Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!

by John R Guardiano on May 9, 2012

Jim Antle has nailed it. “One in six bundlers,” he tweets, “speaks louder than seven of ten African Americans.”

Indeed, the subtext of Obama’s “marriage” announcement today is that candidate Obama is more afraid of losing campaign money from gay donors (and from Hollywood in general) than he is concerned about a possible erosion of support amongst socially conservative black and Hispanic voters.

In fact, it just so happens that Obama has a fundraiser scheduled tomorrow with Hollywood lefties George Clooney, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Barbra Streisand. As the old church lady might say, “How convenient!”

In other words, Obama’s saying, Jerry Maguire-like, Show me the money! And, apparently, he’s gonna get a lot of it: an estimated $15 million in cool, hard cash with which to bash the Republicans.
 

Originally published at the American Spectator.

 

Tagged as: Barack Obama, Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jim Antle

{ 0 comments }

Why National Review Should Not Have Fired John Derbyshire

by John R Guardiano on April 12, 2012

What’s worse: ‘dangerous’ or ‘racist’ thinking, or firing a writer for expressing such thinking?

As a private entity, National Review had every legal right to fire John Derbyshire. But let’s not pretend that his dismissal is anything less than a blow to freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

Derbyshire, after all, had been writing for National Review for at least 10 years. He was summarily dismissed on Saturday, though, after he published a controversial article about “the talk that nonblack Americans have, [or should have], with their kids.”

Critics have denounced the article as a “racist screed,” and that certainly is one way to read the piece. Derbyshire references the socioeconomic difficulties that disproportionately affect African Americans. He then cites these difficulties as sufficient reason for non-blacks to avoid, and even to discriminate against, African Americans.

I don’t agree with Derbyshire’s group-centric approach to race relations. I’ve known, served and worked with too many upstanding African Americans — including a young Haitian immigrant U.S. Marine — to harbor any ill will toward blacks. The truth is they are our fellow Americans. And our culture — especially in the arts and the sports and entertainment fields — would be far poorer were it not for their contributions.

In any case, there is, I think, another way to read Derbyshire’s piece; and that is as the exasperation of a man at his wit’s end because of the myriad problems that all of us know destroy the lives of too many African Americans.

For example, in one seemingly cruel passage, Derbyshire writes: “Do not act as the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g.., on the highway.”

Of course, Jesus counseled the exact opposite: Jesus implores us to be the good Samaritan, to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, and to help the man in distress.

So is Derbyshire the devil for contravening Jesus? No, of course not. He’s human; he’s annoyed; and he’s upset — and for good reason: He’s seen senseless and violent behavior play itself out too often within African American communities. And, to illustrate, he cites one telling anecdote:

A 61-year-old good Samaritan, Quintin Guerrero rushed to help one young black woman after she jumped out of a moving cab in front of Guerrero’s house.

However, reports the Daily News in a piece linked by Derbyshire, Guerrero was stomped to death by the woman he attempted to save and her boyfriend.

In other words, Derbyshire is saying, the breakdown in civilization has become endemic within certain parts of the African American community that no good deed there goes unpunished. So tread cautiously and avoid becoming the victim.

Can anyone dispute that this is true? Sure, we may not share Derbyshire’s conclusion — and certainly I don’t — that blacks should be looked upon as representatives of a dangerous group and not as distinct and often praiseworthy individuals. But can anyone deny the humanity and deep frustration that underlies Derbyshire’s writing?

In short, it is too easy — and all too wrong — to simply dismiss Derbyshire’s provocative piece as a “racist rant.” In point of fact, as even National Review editor Rich Lowry acknowledges, Derbyshire is a “deeply literate, funny, and incisive writer.”

Which is why his dismissal is, I think, so wrong and so misguided.

The hard and difficult truth is that Derbyshire was fired for expressing unpopular ideas — ideas that many people say they loathe and abhor. But the very purpose of the First Amendment is to promote the vigorous exchange of ideas in a free, open and contested market. It is not to preemptively censor or punish people for saying things that people don’t want to hear.

“I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe,” explained the late great Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

In short, bad ideas should be countered with good ideas; and poor thinking should be confronted with better thinking. The consequence of Derbyshire’s piece should have been an outpouring of articles and opinion pieces explaining how and why he erred.

Curiously, though, that hasn’t happened. Instead, we’ve had a much-needed dialogue and debate about race short-circuited by indignant cries of “racism” — as if promiscuously throwing that word about absolves us of our need to think and to argue.

I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. And calling people bad names (“racists”) and labeling them with the modern-day equivalent of the scarlet letter won’t do. That tactic has grown old, and that dog won’t hunt. Not anymore. Not after the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other racial charlatans have rendered the word racist all but meaningless today.

Again, as a private entity, National Review had the legal right to to fire Derbyshire. But in so doing, they flouted the very purpose and intent of the First Amendment, which is to promote, and not squelch, hard-hitting dialogue and debate. And, for a think magazine dedicated to intellectual combat, that is, I think, a mortal sin far greater than any wrong committed by John Derbyshire.

Cross-posted at the Minority Report blog.

Tagged as: John Derbyshire, National Review, Rich Lowry

{ 4 comments }

Sandra Fluke Is No Fluke

by John R Guardiano on March 7, 2012

Sandra Fluke's congressional testimony has been show to be a gross lie and a deliberate distraction.

The Sandra Fluke brouhaha seems to be dying down; but I would be remiss if I didn’t make two key points about this ridiculous controversy:

First, Sandra Fluke is no fluke. Instead, she is part and parcel of an elaborate left-wing campaign to bait and smear the Right, change the subject, and protect and reelect Obama. And no, this doesn’t mean there is a conspiracy; it simply means there is a strategy.

