Is Romney Inevitable?

October 14, 2011

Fresh from another Republican debate watched by dozens of people on the Bloomberg network, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the race is Mitt Romney’s to lose. The question is: is this a good thing for the Republican party?

I haven’t decided who to support in this campaign for the same reason as many conservatives: there are reasons to dislike or worry about all of them.

  • Rick Perry doesn’t seem like he really wants the job. I think the pressure to join the race appealed to his ego and got him thinking Big Thoughts, but his heart’s not in it. He clearly is spending no time on debate preparation and is on a neutrino-paced ride back to Austin and the job with which he’s done well.
  • Jon Huntsman has, in Jonah Goldberg’s phrase, a face that you just want to punch. He’s insufferable and arrogant, and the least conservative candidate in the field.
  • Ron Paul is right on many issues that have absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy. His foreign policy stance is a toxic stew of isolationism, blame-Americaism, and outright denial of reality.
  • Newt Gingrich is the smartest guy in the room. Also the one with the most baggage. He’s simply unelectable to high office, and suffers from some of the same sense of intellectual self-importance that makes Obama so arrogant.
  • Gary Johnson is…I don’t know who Gary Johnson is. Some dude who’s running for President and has a smaller chance than I do.
  • Michelle Bachmann is a fighter as she tells you at every single opportunity. One gets the feeling that right now she’s tracking somebody down so that she can pin him to the wall and tell him what a fighter she is. The trouble is that there may have been a lot of battles she waged in the House, but there are no victories. She’s also gaffe-prone and so doctrinaire in her beliefs that I’m not sure she’d be capable of compromising, even if it meant she got 99.9% of what she wanted. Whenever I see her talking policy I think of George Costanza talking himself and Jerry out of a deal with NBC by insisting that the show be “about nothing” despite what the network executives want. I think Bachmann is right on a lot of issues, but her campaign is unraveling at light speed (i.e., slightly slower than Perry’s).
  • Rick Santorum is where my heart lies. He’s about as solid a conservative as you can get, he’s got a good resume (a great resume includes a gubernatorial stint), he’s been good in the debates. I’d happily cast a vote for Rick Santorum in November 2012. The problem here is that I’m probably not going to get that chance. His campaign is cash poor and being run out of a camper parked on a front lawn somewhere in western Pennsylvania. He is the only candidate talking about the morality of how economics affects families, and I think that is a great issue that can be easily sold to a lot of people who are feeling the pinch. Bad economic policies do more than hurt your pocketbook, they can also tear at the societal fabric. What Santorum lacks is star power and charisma. Sadly, that’s a lot more important now than it was when, say, Grover Cleveland was running for President.
  • Herman Cain is the single most likable candidate. He’s sunny, optimistic, funny, smart, and has the best “rags-to-riches and I beat the Big C, too” backstory of any of the candidates. He’s got some problems, though. His “9-9-9” plan will not work. Period. End of sentence. It’s a lousy plan that is based on unrealistic projections. He is clueless about foreign policy and doesn’t seem inclined to learn. While he has many great lines, he’s not really a great debater. Whatever the subject of the question, he turns it back to “my 9-9-9 plan,” which has crossed the line from “talking point” to “mantra” and is likely soon to jump the shark. Also, we learned in 2008 that the presidency is not an entry-level job. His business experience, like Romney’s, is interesting but not conclusive. Government is not business, and the President is not the national CEO. It’s one thing to be CEO of a company and have your employees implement your desires. It’s another to deal with coequal branches of government.

Which brings us back to Mitt Romney, one of the most inauthentic politicians I’ve ever laid eyes on.

First it must be acknowledged that this is not the same Mitt Romney who ran in 2008. Somewhere in the past three years Romney has loosened up, become an excellent debater, and has gotten much more comfortable in his own skin. Maybe that means that the Romney we see now is the real guy, that he’s finally letting his conservative freak flag fly. Maybe he’s just been in some coaching sessions with media consultants.

