► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Mona Charen’

The Chinless Opthamologist’s Useful Idiots

by Mojambo ( 31 Comments › )
Filed under Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Syria at February 29th, 2012 - 11:30 am

John Kerry, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Nancy Pelosi,  Sting, Arlen Spector – and many more – all have  paid homage to the Assad Crime family (now run by what CFJ used to call “the Chinless Opthamologist”).  It seems that the greater the tyrant – the more the left loves them.

by Mona Charen

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a firm statement to the Syrian elite this week, urging them to overthrow the regime of Bashar Al-Assad. “The longer you support the regime’s campaign of violence against your brothers and sisters, the more it will stain your honor,” she advised.

[…..]

A mere eleven months ago, when peaceful demonstrators in the streets of Dara and other cities were met with bullets, Secretary Clinton referred to Assad as a “reformer.” She was not alone. Last year, Germany’s foreign minister Guido Westerwelle visited Assad and declared him indispensable for a “constructive solution” to the Middle East’s problems. A leading German think tank, which advises the foreign ministry, called Assad a “modernizer.”

Rare is the sceptered thug who does not attract fawning admiration from some in the free and democratic West. Fidel Castro was the darling of the smart set in the 1960s, and Che Guevara, one of his “wet work” assistants, adorns t-shirts worldwide to this day. Sean Penn is a shill for Hugo Chavez, and Robert Scheer had admiring things to say about Kim Il-Sung.

The more repressive and vicious the regime, the more some in the West will strain to find benign intentions in their leaders. One after another of the old Soviet general-secretaries was hailed, when he first ascended the greasy pole of Kremlin politics, as a “moderate.” Yuri Andropov, we were assured, loved American jazz, good Scotch, and “cynical political jokes with an anti-regime cast.” He went out of his way to meet with dissidents, we were advised. Perhaps he was drunk on Chivas Regal when he shot down civilian airliner KAL 007.

Similarly, when Syrian dictator Hafez Al-Assad (the butcher of Hama) died and was replaced by his son Bashar, the New York Times offered a highly sympathetic portrait of the “shy, young doctor.” The Times noted that expectations of the younger Assad were high, because, in the words of a member of the Syrian parliament, “he’s young and open and wants to give more liberty and democracy.”

[…….]

None of that prevented Hollywood’s glamour couple, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, from visiting with the Assads to discuss their “refugee work.” Just-released photos captured rock star and “human rights” campaigner Sting and his wife enjoying a good laugh with the Assads in 2008. Vogue magazine, apparently immune to shame, ran a fawning profile of the dictator’s wife, “a rose in the desert.” “Asma al-Assad,” Vogue told its readers, “is glamorous, young, and very chic — the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies.” Along with fetching views of Asma, Vogue featured shots of Bashar playing on the floor with his children.

When images of bleeding and dead children — shot by Assad’s troops — began to cascade out of Syria, Vogue quietly removed the piece from its website.

Then-speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi visited Assad in 2007 (against the wishes of the Bush administration) and came away satisfied with his cooperation. “We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process.” In this, she was echoing a sentiment often expressed by former secretary of state James A. Baker, co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, who argued that the key to peace in the Middle East was to “flip Syria.”

But no visitor was more enthusiastic about Bashar Assad than President Obama’s informal envoy, Senator John Kerry, who made six visits to Damascus between 2009 and 2011. In 2010, he said “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.” Even after the tanks rolled into cities and began blasting away civilian demonstrators, Kerry stuck to his self-delusion: “My judgment is that Syria will move; Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and economic opportunity that comes with it. . . . ”

The “shy doctor” became a cold killer. Those who, without a particle of evidence, persuaded themselves that he was ever anything else, were useful idiots.

Read the rest – Assad’s Useful Idiots

 

Rick Perry is the simplistic one?; if Perry wins – then Karl Rove is out!

by Mojambo ( 86 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012 at August 9th, 2011 - 11:30 am

All Republicans and conservatives have to deal with the condescending put downs by the liberal elites that their ideas  and plans are “simplistic”. Ronald Reagan in particular was said to be naive and simplistic whether dealing with the Soviet Union (he was denounced as being provocative for calling the USSR “The Evil Empire”) or with the ideas of tax cuts. Our betters at The Washington Post have decreed that Gov. Rick Perry’s ideas on higher education to be simplistic, therefore I think we must give him the benefit of the doubt.

by Mona Charen

Anticipating his entry into the presidential race, the Washington Post ran a long piece on Texas Governor Rick Perry’s ideas about higher education. “A man of grand plans,” the headline warned, “criticized as not sweating the details.” Are the headline writers at the Post on summer break? Did the temps have to dust off headlines from the Reagan era? Reagan’s ideas were constantly dismissed by the bien passant as “simplistic.” So anyone who gets tagged as simplistic by the Post gets an immediate benefit-of-the-doubt from me. As Margaret Thatcher said at Reagan’s funeral, ” . . . his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth.”