Contraception, after all, has never been at issue. Americans enjoy free and easy access to contraception; and there is absolutely no one in American politics — including Rick Santorum — who proposes that this change in any way.

What is very much at issue, however — and this is my second point — is religious liberty and individual conscience. That is, will religious institutions (such as the Catholic Church) be forced by the state to prescribe contraception when the longstanding tenants of their faith demand otherwise?

Everything in the American political tradition tells us that the answer to that question is an obvious and resounding no. Our Constitution, after all, expressly protects the free exercise of religion. Problem is the Obama administration disagrees and thus has been trying to force its will upon religious folk.

But rather than debate in good faith, fairly and squarely, the issue of religious liberty, Obama and his minions have decided to create an elaborate sideshow to distract the American people.

Thus we hear about the wholly fictitious “right-wing war on women’s health.” Though in reality, it would be far more accurate to talk of a “left-wing war on religion.”

In any case, do they really think the American people — and American women especially — are that stupid?

Why, apparently they do! And some polling suggests that, as Abraham Lincoln put it, you can, indeed, fool some of the people some of the time. Indeed, according to Politico, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds that,

Obama has gained support among white and suburban women. In both groups, the president is up to a 45 percent approval rating from 40 percent in December. Overall among women, approval for the president rose to 54 percent versus 40 percent disapproval. In December, both his overall approval and disapproval among women were 47 percent.

But Lincoln also said that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. And so, I have got to believe that as women (and men) learn the truth about what Obama is proposing — which is to crush individual conscience and steamroll religious liberty — that they will recoil in anger and refuse to be played for fools. We will see.

UPDATE: Robert Stacy McCain has been covering this issue well, with his characteristic wit, verve and flair. “Since we can’t call Sandra Fluke a ‘slut,’ he asks, “would ‘lying liberal bitch’ be OK?”

Far be it from me to stoop to name-calling as a substitute for argument, but this question is not merely rhetorical. It seems that Sandra Fluke — who is receiving media Martyr of the Month beatification as the Matthew Shepard of ”reproductive rights” — stands accused of makin’ stuff up.

Stacy picks up on a story by the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack, who actually did some real reporting on the cost of contraception. McCormack found that, Fluke to the contrary notwithstanding, birth control pills don’t cost a student $1,000 a year. Instead,

Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown’s campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.’s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills — the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen — for $9 per month.

“That’s the price without insurance,” the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

As Stacy says, “WHOA! … Give that man a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism.” Or at least charge the rest of the media with professional malpractice.

Tagged as: Barack Obama, John McCormack, Robert Stacy McCain, Sandra Fluke

{ 0 comments }

David Brooks Nails James Q. Wilson, RIP

by John R Guardiano on March 6, 2012

David Brooks has captured James Q. Wilson perfectly, and in a way that no one else has.

As they’re published (and as I find them), I’m gonna continue to excerpt from, and link to, the obituaries to political scientist extraordinaire James Q. Wilson. (See “How James Q. Wilson and the Neoconservatives Saved America’s Cities and Made the World Safe for Policy Conservatism.”)

However, because it is so original, unique and compelling — and because it so perfectly captures the man and his significance — David Brooks’ piece on Wilson deserves special mention.

Wilson, Brooks wisely points out, put questions of character and morality back into the public policy dialogue and debate. And he did this not as some sort of Bible-thumping religious right boogeyman (which haunts the imagination of the Left), but rather as a meticulous social scientist who let facts, logic and reason dictate his conclusions.

“When Wilson wrote about character and virtue,” explains Brooks,

he didn’t mean anything high flown or theocratic. It was just the basics, befitting a man who grew up in the middle-class suburbs of Los Angeles in the 1940s: Behave in a balanced way. Think about the long-term consequences of your actions. Cooperate. Be decent.

That sounds so simple and so easy; but in fact, as Wilson himself readily acknowledged, maintaining civilization and civilized behavior is anything but simple and easy: Because once a community begins to fray and unravel, restoring it can be doubly difficult.

“Wilson lived in an individualistic age,” Brooks writes,

but he emphasized that character was formed in groups. As he wrote in The Moral Sense, his 1993 masterpiece, “Order exists because a system of beliefs and sentiments held by members of a society sets limits to what those members can do.”

One small quibble with Brooks’ otherwise superb piece. He writes that Wilson “did not believe that virtue was inculcated by prayer in schools. It was habituated, [instead], by practicing good manners, by being dependable, punctual and responsible day by day.”

It is true that Wilson was a social scientist and not a theologian. So of course his work was not aimed at promoting prayer and religion per se. But Brooks is wrong to suggest that Wilson was indifferent to the secular effects of transcendental power and belief.

In fact, quite the opposite: Wilson recognized that certain social customs and habits (such as prayer in the public schools) might actually help to inculcate good manners and civilized behavior.

Our moral nature, he wrote in The Moral Sense, “grows directly out of our social nature.” And, in Crime and Human Nature, Wilson cited research studies that showed a correlation between religious belief and inmate rehabilitation.

In short, Wilson typically agreed with the dreaded “religious right,” but for the secular reasons of a social scientist; and that made him an extremely formidable and effective intellectual and political ally. RIP.

Tagged as: David Brooks, James Q. Wilson

{ 0 comments }

Netanyahu Warns of the Inevitable War with Iran

by John R Guardiano on March 6, 2012

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a powerful and moving speech before the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) this evening.

The pundits are doing their best to minimize the differences between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But when you read the speeches that both men gave at AIPAC, one thing becomes inescapably clear: Obama and Netanyahu have diametrically divergent views on how to deal with the Iranian mullahs’ quest for nuclear weapons. And so, sooner or  later, this issue is bound to come to a head. Indeed, a war between Iran and Israel may well be inevitable — or so Netanyahu seemed to say. Consider:

“Because of our efforts, Iran is under greater pressure than ever before,” declared Obama.

