The other day the Knish wrote on his blog regarding the Romney trip to Israel and the nontroversy about Palestinian culture and their low GDP “What Romney didn’t mention, but should have, is that the Palestinian Authority dealt yet another blow to its economy when it drove out the Christian population. Christians in the territories have traditionally made the best businessmen and the capital of the Palestinian Authority was actually started by Jordanian Christian refugees escaping Muslim persecution. And their decline follows a pattern of Christian communities across the Middle East declining and disappearing under Muslim rule.” As for Obama v. Israel – just give him a second term and he will make Jimmy Carter and James Baker seem like fervent Zionists.
by Bret Stephens
Mitt Romney infuriated Palestinians during his visit to Israel on the weekend by calling Jerusalem “the capital of Israel.” He then added insult to injury by noting—in the context of a discussion of “culture”—the “dramatically stark difference in economic vitality” between Israelis and Palestinians. A Palestinian official called the remark “racist.”
I’m beginning to warm to Mitt.
We live in a time when being pro-Israel has become a key test of a candidate’s presidential fitness, and rightly so. George W. Bush passed that test on a helicopter ride over Israel with Ariel Sharon in 1999. Barack Obama tried to do the same when he paid homage to the besieged Israeli town of Sderot in 2008.
By contrast, Jimmy Carter thinks Israel is a virtual apartheid state, which is just the sort of thought that makes Carter Carter. To be anti-Israel doesn’t absolutely, positively, make you an anti-Semite. But it does mark you out as something between a moron and a crank.
President Obama has yet to do anything toward Israel that would put him in the Carter league—quite. But give him a second term. Perhaps his performance so far has been only an overture.
Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.This performance includes unprecedented personal chilliness toward the Israeli prime minister; unprecedented warmth toward Turkey’s anti-Israel prime minister; an unprecedented effort to put diplomatic distance between the U.S. and Israel; and, more recently, an unprecedented campaign of intelligence and military leaks designed to stay Israel’s hand against Iran. The president only seems to get right with Israel when he senses he’s in political trouble, or when his fundraising efforts lag, or when there’s a big Aipac speech to deliver. Last week, Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, couldn’t bring himself to name Israel’s capital when asked at a briefing. Why?
You hear a lot of theories trying to explain this, often centered on Mr. Obama’s past friendships with the likes of Prof. Rashid Khalidi, Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Rabbi Arnold Wolf, the late firebrand of the Jewish far left. I have a simpler theory: The president’s views are of a piece with the broader left-right debate on the nature of success.
When detractors think about Israel, they tend to think its successes are largely ill-gotten: Somebody else’s land, somebody else’s money, somebody else’s rights. It’s the view that Israel gets an unfair share of foreign aid from the U.S., and that it takes an unfair share of territory from the Palestinians. It’s also the view that, as the presumptive stronger party in its dealings with the Palestinians, Israel bears the onus of making concessions and taking the proverbial risks for peace. As the supposed underdogs, Palestinians are not burdened by any reciprocal moral obligations.
By contrast, when admirers of Israel visit the country, they typically marvel at everything it has planted, built, invented, re-imagined, restored, saved. Israel’s friends think that the country has earned its success the hard way, and that it deserves to reap the rewards. Hence Mitt Romney on Sunday: “You export technology, not tyranny or terrorism. . . . What you have built here, with your own hands, is a tribute to your people.”
Animating one side of this divide is a sense of admiration. Animating the other is a sense of envy. Could Mr. Obama have uttered lines like Mitt Romney’s? Maybe. But you get the feeling that scrolling in the back of his mind would be the words, “You didn’t build that.”
Does this mean that Mr. Obama is “anti-Israel” in the most invidious sense? Mr. Obama seems sincere when he speaks of his admiration for Israeli kibbutzim, or his outrage at Holocaust denial, or his solidarity with Israeli victims of terrorism. And he seems more than sincere in his desire to return Israel to something approximating its 1967 borders.
