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.
I don’t care much for the latest attempts to discredit Mitt Romney on the basis of his religious preferences.
From what I know, it wouldn’t have appealed to the founding fathers, either.
In a breaking story appearing at the end of last week on CNN’s Political Ticker, we once again hear that a few evangelical leaders seek to create a litmus test for the Presidency—and that according to one’s faith.
Politics presents a very risky game of chance, but a game nonetheless. Trust me. Just like with counting cards you can practically always win.
Consider this. Barack Obama received record amounts of money during his 2008 campaign. But did you know that just four years earlier, the Bush campaign had set its own records in contributions during a presidential campaign?
By all accounts, Obama received most of his 2008 campaign cash through small donations. But PolitiFact checked that claim and found it to be false. Rather, it seems he accepted money from all comers.
With this in mind, it becomes genuinely amusing to witness the proposal for taxing the million-dollar-plus making members of our upper class. Why? Because many of those who will be taxed are those who put the President into office in the first place!
So many people are put off by the current state of the country, they’ve taken to public demonstrations in big cities across the land. They started in New York and are calling themselves “Occupy Wall Street.”
Like a page out of history, these demonstrations have the mien of some passionate peasant uprising, laying honorable siege to the oppressive nobleman’s castle.
But here’s the rub: Not even they are sure what they want to achieve.
In reality, more than anything, they just want their movement to gain enough steam so they can force everyone to begin a “dialog.” And they want that dialog to begin yesterday. [Continue reading]
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]