Because of our work. Iran is isolated, its leadership divided and under pressure. And by the way, the Arab Spring has only increased these trends, as the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime is exposed, and its ally, the Assad regime, is crumbling.

If only there were true, countered Netanyahu (figuratively speaking, I mean. Here’s what the prime minister actually said):

For fifteen years, I’ve been warning that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to my country and to the peace and security of the world. For the last decade, the international community has tried diplomacy. It hasn’t worked. For six years, the international community has applied sanctions. That hasn’t worked either.

I appreciate President Obama’s recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy. But unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear march goes on.

“There is too much loose talk of war,” Obama insisted. And this “has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program…

“For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster,” Obama continued. “Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in and to sustain the broad international coalition we have built…

Sorry, Mr President, but “Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue.”

We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer. As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live under the shadow of annihilation.

Netanyahu went onto passionately dismiss the notion that a military confrontation with Iran would needlessly undermine the Obama administration’s ongoing diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.

“I’ve heard these arguments before,” he said. “In fact I’ve read them before.”

The year was 1944. Liberal Democrat Franklin Roosevelt was president. The World Jewish Congress had pleaded with FDR to bomb the concentration camps, Auschwitz in particular. FDR refused. His war department blithely told the World Jewish Congress that

Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere… and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources…

Such an effort, [moreover], might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.

It was a sad, shameful and shortsighted moment in American history. But Netanyahu wasn’t at AIPAC to shame America. He was here to inform the world that things are different now: “2012 is not 1944,” he explained.

Back then the Jewish state did not exist. And so, the Jews had to depend upon the good offices of countries such as the United States to save them. However, that’s no longer true. Today, said Netanyahu, Israel has “the ability to defend itself, by itself against, any threat.”

Mr. President, he declared, “We deeply appreciate the great alliance between our two countries. But when it comes to Israel’s survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.”

In other words, Netanyahu is not about to ask for Obama’s permission to strike Iran. Instead, Israel will act when it must; and that fateful and unavoidable decision is near.

Tagged as: Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, Franklin Roosevelt

{ 0 comments }

How James Q. Wilson and the Neoconservatives Saved America’s Cities and Made the World Safe for Policy Conservatism

by John R Guardiano on March 4, 2012

James. Q. Wilson, an American intellectual hero, 1931-2012. RIP. Venit, vidit, vicit.

Few academics ever make a genuinely profound or lasting contribution to American public life. Political scientist James Q. Wilson was one of the few. And now, after an amazingly full and productive career, the 80-year-old professor has left us. His phenomenal body of work, though, endures and will long be remembered.

Wilson is most famously known for developing the “broken windows” theory of law enforcement, which literally transformed and saved America’s dying cities. The transformation was especially acute in New York City, which went from  being a cesspool of violent crime to a wondrous haven for families, businesses and entrepreneurs.

I grew up not far from New York City; and my father spent his youth regularly journeying into Manhattan from West New York, New Jersey. Yet, as adults, my parents avoided Manhattan like the plague — largely because of the crime and their realization that the city was dangerous and inhospitable to families.

It took a man named Rudolph Giuliani to change all that.

Of course, Giuliani didn’t act alone. Other courageous urban leaders, such as the city’s transit police chief, William J. Bratton, and police commissioner Howard Safir also saw wisdom in Wilson’s “broken windows” theory.

Wilson’s insight was this: Minor acts of vandalism, such as broken windows, are gateway drugs, if you will, into bigger acts of crime and corruption which soon consume, dominate and ruin a city.

Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.

Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars

Wilson’s insight simply and brilliantly explained why New York and other once great cities had fallen into disrepair and ruin.

Today, of course, everyone takes the broken windows theory for granted; but it wasn’t always that way.

Indeed, before Giuliani and other conservative leaders replaced them, our reigning liberal elites forced upon us another idea, now thoroughly discredited — the idea that criminals have to coddled  and appeased, not deterred and punished.

That all changed, as I say, back in the 1990s. But the intellectual groundwork for this change had already been laid by a fearless political scientist named James Q. Wilson — a man unrestrained by politically correct orthodoxy and the cannons of liberalism.

Policy Conservatism. Wilson, in fact, was a conservative. This matters because conservative academics are outnumbered by a factor of eight or nine to one. And they are barely tolerated, let alone celebrated, within the academy. And so, a college or university student looking for a creditable source of modern conservative thought has relatively few resources available to him.

James Q. Wilson was one such resource — a towering and undisputed intellectual giant, whose work cannot be denied by even the most hardcore leftist.

I know because I first read Wilson as college student, in the pages of Commentary magazine, then edited (in the 1980s and ’90s) by the venerable Norman Podhoretz. And he (Wilson) was one of the few real conservative thinkers that I could appeal to and still be taken seriously by my professors.

It helped, of course, that the man was an empiricist, who based his work on real-world evidence, not fanciful and farfetched theories. This made denigrating him particularly difficult because, as Ronald Reagan once put it, “facts are stubborn things.”

Wilson’s ideology also matters because he was integral to a group of formerly liberal social scientists (dubbed “neoconservatives”) who made conservatism intellectually respectable again.  The ranks of the neocons included (and include): Irving Kristol, Thomas Sowell, Edward Banefield, Norman Podhoretz, and Nathan Glazer.

Most of these men have either passed away (Kristol) or faded into obscurity (Podhoretz). Still, all conservatives owe them a tremendous intellectual debt for their pioneering intellectual spadework. The neoconservatives developed, as David Frum observes, “a policy conservatism that was empirical, relevant and useful — and convincing even to those not predisposed to be convinced.”

