December 11, 2007

Ohio’s 5th District Remains Prolife and Anti-Stealth

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:58 pm

Nix calls it at 9:05 p.m.

AP strolls in about 15 minutes later, based on the post time per Google News.

So the 5th will be represented by:

  • A person who believes in the sanctity of life, unlike the loser, who was “honored” to be backed by a group that wants to bring back partial-birth abortion — but “somehow” forgot to tell us on her web site.
  • A person who at least had the courtesy to tell us where he stands on a number of issues, unlike the loser, who told us virtually nothing — and what little she did tell us wasn’t even consistent.

And there’s a bonus with the new congressman vs. his predecessor: He lives in the district.

All of these are good things.


UPDATE 1: A second bonus: It looks like the loser, as of this moment, will get barely more than the 43.15% of the vote she received in November 2006, and could conceivably wind up with less. Imagine how low she would have gone if all voters had known her true beliefs and issue positions.

UPDATE 1A: Yup, she wound up with less


Given the circumstances, this is some serious underachievement.

UPDATE 2: ROTFLMBO (Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Butt Off) — “We’ve Already Won.”

Sorry, folks, that’s a new record for self-delusion. Even with your opponents “in disarray in OH-5, and largely angry at their nominee for a lackluster performance,” and all your supposed energy, your candidate’s performance improvement in “this remarkable special election” was barely zip, if that was worse.

I would think your party is going to have to find another stealth candidate next time, because the loser was, at long last, exposed (and will, of course, be remembered). I would think hope (given the barbarism she clearly supports, that’s the correct word) her party recognizes that subsequent runs by her would likely achieve even worse results.

UPDATE 3: Nix points to a sign (9:50 item) that there may yet be intelligent life at the Ohio Republican Party, as its victory statement takes an opportunistic slap at Ted Strickland, who put a bit of face time into the race. Shouldn’t make too much of it, but if a GOP governor ever campaigned with similar losing results, we’d never hear the end of it from Ohio’s Old Media.

National Review Endorses ‘Objectively Unfit Mitt’ Romney for President; Ann Coulter Is Almost Right

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 5:27 pm

Here is the disgraceful betrayal.

Of course the word “Constitution” doesn’t appear in the endorsement. Given Objectively Unfit Mitt’s record in Massachusetts, including his campaign promise to violate his state’s constitution and his oath of office, how could it?

Ann Coulter wrote last week (third paragraph) that the National Review is “increasingly irrelevant.”

She’s almost right. “Almost completely” irrelevant is more like it.

This calls for carrying the entire “Mitt Romney Betrayal Collection” forward so readers new to the situation can see just how awful this call by the National Review is.


The Mitt Romney Betrayal Collection

- Dec. 7 — (Re-Posted) The Paragraph from ‘The Speech’ That Should Sink Mitt Romney
- Dec. 6 — The Paragraph from ‘The Speech’ That Should Sink Mitt Romney
- Dec. 6 — The NY Times’s Accidental Journalism Reveals the Full Scope of Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Deception, and His Unfitness to Be President
- Dec. 5 — The Romney Same-Sex Marriage Deception Boiled Down
- Dec. 4 — Romney to Roll Out ‘The Speech,’ As He Questions His Own Timing
- Dec. 3 — Catch of the Day the Week Maybe the Month: Hugh Hewitt in Nov. 2003, on Goodridge and How Romney Should React
- Dec. 2 — Quote of the Day: Dean Barnett on the Need for Romney Explanations (with Index, Links, and Cliff’s Notes for ‘Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions’ Posts)
- Nov. 29 — Quote of the Day: Gregg Jackson on Mitt Romney (with Index, Links, and Cliff’s Notes for ‘Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions’ Posts)
- Nov. 27 — Mitt Romney ROTFLMBO Howlers of the Day (with Index and Links to Previous Posts)
- Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions: Nov. 26 – Index to Posts; Nov. 25 – Part 5 — The Next President and the Courts; Nov. 24 – Part 4 — What’s Beck Got to Do with It?; Nov. 23 – Part 3 — Various Excerpts, Statements, and Comments; Nov. 21 – Part 2 — Mitt Romney and Same-Sex Marriage; Nov. 21 – Part 1 — Abortion Coverage in RomneyCare

HERE IS the “Cliff’s Notes” version of the Romney betrayals detailed at the “Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions” posts.

