It is often said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In America these days there appears to be a growing uncertainty amongst those who want President Obama defeated in November 2012 as to who would be the best Republican candidate.
Obama’s foot soldiers in the mainstream media are convinced that Jon Huntsman is the best candidate for the GOP. Any serious person should be most wary of their opinions because their ultimate goal is clear.
But still, the question of whether a true conservative candidate is electable is running through the minds of many on the Right. Several recent polls suggest that the likes of Bachmann and Palin cannot defeat Obama. However, if we look back 31½ years ago, something very interesting can be found. Back then, 7 months before the election, polls indicated that Jimmy Carter lead Ronald Reagan by an enormous 25 percentage points. Yet we all know what eventually happened.
The America of 2012 is arguably in a lot worse financial shape than in 1980. Indeed, life was not grand back then either, with unemployment & interest rates through the roof. While the latter is not the case right now, the former definitely is. Plus, America’s overall fiscal position is in much worse shape, with its debt at truly frightening levels.
Can a true conservative candidate get elected President in 2012? With America’s financial situation in terrible shape, and getting worse, and a sitting president unwilling to deviate from his Far Left Spend-Spend-Spend mantra, the odds seem probable.
h/t Mark Levin & Ken Kulak

“And why should the Globe and Mail care?” (h/t Adrian)

Think about it:

…
Does this portend the vigourous, burden-sharing foreign and defence policy that the prime minister has talked about? Or is it a public relations plan to distract attention from major cuts to expenditure on new ships, planes, and army equipment ?..

A question well worth asking. On verra, verily.

I’ve long thought of the Pivot Legal Society as a victim-baiting organization / Leftist front group. Perhaps elements of them actually are. But on the show that I photographed yesterday, I thought Katrina Pacey sounded more like a reasonable libertarian:

What say you?

Last Thursday evening, WABC’s John Batchelor had a guest co-host named Mary Kissel, who works for the Wall Street Journal. In one of the segments, they interviewed a journalist named McKay Coppins about a recent article of his. You can listen to the interview here beginning at 19:00 (about half-way through the podcast).
Mr. Coppins tried his best to defend what he was saying in the article but Batchelor & Kissel kept battering him with questions, eventually shattering to pieces his defense of Romney. Towards the end, Batchelor asks a most important question: “Doesn’t this suggest to us that Mr. Romney would do better in another party?”
Mitt Romney might be a nice guy, might look like a President, and absolutely does have a good track record in business. But he’s too much of a flimsy fellow when it comes to any core set of values and a concrete vision. Sometimes compromising is a good thing but often it’s absolutely the wrong thing to do.
America is in trouble. A whole lot of trouble. The next Republican American president simply cannot compromise when it comes to fixing the economy and restoring a large semblance of fiscal sanity to government spending. For if it’s more of the same then the whirlpool of financial ruin that the nation is cascading down into will only pull it down in a stronger fashion. That’s not a good thing for anyone in the world except America’s enemies.

Continued!

I was raised as a Roman Catholic. Up until my late teens I was a very strict follower of the faith, went to church every Sunday, etc. But then I gradually fell away from the Church. There were several reasons for this but here’s a recent story that reminded me of one of the most significant ones.
There have long been two distinct trains of thought within the Christian faith. One involves always turning the other cheek and providing constant handouts to whomever asks, no questions asked. The other involves holding transgressors accountable for their misdeeds and acts of charity more in line with “a hand up”. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is definitely connected with the latter. While I don’t agree with everything she has written, there’s absolutely no doubt that Atlas Shrugged had a profound effect on me when I read it in late 1993.
The earlier referenced news story refers to a group called American Values Network (AVN). Within the article, AVN is exposed for the frauds they actually are:

While the AVN is officially a non-partisan organization that wants to see Christians at the helm of both political parties, they’ve been vocal supporters for a number of Democratic initiatives, such as health reform and the anti-nuclear START treaty. They also focus on non-political initiatives such as medical aid for impoverished populations and housing aid for veterans, and advocate for morality-based policy solutions to climate change.

Reading between the lines, they’re mostly just a Leftist front group. The problem with that is that Leftism is, in practice, a religion (read “cult”) all on its own. Its precepts always supercede those of any formal religion. Leftists (aka “cult members”) can talk all they want about being Christian but in point of fact, that’s almost always just a talking point.
Getting back to the difference between a hand out and a hand up, Dennis Miller explains it another way: The Clueless versus the Helpless

Today, on the TV show I’m involved with, was a woman from Richmond, BC named Leila El-Khatib. She spoke with host, David Berner about Islam and about the Middle East:

What are your thoughts on what she had to say?

“I’m with the USDA, and I need to see the permit for your rabbit.”

The National Post must be applauded for their most recent editorial, “Wanted: Zero budgetary growth“. The question is, will Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty pay any attention to it?
The most basic of conservative principles is to live within one’s means. If a majority Conservative government in Canada won’t eliminate the annual deficit within a year or so, is the entire notion of conservative thought lost in our country for at least the next few decades?