Here are brief excerpts from some of the obituaries written about James Q. Wilson. May he rest in peace — and may his work long endure.

Commentary editor John Podhoretz:

[Wilson] was this nation’s foremost political scientist, literally the author of the definitive textbook on the workings of American government, a writer of uncommon grace and clarity, and a man who believed more than anyone I’ve ever known in the power of the human capacity to reason to change things for the better…

David Frum:

…In two brilliant books, Thinking About Crime and Crime and Human Nature, Wilson countered the despairing fatalism of law enforcement in the 1960s and 1970s. He argued that it was not first necessary to solve all of society’s other ills—racism, unemployment—before reducing crime. He demonstrated that practicable changes in the behaviors of police and courts could powerfully alter the choices made by potential wrongdoers.

If (as he hypothesized) a relatively small number of criminals committed relatively large amounts of crime, then holding those few criminals in prison longer would substantially reduce the overall crime rate. And so it has proven over the past generation of the swiftest record reduction of criminality in American history…

The Wall Street Journal:

…He was a conservative because he believed that attempts to reorganize or transform the country were something the government does at its own peril, and everyone else’s. Things as they are deserve a presumption of validity, and the risks of unintended consequences are likely to be high.

He had confidence in humanity as moral creatures who acted accordingly most of the time –a theme that occupied him in his later years and informed his outstanding book, The Moral Sense…

Stanford Professor Mark Kleiman:

…The things that made Jim special — beyond is massive intellect, wide reading, and graceful, accurate prose — were his generosity of spirit and his deep moral and intellectual seriousness.

At a time when he was very much committed to the Red team, he helped spread my ideas despite what he knew were my strong Blue loyalties. (Unsolicited, he gave When Brute Force Fails, which is largely a rebuttal to Thinking About Crime, its best blurb.)

Jim wanted to get things right, even when that meant acknowledging that he had earlier been wrong: a tendency not common among academics, or among participants in policy debates…

Alan Wolfe, The New Republic:

…At a time when number-crunching and rational choice theorizing held sway in political science, even at Ivy League universities that once seemed to resist such trends, Jim practiced a social science dealing with real world complexities and matters of deep concern to ordinary citizens…

Yuval Levin:

…A big part of the reason for Wilson’s success in changing how we think was the exceptional clarity and elegance of his writing. He wrote great books, but he was especially a writer of great essays — truly a master of the form. Many of the best ones, especially on matters of policy, appeared in the pages of The Public Interest through the years…

Arthur C. Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute:

…Arguably, no social scientist had more influence over American public policy, on topics ranging from deregulation to welfare reform. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush and advised five decades of American presidents.

Pat Moynihan once reportedly told Richard Nixon (who was known for his disdain for intellectuals), “Mr. President, James Q. Wilson is the smartest man in the United States. The president of the United States should pay attention to what he has to say.”

His influence on policy and politics was so vast that it inspired columnist George Will to quip, “To be a political commentator in James Q. Wilson’s era is to know how Mel Tormé must have felt being a singer in Frank Sinatra’s era…”

George Will:

…Elegant in bearing, voracious for learning, eloquent in advocacy and amiable in disputation, Wilson was a prophet honored in his own country by, among various ways, the presidency of the American Political Science Association and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Every contemporary writer about American society and politics knows how Mel Torme must have felt being a singer in Frank Sinatra’s era. Everyone else has competed for the silver medal. Wilson won the gold.

David Brooks:

…Broken windows was only a small piece of what Wilson contributed, and he did not consider it the center of his work. The best way to understand the core Wilson is by borrowing the title of one of his essays: “The Rediscovery of Character.”

When Wilson began looking at social policy, at the University of Redlands, the University of Chicago and Harvard, most people did not pay much attention to character. The Marxists looked at material forces.

Darwinians at the time treated people as isolated products of competition. Policymakers of right and left thought about how to rearrange economic incentives. “It is as if it were a mark of sophistication for us to shun the language of morality in discussing the problems of mankind,” he once recalled…

Tagged as: Alan Wolfe, David Brooks, David Frum, Edward Banfield, George Will, Irving Kristol, James Q. Wilson, John Podhoretz, Mark Kleiman, Nathan Glazer, Norman Podhoretz, Rudolph Giuliani, Thomas Sowell, Yuval Levin

{ 0 comments }

Sandra Fluke Is No Martyr, and Rush Limbaugh Is No Monster

by John R Guardiano on March 3, 2012

The media are up in arms about Rush Limbaugh because what he says resonates and strikes a nerve. Good for him.

As is his wont, Conor Friedersdorf has taken to lecturing us conservatives about our alleged moral shortcomings. His latest lament is that we haven’t thrown Rush Limbaugh under the bus for calling media/left-wing celebrity Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

Prominent and influential conservatives, writes Conor, would never dream of saying such a thing. And yet, when Rush makes this type of remark (as he often has in the past, Conor alleges), conservatives “just stay mum.” And so, Rush remains a “frequently celebrated, seldom criticized figure within the conservative movement.”

Conor finds this “embarrassing”; I don’t.

Politics and public affairs ain’t beanbag, OK? It’s a contact sport. If you enter the arena, then you had better expect to get hit — and hit hard. Otherwise, don’t play this game.

Sandra Fluke is a 30-year-old Georgetown law student, a well connected — and well-heeled — left-wing activist, and she’s nobody’s victim. She’s no “martyr.”

In fact, Fluke knew exactly what she was getting into. As a past president of “Law Students for Reproductive Justice,” reports Robert Stacy McCain, she “evidently enrolled at Georgetown University Law School with the specific purpose of challenging the Catholic university’s policy of denying insurance coverage for contraception.”