But Romney is a very bitter pill for conservatives to swallow. Obamacare, the solar-powered windmill conservatives have spent two years tilting at, is not much more than a CinemaScope remake of Romneycare. Nominating Romney removes, or at least damages, that issue for Republicans. Romney also has a well-deserved reputation for flip flopping on various issues, most famously abortion. He gives the impression that he will agree with whatever the majority is telling him. In liberal Massachusetts, Romney was a liberal Republican who partnered with Ted Kennedy (as did George W. Bush and don’t think for a second I’ve forgiven him for that). Now he sounds like he’s wearing a tri-corner hat at a local Tea Party, and questions about his liberal record are deflected or treated as if they are irrelevant.

Mitt Romney is not the inevitable candidate. Yet. The Republican primary voters are still looking for, in John Podhoretz’s words, the “Not-Romney” candidate. Today it’s Herman Cain. Previous winners have included Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry. It’s possible that Cain will give way to Santorum, the only truly viable Not-Romney left, but it is most likely that when the dust settles Mitt Romney’s perfect hair, smile, and endless record of prevarication will be the only things left.

This isn’t necessarily the end of the world. As a candidate in the general election, I would support Romney. That’s an easy choice given the alternative. The key to Romney’s success as a conservative politician will be the makeup of Congress in 2013 and beyond. A conservative House passing conservative bills to a conservative Senate who passes the bills to President Romney will likely result in conservative policies being implemented. A divided Congress or, God forbid, a liberal/Progressive Congress, will co-opt Romney and he will govern from the center, much as Bush 41 and Bush 43 did.

I can live with Romney as the candidate, though he’s very far from my first choice. His candidacy does raise the stakes, though. With Romney in charge, it will be more important than ever for conservatives to maintain or increase their control of the House and to gain control, preferably filibuster-proof control, of the Senate. An “important to have” Congress under a conservative President like Santorum, Bachmann, or Cain becomes a “must have” Congress under President Romney. It would do the Tea Party well to remember this if they’re thinking about sitting out the election: Romney isn’t the only name on the ballot, and President is not the only office needing to be filled.

Leave a Comment » | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam

Today’s Lesson In Progressive Politics: Bev Perdue

September 28, 2011

Bev Perdue, the Governor of North Carolina, has come out in favor of suspending elections for a few years. She thinks this will allow lawmakers to concentrate on fixing the economy and not worry about getting themselves elected.

“You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It’s a little bit more contentious now but it’s not impossible to try to do what’s right in this state. You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

For the Left, this is nothing new. Suspending or denying elections has been the pathway to dictatorship for Leftists from Lenin to Hitler to Castro to Chavez. It speaks to the mindset that the people who vote are the rabble, and that the elected officials are the wise intellectuals who can solve problems through Brain Power and, in Obama’s case, Word Power.

This Kinsleyan gaffe comes on the heels of former Obama budget director Peter Orszag’s commentary in The New Republic that, to achieve our goals, we just need less democracy. It also follows about a billion columns by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman where he wishes that America were more like the Communist dictatorship China, because China can mandate and enforce policies without fretting over any political fallout. Even the President of the United States has made several comments about wishing he could “work around” Congress, displaying a total lack of understanding in the concept of co-equal branches of government, as well as a desire to concentrate considerably more power into the hands of one man (himself, coincidentally).

For the Progressive, society and government can be perfected. The history of bloody tyranny dovetails with the history of trying to create Heaven on Earth (“immanentizing the eschaton” in Eric Voeglin’s words). Progressives believe their ideas can shape human destiny only for the better, that a Utopia will be created if only we would do what they want us to do. They disregard the play in Thomas More’s word “Utopia,” that it comes from the Greek words meaning “no place.” For the Progressive, Utopia is just another mandate away, virtue can be ordered and enforced, and those who oppose their ideas are obstacles that must be overcome by whatever means are necessary. From the baseless slanders of Tea Party America on one end of spectrum to the horrors of the Holocaust and the Holodomor on the other, Progressives view their opponents as an enemy that must be marginalized, vanquished, or destroyed. From “individual mandates” to suspended elections, creating a perfect society must be legislated and enforced to overcome those who think they know better than their more enlightened Progressive leaders.

Of course, the media provides cover. The headline of the article about Bev Perdue’s wish for less democracy is: “Perdue jokes about suspending Congressional elections for two years.” Jokes? It’s crystal clear from the quote, presented above in context, that this was not a joke. “I really hope someone can agree with me on that,” she says after calling for suspending elections.

