Freedom Line Blog

Buried amongst lost emails I just re-accessed was a brilliant column I had missed by a great, young, innovative thinker of my acquaintance, Sean Kennedy. He proposes something called “Home Ownership Savings Accounts.” Read all about it, here.

Now Barry Obama, that clever Irishman (akin to Obrien, Oflaherty and Ogrady; but please, Chris Matthews, don’t call me an ethnicist for pointing out his heritage, because I never said no Irish need apply), is claiming that he just didn’t explain the stimulus package enough back in 2009:  “We didn’t have the luxury of six months to explain exactly what we were doing with the Recovery Act, which was basically a jobs act and making-sure-middle-class-families-didn’t-fall-into-poverty act.”

Really? Methinks I remember all sorts of promises about shovel-ready jobs. And methinks he later acknowledged that the stimulus didn’t work as intended, because there was no such thing as “shovel ready.” (Actually, that last link was when he joked that the jobs weren’t shovel-ready; here is where he said there actually is “no such thing.)

Obama had plenty of time to sell us his shovel full of something, and then when we didn’t buy it, he crammed it down our throats. And it wasn’t really about jobs; it was about cronyism and building the power of big government.

Great column by Reihan Salam on how to interpret former U.S. Rep. Artur Davis’ switch to the Republican team.

The simple truth is that as the Obama years wore on, Davis found himself agreeing more and more with right-of-center figures like Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Their tough-minded, whatever-works pragmatism resonated with his experiences, while the Obama administration’s highly ideological approach did not. Davis anticipates, in his words, “the rise of a reform-oriented center-right that is bent on restoring accountability and market principles to public systems” over the next decade.

I have known Davis longer and at least slightly better than most of my conservative brethren. I have been hoping, and at least half-expecting, him to move rightward for years. I think he is very sincere. I will note that he first was elected by bucking the black Democratic machine, and that he supported controversial judicial nominee (now federal appellate judge) Bill Pryor even as the national left was badly smearing the nominee. He also had the grace and integrity, along among Democrats, to apologize, once the financial crisis broke, for having opposed reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier in his congressional career. These were the actions, all along, of a man looking for some sort of a reformist polity near the center of the political spectrum — and, if you spoke to him, you always got the sense that he was at least open to arguments from the right, especially if they came from people of good will.

Anyway, Salam’s whole column got it right. Well worth a read. Again, see the link at the top of this blog post.

At The American Spectator, I blasted yet another leftist for projecting her own race-baiting onto Republicans. As it turns out, the editors of National Review did a much more thorough and thoughtful job toward the same end.

Here’s part of it:

Mr. Matthews’s accusations were, as is his style, presented without evidence or argument, and indeed without anything that might even charitably be called intellectual content. That he immediately connects welfare in his mind with race is of course telling: The majority of American welfare recipients are white. Blacks are disproportionately represented on the welfare rolls, it is true. That is not the only place in which black Americans are overrepresented: As conservatives have been shouting from the rooftops for a couple of years now, the black unemployment rate is a national scandal — reason enough to fire Barack Obama on its own. But the majority of unemployed people, like the majority of welfare recipients — and the majority of the country, of course — are white. Reducing the welfare rolls, like reducing the unemployment rate (and the two are not unrelated), is necessary to rebuilding the economic and human strength of the country for Americans of all races. Mr. Matthews here exhibits a crude, zero-sum view of politics and the economy, and then takes the extra step of attributing that crude, zero-sum view to his opponents. This is startling in its simplemindedness.

Enough is enough. This cry of racism from racial-minded numbskulls is the philosophical equivalent of blood libel. The left loves to say that certain forms of speech are not allowable because they are “fighting words.” If so, here’s hoping somebody lands the equivalent of a Joe Frazier hook on these purveyors of calumny. Oh, one day, there will be a reckoning. Yes indeed. Severe and painful ostracism would be a good start.

…..more often known as “child abusers,” that is.

Here, in a column special for the Daily Caller, is my report:

Surovell the surrogate is one of six Obama Truth Team members who voted against HB 973, which “imposes a mandatory minimum life sentence for rape, forcible sodomy, or object sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13 when it is alleged in the indictment that the offender was 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense.” This is the same Obama campaign that has spent all week somehow trying, dishonestly, to link opponent Mitt Romney with a stupid rape-related statement by U.S. Rep. Todd Akin. The others are Delegate Jennifer McClellan and State Senators Mamie Locke, John Edwards, Louise Lucas and Adam Ebbin.

