa as Mike Huckabee prepared to shock the world ("Nobody believed in us!") at the caucuses. The ultimate result - Obama in the White House, McCain back in the Senate, Huckabee on a TV show - could hardly have been extrapolated from the date available in December 2007. We've still got a long way to go.

Fan Base: 49'ers One Step Closer to Leaving SF

2011-12-13T23:54:00.000-08:00

Looks like the San Francisco 49'ers really are going to move down south to Santa Clara. Good thing San Francisco has that World Series win to take the sting out of losing the City's longest standing sports franchise.

The 49ers are a step closer to saying goodbye to San Francisco.

Tuesday night the Santa Clara City Council voted 7-0 to approve plans to develop and pay for a new 68,500-seat stadium for the football team that has played in San Francisco since 1946.

"Tonight we got a virtual shovel in the ground," said Mayor Jamie Matthews.

With the approval, the 49ers - who have been in San Francisco for 65 years and won five Super Bowls - will likely leave Candlestick Park and play home games in Santa Clara for four decades. Construction could start next year and conclude in time for the 2014 season.

Members of the City Council were acting as the Santa Clara Stadium Authority as they considered whether to approve an $850 million loan to build the $1 billion stadium on a 15-acre site that is currently a parking lot next to the Great America amusement park.

This is as clear a case of money triumphing over sentiment as you will ever find. Santa Clara is directly north of San Jose, 50 miles away from San Francisco. The 49'ers, the pro sports team most closely linked in the public's mind with San Francisco, will have as much relationship to the City as the Baltimore Ravens have to Washington DC. But, SF was unwilling to foot the bill to build a new stadium, while Santa Clara's city fathers were more than willing to open the spigots, taking on debt equal to about $7,000 per resident in order to fund the stadium construction.

Can't say as I entirely blame SF's anti-jock political class. The SF Giants built their stadium with their own money, with the City helping clear away red tape. The Giants proved that you can fill seats and field a contender even as you are self-financing your stadium, but for whatever reason the 49'ers owners couldn't be bothered to do the same. I guess if the choice is between spending free/subsidized money versus spending your own, then the choice is clear. Hope they enjoy the inevitable years of litigation that follows deals like this.

It's a shame a storied franchise is leaving the City like this, but it's not like actual San Francisco residents care all that much. Candlestick is located at the utter southernmost point in the City, and draws fans more from the southern suburbs than from the City's neighborhoods. The move to the south simply makes official what has already been true for a long time.

Debating Points: The Last Republican Debate

2011-12-12T23:23:00.000-08:00

Last Saturday, I did something I had not yet done this year: I watched a Republican presidential debate all the way through. Did it help that this one had "only" six participants? Yeah, a little bit (sorry, Herman Cain), but more important was the rise of Newt Gingrich and the rapid approach of the Iowa caucuses, which have really raised the intensity meter.

There's plenty of critical commentary about each of the candidates (Mitt Romney's desperate! Ron Paul's crazy! So's Michele Bachmann!), but I had the opposite reaction. With a couple exceptions, I thought everyone did well, at times exceptionally so.

Newt Gingrich was the focus, not only of attacks from Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, but also from the moderators, who seemed to structure the questions, and even the order in which candidates responded, to provide maximum discomfort to Newt. When George Stephenopolis raised the (ahem) "infidelity" issue, you just knew that Gingrich would be the last one to respond. He was largely on top of his game, mostly so on the alleged "Palestinians-are-an-invented-people" gaffe, an opportunity which let him make a Reaganesque pitch while simultaneously letting Mitt Romney look like a detente-ing Gerald Ford.

We hear often that Gingrich is great...except for all that baggage, both marital, historical, and reputational. Well, after the last 20 years in which American voters have essentially demanded tax cuts and expanded government spending, I'd say the voting public has some baggage of its own that it needs to get over.

Mitt, of course, had his now-infamous "bet" with Rick Perry, which came across as more awkward than arrogant. (and, whatever the merits were, Mitt did shut Perry up for the moment). But, he had some great moments, too. When he made his pitch in support of Romneycare, he pointed out that they did what they promised to do: extend health insurance to the 8% of MA residents who lacked coverage, something Obamacare failed to do. In that moment, you could imagine an effective critique of Obamacare in the general election, even from the guy who, in Michele Bachmann's words, was the first and only governor to impose socialized medicine in one of the laboratories of democracy.

Speaking of Bachmann, I really wonder what non-conservatives think of her. We all know what liberals, the media, and the entertainment world think of her: they think she's crazy, and are rushing around wildly trying to make that her image. But Bachmann presents herself very well, looking stylish and composed, even as she fights furiously for the life of her campaign. She had a lot of striking phrases in her debate moments, especially "Newt Romney," which sounded like a mistake at first, but one that she decided to roll with to humorous effect. At this point, I think she's established herself as the most persistent and coherent critic of the president. If she sometimes seems to head into the rhetorical tall weeds, she manages to come back. I think people gave up on her candidacy too quickly.

The other "true conservative" - that would be Rick Santorum - also impressed. He also did a good job coming across as human, which he's very good at (he's a genuinely nice, good-humored man), but the haters on the Left have focused their deranged ire on him for years. Many have wondered why he is running. The better question is why have so many supposedly "better" candidates not run. I'm sure they have their reasons, but at some point you have to step into the arena.

Of course, Rick Perry has been the cautionary tale about stepping into the arena before having your sandals tied and your shield polished. His has been an epic flame-out because, God love him, he comes across as slow-witted, and Republicans want - just once - to enter an election with a candidate who won't come across as a fumble tongue. Perry's still chipping away, though, looking relaxed and confident while trying to puncture Romney's patrician cool. There's was one heart-stopping moment when he held up two fingers and said - regarding the recently downed drone in Iran - Pres. Obama had three choices. D'oh! Still Perry's bluntness has its benefits. He closed the "Palestinian" question off by simply saying that the problems in the Middle East aren't due to Newt Gingrich, but to the incompetence of the current president, which earned grateful applause from the crowd, and an appreciative tip o' the head from Newt.

And, no debate since 2008 has been complete without Ron Paul, but even he came off well, even telling a joke (my wife worked my way through medical school! Ba-dum-bum!) He also had the line of the night in response to Diane Sawyer querulous plaint that, surely, the government has some role in helping people take care of their health (i.e. prevent obesity, etc.) Ron was having none of it: If you need the government to tell you how to live you are in big trouble. So true, but so hard for many Republicans, especially the precious moderates, to understand.