Well, har-dee-har-har.

Hot Air has more.

Leave a Comment » | Politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam

The Mob Rules: Ann Coulter’s Demonic

August 22, 2011

For the political Left, probably only Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh rank higher than Ann Coulter as “The Person You Most Want To See Silenced,” and that’s only because Rush is on radio for three hours, five days a week and Palin…well, I still don’t understand the Left’s vitriolic hatred for the former Governor of Alaska.

As a conservative, even I find Coulter to be a little over-the-top at times. She famously (in political geek circles) had a small contretemps with National Review about ten years ago when her article about 9/11 included the advice that we go to the Middle East, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity. Somehow this got past the National Review editors, one thing led to another, and Coulter was dropped as a columnist for the prestigious conservative magazine. She responded by calling the NR editors “girly men.”

But that is Coulter’s style. She is amazingly (and amusingly) brash, never backs down from a fight, and takes no prisoners. Hers is a scorched earth policy as far as liberals and liberalism goes. Just the titles of her books about liberalism say it all: Treason, Godless, How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must), Slander. Now comes her latest: Demonic.

Subtlety is not Ann Coulter’s forte, but I’m sure that she would defend that by saying that subtlety doesn’t work when talking about cloven-hoofed minions of the Devil.

Despite her sometimes abrasive rhetoric (even to someone like me who essentially agrees with most everything she says), Coulter is much more than simply a provocateur. The Left discounts her as an extremist, hate-filled, enfant terrible, but Coulter backs up the acid that drips from her tongue with genuine smarts and a lot of research. Rather than rail about the political maneuvering of liberals on the issues of the day—subjects that grow tiresome and dated—Coulter fills her books with examples of liberal rhetoric and actions from history and ties them in to the present time. It’s a style that works well. Coulter’s books are more cohesive and coherent than many of her weekly columns, which have an unfortunate tendency to spin apart as Coulter tries to pack in as many asides, jokes, and insults as she can.

In Demonic, Coulter discusses the history of Left wing mobs, drawing an unbroken line from the French Revolution to protests staged at private homes by SEIU goons. The “mob” is not a collection of individuals, it is an organism unto itself. Individuals can be swayed by reason, by rhetoric, and by appeal. Mobs can not, and this groupthink allows the mob to alter their perception of reality in order to achieve its goals. Coulter is at her best when she writes about how the viciously racist Democrats of the old South managed to assume the mantle of “the party of civil rights” when they were no such thing. She gleefully pokes holes in the nonsense that the segregationist Left simply switched party affiliation from Democrats to Republicans. Her arguments are bold, convincing, and often very funny.

She also excels in her dissection of the French Revolution and how it compares to the American Revolution. The French Revolution, and the horrors that followed it, are the Ground Zero for Left wing mobs, and it is still the playbook they use (consciously or not). You can see the echoes of the French Revolution in 1917 Russia, in Weimar Germany, at the Kent State campus in 1970, in the shattered storefronts of Seattle in 1999, and in the burning buildings of 2011 London. Coulter’s argument is that mobs and riots, the thirst for violent change, is a distinctly Left wing phenomenon. The violence is real, yet whenever two conservatives get together with a cup of tea and a sign saying “Taxed Enough Already” it is the Left that warns us of encroaching violence, furrowing their brows and warning us in worried tones that fascism is right around the corner. It is a mark of the Left’s success that they have convinced generations of people that fascism is a political philosophy of the extreme Right when, in fact, it is nearly as far to the Left as Communism. Coulter will have none of that nonsense. With her trademark bluntness, she hits liberals and the Left where it hurts: she does not try to convince them of anything because she knows that the Mob can not be reasoned with. Instead, she uses humor and wicked wordplay to mock the Left. Coulter puts red noses and clown shoes on the Mob, rendering them objects of ridicule and scorn. It is a very effective tactic because the Mob is also humorless. Many conservatives I know watch and appreciate The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, but I can not imagine any of the many liberals I know watching a similar show targeting the Left.

