The ruling today, at the 9th Circuit, was no surprise. See the New York Times , ” Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California .” And from Maggie Gallagher, at National Review , ” Ninth Circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You Are Irrational Bigots .” (Via Memeorandum .) And still more at Legal Insurrection, ” 9th Circuit holds Prop. 8 violates 14th Amendment .”
Continued here:
California’s Proposition 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
Jeffrey Lord, former White House political director under Ronald Reagan, is slamming a piece in National Review Online that accuses Newt Gingrich of spewing “insulting rhetoric” about Reagan while he was president. The National Review piece, written by former Reagan Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, has gained significant traction as many conservatives have come forward to question Gingrich’s electability. The former House Speaker has repeatedly cast himself as a ” loyal lieutenant of Reagan’s bold conservatism ” against the more timid, “Massachusetts moderate” Mitt Romney. Writing in the American Spectator , Abrams, Lord says, has “been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries.” But no more, he says, because Abrams has been “caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.” Some of the top examples Abrams cites come from a statement Gingrich made on the House floor in 1986. Lord obtained a copy of the speech, which he said Abrams is “grossly misrepresenting” as “some sort of anti-Reagan jihad:” Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says: • “Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism.” Gingrich then goes on — at Newtonian length — praising Reagan for Reagan’s understanding of Lenin, Reagan’s understanding of the real “purposes of a Soviet dictatorship” and much more. He lists and applauds Reagan repeatedly for the President’s appreciation of “the threat in a more powerful Soviet empire” and the threats posed by Communist Cuba and Nicaragua. He ranks Reagan with the great cold war presidents in protecting freedom. In short, time after time after, Newt Gingrich — true to form — is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Ronald Reagan. Is it any wonder that years later Nancy Reagan would speak so publicly and warmly about “Ronnie” passing the conservative torch to Newt? Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan has stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt? • Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets are “inadequate and will ultimately fail.” This is shameful. Why? Here’s what Newt said — in full and in context: “The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan’s strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.” In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern, prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Reagan’s then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick, not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Kristol and the late-Mondale aide turned conservative Krauthammer, that Reagan’s anti-Communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona. The entire speech focused on suggestions of how to do just that — to effectively institutionalize Reagan’s conservative beliefs in the government. Is Abrams seriously accusing Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan? Of spewing “insulting rhetoric” at a president everyone in Washington knew they staunchly supported? Really? Of course not. But in apparent service to the Romney campaign, in order to make Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol. You can read Lord’s full analysis here .
Read the original post:
Former Reagan Adviser Questions NRO Piece About Gingrich’s Gipper Critiques
There’s an editorial at Toronto’s Globe and Mail . And see the Los Angeles Times , ” Recording in cruise ship disaster casts captain in bad light .” Also, at London’s Daily Mail , ” Forget women and children first. Burly crew men led the race for the lifeboats .” And at National Review , ” In the Italian cruise-ship disaster, another death knell for the age of chivalry .” UPDATE : At New York Times , ” Captain of Stricken Vessel Says He Fell Overboard in Passenger Panic .”
Read more here:
The Cowardice of Captain Francesco Schettino
Keep an eye on Artur Davis. He’s a former Democratic congressman from Alabama who has always had strong disagreements with his party. Davis is now contributing to National Review Online ; first on Ben Nelson’s retirement and now on the GOP presidential primary. This morning he offers this effusive praise for Rick Santorum : The case for Rick Santorum — and yes, at this juncture, that phrase still feels weird — is that he is a conviction conservative with immigrant, middle-class roots who empathizes with battered places Republicans normally don’t see. If you don’t yet buy it, watch his might-as-well-be-a-victory-speech in Iowa: It was simply the best Republican rhetoric in the last decade. Keep reading this post . . .
Link:
Was Santorum’s Iowa Speech ‘The Best GOP Rhetoric in the Past Decade’?
Some things never get old. And by “some things” we mean Democrat strategery . Check out the new hit pieces on Mitt Romney: Or: As National Review ‘s Katrina Trinko points out: I’m skeptical about some of these “flip-flops” in this longer DNC video; for instance, Romney has been consistent on believing that we don’t know much about global warming, but that humans probably contribute something to it. It would be helpful to have more context for some of these quotes, to see what precisely Romney was arguing. She may have a point. The quotes are out of context, and by only playing a snippet of what Romney was saying, it is difficult to see the difference between these ads and a Michael Moore “film.” Nevertheless, there have been times where Romney has “flip-flopped” on campaign issues (see his earlier support for NARAL that has since been replaced with strong pro-life position). But Romney could have also legitimately changed his mind. Maybe he is actually a staunch pro-life candidate. Wouldn’t that be something? And wouldn’t his “flip-flopping” on things such as global warming and abortion still be preferable to a ” Petulant, Self-Absorbed, Egoistic Little Man-Child ” who has consistently advocated/endorsed/initiated nothing but disastrous policies for the entirety of his presidency? Does the DNC really want to get into a smear campaign based on policy positions? This should be fun. Exit questions: Will Romney fight back or will he play nice like John “My Running Mate is the Only Reason People are Voting for me” McCain? Is this what the “new civility” is supposed to look like? ( Editor’s note: No, I will never grow tired of mocking the left for attempting to profit from the Gabby Giffords shooting . )
Read more:
It begins: DNC ads target Romney
The first Morning Jolt in about two weeks offers a review of what you may or may not have missed on National Review ’s Post-Election Cruise, reports of Occupy Wall Street protesters who are staying at the $700-per-night W hotel in Manhattan, and, of course, what is likely to be the story of the week . . . A Super-Flopping Super-Committee? Who Saw That Coming? Keep reading this post . . .
See original here:
Supercommittee Finds Budget Numbers to Be Full of Kryptonite