This was a debate that touched on hot button issues, but - unlike years past when questions about gay marriage and abortion were the flavor - the issues were hot because they are so desperately resonant. We are a country with spiralling debt, a health care system being abused by the government, an immigration policy on auto-pilot for the past 10 years, etc. Maybe liberals were hoping one of the six would say something verifiably crazy, but what I saw were six serious people with serious answers to vexing questions. The only thing you could say were "wrong" about their answers were that they did not embrace the liberal pieties and prescriptions that have been this country's default setting for too long.

Maybe this isn't the Republican A-team, but they are the ones who are taking the trouble to run for president, and they acquitted themselves well.

De-populism

2011-12-10T00:16:00.001-08:00

President Obama's been on a populist/soak-the-rich tear ever since the 2010 election, giving speech after speech attacking Republicans, conservatives, "the rich," and other low characters. His speech the other day in Osawatomie, KS was no different, except that it really struck a nerve - on the Right. Every analyst, from Rush on down, spent considerable time deconstructing and debunking it as a broadcast straight from Caracas, if not Havana. Michael Barone, however, narrows in on what was really wrong with the "Osawatomie Speech"

Even by the standards of campaign rhetoric, this is a shockingly shoddy piece of work. You can start with his intellectually indefensible caricature of Republican philosophy: “We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.” Or his simple factual inaccuracy: “The wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century.” Or his infantile economic analysis, blaming job losses on the invention of the automated teller machine (they’ve been around for more than four decades, Mr. President, and we’ve had lots of job growth during that time) and the Internet.

But what’s really staggering is the weakness of his public policy arguments. The long-term unsustainability of our entitlement programs he blames solely on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts—an explanation no serious observer regards as anything but incomplete, to say the least. He points to growing income inequality and to remedy it advocates policies that are utterly inadequate to the task. We need to be “making education a national mission,” he says, and in essence argues for channeling more money to teacher union members.

....

What we have here, it seems a president who has no serious interest in public policy. He has spent nearly half his 15 years in public office running for other public office. The only difference now is that, having run out of higher offices to run for, he is just running for reelection instead. Those who pride themselves on belonging to the party of smart people should be embarrassed.

Not only that, the idea of trying to create some sort of historical resonance was just silly. When we think about the Great American Speeches, I can't say that the word "Osawatomie" springs to mind as quickly as, say, "Gettysburg" or "The Alamo." Just to underline the cluelessness, the original Osawatomie speech was made in 1910 - two years after Teddy Roosevelt's presidency had ended. And the ideas he outlined in that speech - though, no doubt, desperately meaningful to ahistoric progressives - led to TR's virtual banishment from the Republican Party. In their nitwit way, I'm guessing the Obami were trying to say "Look! Even the Republicans' heroes agree with us!" Sorry, boys, things aren't that easy.

The problem for the Right remains that, no matter how crazily socialistic the president becomes in his public remarks, he remains a compelling speaker with plenty of personal charm, at least when he's not attacking us for wanting to kill babies with "dirty air." God help us, this sh*t might work! I'd like to think the voters have cracked the Obama code and are no longer listening to him as attentively as they once did, but I suspect we'll still have a hell of a time getting him out of office.

Moderately P*ssed: Romney Attacks Gingrich

2011-12-08T23:26:00.001-08:00

Looks like the Romney camp is not prepared to wait for Newt Gingrich to self-destruct, but is attacking him in the media:

The Republican presidential campaign took a sharply negative turn on Thursday, a result of increasing signs that Mitt Romney's main argument to GOP voters—that he alone can beat President Barack Obama in November—is coming under pressure from a surging Newt Gingrich.

In a change of tone, Mr. Romney's campaign lit into Mr. Gingrich, calling him an inconstant conservative and loose cannon who would sink the GOP's shot at the White House.

The attacks on Mr. Gingrich came as new surveys showed him either leading or threatening Mr. Obama in the critical states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, though by slimmer margins in two states than Mr. Romney.

Prior polls have shown Mr. Gingrich surging well ahead of Mr. Romney among GOP voters nationally and in many states that vote early in the nominating process. The new surveys suggest Mr. Gingrich is now gaining a foothold among the broader electorate that will go to the polls in November's election.

All well and good, but check out some of the surrogates they sent out:

In a conference call with reporters, former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, both Romney advisers, said that if their candidate is the nominee, the presidential election will be about Mr. Obama and his record. If Mr. Gingrich prevails, then the election will be about Mr. Gingrich—and "then the president is going to win," Mr. Talent said.

Mr. Talent, who also served in the House under Mr. Gingrich, said the former speaker "is not a reliable and trusted leader."

Mr. Sununu went further. A former White House chief of staff for President George H.W. Bush, Mr. Sununu described Mr. Gingrich as having a penchant for "self-aggrandizement" and "off-the-cuff thinking" that "is not what you want in a commander-in-chief."

John Sununu?! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Is that a joke? The man responsible for two of the penultimate RINO-betraying-conservatives moments of the modern era - those would be agreeing to raise taxes as part of the 1990 budget deal, and bringing David Souter to the attention of his hapless boss Bush 41 - is questioning the conservative bona fides of Newt Gingrich??

I'm beginning to think Mitt Romney might not be reliable enough to do all of the things he is promising to do!

Newt Gingrich is no paragon, either of morality or of conservatism; but, unlike Mitt, he has accomplished conservative things. What's Mitt ever done for conservatives, or even for Republicans?

Mitt's fighting to win the nomination, so this stuff is to be expected. Still, he seems congenitally incapable of actually campaigning in a way that would break him out of the 20-25% ceiling he reached months ago. Newt Gingrich is a problematic vessel for conservative hopes in 2012, but he has been doing one thing very well the last few months: he has been speaking bluntly about the failures of the Obama administration, and challenging the leftist assumptions of the media, something moderates like Mitt Romney never do. Which is why they lose over and over and over again.

Newt (along with Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Donald Trump) has shown us that he will fight - for the Right and against the Left. Mitt's crew, on the other hand, have shown that they are only comfortable attacking conservatives. Not exactly a flag I'm ready to rally around.