But all this amounts to a form of nostalgia for the Israel that once was—the plucky underdog, the proud member of the Socialist International. And Israel isn’t going back there any more.
Mr. Romney’s attitude toward Israel seems to come from a different place. He admires the country as much for where it’s going as for where it has come from. And he’s not prepared to give Palestinians an automatic pass for their failure to do something with the political and economic opportunities they’ve been given. Israeli success, in his mind, is earned—and so is Palestinian failure.
Mr. Romney has a history as an eminently malleable politician, and the views he has offered on Israel have, so far, been politically risk-free. How would he act as president? Who knows, although it would be unthinkable for any Republican president today to seek to strong-arm or publicly humiliate Jerusalem the way Jim Baker did during the George H.W. Bush presidency.
Yet beyond that, one sensed in Mr. Romney’s speech in Jerusalem qualities of conviction and sincerity—two of his lesser known traits. Keep that up, governor, and you may yet win this election.
Read the rest - Mitt versus Barack on Israel
Dr.K. says (and I agree) that Romney showed more then enough competence to be the leader of the Free World, despite the media’s attempts to, make it seem like it was one gaffe (God how I hate that term) after another. There was nothing that Romney said that was not true.
by Charles Krauthammer
At the outset of his recent foreign trip, Mitt Romney committed a gaffe. In answer to a question about the Olympics, he expressed skepticism about London’s preparations. The response confounded and agitated Romney supporters because it was such an unforced error. The question invited a simple paean to Olympic spirit and British grit, not the critical analysis of a former Olympic organizer.
Soon that initial stumble was transmuted into a metaphor for everything that followed. The mainstream media decided with near unanimity that the rest of the trip amounted to a gaffe-prone disaster.
Really? The Warsaw leg was a triumph. Romney’s speech warmly embraced Poland’s post-Communist experiment as a stirring example of a nation committed to limited government at home and a close alliance with America abroad, even unto such godforsaken war zones as Afghanistan and Iraq, at great cost to itself and with little thanks.
[......]
Yet all we hear about Warsaw is the “gaffe”: two phrases uttered by an aide, both best described as microscopically rude. At the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, a pack of reporters hurled questions of such journalistic sophistication as, “What about your gaffes?” To which Rick Gorka suggested that the reporters kiss his posterior, a rather charming invitation that would have made a superb photo op.
The other offense against human decency was Gorka’s correlative directive to “shove it.”
The horror! On the eve of the 2004 Democratic Convention, Teresa Heinz Kerry offered precisely that anatomically risky suggestion to an insistent Pittsburgh journalist. Not only did she later express no regret, but Hillary Clinton reacted with: “Good for you, you go girl.”
So where’s the Romney gaffe? Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?
And at his previous stop in Jerusalem, Romney’s speech was a masterpiece of nuance and restraint. Without directly criticizing Obama, Romney drew pointed distinctions deftly expressed in the code words and curlicued diction of Middle East diplomacy.
He declared flatly that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. The official Obama position is that Israel’s capital is to be determined in negotiations with the Palestinians. On Iran, Romney asserted that Israel has the right to defend itself. Obama says this as boilerplate. Romney made clear he means it — that if Israel has to attack, the U.S. won’t flash the red light before nor punish Israel afterward.
What about the alleged gaffe that dominated reporting from Israel? Romney averred that Israeli and Palestinian economic development might be related to culture. A Palestinian Authority spokesman obligingly jumped forth to accuse Romney of racism, among other thought crimes.
The American media bought it whole, despite the fact that Romney’s assertion was a direct echo of the U.N. Arab Human Development Report, written by Arab intellectuals and commissioned by the U.N. It unambiguously asserted that “culture and values are the soul of development.” And went on to report how existing cultural norms — “including traditional Arab culture and values” — are among the major impediments to Arab economic progress.
[......]