One of the hallmarks of liberalism is its self-seriousness. The Left is convinced that the world is perfectable and that they have the brain power necessary to make all things good for all people everywhere. Such tendentious self-righteousness hates to be mocked, and Coulter knows it. It is the very reason she takes such unabashed glee in skewering the Left.

The biggest issue I have with Coulter is her use of absolutes when engaging in these discussions. “Liberals always…conservatives never…liberals will do this every time….” By phrasing things this way she immediately calls to mind the personal instances everyone knows where liberals or conservatives did not act according to the stereotype she promulgates. The fastest way to lose an argument is to say that someone always or never does something, because it is rarely true…especially when discussing groups. One senses that she does this precisely because it burrows like a tick under the Left’s skin, but to the wider audience it only takes one crazed anti-abortion zealot to kill a doctor or blow up an abortion clinic to disprove the line that violence is always from the Left. Coulter’s desire to paint with the largest brush possible weakens her argument and allows her ideological opponents to cast her as an extremist. Saying that mob violence is a Left wing tactic going back hundreds of years is not an extreme statement, but her insinuation that the desire for violence is baked into the DNA of all liberals is a) extreme, and b) simply not true. Coulter makes no distinction between the guy who lives next door to you who genuinely believes that the Federal government needs to be taking care of the citizens and the guy throwing a brick through the front window of a nearby Starbucks. To Coulter, they are all part of the Mob. For me, the distinction is between “liberal” and “Left.”

The Left underestimates Coulter at their peril. They dismiss her as a crazy Right-wing bomb thrower. But her prose, while at times unruly, is convincing, and the smile and laughter that comes from her so readily in her TV appearances and on her book jackets belies the caricature of her as someone who is filled with hatred. When Coulter connects, she hits towering home runs. Demonic is a home run.

Leave a Comment » | Politics | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam

A Letter From God

June 13, 2011

The Left wing in this country hates the woman who wrote this email from “Your Heavenly Father.” They despise her for many reasons and it is an inescapable conclusion that one of those reasons is because she refused to exercise her “right to choose” and decided to keep her less-than-perfect baby. I hope that the disgusting (and probably clinically insane) Andrew Sullivan, who continues to cast doubt on Trig Palin’s maternity, and the monsters at Wonkette who thought it was the height of comedy to ridicule Trig Palin as “a retard” read this email that Sarah Palin wrote to her friends and family, notifying them that the baby she was carrying had Down’s Syndrome.

To the Sisters, Brother, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, and Friends of Trig Paxson Van Palin (or whatever you end up naming him!):

I am blessing you with this surprise baby because I only want the best for you. I’ve heard your prayers that this baby will be happy and healthy, and I’ve answered them because I only want the best for you!

I heard your heart when you hinted that another boy would fit best in the Palin family, to round it out and complete that starting five line-up.

Though another girl would be so nice, you didn’t think you could ask for what you REALLY wanted, but I knew, so I gave you a boy because I only want the best for you!

Then, I put the idea in your hearts that his name should be ‘Trig’, because it’s so fitting, with two Norse meanings: “True” and “Brave Victory”. You also have a Bristol Bay relative with that name, so I knew it would be best for you!

Then, I let Trig’s mom have an exceptionally comfortable pregnancy so she could enjoy every minute of it, and I even seemed to rush it along so she could wait until near the end to surprise you with the news – that way Piper wouldn’t have so long to wait and count down so many days – just like Christmastime when you have to wait, impatiently, for that special day to finally open your gift? (Or the way the Palmas look forward to birthday celebrations that go on for three, four days_ you all really like cake.) I know you, I knew you’d be better off with just a short time to wait!

Then, finally, I let Trig’s mom and dad find out before he was born that this little boy will truly be a GIFT. They were told in early tests that Trig may provide more challenges, and more joy, than what they ever may have imagined or ever asked for.

At first the news seemed unreal and sad and confusing. But I gave Trig’s mom and dad lots of time to think about it because they needed lots of time to understand that everything will be OK, in fact, everything will be great, because I only want the best for you!

I’ve given Trig’s mom and dad peace and joy as they wait to meet their new son. I gave them a happy anticipation because they asked me for that.