So what has Perry done to earn this epithet? He’s taken on the higher education establishment in Texas. He has proposed – gasp — that Texas’s four-year institutions develop a plan to offer bachelor’s degrees for no more than $10,000. “Skeptics,” the Post tells us, say that the goal cannot be achieved without sacrificing “academic quality and prestige.” It shows, these same unnamed critics assert, that the governor has a “record of plunging into splashy ventures, at times, despite the complexities, constituencies, or sensitivities involved.”

[…]

During that same 1997-2007 decade that home prices increased by 68 percent and created a housing bubble, college tuition and fees rose even higher — by 83 percent. In fact, college tuition and fees have never increased by less than 73 percent in any ten-year period back to the 1980s. And in the decades ending in 2009 and 2010, college tuition increased by more than 90 percent. The still-inflating increases in the price of higher education are starting to make the housing bubble look pretty tame by comparison.”

In addition to suggesting that tuition be reduced, a panel appointed by Governor Perry suggested that professors were “wasting time and money churning out esoteric, unproductive research.” Shocking. The panel suggested dividing the research and teaching budgets to encourage excellence in both, while also introducing merit pay for exceptional classroom teachers.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports that students are flocking to colleges and universities in flat, freezing North Dakota to take advantage of lower tuition rates. Enrollment at public colleges has jumped 38 percent in the last decade, led by a 56 percent increase in out of state students. Colleges around the nation, the Journal advises, must now compete for a new kind of student: “the out-of-state bargain hunter.”

Admittedly, North Dakota benefited from oil revenue and spent generously on its colleges and universities over the past 12 years. But in a time of straightened circumstances for everyone, how does it not make sense to have colleges and universities compete on price?

Obama seeks to forestall this commonsense solution by once again increasing government subsidies. Student loans, courtesy of Obama, can now be “forgiven” after 20 years of payment, or after 10 years if students choose “public service.” Who pays the difference? You know who.

[…]

And Perry is the simplistic one?

Rick Perry’s education policy is more sophisticated then Obama’s

According to the Democratic leaning (to say the least) Polticio – there is another reason why I would support Rick Perry against all the Republican candidates and non candidates – Rick Perry loathes  Karl “the overrated” Rove, whose influence will be gone and he can spend his time trying to sound like he knows what he is talking about on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox, if Perry wins.  As the article states  “Perry winning would be a deathblow for Rove.”  By the way this is the second hit piece on Governor Perry in two days by Politico which tells me that Perry is the one that Obama does not want to have to run against.

For those of you who are interested in why the Bush’s and Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, James Baker, and Karen  Hughes wanted to defeat Rick Perry in 2010  it goes back to 1998. Rick Perry plays to win and does not believe in turning the other cheek.  I admire that!

In 1998, however, when Bush was running for reelection as governor and Perry was running for lieutenant governor, the two campaigns clashed over whether Perry should go negative against his opponent. Rove argued against it, insisting that Bush campaign polling showed Perry comfortably in the lead.

But Perry’s pollster Mike Baselice forecast a much closer result, and the feeling in Perry’s camp was that Rove’s real motivation was concern that negative ads would cut into Bush’s margin of victory, particularly among Hispanic voters, and undermine his efforts to build momentum for Bush’s planned 2000 presidential campaign.

After one particularly contentious phone call, one Perry campaign operative punched a hole in a wall in Arnold’s office. Perry’s campaign eventually went up with negative ads, and squeaked out a narrow victory. Rove offered a “most memorable” election night apology, Baselice told the Houston Chronicle in 2006.

In 2007, Perry was captured on video at an Iowa event for former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign, declaring “George Bush was never a fiscal conservative — never was.”

Soon thereafter, Rove and other Bush allies began aligning themselves behind Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a longtime Bush family ally, in challenging Perry in last year’s Texas gubernatorial primary. It was in the context of that bitter race that Perry’s adviser Dave Carney, in a 2009 interview with The New York Times Magazine, disparaged the Bush crew — and Rove specifically — as “country-club Republicans” and “not conservatives.

hat tip – Rodan

by Kenneth P. Vogel

If Texas Gov. Rick Perry ultimately decides to run for president, it would shake up the Republican race, directly threatening Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty and the other candidates vying to be the leading alternative to front-runner Mitt Romney.

But it could also make things tricky for another powerful Texan — Karl Rove

Rove, who served as George W. Bush’s political strategist in Texas on his way to becoming the GOP’s best known political operative, had a falling out with Perry and his staff when Bush was governor in the 1990s that has become the stuff of Lone Star lore.

With no signs the two have patched things up — and with some suggestion that Rove, or at least his team, is tilting toward Romney — speculating how their relationship would play out if Perry becomes a candidate has become something of a fixation among Perry supporters and other Republicans in Texas and Washington.

Their interest is not just in the alliances and rifts stemming from a personal feud, but in the possible consequences for one of Texas’s major exports to national politics — money.

As the intellectual spark behind a network of outside groups including American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (or Crossroads GPS, for short), Rove is the unofficial leader of a shadow Republican Party that intends to raise tens of millions of dollars on ads to defeat President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats in 2012. But Rove’s network relies to a great extent on a small group of wealthy Texans, including some who have been major donors to Perry.

[…]

One person who has sent checks to both American Crossroads and Perry’s campaigns predicted that if Perry wins the nomination, his donors will cut off the spigot to Rove.

“Perry winning would be a deathblow for Rove,” said this person, who did not want to be identified talking about political contribution strategies.

Campaign filings show that if even a handful of big Texas donors feel the same way, it could have a major impact. Of the $35 million in reported contributions raised by American Crossroads (Crossroads GPS does not disclose donations), about half (more than $17 million) has come from Texas, according to an analysis of filings with the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service.

And 11 of the biggest Texas donors to American Crossroads, a super PAC, have also given Perry $4.7 million since 2001, the earliest year for which Texas state campaign filings are electronically accessible.
Houston homebuilder Bob Perry (no relation to Rick Perry), for example, who ranks as the biggest known donor to American Crossroads at $7.5 million, has also given at least $3.3 million to Rick Perry over the years.

[…]

Read the rest:

Don’t Run Sarah, Don’t Run!

by Mojambo ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012 at November 21st, 2010 - 10:00 am

Before you start ripping into this, at least give me the courtesy of reading the entire column.  I particularly agree with the part where she says “The Republican nominee should be someone with vast and impressive experience in government and the private sector — and a proven record. Voters chose a novice with plenty of star power in 2008 and will be inclined to swing strongly in the other direction in 2012. Americans will be looking for sober competence, managerial skill, and maturity, not sizzle and flash.” I also forgot about S.P.’s endorsement of Tom Tancredo’s wretched campaign for governor of Colorado. By the way I met Mona Charen in person, she is no RINO and has nothing in common with Kathleen Parker, David Frum, David Brooks, and Peggy Noonan. I like Palin personally and think she is a terrific mom and wife and would be a great neighbor in addition to being  a lot of fun to hang out with, but lately all I hear is her speaking in platitudes whenever she is asked questions of substance on Fox.

by Mona Charen

By telling Barbara Walters that she thinks she can defeat President Obama, Sarah Palin has dimmed hopes cherished by sensible Republicans that she might decide against a run for the White House in 2012. Here are just some of the reasons she should not run.

[….]

After the 2008 campaign revealed her weaknesses on substance, Palin was advised by those who admire her natural gifts to bone up on policy and devote herself to governing Alaska successfully. Instead, she quit her job as governor after two and a half years, published a book (another is due next week), and seemed to chase money and empty celebrity. Now, rather than being able to highlight the accomplishments of Sarah Palin’s Alaska, we get “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” another cheesy entrant in the reality show genre. She’d so much rather be out dog sledding than in some “dull political office,” she tells the audience. File that.

She is wildly popular with a swath of the Republican electorate, it’s true. And, as a conservative woman politician told me, the consultants (who get paid the big bucks win or lose) will doubtless descend upon her with game plans showing how she can win in Iowa and then cruise to the nomination. Maybe. But the general election would be a problem, since 53 percent of independent voters view Palin unfavorably, according to a recent Gallup poll, along with 81 percent of Democrats.

There is no denying that Sarah Palin has been harshly, sometimes even brutally treated by the press and the news/entertainment gaggle. But any prominent Republican must expect some of that and be able to transcend it. She compares herself to Reagan. But Reagan didn’t mud wrestle with the press. Palin seems consumed and obsessed by it, as her rapid Twitter finger attests, and thus encourages the sniping. She should be presiding over meetings on oil and gas leases in the North Slope, or devising alternatives to Obamacare. Every public spat with Dave Letterman or Politico, or the “lamestream media,” or G0d help us, Levi Johnston, diminishes her.

[….]

Judgment, above all, is what voters prize in a presidential candidate. Some of Sarah Palin’s 2010 endorsements were sound and arguably helpful. Others betrayed flightiness and recklessness. Tom Tancredo, Palin’s choice for governor of Colorado, has ridden his anti-immigration hobbyhorse in a style perfectly suited to alienate Hispanic voters (describing Miami, for example, as a “Third World” city). The endorsement of Christine O’Donnell was irresponsible and damaging, losing a seat that would certainly have been a Republican pickup absent Palin’s intrusion into the race. It goes without saying that O’Donnell received an absurdly disproportionate amount of ink and attention during the race (the liberal press naturally seizes upon any opportunity to make conservatives look kooky), but again, Palin should have anticipated that. Besides, this one cannot be laid at the feet of the biased media. O’Donnell was a thoroughly unqualified candidate.

Palin has many strengths. I admire her fortitude and her commitment to principle. Her capacity to connect with a crowd is something most politicians can only dream of. I will always remember her 2008 convention speech as a rollicking star turn. She would be terrific as a talk-show host — the new Oprah.

But as a presidential candidate? Someone to convince critical independent voters that Republicans can govern successfully? Absolutely not.

Read the rest Why Sarah Palin Shouldn’t Run