• Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for March 18th on 18:46

    These are my links for March 18th from 18:46 to 19:06:

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for March 18th on 18:23

    These are my links for March 18th from 18:23 to 18:25:

    • President 2012: Ronald Reagan & George W. Bush – Re: Sarah Palin – My friend Pete Wehner took my criticism of President George W. Bush and some of his most senior staff as a challenge to compare Bush to President Ronald Reagan. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/17/answering-mark-levins-challenge/ Comparing Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is like comparing Margaret Thatcher and John Major. That's not to put down Bush or Major, both of whom were fine leaders, but they were not the historical figures their former staffers and supporters insist.

      Who said? "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." Well, those words would never have passed Reagan's lips. It was infamously said by Bush, in defense of his massive spending spree in the last weeks of his presidency. There's nothing conservative about it. But it sums up Bush's lack of confidence in the free market system, and his repeated and excessive use of government intervention in American society.

      Bush never claimed to be the conservative Reagan was, nor did he spend his early political career challenging GOP orthodoxy, which, until Reagan won in 1980, was mostly incoherent mush of the Rockefeller-Scranton-Nixon-Ford-Bush/41 kind. George H. W. Bush and other mainstream Republican primary challengers sought to thwart Reagan because, they insisted, his conservatism would be rejected by the voters. Now, Pete insists that as president, Reagan's record, in virtually all respects, is inferior to George W. Bush's, in advancing conservative principles. This is not only counter-intuitive, it is factually defective. As I proceed with this discussion, I believe it will become evident.

      ======

      Mark Levin's response to Peter Wehner.

      Read it all

    • President 2012: Answering Mark Levin’s Challenge – Re: Sarah Palin – On his Facebook page, Mark Levin takes exception to some of us who have said critical words about Sarah Palin.

      In his response, Mark groups Karl Rove, David Frum, and me, all of whom served in the Bush administration. While having gracious words to say about me, Mark argues that “Bush’s record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse.” He raises this point not to compare Bush to Palin, he says, but “to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner.” He adds parenthetically that “If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements. No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.”

      The gold standard for Levin is Ronald Reagan, which got me to thinking: from a conservative policy perspective, how does Bush’s record stand up to Reagan’s?

      ======

      Read it all.

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for March 18th on 18:23

    These are my links for March 18th from 18:23 to 18:25:

    • President 2012: Ronald Reagan & George W. Bush – Re: Sarah Palin – My friend Pete Wehner took my criticism of President George W. Bush and some of his most senior staff as a challenge to compare Bush to President Ronald Reagan. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/17/answering-mark-levins-challenge/ Comparing Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is like comparing Margaret Thatcher and John Major. That's not to put down Bush or Major, both of whom were fine leaders, but they were not the historical figures their former staffers and supporters insist.

      Who said? "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." Well, those words would never have passed Reagan's lips. It was infamously said by Bush, in defense of his massive spending spree in the last weeks of his presidency. There's nothing conservative about it. But it sums up Bush's lack of confidence in the free market system, and his repeated and excessive use of government intervention in American society.

      Bush never claimed to be the conservative Reagan was, nor did he spend his early political career challenging GOP orthodoxy, which, until Reagan won in 1980, was mostly incoherent mush of the Rockefeller-Scranton-Nixon-Ford-Bush/41 kind. George H. W. Bush and other mainstream Republican primary challengers sought to thwart Reagan because, they insisted, his conservatism would be rejected by the voters. Now, Pete insists that as president, Reagan's record, in virtually all respects, is inferior to George W. Bush's, in advancing conservative principles. This is not only counter-intuitive, it is factually defective. As I proceed with this discussion, I believe it will become evident.

      ======

      Mark Levin's response to Peter Wehner.

      Read it all

    • President 2012: Answering Mark Levin’s Challenge – Re: Sarah Palin – On his Facebook page, Mark Levin takes exception to some of us who have said critical words about Sarah Palin.

      In his response, Mark groups Karl Rove, David Frum, and me, all of whom served in the Bush administration. While having gracious words to say about me, Mark argues that “Bush’s record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse.” He raises this point not to compare Bush to Palin, he says, but “to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner.” He adds parenthetically that “If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements. No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.”