Their position was so extreme that it didn’t even come close to a majority within their own party, much less within the whole state legislature. The bill passed 83-12 in the House and 31-8 in the Senate.

Of course, it’s not really fair to tar Obama with the brush of these senseless legislators… is it? No guilt by association, right?

As I wrote:

Then again, maybe this whole game of “gotcha” isn’t fair. Maybe it’s not fair to tag Obama with the idiocy of his surrogates. If not, then it’s even less fair to tag the Romney campaign with some sort of guilt by association with a Senate candidate they have nothing to do with and whose idiotic statement was quickly denounced by both Romney and running mate Paul Ryan.

It could be that all of this is an unfair distraction from issues directly related to the candidates themselves, such as the horrid state of the economy after nearly four years of Obama’s policies. Or the explosion of national debt. Or the rampant misuse of executive orders to grant amnesty and destroy welfare work requirements.

But if campaign associates are fair game — and if liberal columnists across the country are going to used pretzeled logic to breathlessly tie Romney and the whole Republican Party to Todd Akin — then Obama really must answer….

So that was an acknowledgement of the need for fairness. Well, tell that to the Democratic National Committee, which directly ties Romney, Ryan and Akin together on a photo on its website, as a horrible scare tactic and sleazy guilt by association.

Well, again, if that is fair, then it is eminently fair to say Obama doesn’t mind coddling child molesters.

So there.

Here’s the latest screed from the princess of printed prattle, a writer so prone to histrionic hysteria (not to mention hysteron proterons — look it up) that her work bears the same relationship to thoughtfulness and rationality as a rhinocerous does to gracefulness:

[Paul Ryan puts] a fresh face on a Taliban creed — the evermore antediluvian, anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-gay conservative core. Amiable in khakis and polo shirts, Ryan is the perfect modern leader to rally medieval Republicans who believe that Adam and Eve cavorted with dinosaurs…. But, for all the Republican cant about how they want to keep government out of the lives of others, the ultraconservatives are panting to meddle in the lives of others. Contrary to President Obama’s refreshing assertion Monday that a bunch of male politicians shouldn’t be making health care decisions for women, this troglodyte tribe of men and Bachmann-esque women craves that responsibility.

The writing sins there are abundant: extreme triteness (gee, it is just so original and clever to call conservatives “troglodytes” and “antediluvians” — although one does wonder, as a matter of chronology, how we can be troglodytes and “medieval” at the same time), breathless overstatement not as intentional irony but as an actual attempt at persuasion, and blind, over-broad, demonizing assertions unmoored from proof. Hers is the same genre of bigotry as the assertions by 1960s racists that because some blacks are criminals, all blacks are dangerous criminals. One wonders if she has ever actually attempted to have a cordial conversation with a conservative Christian of any denomination, with anybody who lives more than 25 miles from a major urban hub (unless said rural resident is a Cesar Chavez-type protester), or with somebody who doesn’t think that, say, serial adultery is an ordinary feature of most marriages. If so, she gives no evidence of it — because her screeds are pure bigotry against an entire class of people.

If the New York Times had any standards (perish the thought), it would not put up with such viciousness unmoored from reason or basic human decency. Next time the editorialists at the famous rag try to lecture the rest of us about “civility,” here’s hoping they choke and splutter on their fumes of their own outrageous hypocrisy.

House Speaker John Boehner got himself in hot water last night when he appeared to be saying that people who opposed TARP were knuckle-draggers. I think it is very fair to assume, on close examination, that he did not mean, nor does he believe, that to be the case.

I explain the whole thing here.

The key new thing to report is the clarifying statement I received from the Speaker’s office, which responded with admirable promptness:

“The Speaker said Paul Ryan is a practical conservative, and that Paul Ryan is not a knuckledragger.  He did not say those who opposed TARP are knuckledraggers, and he does not believe TARP opponents are knuckledraggers.  He did not say tea partiers are knuckledraggers, and he does not believe tea partiers are knuckledraggers.  To the contrary, he has enormous respect for the tea party movement, which reflects the will of the American people and their desire for a government that respects our Constitution.  Whether you supported or opposed TARP, we all can agree the crony capitalist philosophy of forcing responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior – perpetuated and perfected under President Obama – has wrecked our economy, and has to end.”