Rough Rider: Obama's Payroll Tax Holiday

2011-12-07T22:51:00.001-08:00

The politics of Obama's payroll tax holiday are so scrambled as to defy parsing. Sure we all like tax cuts, but I think we also all know that if a Republican president proposed cutting the funding for Social Security, you'd hear a lot more seniors-eating-dogfood talk from the Party of Compassion. Not only that, you'd hear a lot about how the evil right is threatening the stability of old folks' pensions. But, since Jesus Delano Lincoln (AKA The Rough Rider) is proposing it, I guess things are OK. Powerline looks at the implications:

The payroll tax extension is a political ploy, and little more. But how Republicans should respond to it is a serious question. I talked this afternoon with a senior Republican Senator who is appalled by the Democrats’ weakening of Social Security. In his view, FICA taxes are not just taxes, but contributions to a federally-sponsored pension program. Reducing those FICA contributions renders Social Security insolvent and unsustainable, not at some future date, but right now. It is not hard to see where this leads: it will soon become obvious to everyone that the Social Security numbers don’t add up, and are getting worse. The government’s response will be to means test Social Security (proposals to do so are already being floated). Once Social Security is means tested, it loses its status as a universal retirement system. Instead, it is just one more welfare program. That realization will cause Social Security to lose the broad public support that it now enjoys, and the program will, in some fashion, collapse. Those who don’t intend to be poor when they retire will refuse to support it, opting to save their money instead.

So the Democrats’ opportunistic drive to cut FICA taxes is most likely a death knell for Social Security, as many liberal commentators have noted. How Republicans should react depends mostly on how one views the Social Security program. If you think Social Security is good and want to save it, like the Senator I spoke with today, you probably should oppose the Democrats’ proposal. On the other hand, if you think Social Security is an obsolete program, at best, that began as a fraud and went downhill from there–my own view–it makes sense to join with the Democrats in undermining the program’s financing.

First of all the term "payroll tax" lends itself to rhetorical shiftiness. If you called it what it is - a FICA tax holiday - I think you would hear a lot more agitation.

More important, this is not an issue of right vs left, or liberal vs. conservative. It's the more basic issue of stability vs. disruption. As Hinderacker notes, there are plenty of Republicans who would just as soon leave Social Security alone, so that the people who have planned their lives and retirements around it aren't left in the cold like a communist pensioner. On the other hand, there are people like Obama who, having grasped the reins of power, are content to shunt money hither and yon, in a desperate bid to save...what, exactly? If a Democrat can't save Social Security from evil Republicans, what good is he?

I keep hearing that the president is so personally popular that he is near irreproachable from personal attack. Yet, this is how he is behaving.

Parental Notification: The Sad Road of a RU-486 Critic

2011-12-06T13:07:00.001-08:00

Here's a surprisingly respectful story (surprising cause it's the SF Chronicle) about a father who became something of an anti-RU 486 activist after his 18 year-old daughter died from taking the abortion pill.

It was just after 9 a.m. on Sept. 17, 2003, when Monty Patterson got the call from the hospital. His daughter was in intensive care, and Patterson, a construction supervisor working on a home in the Oakland hills, was told to hurry.

At ValleyCare Medical Center in Pleasanton, Patterson, a divorced dad, was informed that Holly, who had turned 18 three weeks earlier, had an infection from an "incomplete abortion." The doctor said Holly had taken the abortion pill Sept. 10, and was in septic shock.

"Holly was intubated, and I went and held her and said, 'I don't know what happened, but I'm here to help, to get you well,' " Patterson said, his eyes welling with the memory. "The look in her eyes said, 'Dad, save me.' "

Efforts to save the vivacious teenager with the blond hair and bright blue eyes failed. She died shortly before 2 p.m. Holly's mother, Debbie Patterson, who lived in Southern California, was on a plane headed for the Bay Area when Holly went code blue.

Since that afternoon more than eight years ago, Patterson, who lives in Livermore, has spent every waking hour fighting to learn exactly how his daughter died - and to prevent other women and girls from compromising their health, and their lives.

He has become an expert in RU-486, the "medical abortion" (as opposed to surgical), which involves taking two drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, to terminate an early pregnancy of up to 63 days. In his research, Patterson uncovered other, previously unreported deaths linked to RU-486.

The linked article discusses Patterson's research and lobbying efforts, but leaves out any word of a lawsuit he may have filed against Planned Parenthood or RU-486's manufacturer. I assume there was some kind of settlement paid.

Also left unmentioned is the issue of parental notification, which comes up once in a while, and never fails to send the pro-abort forces into apoplectic rage. But, the fact is that teenagers like Holly are not often the most competent people for dealing with abortion and pregnancy issues. That's not a fundamentalist Christian plot; it's reality. I'll bet with parental notification on the books, Patterson could have at least taken his daughter to a real doctor, rather than have her skulk off to a street clinic behind his back.

And, unlike every other news article ever written about someone who has taken a drug and died, there are no outraged quotes from consumer advocates and class action lawyers agitating against Big Pharma.

No drug is perfectly safe, of course. Someone was going to die from taking RU-486. But, if I recall the years of Planned Parenthood lobbying for FDA approval, we were told that RU-486 was "safe" so long as it was used in a clinical environment. That's not what happened here. Planned Parenthood gave this girl a drug and then sent her on her way, a recipe for disaster.

Occupy Too Much

2011-12-04T22:49:00.001-08:00

The most annoying thing about the Occupy (This Space) Movement isn't just the squatting, the squalor, and the endless whining. It's how the "99%" formulation has entered political lexicon even as the Occupiers themselves have been driven from the public square. Check out this opening graf from a story about a couple Good Samaritans who stopped a shoplifter at Nordstrom:

In this Occupy Wall Street era, it was a crime against the 1 percent: Two people grabbed a handful of purses worth more than $10,00o Saturday night in the Nordstrom store in Walnut Creek and sprinted for the exit.

But they wouldn't get far. A pair of holiday shoppers braved blasts of pepper spray from one of the alleged thieves before subduing him until police arrived

That's just ridiculous. First of all, there's absolutely no evidence that the shoplifters were "liberating" the purses, or making some grand - if futile - political statement. Second, Nordstrom, while a very nice department store, is hardly a symbol of the 1%. (and Walnut Creek is hardly an enclave of the uber-rich)

The Occupiers were discredited weeks ago, but their bogus "99 vs. 1" view of the world looks to live on long after the last tent city has been torn down.