I’ll give all of you the same happy anticipation and strength to deal with Trig’s challenges, but I won’t impose on you… I just need to know you want to receive my offer to be with all of you and help you everyday to make Trig’s life a great one.

This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together and get everyone focused on what really matters.

The baby will expand your world and let you see and feel things you haven’t experienced yet. He’ll show you what “true, brave victory” really means as those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells you is “normal” or “perfect°.

You will grow and be blessed with greater understanding that will he born along with Trig.Trig will be his dad’s little buddy and he’ll wear Carhartts while he learns to tinker in the garage. He’ll love to be read to, he’ll want to play goalie, and he’ll steal his mom’s heart just like Track, Bristol, Willow and Piper did.

And Trig will be the cuddly, innocent, mischievous, dependent little brother that his siblings have been waiting for_in fact Trig will – in some diagnostic ways – always be a mischievous, dependent little brother, because I created him a bit different than a lot of babies born into this world today.

Every child is created special, with awesome purpose and amazing potential. Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed up world you live in down there on earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome. Doctors call it “Down’s Syndrome”, and Downs kids have challenges, but can bring you much delight and more love than you can ever imagine! Just wait and see, let me prove this, because I only want the best for you!

Some of the rest of the world may not want him, but take comfort in that because the world will not compete for him. Take care of him and he will always be yours!

Trig’s mom and dad don’t want people to focus on the baby’s extra chromosome. They’re human, so they haven’t known how to explain this to people who are so caring and are interested in this new little Alaskan. Sarah and Todd want people to share in the joy of this gift I’m giving to the Palin family, and the greater Alaska family.

Many people won’t understand_ and I understand that. Some will think Trig should not be allowed to be born because they fear a Downs child won’t be considered “perfect” in your world. (But tell me, what do you earthlings consider “perfect” or even “normal” anyway? Have you peeked down any grocery store isle, or school hallway, or into your office lunchroom lately? Or considered the odd celebrities you celebrate as “perfect” on t.v.? Have you noticed I make ’em all shapes and sizes? Believe me, there is no “perfect”!)

Many people will express sympathy, but you don’t want or need that, because Trig will be a joy. You will have to trust me on this.

I know it will take time to grasp this and come to accept that I only want the best for you, and I only give my best. Remember though: “My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts- for as the heavens are higher than the earth, my ways are higher than yours!”

I wrote that all down for you in the Good Book! Look it up! You claim that you believe me – now it’s time to live out that belief!

Please look to me as this new challenge and chapter of life unfolds in front of you. I promise to equip you. I won’t give you anything you can’t handle. I am answering your prayers. Trig can’t wait to meet you. I’m giving you ONLY THE BEST!

Love,
Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father

I have my issues with her, and she is not my first choice to be the GOP nominee, but this is Sarah Palin at her best. This is the woman the Left vilified as an unfit mother when she was nominated to be the VP candidate by John McCain. Even now, two and a half years after the election, the Left goes after Palin with undiminished ferocity. This “letter from God” says a lot about Sarah Palin. The ridiculous e-mail scavenger hunt the Left went on in the hopes of finding some scandal to pin on on the former Governor, a plan that has backfired spectacularly, says even more about Sarah Palin’s enemies. Her enemies on the Left, those people driven by an irrational, inchoate hatred like Sullivan and the editors at Wonkette, are seen now as what they really are: small, diminished husks of humanity, pathetic, empty. Compared to her enemies, Sarah Palin is a titan.

Abe Greenwald has an excellent take on this at Contentions, the blog for Commentary magazine.

4 Comments | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam

Should Anthony Weiner Resign?

June 9, 2011

Throughout both parts of William Shakespeare’s Henry IV, the young Prince Hal is a great guy with whom to party. He hangs out in the seediest taverns with his best friend (and one of Shakespeare’s greatest characters), Falstaff. The gruff and hilarious Falstaff is a ne’er-do-well, but not a villain. He is the philosopher at the heart of the play, and his larger-than-life appetites embrace wine, women, and song. He is Prince Hal’s mentor and inspiration, as well as his friend. The Prince embraces the life, and enjoys it thoroughly.

Then King Henry IV dies.