Dave Schnittger

Deputy Chief of Staff

Office of the Speaker

At the American Spectator I remind everybody that Paul Ryan’s central Medicare feature has Democratic provenance. I sum up here:

In truth, honest liberals from academia, journalism, think tanks, and political offices alike have consistently supported versions of Personal Health Grants for a decade and a half. There is nothing radical about the idea. Similarly, Ryan’s suggestions for Medicaid are based directly on the successes of welfare reform in 1996 — signed and claimed credit for thereafter by Clinton. Ryan’s proposals for domestic discretionary spending also are perfectly in line with what was envisioned in Clinton’s second-term budgets (adjusted for inflation). Ryan’s ideas aren’t anywhere near the outer edges of mainstream thought; they aren’t penurious, but merely sober.

But wait, there’s more.  I also gave some marketing advice, including a better name for “premium support” (either Personal Health Grants” or “Insurance Assistance”). As it turns out, there is even BETTER advice on the same subject from my friends Deroy Murdock and Jim Guirard, more than a year ago:

Jim Guirard, long-time chief of staff to the late Sen. Russell Long (D., La.), runs the TrueSpeak Institute (TrueSpeak.org). He advises the GOP to market “MediChoice.” Unlike the head-scratching that “premium support” inspires, MediChoice signals that Republicans would give seniors choice in medical coverage. Just as the GI Bill helps veterans pay tuition at schools that match their interests, MediChoice would help future Medicare recipients (now 54 or younger) buy coverage that suits their circumstances.

Guirard urges Republicans to call today’s Medicare system “MediCrash.”

Good stuff.

Especially starting at about the 5-minute mark of this clip, Bobby Jindal destroys the attacks against Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan. He was being by Chuck Todd, who leans a bit left but who is one of the most fair-minded and thorough of establishment-media reporters/analysts. Todd pressed the accusation that the Ryan “premium support” plan would favor the rich over the poor. Jindal blew away that charge, reminding Todd (and informing viewers) that the federal subsidy known as premium support would be income-adjusted. He also reminded people that the premium support idea has strong bipartisan provenance. Good stuff.

Paul Ryan is all about saving the private sector form the ravages of government. Paul Ryan is all about opportunity. He is all about economic growth. And he is all about a can-do, take-charge attitude that is perfectly in keeping with the American character.

The choice of Ryan was superb. Now the Romney campaign must match its strategy and tactics to the bold nature of this choice.

The last time I felt this good about a ticket was about Ronald Reagan. Say “Romney-Ryan” real fast and it even sounds the same.

This is my FINAL assessment of the percentage chances of each potential Romney running mate of actually getting chosen. Something is telling me that Rob Portman is out of the picture. I’ve never thought Rubio had much chance. Nobody has seemed to listen to my arguments in favor of Kyl, Toomey or Santorum. And I think Kelly Ayotte got a very close look, deservedly so, but probably I think she faded just from lack of national seasoning.

Jindal 19%

Ryan 19%

Pawlenty 19%

Christie 19%

McDonnell 19%

Anybody else 5%

* The only way this will not be my final assessment is if I get a very, very reliable “scoop.”

So says Nate Silver, in this bit of superb analysis.

Also via Silver, Bob McDonnell gets a huge boost, and Tim Pawlenty a HUGE downer, from this analysis. (I discount the Portman boost also in here, because this measures ONLY home-state effects of the Veep choice. My contention is that Portman helps at home, but hurts EVERYwhere else, at least a little, because of the combo of his multiple Bush ties and because of his wealthy son of wealthy son status. For that matter, I also give bonus points to Christie and Jindal for NON-home-state effects: I think Christie helps across the Rust Belt on style points alone — and perhaps especially in Pennsylvania, because it shares some media markets with New Jersey, plus can take the fight to Obama in what has turned into the vilest, most vicious race in history — while Jindal helps thematically by allowing Romney to better make the election a referendum on ObamaCare, because Jindal can offer and explain positive alternatives to it.)