Index to “Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions” series:

- Nov. 21 — Part 1: Abortion Coverage in RomneyCare
- Nov. 21 — Part 2: Mitt Romney and Same-Sex Marriage
- Nov. 23 — Part 3: Various Excerpts, Statements, and Comments
- Nov. 24 — Part 4: What’s Beck Got to Do with It?
- Nov. 25 — Part 5: The Next President and the Courts

Here are the Cliff’s Notes versions of the above posts, (Part 3 is excluded because it “only” has excerpts and quotes from elsewhere):

  • (Part 1) Mitt Romney did nothing to stop or restrict state-subsidized abortion in Massachusetts, and with the institution of RomneyCare, definitely expanded its scope, and may even have enshrined it into Massachusetts law for the first time. Also see Part 1 for links to the underlying columns, blog posts, and background info from Gregg Jackson, Kevin Whelan, and John Haskins.
  • (Part 2) The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage in the Goodridge case was legally absurd and in and of itself against Massachusetts’ law and constitution. Even setting aside that point, an SJC ruling in Massachusetts requires that either legislation or a constitutional amendment be enacted for implementation to legally take place. No legislation or constitutional amendment was ever enacted, yet Mitt Romney implemented Goodridge anyway. He had no legislative direction, so he in fact did not have the authorization to go ahead with implementation. By doing so, he violated his own oath of office to uphold the Bay State’s constitution.
  • (Part 4) A 1988 US Supreme Court ruling in a labor-law and free-speech case shows that rulings by the Supremes are often not automatic without enabling legislation. Only a few states have implemented the ruling involved (Communications Workers of America v. Beck). Congress has passed no legislation, meaning not only that our president can refuse to carry out the ruling, in point of fact he must refuse.
  • (Part 5) The next president may have to defy Supreme Court rulings that unconstitutionally rely on foreign law or that are clearly and obviously in violation of the clear meaning of the Constitution itself. I believe that any of the Democrat nominees would, if elected president, handle such situations opportunistically, opting to enforce the ones they like (in violation of their oath of office), and refusing to enforce the ones they don’t. I hold hope ranging from a little to a lot that four of the five major contenders for the GOP presidential nomination might take up this likely crucial challenge. Based on his record in Massachusetts as described above and in the detail of these posts, I hold out no such hope for Mitt Romney.

I have brought back a BizzyBlog term from previous elections, namely the BizzyBlog Dealbreaker. A Dealbreaker is “something that completely justifies a person not voting for you, regardless of your party or your current stands on the issues.”

Mitt Romney’s handling of the subsidized abortion and same-sex marriage issues are each Dealbreakers. As such, absent satisfactory explanations, he is objectively unfit to be president.

Iraq Troop Deaths Down for Several Months; So Where Are the Stories?

As monthly reported troop deaths began falling in Iraq a few months ago, CNN’s Robin Wright was in an early October interview with the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” that was blogged on by NB’s Noel Sheppard.

In it, Wright explained why September’s US troop death figure, at the time the lowest in over a year, did not deserve significant news coverage:

We’ve had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

Okay, maybe Ms. Wright can work up some “excitement” about this (Source: –


Since Wright expressed her skepticism over September, monthly US troop deaths have dropped into the realm of the lowest on record. Only six other months in the past 4-1/2 years (June 2003, August 2003, September 2003, February 2004, March 2005, and March 2006) had fewer fatalities. Though it’s very early, it’s possible that December’s figure could be the lowest ever.

“Excited” yet, Robin? Perhaps this will get you going (Source again: –


With about three weeks remaining in the quarter, hostile deaths (63 thus far) are on track to be the lowest in nearly four years.

Of course, we all would prefer that the numbers come down to zero. But the fact is that troop deaths have fallen to a level that is now much closer to zero than the figures reported in the early part of this year.

A Google News Search on “Iraq War Casualties” (without quotes) ends up only listing articles about polls and command changes. The one Reuters article about casualties only reports cumulative totals since the beginning of the war.

So now that it appears to be the trend she was looking for, why isn’t Robin Wright, or anyone else in Old Media, “excited” enough to report the specifics?

Cross-posted at


UPDATE: Commenter “SDF” below notes that the wounded numbers at icasualites (scroll down about 75% of the way at the link) are coming down as well, though November’s information appears to be either incomplete or in need of correction.

Couldn’t Help But Notice (121107)

Whoopi Goldberg gets it (link requires subscription) on the death tax:

During a discussion of Republican Presidential candidates on ABC’s “The View,” which the comedian co-hosts, Ms. Goldberg said, “I’d like somebody to get rid of the death tax. That’s what I want. I don’t want to get taxed just because I died.” The studio audience started applauding, but she wasn’t done. “I just don’t think it’s right,” she continued. “If I give something to my kid, I already paid the tax. Why should I have to pay it again because I died?”

….. When another co-host, Joy Behar, responded to Ms. Goldberg’s remarks by asserting, “Only people with a lot of money say that,” Ms. Goldberg shot back, “No, I don’t think so . . . It doesn’t matter if you have or don’t have money. Once you paid your taxes, it should be a done deal. You shouldn’t have to pay twice.”

As the Journal says, “Death as a taxable event and double taxation offend the average American’s sense of fairness.”

Larry Kudlow is so impressed he has invited her onto his CNBC show.


I’ve noted how de-industrialization is a myth. Unfortunately, according to this subscription-only Wall Street Journal editorial, what I would call “de-financialization” isn’t:

In the past year, that problem has only grown worse.