Publius on the realities of our politics:

Harper by the Numbers
Terence Corcoran on Harpernomics…
The ordinary voter – who is reluctantly dragged to the polls every few years – pays scant attention to political affairs and virtually none to public policy. A half digested series of symbols and impressions fill out their understanding of our government’s role and its operations. The Conservatives (team blue) are the party of fiscal restraint, giving big business a free reign and criminals a hard knock. They are the party of hard practicality. The daddy party as some American commentators have dubbed their Republicans counterparts down south.
The NDP (team orange) are the party of idealistic granola chomping hippies, mouthing happy utopian pleasantries about social justice and being sorry for the poor and weak. The Liberals (team red) are the party of compromise. Some hard practicality (like balancing the budget during the Chretien-Martin era) matched with promises to help the poor and weak, and some nice freebies for the middle class (i.e. “average hardworking Canadian families”). Stephen Harper has successfully convinced enough of the Central Canadian middle class – through bland rhetoric and targeted tax credits – that the Conservatives are now the party of compromise…
It is a law of modern politics that you betray your base and flatter your enemies…

Read on. Publius can both think and write at the same time.

Fox:

Troops were deployed to help people get out and to throw up a security cordon around the stricken area, and residents throughout the city were urged to stay home or with neighbors and conserve water and food.
(…)
During hours of chaos in the city, people dug through rubble with their hands to free people trapped. Firefighters climbed extension ladders to pluck people stranded on roofs to safety. A crane lifted a team of rescuers on a platform to one group of survivors in a high-rise.
(…)
Officials had established relief centers in schools and community halls, where food was being served to thousands of sheltering people and donated blankets were being handed out. In at least one park in the city, people — many of them tourists who had abandoned their hotels — huddled in hastily pitched tents and under plastic sheeting. The Red Cross was working to secure accommodation for them.

Culture matters.

I really dislike the idea of the CRTC becoming involved in the Usage Based Billing policy.
I don’t, in the least, disagree with UBB. If the large communications companies weren’t under the purview of the CRTC, they would have been doing it years ago because it makes sense; use more, buy more. There is a lot of dark fibre in the urban rings, but that doesn’t string regions together. A couple of key technological improvements in fibre have expanded bandwidth by a factor of ten or more, but that has allowed the backbones to keep up rather than future-proofing.
In about ten years, given no more improvements, there is going to be a big infrastructure charge to supply the bandwidth that will be required. Without the ability to charge users for what they are using where is that money going to come from?
It would be ridiculous to think that any company will invest in that kind of expense from the goodness of their hearts so it will come down on the users instead, UBB ensures that it comes down on those demanding the bandwidth the most.
Currently the arguments I’ve heard from the tin-foil hatted types is that the successful communications companies were pushing this because of businesses like Netflix or Skype cutting into their market. That argument may be valid, but a person really should look at both sides of the coin. Netflix, Skype and similar are basing their businesses on not having to pay for the road they run on. They are taking advantage of the broadband that was put in place without them or their customers contributing to the pot.
Instead the average and below average user subsidizes the Torrent fiend and those same lower bandwidth users will be paying for the future requirements because the Netflix user can’t have jitter in their HD. How many garage start-ups are developing Internet provided rich media applications? How much more bandwidth is going to be required in the next few years for the next YouTube?
Making everyone pay the same price regardless of usage isn’t “fair”, it’s socialism.
Cheers,
lance
Updated: The CRTC decision.

The Religion of Pieces:

In Edmonton on Wednesday, RCMP officers arrested a 38-year-old Alberta man for his alleged role in the multinational terrorist group that carried out the bombing at Forward Operating Base Marez in Mosul, Iraq.

Update: Extinction? We only wish Peter. H/T Mississauga Matt and I think Mazz2 for the vid.

Before anyone north or south of the border (or to the northwest) knee-jerks, do read this, and the links. Can you respond substantively?

Key differences between Canada and the US
I cannot imagine any Canadian political leader saying this with reference to, say, Jim Balsillie…

Via Moneytalks; (PDF)

Canadians should be … “standing on guard” … as the currency pushes for a violation of “parity” to the US Dollar, which, in turn, has put downward pressure on Exports relative to Imports, causing the Current Account Balance to collapse into a deepening deficit … in synch with a tightening in monetary conditions and an intensifying erosion in the core of the Canadian labor market. Canadians should be on guard, for more macro-market turbulence.
Indeed, as noted in the chart below, Canada’s Current Account Balance plunged to its DEEPEST DEFICIT EVER during the 3Q.

More Moneytalks.
Lots of charts. Most of them ugly.
Update: Here’s a highly related story.

There’s a lesson in this for conservatives. But I’ll leave you to figure out what it is on your own. (Language advisory).
(text lyrics)

…is such a great defence.
Ahh, “accountability” you were so young^*.