The other guy who I’ve touted all along among my top five picks is Pat Toomey. It baffles me that he hasn’t gotten more attention. Silver’s analysis (see his very last chart) shows Toomey quite high among all the possibilities in terms of the actual likelihood that his choice alone could swing the election. He also risks almost no down-side, and his balanced-budget plan doesn’t risk anything that could be demagogued as “slashing” Social Security and Medicare.

Food for thought!

With regard to my column this morning, Newsbusters helps make my case. Blogging for the WashPost, Jennifer Rubin also hits the “good government” moral thermometers who suddenly can’t be found. Media cretins make me sick.

In the New York Post. Read it here.

By the way, many congratulations to NASA for the successful landing of Curiosity.

Yuval Levin has an incredibly important piece at today’s NRO about how the Obamites are working to destroy the mediating institutions of civil society.

When pressed to defend its constriction of the rights of religious institutions, the administration recast the basic definition and purpose of such institutions. The final HHS rule defined a religious employer exceedingly narrowly, as an institution that primarily serves and employs people of its own faith and has as its basic purpose the inculcation of the beliefs of that faith. This leaves no room for most religiously based institutions of civil society — no room for hospitals, for schools and universities, for soup kitchens and homeless shelters, for adoption agencies and legal-aid clinics. Religious institutions may preach to the choir, but otherwise they may not play any role in society. Especially when they disagree with those in power, they must be cleared out of the space between the individual and the state. Indeed, the president and his administration don’t seem to have much use for that space at all. Even the family, which naturally stands between the individual and the community, is not essential. … Edmund Burke, Paine’s great nemesis, argued that such mediating structures also express in their very forms the actual shape of our society — evolved over time out of affectionate sentiments, practical needs, and common aspirations. “We begin our public affections in our families,” Burke wrote. “We pass on to our neighborhoods, and our habitual provincial connections. These are inns and resting-places. Such divisions of our country as have been formed by habit, and not by a sudden jerk of authority, were so many little images of the great country in which the heart found something which it could fill.” To sweep them away and leave only the citizen and the state would rob society of its sources of warmth, loyalty, and affinity, and of the most effective means of enacting significant social improvements….

The Left’s disdain for civil society is thus driven above all not by a desire to empower the state without limit, but by a deeply held concern that the mediating institutions in society — emphatically including the family, the church, and private enterprise — are instruments of prejudice, selfishness, backwardness, and resistance to change, and that in order to establish our national life on more rational grounds, the government needs to weaken and counteract them.

The Right’s high regard for civil society, meanwhile, is driven above all not by a disdain for government but by a deeply held belief in the importance of our diverse and evolved societal forms, without which we could not hope to secure our liberty. Conservatives seek mechanisms and institutions to bring implicit social knowledge to bear on our troubles, while progressives seek the authority and power to bring explicit technical knowledge to bear on them.

This president and those of his ilk who are acting in increasingly authoritarian ways are, in short, deliberately trying to destroy the very institutions, and the space for voluntary individual action both within and apart from those institutions, that most Americans have always believed were the very heart of the American idea. The president’s mission, whether he knows it or not, is a species of evil. It must not be allowed to succeed.

Jindal continues to creep up. The only other major change I could see happening is a big spike for Christie. I wouldn’t choose him, but I’ve said all along that he makes a lot of political sense from the standpoint of the sort of campaign Romney appears to be running. While I have officially withdrawn my prediction that he will be chosen, I just can’t keep my mind off the possibility that the Romneyites will envision the ways Christie could give the left and the media fits and shake up their suppositions — and make the Obama camp worry whether they need to spend more resources defending New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and maybe even Rhode Island.

Still, I think the pick will be Jindal.

Jindal  35%  (+2)

Pawlenty  22  (=)

Ryan  17  (=)

Portman 12  (-.5)

Ayotte  9  (-1)

Santorum 1.5  (=)

Kyl  1  (=)

Christie 1  (+.5)

Thune 1  (=)

Rubio .5 (-.5)

Rice  0  (-.5)

Read all about it.

James Madison would strongly oppose the HHS abortifacient mandate. I explain why, here.

Compared to my last guesstimate:

Jindal: 33% (+3)

Pawlenty 22  (+2)

Ryan  17  (-1)

Portman  12.5   (-3.5)

Ayotte  10  (=)

Santorum  1.5  (+.5)

Kyl  1  (-1)

Rubio  1 (=)

Thune  1  (+.5)

Rice .5  (=)

Christie  .5 (-.5)