Oh, he does make some compelling arguments — at least for some people.
But Frum counts on the fact that We the People just won’t take the time, nor do we have the sophistication, to figure out what’s really being communicated. He thinks he can hide it (as do others, including the media) through the foggy logic of modern political argumentation that he employs.
Here’s the gist.
The crux of Frum’s argument is this: Cain hasn’t been in politics, so Cain can’t effectively run government.
Though the rhetoric and spectacle of the most recent Republican presidential debates has died down a bit, it has left me thinking…
In watching the so-called “debates”, one almost gets the sense that a comedy of errors is taking place. Witness some of the following:
Michele Bachmann takes on Rick Perry‘s Executive Order mandating that very young girls be immunized against a disease associated with sexual activity. The only problem? It was voted down by the legislature and never took effect.
Or what about Rick Perry looking to smash Mitt Romney over the head with his “He’s been running [for President] for five and a half years” dig? As if. Romney was definitely out of the spotlight for most of that time, notwithstanding an occasional op-ed here and there. Not too egregious, but erroneous nonetheless. [Continue reading]
I didn’t necessarily have it in mind to post today, but I ran across this OpEd piece in the Washington Post by Ruth Marcus.
Now let me just say at the outset that Marcus describes feeling “thoroughly depressed” after reviewing Obama’s debt reduction plan. But it seems to me this stands to reason at some level.
You see, Ms. Marcus appears to have bought into the “Change you can believe in” chant from a few years back. And now she apparently believes that Obama somehow reneged (just like I described in a piece yesterday).
The only difference? Marcus believes that, essentially, the devil made him do it—the devil being personified by those nasty members of the opposing party. [Continue reading]
I don’t know how many of you are following the emerging Solyndra scandal (and I do mean scandal).
National Review Online is reporting the story—complete with links to several previous reports—but for some reason, I haven’t yet heard it break on the major networks. Now that may be because I use CNN as my main source of news. But in any event, much of it appears lost on the world.
My main gripe has to do with how quickly this shows the President began breaking campaign promises after taking office. [Continue reading]
What’s up with the need for having a presidential “spokesman?” (No, I’m not worried about being politically correct—we haven’t yet had a spokeswoman, probably because we haven’t yet had a female president.)
Editor’s note: Much to my chagrin, I’ve been gently reminded that we have had some spokeswomen. Thus my coy attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor fell flat on its face. Thanks to a reader for the correction…
Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary
In the old days you did your own talking. From all I’ve been able to gather, there was never a need for someone else to explain on behalf of a president what they thought on a particular issue—they could do it all by themselves. This was the case with Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and others. I’d like to think they’d find it pretty odd to have someone trying to tell others what their positions were on the problems of the day.
But somewhere along the way (post Abraham Lincoln), President’s began this modern practice of having a Press Secretary. It went along with the new practice of hiring White House staff, the numbers of which have of course grown dramatically over the years. [Continue reading…]
I find it interesting that, after the bombardment of Libya, Dennis Kucinich and others (Democrats and Republicans) are now parading it around as though it were a sacred cow.
Kucinich says that what Obama did (by not consulting Congress) was an impeachable offense—it doesn’t agree with the Constitution. And so it was. Congress, not the President, is given all authority to declare war (or attack others in this case) according to Article I Section 8 of the document.
Kucinich then said something that I find wholly obtuse. In essence, he stated that just because it’s an impeachable offense, that doesn’t mean we have to impeach the President.
Huh?! If the highest office of the land acts in a manner contrary to the Constitution which gives that office its powers, then mustn’t impeachment follow as a matter of course? How can an “impeachable offense” remain unchallenged, according to the laws set forth in the instrument which established the government in the first place?
Why is it that the Constitution is suddenly so important when liberals need it to be? Kucinich and many other Dems are crying “Foul!” that the Constitution wasn’t followed, yet they have shown extraordinary disdain for the document when it’s at odds with what they seek to do. The entire bailouts, running up huge deficits, dictating health care to the people and the several states—these are all un-, non-, or extra-constitutional in their own right. [Continue reading…]