Syracuse & Penn State

2011-12-03T09:38:00.001-08:00

Sometimes, I don't understand. When high level two Penn State employees were indicted for helping to cover up allegations of child molestation by a popular former assistant football coach (a guy whom no one outside of Happy Valley could have named on a bet), the media reaction was swift and unpitying. Joe Paterno, the face of Penn State football for five decades was unceremoniously fired, running a gauntlet of flashbulbs as he went. The president of the school was fired, too. A lot of outside observers said the football program should be eliminated entirely. Lost amid the hooting was that Paterno was contrite and anguished about what happened. Also lost was the minor detail that Paterno had, in fact, "notified the authorities" when someone came to him with a credible allegation of sexual abuse in the Penn State showers. And so on.

So what the hell is going on at Syracuse University?

There, the assistant basketball coach has been credibly accused of molesting at least three ball boys working for the team. (contrast that with Penn State, where Jerry Sandusky was using the facilities, but did not actually work for the university). Initially, iconic head coach Jim Boeheim didn't just defend Jerry Fine; he attacked the veracity of the accusers and suggested that they were just after some money. I never heard Joe-Pa say anything like that. He has since apologized, and Syracuse basketball has continued its season uninterrupted. There's no talk of "death penalties" for the program that I am aware of.

Wait, there's more!

The lead accuser is a guy named Bobby Davis, who says coach Fine started molesting him in seventh grade, and continued to do so through Davis's young adulthood. Several years ago Davis provided university trustees with a 2002 tape recording in which he and Fine's wife discussed the abuse. Now, here at Free Will HQ, we constantly receive secret tape recordings in which our friends and associates are credibly accused of sex crimes. We get so many of these that our policy has been to demand further proof - of the "DNA on a blue dress" variety - before we act. Therefore, we quite understand why the trustees, who seem to have received this tape back in 2005, and perhaps earlier, did nothing.

It gets better. Do you want to know who else received a copy of the tape several years ago? ESPN! And they don't seem to have done much with it for the first 6-7 years it was in their possession. No follow up. No investigations. Nothing. This is a strangely passive reaction from a media company. It's not like Syracuse is some Division III bottom feeder. Boeheim's 2003 team won the national championship. And the media environment of the era saw no problem with Dan Rather airing forged Texas Air National Guard documents during a presidential campaign.

This was also, needless to say, the era of the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Clearly, the media and university employees will jump all over certain types of rape accusations, no matter how ludicrous. But a tape recording about sexual molestation? Come back when you've got some corroboration, kid.

ESPN did manage to pull the tape out of the circular file a few weeks ago when the scandal finally broke in the wake of the Penn State mess. As if on cue, the trustees fired Fine, this time without any hesitation. Hey, times change. (ESPN's rationalization for its inaction is funny as hell: something about wanting proof that Fine's wife was the other voice on the tape. ESPN finally got its "proof" from a YouTube video .That's what they say, anyway).

Now, Davis is no kid. He's 39 years old, which means he made his tape in his early thirties. What the hell does a grown man need to make a secret tape recording for? Didn't they have phones back in 2002? Call the police, dude, or at least call the university. Why skulk around making tape recordings?

Also, Davis - and I want to say this as kindly as possible, so I don't have to give my own shame-faced press conference apology - gives every appearance of being a tortured soul, and a big part of his psychological make-up is dominated by issues related to his sexuality. Whether that's because he was abused by Fine, or Fine first approached Davis because he was psychologically vulnerable, I have no idea. It's certainly within the realm of possibility. And, Davis's relationship with the Fine family is one of long standing. Whatever abuse he may have suffered, he had no problem approaching Fine's wife and discussing an explosive and intimate matter. Oh, and supposedly Davis had a sexual relationship with Fine's wife, too. (I find this hard to believe, btw).

Still, we have a clear-cut case where the trustees, the head coach, and the biggest media organ in the sports world had credible accusations of sexual abuse and did nothing. No doubt the arm-chair sociologists fresh from psychoanalyzing the Penn State coaching staff will have plenty of long-winded explanations at the ready, should the need arise, but I think the answer is pretty simple.

Coach Boeheim, the Syracuse trustees, and ESPN saw nothing wrong in what passed between Fine and Davis. That's because they didn't see a case of child molestation. They saw a homosexual relationship between a much-older man and an adolescent boy/young adult. That's a relationship dynamic that is quite prevalent in the gay community, no matter how many times they might exclude NAMBLA from the gay pride parade. It is also, needless to say, a big reason why many parents are leery of letting gay men do things like, say, take Boy Scouts out on camping trips. And, it is something that gay rights advocates are desperate to downplay, even as they know the truth (indeed, have no doubt experienced in their own lives).

If Fine had been accused of having sex with a seventh grade girl, he would have been out of there years ago (and his wife would have left him, too). Hell, if Fine had been accused of declaring that former Syracuse star Donovan McNabb was overrated because he was black, ESPN would not have rested until Fine was cleaning out his desk.*

And, for the record, I don't think the folks at Penn State saw anything wrong with Sandusky's behavior either. The problem there was that the boys were, apparently, a little too young for comfort.

It's been a common complaint among parents in the years since the sexual revolution that it is impossible to raise "good" kids because there are no standards, at least not in public, but the standards are not that hard to understand. For example, if you are Herman Cain, your time as a national figure will be three months, while the time of, say, Bill Clinton will be three decades (and counting). If you are a member of socially approved victim class, then any accusation of a crime you might make will get a respectful hearing, no matter how implausible. If, however, you are victimized by a member of a victim class, well, suddenly it's hard to get people to return your phone calls.

* yes, I am shamelessly stealing this line from Rush Limbaugh, who has also been hinting broadly along the lines of this post for several weeks now.

Low Rent: Bill Richardson Paid Hush Money To Mistress

2011-12-01T18:24:00.001-08:00

We all know that the media rules for Republican sex scandals are different from those of liberal sex scandals. In the same week that Herman Cain is fighting more vague allegations from a sketchy middle aged woman, we learn that Bill Richardson is being investigated for campaign finance violations arising from a $250,000 payment to his mistress:

A federal grand jury is investigating former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson over possible campaign-finance violations stemming from his 2008 presidential run, including allegations that he arranged for supporters to pay off a woman who planned to say they had engaged in an extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Several of Mr. Richardson's close associates have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the panel in Albuquerque, the people said. The panel is one of several grand juries in recent years to examine aspects of Mr. Richardson's administration and campaigns.

...