Romney’s point about “culture” was to highlight the improbable emergence of Israel from resourceless semi-desert to First World “startup nation,” a tribute to its freedom and openness.
Look at how Romney was received. In Israel, its popular prime minister lavished on him a welcome so warm as to be a near-endorsement. In Poland, Romney received an actual endorsement from Lech Walesa, former dissident, former president, Cold War giant, Polish hero. Yet the headlines were “shove it” and “culture.”
Scorecard? Romney’s trip was a major substantive success: one gaffe (Britain), two triumphs (Israel and Poland), and a fine demonstration of foreign-policy fluency and command — wrapped, however, in a media narrative of surpassing triviality.
Read the rest – Romney’s Excellent Trip
Tags: Bret Stephens, Charles Krauthammer
“Mitt Romney infuriated Palestinians”
good enough for me
coldwarrior wrote:
They are permanent infuriated, so what ?
@ Guggi:
may I spend you an -ly ???
How the hell could anybody tell? They are perpetually infuriated over damned-near everything.
coldwarrior wrote:
Hey it’s a good start!
Via WeaselZippers
U.S. State Department Report: Egyptian Media Explodes With With Anti-Semitism And Holocaust Denial Since Arab Spring…
Even under Hosni Mubarak there was always a shit load of media anti-Semtism but now under the Muslim Brotherhood they are doing their best Julius Streicher/Der Sturmer imitations.
I never understood the so called “Obama likeability” -- putting aside my distaste for his odious policies I always felt that Obama comes across as humorless, cold, aloof, imperious, thin skinned, and bad tempered.
Speranza wrote:
first trip: london, poland, and israel.
like you said, it’s a good start
Guggi wrote:
True. They are natural malcontents.
coldwarrior wrote:
Three nations dissed repeatedly by Obama. “Polish death camps” -- what a moron!
I actually am looking forward to the foreign policy debates.
The whole Churchill bust flap exploded in their faces.
@ Speranza:
now if he can get russia and india to join us as a counter to china then i will be jumping for joy
Speranza wrote:
They’ve had more stuff explode in their faces lately than Wile E. Coyote…
//Meep! Meep!
lobo91 wrote:
acme exploding campaign ™
@ Speranza:
You left out arrogant. Obama has always reminded me of Mussolini in his mannerisms. That practiced tilt to his head as he speaks to his lessers infuriates me. He sneers down his nose at the peasants, and people love him for it. I don’t understand it.
Iron Fist wrote:
The more arrogant their body language, the more incomptent they are at governing.
coldwarrior wrote:
I really believe in a U.S. -- India relationship. Obama prefers Pock-ee-stan.
lobo91 wrote:
I don’t watch Leno or Letterman but I’ll bet they have given Obama a ton of passes on his buffoonery. Even Jon Stewart will call him out.
@ Speranza:
The only American TV I see anymore is Fox News for a few minutes while I’m eating breakfast and lunch in the dining facility on post. The building I live in now doesn’t get AFN.
@ Speranza:
Jon Stewart called out Harry Reid on his bullshit with his rumor that Romney hadn’t paid taxes for ten years. I heard an equally well-sourced rumor that Harry Reid is a pederast. He hasn’t denied it. OTOH, Romney has told Reid to put up or shut up. Reid, won’t, of course, because he was just making shit up. This campaign will be the nastiest campaign ever. I expect it to get worse as Obama’s internal polls slide.
@ Iron Fist:
Of course, the truth is that Romney personally pays more taxes than about 47% of Americans combined…
Iron Fist wrote:
Il Duce would smoke that punk ass mom jean wearin fraud
Iron Fist wrote:
The truth doesn’t even seem to be marginally necessary anymore. I saw Obama on the TV yesterday saying that Romney wanted to raise taxes on the average American family by $2000 a year so he could give tax cuts to people like Romney of $250,000 a year.
Look, I don’t expect political campaigns the fountains of truth, but I don’t expect complete fiction.
@ MacDuff:
Anyone who even uses the term “tax cuts” is engaging in complete fiction.
Nobody on either side is talking about cutting anyone’s taxes. The Democrats are pushing for tax increases, and Republicans aren’t.
Not increasing someone’s taxes isn’t a tax cut, even using Washington logic.
coldwarrior wrote:
Heh. Ol’ Benito was a lot of things, all bad, but “pussy” wasn’t one of them.
DCCC apologizes to Sheldon Adelson
He ought to have his lawyers rip their balls off anyway, just out of general principle.
MacDuff wrote:
Tom Friedman wrote a particularly (even for him) obnoxious column trashing Adelson.
Speranza wrote:
Don’t forget anti-Americanism, there was no shortage of that under Mubarak.
Speranza wrote:
In a word, muslims.
MacDuff wrote:
I saw that too. Who said he was an inspirational speaker?
citizen_q wrote:
I guess $2 billion a year in foreign aid does not buy you as much as it used to.
lobo91 wrote:
49% of Americans do not even pay any taxes.
“The private sector is doing just fine.” Our plan worked”. Other than that, unemployment rises to 8.3%.
@ Speranza:
@ Iron Fist:
I never saw him as likeable. He has always struck me as a bully with a glass jaw.
IMNO most parroted the likeability BS either from ideological support, or from fear of being branded a racist.
Speranza wrote:
Indeed. The truth is, it buys us nothing but their contempt; the time of checkbook diplomacy has long since passed.
Stay classy, Dems…
Speranza wrote:
With muslims it’s all just jizya, and there due from infidels. Weather it’s billions pissed away to egypt, pock-e-stan, aid to Ache after the tsunami, or the imported fifth column muzz living on the public dole in Europe.
@ MacDuff:
GMTA
@ lobo91:
Roseanne Barr gives white trash a bad name.
citizen_q wrote:
Back atcha!
citizen_q wrote:
A thought -- they view foreign aid as jizya.
@ lobo91:
@ MacDuff:
I am more concerned about those who think hoseanne’s opinion is worth anything.
MacDuff wrote:
Look at all the money the Palestinian kleptocracy has received -- most went into their bank accounts in Switzerland.
Speranza wrote:
Not me
The Palestinians driving out the enterprising Christians from Gaza and the West Bank is a perfect example of radical ideology triumphing over economic interests.
Guggi wrote:
They guy who three times said “Navy corpse-man” is a blithering idiot.
As the Chic Fil-A flap grinds on, I’m reminded of how idiotic the left’s position is. Everyone protesting Chic is here on planet earth as a direct result of a “traditional” relationship. None of them got here as a result of a gay relationship… with the possible exception of Rahm Emmanuel.
@ lobo91:
Roseanne Barr is an untalented lunatic who has been exposed by her own sister as being a big fat liar -- literally.
Speranza wrote:
It’s probably still less than the amount of stimulus money that went into Swiss bank accounts…
@ Speranza:
It is why I believe that it doesn’t buy us much more than lip service, and an utter waste especially when we are not exactly solvent.
The same is true at the individual level. Britain is a good example. They have imported many muslims who do nothing more than live on public handouts, and forment jihad against the very country that is supporting them and their families.
huckfunn wrote:
A liberal friend of mine has one her Facebook a photo of the lines to get into a Chick-Fil-A with some twaddle such as “You do not see Christians lined up to help homeless or food shelters, and Jesus said to do that”.
citizen_q wrote:
I always found him to be a smug, condescending prick; to find that “likable” requires a pretty sense of self-esteem. We should all thank God for his seeming political ineptness -- if he had the skill of Clinton we’d be even more screwed than we are now. As I said in the previous thread, grace oft comes from unexpected places…
Speranza wrote:
When has that ever hurt a lib’s career?
citizen_q wrote:
The British put them on welfare, give them council housing and they just sit around all day dreaming of jihad.
@ Speranza:
It’s not like arafag for example, ran the paleosimian equivalent of Baine Capital, now is it?
@ Speranza:
Just because there aren’t pictures of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen…
Speranza wrote:
She’s probably right about that. Christians probably use their credit cards for most of their charitable giving and those contributions are most likely considerably more than lib contributions.
Speranza wrote:
How friggin’ clueless do you have to be to make a statement like that?
citizen_q wrote:
When someone (Sean Hannity or a conservative woman she was debating) said to Kirstin Powers when they were talking about Romney’s trip to Israel how foolish it was for Obama to send money to the Muslim Brotherhood she replied that it was being sent to Egypt, as if you could disconnect Egypt from the Muslim Brotherhood. I then looked up Kirsten Powers info and her husband, Dr. Martin Markay, a gastrointestinal surgeon at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine seemed to have an Arabic name.
MacDuff wrote:
Extremely clueless. Something that one of the obnoxious people on MSNBC would say.
huckfunn wrote:
Didn’t Joe Hairplugs Biden give all of $300 to charity one year?
MacDuff wrote:
True
I think hillary will have a very hard time in 2016. Her record as Sec. of State has to be one of the worst, and will continue to haunt her as the mideast melts down, and Russia and China continue on their paths.
I also think the sting will still be there about electing someone on novel identity. I doubt if many, at least those with adult memories, will vote for her just to have a historic first, the first woman president. That did not work out so well for our first “black” president.
Just my gut feeling at this point in time.
lobo91 wrote:
What gets me is how do they know that they do not give to charities? I just gave $100 a few months ago to the Colo-rectal Cancer charity run by the American Cancer society as a thank you God for not letting me have colon cancer (I had a scare earlier this year).
MacDuff wrote:
Someone on O’Reilly said last night that had Obama tacked to the center like Clinton did after 1994, his re-election would be a shoo-in.
Speranza wrote:
Yep; and he also rents a guest cottage on his property to the Secret Service for $20 or $30k per year so they can protect his dumb ass.
Speranza wrote:
Man, that make my blood boil….aaaarrrrgggghhhh! Christian/Catholic charities do more actual good for people in need than the bloated welfare state could ever hope to, even while they’re cruelly maligned. They do it quietly and they do it selflessly.
That’s just infuriating!
Iron Fist wrote:
Hubby met him once when he was in the Senate. He described him just as you do. W/in 5 secs, Hubby wanted to punch his face in.
Speranza wrote:
He’s a Coptic Christian. In the early days of the ‘Arab Spring’, Kirsten spoke frequently about her Coptic relatives in Egypt and how concerned she was for them.
Speranza wrote:
Very interesting.
It is a true tragedy that the MFM has abdicated completely even the pretense of objectivity and doing the most basic journalistic duty of checking and considering the source.
What you did shows how easy it is to do just that.
@ Speranza:
Wow, that is really guilt by association. So what?
BO-hole futures plunge on the Rasmussen Disapproval Index. Currently trading at -23.
Ok, this is too kool for skool. Live bear cam in Katami Alaska
citizen_q wrote:
She will be passed her prime and passed her time. By the way she looks awful, sort of like those shitty elementary school teachers I used to have.
MacDuff wrote:
It is pure ignorance. Catholic Charities is one of the premier charities in America.
eaglesoars wrote:
Hubby is a good judge of people be it Santorum or Obama.
Speranza wrote:
she looks like she’s been dragged thru a knothole. The woman is exhausted.
Speranza wrote:
C’mmon, who elects a 69 years old woman who looks like a charlady
Speranza wrote:
Or ME!!!
theoutsider wrote:
So nothing, I just found it curious. Big friggin’ deal.
Guilt by association is actually something you guys do that all the time (and for the record I like Kirsten Powers and have pleasantly corresponded with her) with your Bain Capital and Halliburton idiotic remarks.