      The gold standard for Levin is Ronald Reagan, which got me to thinking: from a conservative policy perspective, how does Bush’s record stand up to Reagan’s?

      ======

      Read it all.

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for March 18th on 17:18

    These are my links for March 18th from 17:18 to 17:28:

    • Now the Tea Party is ticked at California Republicans – Another day, another California Republican Party constituency is ticked at the party leadership's proposal to endorse candidates – for the first time — in a primary.

      On Tuesday, it was veterans. Today's ticked off conservative: Sal Russo, czar of the Tea Party Express. Sigh. It was only a year ago when the TP staged musical numbers at the GOP Convention. (Don't worry, we have the video here of that.)

      But now…a political lover's quarrel….

      In a "Dear Republican Leader" missive just e-blasted, Russo said the idea of the party endorsing a primary candidate "is a dangerous and slippery slope. While I admire greatly the party leaders today, there is no guarantee they will be the party leaders tomorrow."

      Sal says the plan proposed by CA GOP chair Ron Nehring goes against Tea Party principles.

      "We should support letting voters decide who will be the nominee of the Republican Party, and that will encourage successful candidates to embrace the Reagan way. This allows candidates to win based on our ideas, and it avoids the risks associated with reliance only on political insiders," Russo said.

      And then, Sal disses the GOP leaders, who while he "greatly admire(s)," thinks are "wrong."

      "If our leaders would have followed that prescription in California, we would have had victories here instead of defeats," Russo said. "Our party is not failing in California because our ideas are wrong; our leaders have been wrong."

      ======

      Absolutely correct.

    • Field Poll: Pluralities say immigration hasn’t hurt state or their neighborhoods – California is home to 10 million immigrants, but most voters say new immigrants haven't altered the quality of life in their neighborhoods, according to a new Field/UC Berkeley poll.

      But those who do feel affected said new immigrants made life in California worse rather than better by a 39 percent-to-10 percent margin. In their own communities, 26 percent of voters said new immigrants made their lives worse, 9 percent said better and 62 percent said there was no impact.

      While immigration has dramatically changed California's ethnic composition, most residents don't see a major impact on their lives, said UC Berkeley political science professor Jack Citrin, who helped design the survey of 898 registered voters.

      "Immigrants have become a part of the fabric of life and people just know it and accept it."

      Californians who saw their economic fortunes decline in the past year were more likely to have a negative impression of immigrants, Citrin said.

      More than two-thirds of voters ages 18 to 29 said recent immigrants either had no impact on the quality of life in their communities (68 percent) or improved their lives (15 percent). But 16 percent said it made their communities worse.

      ======

      Most of the folks who would tell it like it is have already left for Nevada, Arizona and Colorado.

      Many areas in Los Angeles are crime-infested, third world "pits."

      Who would move into these areas?

      This is a poorly worded poll, sampled with people that are remaining or who are stuck here in these lousy neighborhoods.

    • Open primary: State Republican Party leaders seek to retain their clout despite open primary – The major political parties are scrambling to blunt the effect of the "top-two" voting system that Californians approved at the ballot last year.

      Party bosses' bid to retain their clout, which the new "open primary" was intended to dilute, comes to a head for the state GOP this weekend.

      At the party's convention, which opens Friday, a group of conservatives including the California party chairman wants to codify the power to crown their party's nominees with early endorsements — long before voters even cast their first ballots for statewide, congressional and legislative offices.

      Such a move would pit the activists against the GOP's leading congressional and state legislators, and help preserve the most conservative members' hold on the party machinery. Democrats will tackle the nomination issue at their convention next month.

      =======

      A bad idea, a bad plan and will NOT grow the California GOP.

      My bet if it passes, that a number of GOP Legislators will re-register Decline to State and run as "independents."

      Who will blame them?

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for March 18th on 05:54

    These are my links for March 18th from 05:54 to 06:01:

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for March 17th through March 18th

    These are my links for March 17th through March 18th:

  • Twitter

    @Flap Twitter Updates for 2011-03-18

    Powered by Twitter Tools