The most explosive matter under investigation involves allegations by a former member of Mr. Richardson's inner circle. That individual said Mr. Richardson's political allies gave $250,000 to placate a woman who was considering suing the governor in 2007, exposing their alleged extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the federal probe. They said the woman was a state employee at the time that she allegedly became romantically involved with Mr. Richardson around 2004. The woman's identity has not been disclosed, and the type of suit considered has not been confirmed

Richardson has had a long and distinguished (for a Democrat) career: foreign policy Mr. Fix-it and Energy Secretary during the Clinton years, two-term governor of New Mexico, and a credible candidate for president in 2008. And during that time, he was undoubtedly carrying on with not just one, but several mistresses. No doubt everyone around Richardson, including members of the media, were fully aware of this. But, magically, no word leaked out until after Richardson's career was effectively over.

Of course, there were always rumors about Richardson, and he sure looks like the sort of guy who likes to put his hand in the till, if you know what I mean. But, no one was curious enough to do the minimal work needed to look into it.

Contrast that with Herman Cain, who has been a national political figure for a little over three months. Suddenly every vague allegation you could think of has been reported as if it were a dispatch from the Somme. (hey, did you know that Sharon Bialek just got served with eviction papers? Does Gloria Allred know?)

We got three decades of Bill Richardson, with Richardson enjoying the perks of power, aphrodisiacally speaking. We have gotten just three months of Herman Cain. Let me know how that it fair.

Second Look At Foghat?

2011-11-30T15:46:00.001-08:00

From the same guy who brought you a serious, critical reappraisal of Molly Hatchet comes a respectful treatment of Foghat, the ultimate Seventies Brit Boogie band. Previously, I had tolerated "Slow Ride" when it came on the radio. Now? I'll be listening for the interplay of Rod Price and Dave Peverett's guitars:

Truth be told, there are few song openings from any point in history that can rival that of "Slow Ride," as the stomp which quickly gives way to the guitar riff is one of the few that never "gets old." The way that the guitars from Rod Price and Dave Peverett ring across the track instantly grabs the listener, and the slightly dirty distortion perfectly fits the overall mood of the song. It is within this element of the song where one can hear traces of heavy metal, as the band certainly brings a similar amount of volume. However, it is the almost "Southern" feel to the riff that sets it far apart from any other recording, and one cannot help but get caught up in the fantastic mood that the guitars create. Yet it is also the brilliant work of the rhythm section that has enabled "Slow Ride" to stand out even as the decades have passed. The bassline from Nick Jameson brings a groove and funk that has rarely been matched, and one can hear traces of this sound in a number of bands and styles that followed. There are moments where "Slow Ride" has an almost "go-go" style of swing, and this is a rare occurrence anywhere within the hard rock world. This distinctive tone is perfectly matched by the sound of drummer Roger Earl, and it is the fact that his playing is so far forward in the mix that makes "Slow Ride" a song that once heard, can never be forgotten.

Actually, "Stone Blue" is a great song, although YouTube doesn't have the version with the extended slide solo.

In the future, everyone will be rediscovered for 15 minutes.

This One Goes To 11: Philly Schools Superintendent Applies for Unemployment Benefit

2011-11-30T08:42:00.001-08:00

Lots of talk radio outrage over former Philadelphia Schools Superintendent, Arlene Ackerman, who applied for - and will apparently receive - unemployment benefits after accepting a $900K buy-out from the district. Cue the outrageous outrage:

Former Philadelphia schools superintendent Arlene Ackerman, who was given a nearly $1-million buyout earlier this year, has applied for unemployment.

School District spokesman Fernando Gallard today confirmed that Ackerman wants to collect state unemployment benefits.

“The former superintendent did apply for unemployment,” Gallard told KYW Newsradiotoday.
This comes after taxpayers funded a $905,000 buyout when she was shown the door in August.

As part of her separation agreement, the School Reform Commission agreed not to contest any unemployment claims she might file.

Actually, what they've got in Philadelphia is not a school board, but a "School Reform Commission." I assume that's because the actual school board had become so corrupt and pointless as to be incapable of fulfilling its mission. Just to add to the fun, the funds for Ackerman's buy-out came from private donors. I'd love to hear the fund raising pitch for that one.

There's been a lot of hooting about how Ackerman is nothing more than a parasite living off the tax payers, but I don't think that's quite fair. She was school superintendent in San Francisco from 2000 - 2006 and did a respectable job there. She came in to clean up a nest of corruption in the district, resulting in a number of arrests. She made a real effort to confront the teachers union's insistence on putting its interests ahead of the kids. Parents loved her, but you can guess how things ended. Ackerman became the focus of the sort of "ethics complaints" that are normally reserved for Sarah Palins of the world. The school board was dominated by a Green Party faction that made a determined effort to make Ackerman's life miserable. Hey, sometimes progressive politics demands that we protect corruption and union featherbedding! Ackerman left, taking a buy-out and heading off to Philly.

I have no idea what happened in Philly the last few years. Ackerman appears to have created some magnet programs at low-performing schools, but these programs were expensive and not popular with the Reform Commission. There have been some spectacular incidents of racial violence at the schools, including an attack on some Asian kids. The last straw for the Commission appears to have been an unexpected budget shortfall, but you would think such a shortfall wouldn't come as a surprise to a Commission charged with operating/reforming the schools.

None of this is anything to brag about, but if you are determined to dig up bad news about any urban school district in order to undermine the superintendent, you don't have to work too hard. For whatever reason, Ackerman rubbed someone(s) the wrong way, and she had to go.

Is it silly for Ackerman to seek unemployment benefits? Sure. But, look at things from her perspective. She's been brought into three separate urban school districts (DC, SF & Philly) with the explicit understanding that she will reform a broken system. She always comes in talking about how she will put the kids first, and is clear in confronting the teachers unions, and others who live off the school system. Don't know about Philly, but the parents in DC and SF loved her. But, magically, it always turns out that Ackerman is Doing Something Wrong either by spending money on magnet schools, treating teachers high-handedly, or what have you. And so she goes, often with a pre-printed NEA sign taped to her back.

If it were me, I'd start feeling pretty bitter about the whole set up. Filing for unemployment benefits might be a small thing, but it would make me feel a little better.

This Charming Man: Barney Frank Retires

2011-11-29T08:52:00.001-08:00

Barney Frank has announced his retirement after 30 years in Congress, the last 10 of which were spent at the nexus of the housing bubble and the Crash of '08. He will not be missed.

Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts says he does not intend to seek re-election in 2012.

Frank spoke Monday at a news conference in his hometown of Newton

Frank said he originally intended to run for one more term, but that his decision was partially due to the fact that the state's new redistricting map will include many people he has never represented before.

Frank said he has had a "busy and stressful" four years dealing with financial reform after the recession.

He says he plans to write and stay involved in public policy decisions.

The 71-year-old Frank, and a lifelong liberal, won a House seat in 1980 was one of the first lawmakers to announce that he is gay.

All very true. Frank was a very bright man who was more than willing to mix it up in hostile fora like the O'Reilly Factor. Like Ted Kennedy, you always knew that Frank would be out there, every day, kicking ass for progressive causes. That doesn't mean we should be strewing his path with roses or anything, but it is something to note.

Of course, Frank's persistence in public life, despite the well known peccadilloes in his personal life, and his stubborn advocacy of disastrous social engineering in his public life, is a sign of something rotten in our politics. I think it's indisputable that a Republican with a record like Frank's would have been hounded from office long ago by the same news media that is sad to see Frank go.

Not only that, a conservative equivalent to Frank - that is, a pugnacious advocate for right wing ideas with decades of experience legislating - simply doesn't exist. Conservative congressmen - not to mention conservative politicos in general - are either ignored or, if they become too prominent, see their lives turned upside down under a daily avalanche of insults and out-of-context headlines until life becomes intolerable for them. Frank once went on the O'Reilly Factor and got yelled at for helping foment the housing bubble. Frank has been b*tching about that ever since. Well, welcome to the club, pal. Our guys get treated like that everytime they appear on television.

We're watching a perfect of example of this going down. Herman Cain is being effectively driven from the Republican presidential primary race due to accusations about his interactions with women. First there were vague allegations of harassment by some sketchy, if respectable looking, middle aged women. Now, there's an alleged affair with a sketchy middle aged woman. None of it quite adds up, Cain has denied all, yet somehow all of this is seen as untoward in the media, which has been gleefully reporting the latest Cain bimbo eruptions as if they are dispatches from The Somme. Yet the same media will embargo similar stories about liberal politicians. Conservatives get three months of Herman Cain, while liberals - and the rest of us - get three decades of Barney Frank.

Frank didn't get the kid glove treatment because he was gay. (most of us could care less). He was left alone because he was left-wing, and thereby benefited from the progressive halo. As long as he was a man on the left, he had nothing to worry about. That is appalling, and a sign of how hard it is for the regular people in the United States to find and keep their advocates.

The Baby Boom's Favorite Guitar Players

2011-11-27T19:42:00.001-08:00

It's probably pointless to fisk Rolling Stone's recent list of (drumroll) the 100 greatest rock guitarists, but the list is so Boomer-centric as to demand a riposte. Stand back

100. Lindsay Buckingham: see right off the bat there's a problem. Buckingham would doubtless place high on a list of 100 great songwriters, but I couldn't tell you one famous solo he's played.

99. Thurston Moore: first of all, his co-guitarist Lee Renaldo deserves to be here as well. Second, Sonic Youth was/is the leading avant-rock band of the last 30 years, influencing virtually every hip act that came in their wake. These guys need to be about 75 places higher.

98. Alex Liefson: Rush was never a Rolling Stone fave, so I guess Liefson should be happy to have placed here to begin with.

97. Steve Jones: I can think of a dozen punk guitarists who should be in Jones's place. His post-Pistols career was so negligible as to almost completely detract from the two or three immortal riffs he managed to squeeze out.

96. Bruce Springsteen: another "songwriter" award. Quick name a famous E-Street band solo that did not involve the saxophone.

95. Roger McGuinn: jesus, the man only defined folk-rock for all time, and was a key member of the best American band of the Sixties. Place him a lot higher.

94. Peter Buck: brought guitar back to the synthetic '80's. Led college rock to stadiums. Never stopped searching for new chord voicings. Cranked out great albums, year after year, for 10+ years. But Boomers have never heard of him, so he's way in the back.

93. Paul Simon: Ha! Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! Are you kidding?! Another songwriter's award, not to mention sentimental Booomer choice.

92. Dimebag Darrell: probably the greatest post-Van Halen metal guitarist. That should be worth a place in the mid-70's.

91. Dave Davies: should be a joint award with Ray, who wrote all those riffs that Dave soloed over.

90. Tom Verlaine: one of the few new wavers who could solo like a hippy.

89. Bonnie Raitt: she is a damn good slide player, but there's a bit of affirmative action here. A lot of good players were left off so there could be one woman on the list.

88. Carl Perkins: we're so far away from rock's hillbilly roots, it's surprising anyone remembered to put Perkins on here. A classy choice.

87. James Hetfield: second only to Tony Iommi in defining what a metal riff should sound like. Belongs a lot higher, given how ubiquitous his sound has become.

86. J Mascis: brought the wah-wah pedal into post-punk. He was the first guy who really played a style of music you could call "grunge." Secretly influential, so his obscurity drops him below the Kurt Cobains of the world.

85. Andy Summers: another songwriters award, only Summers didn't even write The Police's songs. Give him credit for bringing synthetic guitar sounds into the mainstream, I guess.

84. Joe Perry: First of all, this needs to be a joint award with Brad Whitford, whom Perry never fails to praise. Second, Aerosmith was/is literally the American equivalent to the Stones/Zeppelin: a raging hard rock riff machine that defined the Seventies. Every metal and hard rock band that came in its wake has worked their way through Perry's playing. It's inexcusable for him to be way down here.

83. Eddie Hazel: Funkadelic's dirty funk-metal master places here because of his magnificent solo on "Maggot Brain."

82. Nils Cline: the "guy from Wilco" has made some of the best instrumental jazz-rock of the last 30 years often to little acclaim. I saw him in a tiny basement club a few years ago playing Weather Report songs while a party was going on in the next room. A blistering player as good and as exploratory as Jeff Beck.

81. Lou Reed: another songwriters award. Which do you prefer, his one-note solos or his two-note solos?

80. Buddy Holly: I love the solo for "That'll Be The Day," and his rhythm work was outstanding, but this is almost a songwriter's award.

79. Mike Campbell: really? Tom Petty's guitar player needs to be here?

78. John Fahey: someone who could play rings around most of the people on this list. Should be higher, given how much he influenced the sound of acoustic players.

77. Willie Nelson: Willie's a great player, no doubt, but I thought this was a list of rock musicians.

76. Robbie Kreiger: this is when I want to strangle the Sixties. How, besides Jim Morrison nostalgia, does The Doors's guitar player place anywhere on here?

75. Joni Mitchell: can't argue with this. She's a lot more sophisticated a musician than anyone's ever realized.

74. Dick Dale: you need surf guitar on your list, so it's either Dale or The Ventures. Dale wins through charisma.

73. Kurt Cobain: another songwriter's award. Dave Grohl plays better guitar.

72. John Frusciante: meh. recorded a million solo albums no one's listened to, in addition to his work for the Red Hot Chili Peppers. As with the E Street Band, we're dealing with a guy who isn't the main soloist. Kind of an affirmative action pick (guys, we need a mainstream player for the 90's!)

71. Robert Johnson: inspired all of the British blooze guys at the top of this list. Actual style sounds nothing like rock music.

70. Jack White: have to appreciate that the guy brought fuzz-laden guitar into the multi-platinum mainstream. Still, his style and approach were, in their way, very Boomer friendly.

69. Richard Thompson: a great player who hasn't lost a step in 50 years.

68. John McLaughlin: a jazz guy, but his speed influenced a lot of rock guys, so he belongs.

67. T-Bone Walker: BB King's always going on about Walker, but still...this is not someone who is listened to much these days. (indeed not listened to much since the 1940's).

66. Leslie West: hey, gotta love Mountain, but this is a Boomer pick. Should be at, oh, around 95/96.

65. Slash: should be a joint award with Izzy Stradlin. Should be a lot higher because he's one of the few post-Seventies guitar players who could equal the classic rock masters.

64. Duane Eddy: a ghost from rock's past.

63. Johnny Winter: played a lot of classic solos. Not quite a guitar hero, even though he was a real virtuoso.

62. Robert Fripp: the gold-standard for experimental rock guitar pre-1980. Funny to think of how many people sat in the mud listening to King Crimson while waiting for the likes of Pink Floyd to take the stage.

61. Dickie Betts: there are three (!) Allmans Brothers guitarists on this list, which is two too many. Is it rude to mention that Betts got fired a few years ago for lousy playing?

60. Ron Asheton: as an old punk, I like to see Asheton on the list, but James Williamson was the superior Stooges guitarist. Regardless, he's way too high up.

59. Robbie Robertson: another songwriter's award. Too high on the list.

58. Peter Green: granted that Green-era Fleetwood Mac is very cool, and always impresses civilians, but there's already a lot of British blooze players on this list.

57. Rory Gallagher: a cool pick, as Gallagher's a very underrated Irish player from the second-wave of Brit blues. Still, if Rory's here, George Thorogood should be here, too.

56. Albert Collins: he's a great player but...there's already a lot of blues guys showing up on a "rock" list.

55. John Lennon: the rationale is that he's a great rhythm guitarist, which is true enough, but this is really another songwriter's award, not to mention a sop to Boomers.

54. Joe Walsh: played on enough Eagles records to earn his place here, but I gotta say, I have heard "Life's Been Good To Me" enough times for this lifetime.

53. Otis Rush: hey, I love Otis Rush!

52. Clarence White: Rolling Stone needs to explain why White is so high up, while Roger McGuinn is so far down.

51. Johnny Marr: his work with The Smiths is so good, even aging hipsters at Rolling Stone could appreciate it, but someone needs to call out Marr for the rock-star bloat that has (heh) marred his more solo work.

50. Richie Blackmore: Ok. Was the first real metal soloist. Wrote the immortal "Smoke On The Water" riff. Did double duty in Deep Purple, and the equally great Rainbow. Stick 'im at #50! Grunt.

49. Muddy Waters: I know he played the guitar and all, but he's known as a singer and songwriter.

48. Johnny Greenwood: Radiohead has two other guitar players, but somehow Greenwood gets singled out. A little too high up for my taste.

47. Stephen Stills: it's true that Stills has a sophisticated musical mind. But, that mind has been used to make some of the dullest hippie blather imaginable.

46. Jerry Garcia: kind of shocking to see Jerry so far down the list. Sometimes dying isn't the wisest career move.

45. Link Wray: heavy metal before it was metal

44. Mark Knopfler: very tasteful soloist from an era that denigrated guitar solos. #44 seems just about right.

43. Hubert Sumlin: probably the only blues guy whom rock fans would instantly recognize as "one of us." His distorted chord runs showed up in a lot of Zeppelin songs. Under-rated to to the point of being unknown, Sumlin deserves a lot more notice.

42. Mike Bloomfield: the original white boy blues guitarist.

41. Mick Ronson: Jeez. Not to show any disrespect, but this is almost a songwriter's award for David Bowie. Definitely belongs a lot lower down the list.

40. Tom Morello: Spare me. As highly regarded for his "radical" politics (as if anyone ever lost sleep playing at socialism) as for his guitar playing. Even if he is one of the 100 best guitarists in rock, there's no way he's "better" than, say, Richie Blackmore. Drop him down to Peter Buck's spot.

39. Steve Cropper: played rhythm guitar on a million southern soul classics, and is one of the great roots rock players, so he belongs here. Not sure if #39 is appropriate, though. His "understated" playing is often little more than background tones.

38. The Edge: Achtung Baby is as classic a guitar album as Electric Ladyland. He also forged a completely unique style that is been endlessly imitated, but never duplicated. Where Keith Richards defined rock guitar for the Seventies, The Edge did for the Eighties and, even the Nineties. This is a top 10 guy, but Boomer ignorance has struck again.

37. Mick Taylor: was the lead guitarist for the Stones' Sticky Fingers and Exile (also Goat's Head Soup). Technically the "best" of the Stones' three lead guitar players, but really shouldn't place so high given how little he accomplished on his own.

36. Randy Rhoads: you could easily put Uli Jon Roth or Michael Schenker here, but Rhoads has long had the sort of mystique that only comes from dying young.

35. John Lee Hooker: don't want to offend anyone, but this is another songwriter's award.

34. Curtis Mayfield: played some immortal funk and soul riffs, so he belongs, but you need special pleading to place him so high.

33. Prince: it's hard to believe, but Prince has long been underrated as a guitar player. The truth is YouTube is filled with "guitar God" videos from the Purple One.

32. Billy Gibbons: Gibbons is one of the great American blues players of the rock era, but popular culture seems content to treat him as a bit of a joke. Really belongs a lot higher.

31. Ry Cooder: a Boomer favorite who has played on a lot of sessions. Nothing wrong with his playing, but it's hard to pinpoint the performance or album that places him so high up the list.