Are certain hits beyond the pale and out of bounds? Absolutely. But I don’t think Rush’s comments can be categorized as such, given the full context of his remarks.

“What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her?” Limbaugh said on his radio show on Wednesday.

“It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

The conservative radio host continued on to joke, “OK, so she’s not a slut. She’s ‘round heeled.’”

Agree or disagree with Rush, there’s no denying the indisputable logic behind his decidedly non-PC commentary.

Now, Conor’s right about one thing: Rush’s statements here are not ones that I would make. His type of freewheeling, roundhouse humor isn’t always appropriate for the boardroom, the halls of Congress, or even this blog.

But in modern-day America, earthy, rough-hewn jocularity is par for the course. And it only becomes controversial and “embarrassing” when political conservatives are the ones dishing it out. When, though, we’re on the receiving end of the left’s venomous “humor,” that’s OK.

In truth, politics and entertainment (Congress and talk radio), are very different and distinct fields. As such, they adhere to two very different standards, and thank goodness for that.

But what explains the double standard between liberal “humor” (which the media and our cultural guardians say is just fine)  and conservative humor (which they judge “inappropriate”)?

UPDATE: Not surprisingly, Rush has issued a thoughtful and gracious apology to “Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

I say not surprisingly because Rush has always been a better man than his vitriolic critics. Indeed, we will wait in vain for an apology from Bill Maher, Al Franken, Ed Schutlz, and any of the other left-wing smear merchants.

And, unlike them at least, Rush’s commentary is not gratuitous and designed merely for shock value. Instead, there is a rhyme, reason and logic behind his criticism. Mr. Fluke, remember, has been soliciting other people’s money (through insurance subsidies) to sustain her private sexual habits.

Cross-posted at the Minority Report blog.

Tagged as: Conor Friedersdorf, Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke

{ 0 comments }

‘Free’ Contraception, Government Mandated: It’s in the Constitution!

by John R Guardiano on March 3, 2012

Thanks to the media and the public schools, many people think this is Abraham Lincoln or one of the American founding fathers. Think again!

Political humorist Frank J. Fleming has a highly amusing piece in the New York Post lampooning the media’s dangerously distorted misunderstanding of the Constitution and of our Bill of Rights  (h/t: Nathan Wurtzel).

A very timely piece this — especially during these perilous times, when the “extreme right wing” is trying — despicably! — to stop the feds from mandating that health insurers provide “free” contraception to privileged and affluent law students such as Sandra Fluke.

…The Bill of Rights looks like it was written by a crazed, right-wing militia member living in an isolated compound. It’s all “Government can’t tell me to do this” and “Government can’t make me do that” and “I want to have guns.”

We need to update this silly, archaic Bill of Rights, which puts all this emphasis on “freedom” with no mention of the much more important “free stuff.” If we don’t act, other countries will make fun of us for it — and who wants to be tittered at by Belgium?

We want a strong government that guarantees us all the things we need, and we should have a new Bill of Rights that reflects that.

I propose that we have a meeting of all the great minds (college professors, A-list Hollywood actors, people who watch “Downton Abbey”) to list everything people need — basics like food, transportation, and smart phones.

The first section — the “free stuff” section — of the new Bill of Rights will guarantee that everyone gets all these essentials. After that can come the “freedom” section of less useful rights that don’t actually give you anything, like freedom of speech (but let’s leave out the one about guns — they’re dangerous; people will shoot their eyes out).

And the brain trust will make it clear that if the “freedom” section ever conflicts with the “free stuff” part, then “free stuff” wins out…

Of course, Karl Marx put it far more eloquently and far more succinctly: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

That’s not in the Constitution — yet. But in time, as we “progress” and become a more “modern” society, I’m sure we’ll get there. Why, thanks to media misinformation and public school miseducation, 42 percent of us believe Marx’s dictum is already part of the Constitution!

Cross-posted at the Minority Report blog.

Tagged as: Bill of Rights, Constitution, Frank J. Fleming, Karl Marx, Sandra Fluke

{ 0 comments }

Matthew Yglesias Epitomizes the Disgustingly Illiberal Left

by John R Guardiano on March 3, 2012

Influential left-wing columnist Matthew Yglesias cheers the death of his conservative political opponents such as Andrew Breitbart.

The American Spectator’s Quin Hillyer is rightfully disgusted by Matthew Yglesias’s reaction to Andrew Breitbart’s unexpected and premature death at the age of forty-three. “Conventions around dead people are ridiculous,” Yglesias lectured in a tweet. “The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBreitbart dead.”

This is disgusting, but not surprising. Throughout history, after all, Marxist-Leninists have denied the humanity of their political opponents in order to rationalize their murder, their pogroms, and their genocide.

Yglesias’s logic is thus quite familiar. All he lacks is the courage of his convictions. (Unlike his ideological forbearers, after all, Yglesias has not actually murdered anyone. Instead, he has simply declared that a political opponent’s death is desirable.)

Sadly and reprehensibly, Yglesias isn’t backing down. In fact, he’s doubling down: “If you think @AndrewBrietbart‘s opponents shouldn’t be glad he’s dead,” he subsequently tweeted, “you’re not taking his life’s work seriously.”

No, Yglesias, you have it exactly wrong and exactly backwards. The truth is quite the opposite: If, like Yglesias, you think Andrew Breitbart’s opponents should be “glad he’s dead,” then you’re taking domestic political disputes way too seriously.

American conservatives are notable for their decency, their humanity, and their good will. Certainly, this was true of Andrew Breitbart, RIP. The same cannot be said, I regret to say, about Matthew Yglesias and America’s disgustingly illiberal Left.