@ Speranza:
I think she’ll probably end up running. If If I was betting today, I’d say a Clinton Vs Bush race is very probable. Of course, we’re 4 years away, so who knows.
Good stuff from Zero Hedge:
We’ll have a better chance of running into Elvis than someone who got one of those 163,000 “jobs”. They’re pissin’ on our shoes and tellin’ us it’s raining.
theoutsider wrote:
There is no way there will be another Bush as the nominee. I think the Democrats will do something really stupid such as nominating the inept Governor of Maryland (the state which has lost the most jobs), Martin O’Malley. O’Malley was handed the job by his Republican predecessor with a $1 billion surplus and has run up a $2 billion deficit -- now that takes talent.
Guggi wrote:
Hey, try to be a little bit nicer to the charladies!
Speranza wrote:
Did you see my #68?
He’s a Coptic Christian
MacDuff wrote:
When she was running for Senator from New York she came across more pro Israel then David Ben-Gurion. Once she became Secretary of State she turned into James Baker.
eaglesoars wrote:
I thought the name was Arabic. He is a brilliant Gatstroenterologist. Her comments on Egypt the other night was absurd (and again, I actually do like her).
MacDuff wrote:
did you check out their Household survey numbers?
eaglesoars wrote:
Come to think of it, yes I do recall her talking about that.
Speranza wrote:
A lot of what she says is absurd. I don’t dislike her because I think she doesn’t have an unkind bone in her body.
But gawd, she’s dumb.
@ Speranza:
Jeb is already thinking about it. I know his last name is poisonous, but he’s also trying to disqualify Rubio by hooking him up with Romney the loser. O’malley is not going to be the Democratic nominee. IF it’s not Hillary, Andrew Cuomo the second choice.
theoutsider wrote:
If Jeb runs I actually might sit on my hands and not vote. The GOP Establishment is clueless enough to think that the public pines for another Bush. Say it ain’t so, Joe!
eaglesoars wrote:
On domestic politics she actually is astute and I like the fact she does not engage in snark. On foreign affairs she is out of her depth. During Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 when finally Israel started taking action against Hamas in Gaza, she wrote that Obama (who had not yet been inaugurated) should say something critical about it.
Confession -- she sure is nice to look at.
MacDuff wrote:
I promise I’ll try it
@ eaglesoars:
That chart is horrifying. Truly horrifying.
eaglesoars wrote:
Sadly a lot of Copts here in America are very anti-Israel even though it was Muslims who made their lives miserable.
MacDuff wrote:
Yeppers. One thing that might be hidden in there tho’ -- I’ll bet a lot of small businesses do what we do -- we don’t put anyone but ourselves on the payroll. Our employees -- usually from 1-3 people are all set up as independent contractors who are paid by the hour.
That probably shows up in that chart as ‘part time’ jobs.
Romney needs to mention the uncounted unemployed (those who have given up looking, or those whose unemployment check have run out) again, and again.
@ Speranza:
So, If Obama wins in 2012, Who do you think are the favorites for the Republican nomination in 16?
@ Speranza:
You needn’t worry. There’s no way Jeb Bush is the nominee in 2016,even if Romney loses, which is far from a done deal. The voting population doesn’t pine for another Bush, and if Romney loses the Tea Party will be bigger than ever in 2016. The establishment lost to Cruz in Texas this year. 2016 will be the year of the Tea Party if Romney loses this year.
@ Iron Fist:
As long as the Tea Party does not bring forth candidates such as Angle and O’Donnell. That Harry Reid is a despicable fellow.
“Hope means hoping when things are hopeless, or it is no virtue at all…it is only when everything is hopeless that hope begins to be a strength.” -GK Chesterton
On that inspirational note, I’ll take my leave. Have a good day, I’ll check in later.
Reid repeated his baseless accusations against Romney on the Senate floor yesterday. I presume he did so in order to insulate himself from liability.