30. Elmore James: Rolling Stone notes that James is known for a single lick - that ascending slide riff used as a fill on countless trashy blues-rock songs. (it's what you hear between George Thorogood's vocal lines) But, if you've ever listened to a James album all the way through, you know how repetitive that can get.

29. Scotty Moore: Elvis's right-hand man is inevitable on a list like this, but Moore's playing was sloppy enough to earn the tag "close enough for jazz." Unlike Elvis's other guitar player, James Burton, Moore did not have much of a career outside of Presleyworld.

28. Johnny Ramone: laid down the basic template for punk players.

27. Bo Diddly: the "Bo Diddly Beat" launched a thousand bands, including the Stones and Buddy Holly's Crickets.

26. Brian May: one of the great studio guitarists. May really knows how to fill your stereo speakers with sound. Also arguably the best British guitar player to emerge in the Seventies. Still #26 seems a little high.

25. Tony Iommi: the sound and style that really defined heavy metal as a genre, rather than just an extension of hard rock. Boomers hate metal, of course - it's what their kids listened to - so I guess Iommi should feel grateful to place as high as he does. Really, though, he's a Top 15 guy.

24. Angus Young: brother Malcolm belongs here, too, as AC/DC is as much a rhythm unit as anything else.

23. Buddy Guy: a real blues virtuoso, second only to BB King.

22. Frank Zappa: like Prince, he's highly underrated as a guitar player because he's already famous as a songwriter, but you can't go wrong with Hot Rats, or Shut 'n Play Yer Guitar. Never stopped searching for new rhythms and harmonies to solo over. Arguably the only Sixties figure who seamlessly transitioned across eras throughout his career. #22 feels too low.

21. Chet Atkins: a dazzling musician, and #1 on the list of 100 Best Country Guitar Players.

20. Carlos Santana: easily the best player to emerge from Sixties-era San Francisco. Probably the best American player of his era not named Hendrix. Really should be higher.

19. James Burton: Elvis's guitar player during the latter half of his career. Also an accomplished country session player. Doesn't feel right to place him ahead of Chet Atkins.

18. Les Paul: more of a jazz player and a balladeer, but the guitar named for him is a rock icon. At this point more a historic figure than a player people listen to and learn from. You need special pleading to get him all the way to #18.

17. Neil Young: another guy whose playing is underrated because he's known mainly as a songwriter. Unlike the rest of his hippie brethren, Neil's solos are grungy, loud and haven't aged a day. Still, I wouldn't place him so high.

16. Derek Trucks: another Allman Bros. guitar player? At #16??

15. Freddy King: this is the point when you start saying to yourself, "Boy, there's a lot of blues players on a list of rock guitarists."

14. David Gilmour: pioneered a lot of studio effects in the early Seventies that are still being analyzed and imitated today. The Edge, for one, owes Gilmour a lot.

13. Albert King: secretly influential. White players might speak reverently of Robert Johnson and BB King, but Albert's sound is the one they imitate.

12. Stevie Ray Vaughn: a guy whose rep has only increased with time. One of the few post-Sixties players who equaled the legacies of the rock and blues musicians whom he followed. Managed to produce the definitive cover of the "uncoverable" Little Wing.

11. George Harrison: Harrison was the original rock guitar hero. When he took up the sitar, everyone followed (at least for a few months), but he was left behind decades ago. Plus, it's just as likely some of those classic Beatles solos were played by Paul McCartney. George belongs here, but not up at #11.

10. Pete Townsend: yet another songwriter's award. His power chords and showmanship get him on the list, but not all the way up to #10.

9. Duane Allman: the only Allman Brothers guitarist who belongs on this list. Allman was one of the great roots rock players of his, or any, day. The Fillmore Concerts is one of the great live albums, and Derek & the Dominoes is one of the few super-groups that brought out the best in all concerned.

8. Eddie Van Halen: single-handedly defined the guitar shredder style that has dominated metal and hard rock since Eddie laid down Eruption. Some of his solos are so fast and so detailed as to almost defy description, not to mention transcription. Also the first player to virtually eliminate the blues from his style. By rights he should be at #3.

7. Chuck Berry: Berry's chording and licks are the bed rock for rock guitar, especially rock from the Sixties and Seventies. He's up at #7 based on pure merit.

6. BB King: everyone loves BB, but no one really sounds like him.

5. Jeff Beck: a virtuso's virtuoso, but also a mercurial recluse, who's been semi-retired since 1980. Blow By Blow and Wired are two of the great instrumental rock records, and also a daring bit of reinvention as a guy known for blooz playing suddenly became a jazz-rock trailblazer.

4. Keith Richards: rock's greatest rhythm guitarist has written dozens of kick-starting "rock this house riffs." What's amazing is that his style is so idiosyncratic. Most of his famous songs were written for 5-string guitar tuned to an open G, yet the legions of Stones covers are invariably done in standard tuning, which sounds almost, but not quite, right.

3. Jimmy Page: a master of folk rock and proto-metal, all brought together on Stairway To Heaven, the ultimate rock guitar epic. Still, it should be a knock against him that his post-Zepp career hasn't amounted to much.

2. Eric Clapton: when they used to say "Clapton Is God," they meant it. But, Slowhand put out a lot of dull stoner music, too.

1. Jimi Hendrix: you think I'm gonna argue against this??

GLARING OMISSIONS

Trey Anastasio - I don't even like Phish and I think he belongs here

Joe Satriani - raised metal shredding to an art. A rare multi-platinum instrumentalist.

Tom Scholz - those Boston albums set new standards for hard rock guitar tones.

George Thorogood - a raucus player whose Bad To The Bone is synonymous with "bad ass"

Jeff "Skunk" Baxter - a perfect tone soloing over some of the most sophisticated pop of the Seventies

Captain Sensible - high energy punk playing that heavily influenced the DC and LA punk scenes, which means virtually all of the vital American punk bands.

Dr. Know - world's greatest punk guitar player.

Strumer/Jones - belong in Steve Jones's place. Changed their style anew with every album.

Steve Miller - another riff meister and a master of the studio

Tipton/Downing - the original twin guitar heavy metal attack

Vernon Reid - true metal/funk crossover playing. His Living Color stuff really holds up, and is ripe for rediscovery.

Lowell George - a great slide player, and a Boomer favorite. Shocking to see him left off.

Phil Manzanera - a quietly experimental player.

Harris/Smith - metal's other great twin guitar attack.

UPDATE: I can't believe I forgot Ernie Isley!

Seasons Of Wither

2011-11-26T09:06:00.001-08:00