Cross-posted at the Minority Report blog.

Tagged as: Andrew Breitbart, Matthew Yglesias, Quin Hillyer

{ 0 comments }

Is Jennifer Rubin a ‘Real Conservative’?

by John R Guardiano on January 22, 2012

jennifer-rubin-drawing

Conservative bloggers are attacking Jennifer Rubin for silly, nonsensical reasons.

I like Dan Riehl, but his criticism of Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin has got to be the silliest thing I’ve ever read.

Riehl says that Rubin is a Jenny-Come-Lately faux conservative who, as recently as 2004, was a John Kerry-loving California Dem.

How does Riehl arrive at this amazing conclusion? Simple: he cites an Internet commenter who says that, when he worked with Rubin in California, she gave the “impression” that she was a Democrat.

Jenn “was mildly critical of some of Kerry’s campaign moves during the ’04 campaign, but she wasn’t in the Bush camp,” says the Internet commenter.

Worse yet in Riehls’ eyes, Rubin earned her undergraduate and law degrees from — gasp! — the University of California at Berkeley!

Rubin, Riehl indignantly intones,

has absolutely no business, nor authority, to be lecturing life-long, long-term and genuine Reaganite conservatives about anything – as she tried to do yesterday. Come to think of it  – and now knowing her background — she even sounds a lot like a Kerry-supporting Berkeley liberal Democrat…

Riehl then quotes from a piece in which Jenn criticized conservatives who dissented from last year’s budget deal. ”If I were you,” Jenn, Riehl piously declares,

I’d be extremely careful about throwing the word credibility as a conservative around, [because] from a traditional conservative perspective, you really have none, insofar as I can tell.

Why some folks can’t simply call themselves Neo-Republicans (which more accurately describes what they actually are) is sad, frankly. Co-opting the word conservative for self-marketing purposes is misleading and little more than a media-based scam.

Oh, please. This is so silly and so laughable!

Look, I sometimes disagree with Rubin, but the idea that she’s really a liberal Dem and only pretending to be a conservative “for self-marketing purposes” is absolute nonsense.  Riehl and his supposedly smoking gun Internet commenter are taking social politeness as an indication of political ideology or affiliation.

But most of us who grew up in liberal areas, and who attended liberal colleges and universities, have learned to be socially polite, and not to wear our politics on our sleeves. We’ve learned to try and find common ground with our liberal family, friends and colleagues.

This doesn’t make us any less conservative; it simply makes us socially smart and adept.

As for not being in Bush’s camp in 2004, well, I have no doubt that Rubin voted for Bush. The foreign policy stakes in 2004, what with Iraq still in turmoil, were simply too great to be ignored. And Rubin is especially committed to an assertive, Reaganite foreign policy.

Still, Jenn probably wasn’t particularly enamored of Bush, and for obvious reasons: The man was not the most articulate spokesman for conservative ideas. And, when it comes to Jennifer Rubin, neither is Dan Riehl.

Tagged as: Dan Riehl, George W. Bush, Jennifer Rubin

{ 1 comment }

Newt Wins South Carolina–But Then Shows Why He Might Blow It

by John R Guardiano on January 22, 2012

Rick Santorum lost the South Carolina primary, but decisively won the primetime speech contest.

What are we to make of Newt’s win in South Carolina? Several things, I think:

1. Newt is a winner. Newt won decisively and across-the-board, amongst virtually every income and demographic group.

This strongly suggests that he has a broad-based appeal with deep roots in the GOP primary electorate. And this, in turn, means Newt will almost certainly be a force to be reckoned with in Florida, Nevada, Minnesota, Ohio, and perhaps all the way to the convention in Tampa, Florida.

2. Newt is a fighter. GOP primary voters want a fight (for the nomination) and a fighter (in their nominee). And they don’t want the party apparatchiks and the media elites to short fuse the nomination process by demonizing worthy and legitimate opponents such as Newt.

Talk radio host Michael Medved says that Newt vs. Mitt is a “choice of personality, not policy. On the big issues,” he explains, the two men have “nearly identical positions,” though they are temperamental opposites: “hot v. cool, passion v. pragmatism.”

That’s mostly but not completely true. There are important policy differences.

For example, Newt, unlike Romney, is for abolishing the immoral and unethical capital gains tax. Still, for the most part, the two men share very similar views.

That said, passion matters in politics — a lot. Indeed, the ability to motivate voters and to mobilize your supporters is an integral part of “electability.”

So let’s not pretend that the choice between Mitt and Newt is trivial or unimportant. It’s not. Mitt has certain advantages, but so, too does, Newt. And Newt’s most important advantage may be his ability to fight and to frame issues.

3. Newt can blow it. I watched in dismay as Newt gave his acceptance speech last night. It was a pure and unmitigated disaster — especially when compared to Rick Santorum’s far more polished and uplifting speech.

In fact, if you turned the TV off and just looked at the visual images (which, in effect, is what many people do, as they often have the TV on in the background while doing other things), you would have thought that Santorum had won and Newt had lost.

Santorum was smiling, positive and upbeat. He joked and spoke movingly about his wife, father and grandfather.

Newt, by contrast, was all somber and serious. He never really smiled. And he rambled on incoherently about Saul Alinsky — a man unknown to the vast majority of the voting public. (Jennifer Rubin observed the same thing that I did, and good on her for doing so.)

There, then, in one night, and within the span of only one hour, we saw the two sides of Newt: We saw the good Newt who can win this thing and, in so doing, “fundamentally transform American politics,” as he would say.

But we also saw the bad Newt, the undisciplined and unfocused Newt: the Newt who too often tries to wing it and fails.

I’m rooting for the good Newt, but I fear the bad Newt.

Cross-posted at the Minority Report blog.

Tagged as: Jennifer Rubin, Michael Medved, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum

{ 2 comments }

Netanyahu Dares to Say It: Merry Christmas!

by John R Guardiano on December 18, 2011

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly gets a lot of flak for taking note of the “war on Christmas.” But he’s absolutely right: There has been a concerted effort, by anti-religious secularists and God-haters, to deprecate the cultural significance of Christmas. And, unfortunately, they’ve been very successful.

Why, walk into any store in any large metro area (New York, Chicago, L.A., D.C., et al.), or any governmental complex, and you’ll rarely, if ever, hear someone say, “Merry Christmas.” Those words are now taboo. “Happy Holidays” is all the rage, and the implication is clear: Christmas is nothing special; it’s just another holiday, like Labor Day or New Year’s Day.

So it is refreshing (albeit not surprising) to hear a prominent Israeli Jew, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, say aloud what too many American Christians are afraid to say publicly: Merry Christmas. (H/T to Smitty over at The Other McCain.)

I say not surprising because, of course, it took a Jew (Jesus Christ) to found Christianity. And, as Netanyahu observes, the Jewish state is today a refuge, not only for Jews, but also for Christians, who are being persecuted and discriminated against in many Islamic states.

Mozal Tov, Prime Minister. Happy Hanukkah — and Merry Christmas.

Originally published at the American Spectator.

Tagged as: Benjamin Netanyahu, Bill O'Reilly, Christmas, The Other McCain

{ 1 comment }

How Bachmann (Unfairly) Bloodied Newt

by John R Guardiano on December 17, 2011

Michele Bachmann may look fair-minded and innocent, but in fact she's a fierce debater who sets out to destroy her political opponents.

As for Thursday night’s debate: I think Newt Gingrich made a fatal error by appearing to patronize Michele Bachmann. This clearly angered Michele and, come showtime, she exacted revenge. Let’s go, as they used to say, to the videotape (or at least the transcript).

The issue was abortion. Bachmann was railing against Newt for supposedly refusing to defund Planned Parenthood when he was Speaker of the House of Representatives back in the 1990s.

Worse yet, she charged, Newt had pledged to “campaign for Republicans who are in support of the barbaric procedure known as partial-birth abortion. I could never do that,” Bachmann said. “I will be 100 percent pro-life from conception until natural death.”

This is beyond “hardball politics.” This is called “destroy your opponent” politics. Bachmann ought to be ashamed of herself for suggesting that Newt’s position on abortion is no different from extreme left-wing Democrats such as Barack Obama or Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

In fact, as Newt himself tried to explain, Read More…

Tagged as: Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich

{ 1 comment }

Romney’s Problem Isn’t Christine O’Donnell, It’s John Sununu

by John R Guardiano on December 13, 2011

Decades after engineering political disasters for George H.W. Bush, former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu, Sr. (left) has emerged as Mitt Romney's new attack dog.

Some conservatives are upset with Mitt Romney for effusing over former Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, who has endorsed him for president. But Forget O’Donnell, who has little clout and influence. What conservatives should really find disconcerting is that Romney has trotted out former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu to bash Newt Gingrich.

Sununu, you may recall, served as chief of staff for the elder George H.W. Bush. As such, he was instrumental in pushing through far-reaching liberal initiatives that made Teddy Kennedy proud.

There was, for instance, Bush’s quota bill, the Bush tax hikes (don’t read his lying lips), and Bush Supreme Court nominee David Souter.

Souter, of course, would become one of the court’s most liberal justices, where he served for 19 regrettable years. But the important thing to remember about him is this: Read More…

Tagged as: David Souter, George H.W. Bush, John Sununu, Joseph W. McQuaid, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich

{ 0 comments }

What Romney Must Do to Beat Newt

by John R Guardiano on December 12, 2011

Time is running out for Mitt Romney, who has his eye on the presidential primary clock.

I’m undecided and conflicted in the 2012 presidential race. As a purely political matter, I think that former Missouri Senator Jim Talent is absolutely right: Romney would be a significantly more formidable Republican presidential nominee than anyone else now running.

However, as an iconoclastic conservative, and as a contrarian, I must confess to being a big political admirer of Newt Gingrich. Newt’s willingness — and, indeed, eagerness — to do political battle appeals to me. And his willingness to think big and to challenge the conventional wisdom also is praiseworthy in my judgment.

In fact, given the magnitude and intractability of our problems, Newt’s willingness to think out of the proverbial box is essential. And this helps to explain, I think, his continued appeal to Republican primary voters.

What’s more puzzling is why Romney and his team seem not to grasp this. Why have they not Read More…

Tagged as: Alex Castellanos, Jim Talent, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich

{ 0 comments }

Left-Wing Ambulance-Chasing Attorney Gloria Allred Leads the Lynching

by John R Guardiano on November 8, 2011

Gloria Allred is at the tip of the left-wing spear -- and smear -- against Herman Cain.

 

I’ve been out of pocket all day attending to the demands of life and work. So yeah, I missed the Left’s latest high-tech lynching. I missed the latest accusations against Herman Cain.

But my good friend, Robert Stacy McCain, diligent as always, has the story: A woman has come forward (with the aid and assistance of left-wing attack attorney Gloria Allred) to accuse Cain of having committed sexual harassment against her 14 years ago, back in 1997.

Cain allegedly fondled her leg and tried to kiss her while they were alone in a car, [the accuser] says. When she said stop, he did. And so your headline is:

Disgruntled Former Employee Says

Herman Cain Made a Pass at Her

 Why wait 14 years? Oh. That’s right: The accused is leading the GOP field for president.