A Senator cannot be sued for defamation for something he says on the Senate floor; if Romney tries to make an issue of the allegations, Reid will argue that his repetition of them on the Senate floor grandfathers in all the other off-floor allegations, because they are of a piece and cannot be separated.
It is an extremely sleazy tactic, even more sleazy than the allegations themselves.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I saw it. It was absolutely shameful.
New Thread.
Iron Fist wrote:
You’re dreaming. Tea party activists will be under audit by the IRS, investigated by the DEA, etc. Obama will openly be the thug he is and use the gov’t as a club to suppress dissent.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
@ Speranza:
No Republican Senator confronted Reid about what he said. Plus the Romney campaign gave a weak response.
This stuff needs to be confronted and once again, the GOP doesn’t know how to street fight.
Iron Fist wrote:
I agree, Romney is the last of the old guard of the GOP. After this, no Liberal will ever be the GOP nominee again. Unlike others I am taking a look at the long struggle. One loss will not derail anything.
Rodan wrote:
They really need to adapt a version of their own “Chicago way” of political fighting.
theoutsider wrote:
If Obama wins in 2012, it won’t matter.
gotta hop
@ Speranza:
Whomever we pick will likely be more socially conservative than you are comfortable with, but they’ll be more likely to win than a Leftist RINO like another Bush. But all that presupposes that Romney loses. I don’t think that is anywhere near a done deal. They are having to cook the polls just to keep it neck and neck. That doesn’t bode well for the incumbent. And Obama is losing the money poll decisively. He’s not pretending to lose in fundraising for strategic advantage.
@ Iron Fist:
The key is that they are economically Conservative. There’s no point in supporting someone who is a Progressive like Huckabee or Santorum just because they are Socially Conservative. Redistributing wealth and Social Justice in the name of God is just as bad as in the name of Marx.
@ eaglesoars:
Then I get to become a Civil War veteran. Obama’s already pushed about as far down the path of Totalitarian Fascism as the country will tolerate. Personally, I think he’s going to lose. It’ll be close, but I bet that we’ll have President Romney to kick around for the next four years.
@ Iron Fist:
I don’t even want to think about what the country would be like after another 4 years of his crap.
Or the rest of the world, for that matter.
@ Rodan:
There’s no point in running an “Economic Conservative “in who wants to force churches to perform gay marriages, either. Socially liberal but fiscally conservative is an oxymoron anyway. Society always has to pay for the results of their liberalism.
Iron Fist wrote:
Socially libertarian (with a small “l”) is not.
lobo91 wrote:
I shudder to contemplate it.
@ Iron Fist:
I wish more people understood that…
Iron Fist wrote:
Who called for that?
My point is don’t fall for these culture warriors. Many of them are William Jenning Bryan and Father Coughlin style Religious Progressive. The ideal Candidate would be Economically Conservative and Socially Soft Social Conservative/Libertarian.
Beware of Santorum!
Wall Street is up 200. They have bought into the economy is booming lie.
@ Speranza:
No, but the Libertarians have gone batshit insane. I oppose any group that picks Ron Paul as their standard-bearer. And I say that as someone who used to be a Libertarian. The Libertarians lost their minds after 9-11 and never looked back. Besides, Libertarians don’t win elections. You have to win elections to govern.
Iron Fist wrote:
Libertarians such as Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel, yes I agree with that -- that is why I specified small “l” libertarians such as myself i.e. 10th amendment fans.
Rodan wrote:
A lot of what the Dow does has to do with Europe and other overseas issues.
@ Speranza:
That’s weapons grade ignorant. Our church runs a breakfast program for the homeless, 365 days out of the year.
@ MacDuff:
What’s a “food shelter” anyway? Does my fridge count as one? I sure as hell funded that.
Alberta Oil Peon wrote:
Now that is funny!
texasam7 wrote:
Churches and Synagogues throughout this great nation do wonderful work for the needy.