….. First, the delisting of foreign companies from U.S. markets leapt this year — to 56 so far, up from 30 in 2006 and 12 a decade ago. Those 56 represented 12.4% of all listed foreign companies. In part, the jump is the result of an SEC rule change that lowered the bar for delisting. But don’t take comfort in that. “Pent-up demand” to delist is still demand. Companies that maintain their listings only because they can’t escape the SEC hardly signal confidence in U.S. markets.

A second trend is the increasing number of U.S. companies going public outside the U.S. Between 1996 and 2001, a mere three American companies went public by listing only on a foreign exchange. In the first three quarters of this year, 15 firms made the same choice. That’s 9.2% of all U.S. initial public offerings in that period. Given the natural affinities to listing in one’s home market, this exodus is remarkable.

It’s also alarming to the extent it reflects more serious underlying problems. And as the report notes, regulatory burdens — especially post-Sarbanes-Oxley — and litigation costs are driving companies out of our publicly traded markets.

….. since 2002 four out of five foreign companies that chose to raise capital in the U.S. through an IPO did so outside publicly traded exchanges. Instead they used what’s known as the far more restricted Rule 144a offering. Ten years ago, more than half of these “Global IPOs” that came to the U.S. for part of their offering listed on a public exchange. But companies that go the Rule 144a route can only sell their shares to “qualified” investors, and thus those companies are not subject to Sarbox, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or to strict liability in shareholder suits.

To put it another way, 80% of the foreign companies that do raise capital in the U.S. do so outside of the reach of most of the laws that are supposed to protect investors.

….. This isn’t a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn’t be.

But it will be, as long as the party of the current congressional majority and its presidential candidates think that flogging Enron will get them votes. Truth be told, Enron was at least a much of a Democrat-aided debacle as it was a Republican one.


The “big confidence game” known as Paygo is hopefully Paygone, with 2008 campaign implications:

Last week Congressional Democrats formally renounced their ballyhooed budget pledge to offset any new tax cuts with other tax increases or spending cuts. We’re delighted to see this false promise go, but there’s a larger lesson in this failure for the tax and spending battles of 2008.

Senate Democrats gave up on “paygo,” as it’s called, when they realized they lacked the votes to offset the $50.6 billion cost of protecting more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from getting whacked by the Alternative Minimum Tax this year. They’ve spent the year floating all kinds of tax increases to make up the difference. But in the end they passed an AMT relief bill without a penny to pay for it. Paygo is now pay gone.

….. The larger relevance of this episode concerns the 2008 campaign. Hillary Clinton in particular has made paygo a major campaign theme because it makes her sound like a fiscal conservative while helping to justify tax increases. But, lo, guess who was missing on Thursday when the Senate voted 88-5 to ignore paygo on the AMT? None other than the candidate herself, along with Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. To quote another Saturday Night Live character, “How convenient.”

Among other things, Paygo is/was an attempt to repudiate the reality that when taxes are lowered, revenues to the Treasury at a minimum don’t go down by as much as expected, and often, as has been the case during the past four years, go up because of increase economic activity. It can’t be Paygone soon enough.


I-what? What is that? –

….. the (TV) networks’ zeal for reporting on Iraq has declined as the violence and casualties have declined in the war-torn country in recent months.

“We had a 178 network stories in September, which fell to 68 in November — which simply means, yes, things are doing well,” says (Media Research Center’s Tim) Graham. He says at ABC, NBC, and CBS, apparently “good news is no news.”

“The news media sort of had a relish for the bad news,” he continues. “It really enjoyed reporting bad stories and sort of trying to destroy the whole idea that the war in Iraq was ever a good thing — and when it starts to look like maybe it wasn’t such a bad idea, then it suddenly just drops out.”

I expect near-invisibility in not too long.

Positivity: ‘Bella’ star saved baby from abortion while researching role

Filed under: Life-Based News,Positivity — Tom @ 5:57 am

From Hollywood:

Dec 10, 2007 / 07:06 pm (CNA).- Eduardo Verastegui, star of the movie “Bella”, related at a fundraiser last Thursday the touching story of how he saved a baby from abortion while researching his role in the romantic drama about a woman with a crisis pregnancy.

He told the story as he held the little baby, “Eduardito,” at a pregnancy center banquet in Los Angeles.

“I decided to go to an abortion center to see if I could learn more about what women think and feel when faced with a crisis pregnancy,” Verastegui said.  While there, he met a couple seeking an abortion.

Speaking with them for 45 minutes, he offered them help, encouragement, and his phone number.

“Several months later,” Eduardo continued, “I received a phone call from the man I met with the pregnant lady in front of the abortion center. He said, ‘Hello Eduardo – this is Javier, and I have great news. My boy was born yesterday! I want to thank you and ask your permission – I would like to name him, Eduardo.’”

“I just put the phone down – I couldn’t even talk,” Eduardo said. “It’s the most emotional thing I’ve ever done in my life. It changed my life. It was beautiful. I went to the hospital to meet them and see the baby. A few weeks later, I was holding little Eduardito in my hands. It was beautiful!”

“By the grace of God, I was able to save this baby,” Verastegui said.