So if you make a pass at a woman, and are rejected, you can kiss good-bye whatever plans you had for becoming president — as a Republican.

In short, these accusations are as frivolous as they are ludicrous. And anyone who takes them seriously ought to have his head examined. You simply don’t indict a man Read More…

Tagged as: Gloria Allred, Herman Cain, Michelle Malkin, Robert Stacy McCain

{ 2 comments }

Juan Williams Denounces the High-Tech Lynching of Herman Cain

by John R Guardiano on November 7, 2011

Juan Williams says there are clear parallels between what happened to Clarence Thomas and what's happening to Herman Cain.

Juan Williams is one of America’s best journalists. He’s also an accomplished author and historian of the civil rights movement. Among his achievements:

So it’s especially telling, I think, to hear what Williams thinks of the smear campaign against Herman Cain. Williams appeared on Fox News’ Hannity Friday night, and his outrage and disappointment was palpable.

Read More…

Tagged as: Clarence Thomas, Fox News, Herman Cain, Juan Williams, Sean Hannity

{ 4 comments }

Herman Cain’s ‘Scandalous’ Comment Revealed!

by John R Guardiano on November 3, 2011

The Right Scoop has the scoop! Herman Cain’s inappropriate comment has been revealed! And it’s truly scandalous.

Here: I report… er, The Right Scoop reports! (via the Des Moines Register) — and you decide:

During his Oct. 3 broadcast in Iowa, [radio host Steve] Deace mentioned that Cain made a comment to a woman who was there to report on the radio interview for another news agency.

“Cain said, ‘Darling, do you mind doctoring my tea for me?’” Deace said.

Deace told the Register last month that he believes Cain was talking about adding honey and lemon, but that it was an awkward moment.

Yeah, that’s it. Scandalous, eh? As The Right Scoop notes with righteous disgust, “This is pathetic.” Indeed, it is. Indeed, it is.

UPDATE: DARLING: formerly a legitimate term of endearment used by American gentlemen, especially in the South, but since stigmatized by feminist and left-wing thought police as “sexist” and abusive. Implicated, therefore, in many sexual harassment suits and disputes. Use sparingly if at all — and use at your own personal and professional risk.

Tagged as: Des Moines Register, Herman Cain, Steve Deace, The Right Scoop

{ 1 comment }

The Racially Tinged Assault on Herman Cain

by John R Guardiano on November 3, 2011

Ann Coulter gets it. She understands how the Left viciously uses race to smear black conservatives.

I was, I think, the first conservative to charge that Politico and the media were engaged in a “high-tech lynching” of Herman Cain. Since that time (Sunday night), several influential conservative writers and bloggers have demurred. Race, they insist, has nothing to do with this story, and conservatives should stop “playing the race card.”

“Cain would have us believe his critics are racists,” declares Jennifer Rubin. And that “really sickens me,” emotes Quin Hillyer.

“If harassment was the sort of blanket smear of black conservatives that [Ann] Coulter [and others] suggest it is, you’d expect them, [other black conservatives], to have been smeared, too, by now,” adds Allah Pundit.

Are Rubin, Hillyer, Allah Pundit and other like-minded cons really this obtuse and this clueless? Do they really think that race has nothing to do with this story? Really? Where have they been for the past 25 years? Read More…

Tagged as: Allah Pundit, Ann Coulter, Herman Cain, Jennifer Rubin, Politico, Quin Hillyer

{ 0 comments }

Don’t Try Herman Cain in the Court of Public Opinion

by John R Guardiano on November 3, 2011

No one should be surprised that one media outlet, Pajamas Media, is now reporting that Herman Cain is guilty of sexual harassment.

When a leading presidential candidate has his back against the wall and is reeling from accusations of wrongdoing, it’s inevitable, in a country this big, that people will come out of the woodwork to indict him. And it’s especially inevitable, I think, when, like Cain, you’re a black conservative, who must suffer all manner of abuse from the Left.

But before we rush to judgment, let’s keep two things in mind:

  • First, it’s a big mistake to try someone in the court of public opinion, where the rules of evidence, such as they are, are weak and biased against the defendant.
  • Second, the charges against Cain date back 12 long years. And so, the statute of limitations has long since passed. The passage of time and distance make it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to gauge the legitimacy and accuracy of these allegations.

Certainly, you have to wonder: why is it that we never heard any of this before? Why did it take 12 years? And why believe (still-unsubstantiated) allegations which seem so at variance with a man who has endeared himself to GOP primary voters?

Herman Cain is being tested as perhaps no presidential candidate has ever before been tested. How he responds in this moment of professional crisis will tell us much about his fitness and readiness for high office.

In the meantime, voters should — and will, I predict — refrain from any precipitous rush to judgment. Herman Cain, after all, has earned our benefit of the doubt.

UPDATE: Surprise, surprise. It looks like there’s a lot less to this Pajamas Media story than we had been led to believe. Slate’s Dave Weigel reports that PJ already is copping to embarrassing and amateurish mistakes.

A previous version of this story mentioned that a source witnessed Cain and the woman entering a taxi together. This was incorrect.

The previous version also mentioned that the woman awoke in Cain’s bed — the source only claimed that the woman awoke in Cain’s apartment. The previous version incorrectly attributed comments from one source to the other source.

As Weigel notes, “that’s not a correction. That’s a massacre. I’m half expecting the next update to report that the man in question was not Herman Cain, but the popular comic actor Charlie Murphy, and that the woman was actually a Japanese body pillow.”

As I say, don’t try someone in the court of public opinion, especially when the charges are 14 years old. Herman Cain’s still standing, and he still deserves our help and support.

Tagged as: Dave Weigel, Herman Cain, Pajamas Media, Slate

{ 0 comments }

← Previous Entries