As Prince Hal becomes King Henry V, Falstaff is ecstatic over the prospect of having his friend and drinking buddy in such a position of high power. Falstaff crashes the coronation ceremony and loudly addresses the new King, calling him “sweet boy.” The new King then turns to his old friend and fellow traveler and icily says, “I know thee not, old man.” He then says that he once dreamed of a man such as Falstaff but now, having been awakened, “I do despise my dream.” In the sequel, Henry V, Falstaff dies a broken man. The wastrel Prince Hal, all grown up and accepting of his responsibility as King Henry V, wins the Battle of Agincourt.

There’s a lesson here that goes way beyond Shakespeare 102. For those to whom Shakespeare is just another Dead White European Male, the lesson is also in Spiderman: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

What all of this preamble means is that Anthony Weiner should resign from Congress. The defenders of his decision (as of today) to stay in his seat make the usual excuses: it’s about sex, it was consenting adults, what he does in private is his own business, it’s not about the job, it’s between him and his wife. All of this would be absolutely 100% true…if Anthony Weiner was not a Congressman serving a constituency of people in New York.

Frankly, I wouldn’t care even the slightest bit if Bill the Taxidermist in New York and Jane the Accountant in Chicago were carrying on a scorchingly hot cybersex affair. It’s not my position to judge them, despite whatever I may personally think or feel about how they choose to spend their off hours. If they’re single, if they’re adults, and if they’re not letting it interfere with their jobs, then I really don’t care how they get their jollies. Type away, Bill and Jane, though you might find you’ll make fewer spelling mistakes if you type with two hands.

Now if Bill the Taxidermist and/or Jane the Accountant was married (to other people), then it becomes clear that these are people whose morals and behavior can be legitimately brought into question. But again, if they want to destroy their own marriages and cheat (emotionally and mentally, if not physically) on their spouses, it would not change whether I went to Bill for my taxidermy needs or Jane with my accounting problems. Their work is separate from who they are. They have jobs where they provide a service for me, but they do not represent me.

But Anthony Weiner, and the legion of politicians embroiled in sex scandals before him, is not a private citizen. He is a public figure with great power that he should be wielding with great responsibility. Weiner’s been involved in public office since 1992 when he was elected to the New York City Council, and then the House of Representatives in 1998. Prior to that, he was a private citizen (albeit one working in politics, for Chuck Schumer). He was, most likely, a sleazy guy at that time, as well. At that time, I wouldn’t have cared what he did in private.

But when Weiner decided to run for office, he made the decision to embrace a public responsibility along with the power given to him. It was time for him to awaken from his dreams of sexy co-eds in a tub full of Jell-O. The responsibility of speaking for people who have placed their trust and their faith in you requires that you comport yourself with honor. Your job is to honor the wishes of your constituents and nobody—nobody—votes for someone hoping that the person will cheat on his wife and have tawdry cybersex sessions with young women. He is a man who was given much power and much responsibility. He was elected not just to cast votes on political issues, but to represent thousands of people who voted for him. He is their proxy, the public face of all those who got him elected.

Anthony Weiner is not just an onanist. He is not just a cheat. He is not just a liar. He is a sexual predator, a misogynist with all of the charm, tenderness, eroticism, and seductive skills of a drunken frat boy with a pocket full of Rohypnol. (Don’t believe me? Read the transcript…but you’ll need a shower afterwards.) He has brought shame upon his wife. He has brought shame upon his friends. He has brought shame (not entirely undeserved) upon the women with whom he consorted. He has brought shame upon his political party. He has brought shame upon the office he holds and, therefore, the county, state, and country he represents. He has made a mockery of all those people who voted for him every two years since 1998 and who believed they had a voice and a champion in whom they could put their faith and trust.

This is not about sex, cyber or otherwise. This is not about two people looking for sexual satisfaction or a balm for their lonely lives in a flickering screen and an overactive imagination. Now that the full scope of this scandal is being revealed, the time for Weiner jokes is over. This is about honor. This is about responsibility.

Anthony Weiner should resign. Hopefully then he will be able to repair the damage he’s done to his marriage, and to his real relationships.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a good piece up today about the silence from the normally chattering classes of feminists.

Leave a Comment » | Politics | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Blaknsam

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »