Now, as Paul Mirengoff at Power Line notes, the Ohio governor has gone full-tilt Jon Huntsman:
Dude, you just pasted a "headed to the dustbin of history" sign on your forehead.In an interview to be aired tomorrow on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” the Governor Can We All Get Along argues in favor of a president’s right to have judicial nominations confirmed. He states:My feeling is, at the end of the day, whoever gets elected president should be in a position to be able to pick you know who they want and the American people will either decide by voting for a Republican or Democrat what the makeup of the court is.This was once the prevailing view on judicial nominations, but the Democrats abandoned it long ago, having often blocked Republican nominees — e.g. Robert Bork — and having advocated the blockage of any Supreme Court nominee by a Republican president in the run-up to a presidential election. Either Kasich didn’t get the word or he believes in two sets of confirmation rules — a deferential set for Democratic nominees and an obstructionist set for Republican ones.But that’s not the worst of it. Kasich told CBS News that, as president, he would consider nominating the liberal Judge Garland. When John Dickerson asked whether “as someone who’s talked about unity, would you take a look at Mr. Garland…if you were elected president” Kasich replied:Well, you know, he received you know overwhelming support, I think even from Senator Hatch, so of course we’d think about it.With this answer, Kasich has achieved, you know, full Jon Huntsman status.It’s bad enough when Republican presidents unwittingly nominate centrists or liberals to the Supreme Court due to lack of good information about the nominee or “growth in office.” When a Republican candidate expresses a willingness to nominate a jurist with a long liberal track record, that candidate should be rejected out of hand.
A lot of want more reasonable gentlemen and gentlepersons in government.
ReplyDeleteAnd a lot don't. Democrats who admire the likes of Kasich or Graham or Olympia Snowe or McCain or Romney or Dole have an agenda of wiping out conservatism by co-opting the ostensibly conservative party.
ReplyDeleteFreedom and leftism are mutually exclusive. They can not occupy the same universe.
ReplyDeleteGee who knew? Another election that is a close call maybe. Say, who won the popular vote in 2000? If the winner chosen by a majority would have won we never would have had that dick Cheney.
ReplyDeleteLeftism has its degrees as certainly does conservatism. And that statement is hooeie.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the eligible voters have been turned off of presidential and other politics for decades and do not even register to vote. Sad that more than a few of them are being mobilized by a monster like Trump who is just the dumbass' Cruz.
ReplyDeleteBut we can't win for losin' with you, to whom we're all clueless cattle.
ReplyDeleteAnd who was s this "we" you presume to represent?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's this majority . . . [that has] been turned off of . . . politics for decades."
ReplyDeleteWhat does this "majority" think will happen to the Constitution, their freedom, the possibility of continued human advancement, if they opt out of being politically engaged?
We, the many of who want more reasonable gentlepersons in government shall see, but if the majority had elected the president in 2000 there still might not have been a Republican president to sour our stomachs again for the past 16 years.
ReplyDeleteI can't tell you because I registered at age 21 and got to vote for McGovern who got creamed by Tricky Dick in '72 and I'm dumb enuff to keep on voting ever since I guess.
ReplyDeleteThis thought that only your candidate can get 'er done is quite quaint, but if you were a reasonable gentleperson you would never think that way. I continually strive to be a reasonable gentleman myself. And I thought I loved freedom until I began to argue with the likes of you.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet it be clear that I am not a fan of Kasich, not for either expanding Medicaid but I'd sure be cool with expanding Medicare, of course voting my pocketbook as I am expected to do. His misguided authoritarian views on cannabis I detest, because it's patently obvious he doesn't know his head from his posterior about it. His paternal streak could likely not be hidden from many other issues on his agenda. But I think he is spot-on about the illegals because some of our citizens in a position to do so, hired and paid these workers for decades and we all looked the other way as more and more arrived. Reasonable gentlepersons, following Il Papa and many other Christian denominations' lead, think the ideas of building a big wall and sending them home (cost-prohibitive, aside from being soulless) are preposterous. If fallen away Catholic Cruz (or his evil twin Trump) prevail, I presume this means they will be unreasonable. Which might just be right up your alley.
ReplyDeleteI don't like Obama either, for a number of reasons, but I do not think any negative results during his tenure have been intentional, nor do I think him at all evil like some on the right appear to do.
And I am not prepared to conclude that climate change is utter fiction either. Man-made climate change maybe. All these scientists who say something is indeed happening here Mr. Bloggie can't all be wrong or all be left, as politics and science really don't mix much.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I had to choose one between the two it would definitely be science, no contest versus politics. I believe it and religion can coexist and contribute to eachother as many erudite thinkers have suggested.
ReplyDeleteYou may not be prepared to conclude climate change an utter fiction, but it is.
ReplyDeleteRe: negative results not being intentional: That conclusion requires an astounding level of willful ignorance. He told us five days before his inauguration that we were going to engage in the "fundamental transformation of America." He went right to work on his health-care objective, and his Apology Tour, culminating in the Cairo speech in which he said America had acted arrogantly on the world stage. Early on, he said, he would make it prohibitively expensive to build a new coal-fired power plant in this country. There are all the subsidized companies in the "business" of play-like energy forms that went belly-up. The EPA regulations affecting everyone from farmers to manufacturers. The stoking of racial tensions (the beer summit over the Henry Louis Gates incident, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," sending the DoJH into the Ferguson situation). Appeasement of Russia, Iran and Cuba.
Further back, there is his background in Chicago socialist circles: his associations with Heather Booth, Harry Boyte, Greg Galluzzo, Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, ACORN, the New Party.
I've always maintained that one thing you can't accuse the MEC of is being a phony. He's always been quite straight-up in letting us know he was a hard leftist. It's clear from his two autobiographies, from speeches he gave in the 1990s, and, obviously, from the thematic consistency of his policies since becoming dictator of post-America.
You see, here's the problem with Reasonable Gentleman Syndrome and clowns like Kasich, Romney, McCain et al: It's the old you-can't-be-a-little-bit-pregnant principle. If minimum wage is bad and wrong, there is no having just a little bit of it. If expanding Medicaid is bad and wrong, you can't do just a little bit of it and expect it to be alright. If executive-branch agencies such as the EPA legislate by imposing regulations in clear violation of the Constitution, there is no regulating just a little bit. If denying Christians the right to conduct business in accordance with their faith is bad and wrong, there is no little bit of denying. You don't compromise with that which is bad and wrong if your principles mean anything.
ReplyDeleteOur belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”
ReplyDelete― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
So socialists should be barred from expressing their views and running for president? I know it was OK for Eugene V Debs to keep running fecklessly election cycle after election cycle, but that's OK as long as their vote tallies are harmless? Where's the freedom in that?
ReplyDeleteAs for unreasonable gentlemen, Joe McCarthy comes to mind. At his core, you know what he really was, what it all boiled down to? He was a drunk and did what drunks often do, died a drunk. Meanwhile he was a colossal asshole (a real freedom loving American) who spread fear and mistrust throughout the land with his "principles."
ReplyDelete"Shock and awe" and "if you are not with us you are against us" still ring in my mind from earlier on in this country, this century.
ReplyDeleteCheney.
ReplyDeleteWhere do the heir apparent (which speaks volumes about the current "Repbulican" voters in the primaries at least) Donald Trump's principles lie? Go ask Tampa how far he got with his tower there. And he's gonna build that wall. Making Mexico pay for it is reminiscent of making Iraq pay for our invasion. I know, though, that anyone who resists your unreasonable gentlemen will be jailed or worse, ultimately. Heil Aholes!
ReplyDeleteStating that climate change is an utter fiction is a prime example of unreasonable gentlemen. Science is pretty much pure reason until it mixes with the multiple agenda of the politicians. I believe that our legal process here basically works, especially when you rid the law of politicians. There are immigration laws that were never enforced which brought us to this nasty juncture. We can probably live without the EPA which has become another burdened bureaucracy. As for Christians being unable to conduct their businesses according to their principles, you and I both know this is a debatable realm where their principles collide with the freedom of others to conduct their lives the way they want. Few Christians ever showed me that by their "love." They had to try to shove it up my posterior.
ReplyDeleteAnd hasn't George Zimmerman turned out to be a piece of work? Other encounters with law enforcement
ReplyDeleteApart from the 2012 Martin shooting, Zimmerman has had other encounters with the law, including two incidents in 2005, five incidents in 2013 and other incidents in following years.[36]
In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown his badge.[37] The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger management classes.[4][38]
Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.[4][39] These incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. The judge described them as "run of the mill."[40][41]
Zimmerman's wife, Shellie pleaded guilty on August 28, 2013, to a reduced misdemeanor perjury charge for lying under oath. She was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. She lied about their assets during a bail hearing following his arrest for shooting Martin. Days before the bond hearing she moved $74,000, broken into smaller transfers, from his credit union account to hers. $47,000 was transferred from George's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing. Amounts of over $10,000 would have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Four days after he was released on bond, she transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account. The jail recorded Zimmerman instructing her on a call to "pay off all the bills," including credit cards.[42] On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was briefly detained and questioned by police.[43] No gun was found at the scene. Police took a broken iPad from the scene for examination of a video recording of the incident to determine whether to press charges against either Zimmerman or his wife.[44] His wife declined to press charges, later expressing regret about her decision.[45] After determining that the iPad video could not be recovered, the Lake Mary police department announced they would not be pressing charges against Zimmerman, his wife, or her father.[46]
On November 18, 2013, Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings.[47] The police reported that Zimmerman had barricaded himself inside the apartment before they had made their way inside and arrested him.[48] He was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon – a felony – as well as domestic violence battery and criminal mischief.[49][50] On December 6, Zimmerman's girlfriend asked that the charges against Zimmerman be dropped and that the restraining order barring him from seeing her be lifted, after which prosecutors said that they would no longer be pursuing a case against him.[51][52]
On January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend.[53] He was released on bond the following day.[54] The charges were later dropped after the complainant recanted her story.[55]
from wiki
The skinny on Zimmerman is too much to get in one comment, so we continue on here:
ReplyDeleteIn late August 2015, controversy centering on Zimmerman arose once again when his Twitter profile picture of a Confederate flag "backed by an American flag" (in his words) became better-known. Frequently criticized posts of his from August included one in which Zimmerman called Obama an "ignorant baboon";[76] one in which he posted an image of Vesper Lee Flanagan, an African-American former news reporter who shot and killed two ex-coworkers during a broadcast, and wrote, "If Obama had a son...";[77] and another in which Zimmerman typed, in response to people who wanted him killed, that the United States understands "how it ended for the last moron that hit me" (in reference to Trayvon Martin).[78]
In September 2015, Zimmerman retweeted a photo of Trayvon Martin’s slain body posted by another Twitter user with the caption “Z-Man is a one man army”. Several days later, Zimmerman posted a letter where he said that the photo in the original tweet was marked as “sensitive” and was blocked, so he retweeted it because of the text message without seeing the photo.[79][80]
In December 2015, Zimmerman tweeted two photos of a topless woman he claimed was his ex-girlfriend, accused her of cheating and theft of his firearm and money. He also put her phone number and e-mail address on his tweet. Less than two hours later, Zimmerman’s Twitter account was suspended by the administration of the resource according to their policy against posting another person’s private and confidential information including e-mail addresses, phone numbers and familiar photos.
Read more, of course, at wiki
Ahh, but I suppose Obama asked for that, huh?
ReplyDeleteI don't really hear much outcry from American citizens about normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama just tore down a big wall there. That's all. There appear to be 2 Cubas anyhow, just like there are 2 Americas.
ReplyDeleteI shall argue that strong men, conversely, know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle. Andrew Carnegie
ReplyDeleteWhat does how Zimmerman turned out have to do with it? The subject at hand was the MEC's race-stoking agenda.
ReplyDeleteCarnegie is wrong about principles an compromise.
Why are you bringing Trump into it? You know where LITD stands on him.
Even Michael Mann is now acknowledging that the warming pause is real. Climate alarmism is just a tool for hard leftists to impose tyranny on the cattle-masses: tell us where to set our thermostats, tell car makers what kind of gas mileage their products must get, put the coal industry out of business, make energy consumption in general far more expensive, drag oil companies into court to accuse them of hiding something
Normalizing relations with Cuba is hideous and evil
ReplyDeleteZimmerman was and is a poster boy for racial bigotry. Trump will be your party's nominee, he's virtually won it already. His agenda is not much different than Cruz' but all you can say is Trump is all talk and cannot deliver and "liberate us" like Cruz. Carnegie was a kind and great man, as was Ike. Carnegie's record of philanthropy speaks for itself, and his "socialist" public libraries pulled millions out of poverty and ignorance in the days before the internet. And OK, no prob with Michael Mann acknowledging that there is a warming phase. Scientists revise their hypothesis all the time. Science is not at all about principles. Politicians say they are and that resonates with many people.
ReplyDeleteNormalizing relations is the ultimate goal in all situations where they have been characterized as "abnormal." Evil? Hmmm. I don't use that word much, but maybe you do.
ReplyDeleteYep. Use it a lot. the world is full of it.
ReplyDeleteNot my world.
ReplyDelete