holier than thou?

Mitt Romney backtracks after Trump-hating op-ed attack bombs. Monica Showalter – “Gad, his act is old.” The Romney reaction was not sympatico. — About time incivility received such a response. Showalter summarizes just how wrong Romney’s comments were and even the summary is too long to quote. People are ‘getting it’, people like Graham, Paul as well as the hoi polloi. Maybe.


“It shows that his potshot against Trump bombed, particularly with Republicans, who were all out there and ready to be his friend, but can now see that he’s got other priorities, such as filling the towering boots of … Jeff Flake.

Here is what Rand Paul told Fox News, as transcripted by RealClearPolitics: “I don’t know how it really helps anybody’s cause for people to stand up there like they’re holier than thou,” Paul told FOX News’ Neil Cavuto. “And it’s like, look at me, how virtuous I am. And I`m going to bring down the presidency by criticizing his character in front of the whole nation.” “It does nobody any good,” he added. “And, in the end, I think it’s going to look petty, and I think there’s going to be a backlash to this.”

the backtrack is obviously Romney’s style, proof that he never would have made a good president. With this latest failed attack, we now we know why he didn’t win. He doesn’t ‘get’ winning.


Trump Presidency is the ‘Bain’ of Romney’s Existence. Julie Kelly – “Just as the Republican Party is purging itself of hackneyed lawmakers, bitter neoconservative commentators, and insatiable interventionists, along comes Mitt Romney to remind us of what we definitely are not missing.”


“In a late New Year’s Day sermon published in the Washington Post, the incoming senator expressed his disappointment in the president and, by extension, in all of us. It was filled with the sort of juvenile platitudes that at one time mollified Republican voters, but now either amuse or enrage them.

The reaction on the Right to Romney’s missive was fast and furious.


Reflections on Romney. Paul Mirengoff – “The people of Utah didn’t elect Romney to provide punditry. It shocks me that Romney would even think this role might be on the table.”


“It should go without saying that a Senator will support policies he agrees with and oppose ones he doesn’t like. It should also go without saying that a Senator will not “comment on every tweet or fault” of a president, and certainly not a president of the same political party. …


Romney’s pledge to speak out against “significant statements or actions that are divisive” is pathetic. Any statement or action of a conservative-leaning Republican president is going to be “divisive.”

Romney’s pledge to speak out against any racist statements or actions of Trump sounds commendable. But he seems to assume that Trump is inclined to make such statements and take such actions.

Romney, of all people, should be particularly loath to buy into the liberal media’s nauseating practice of stretching to find racism and sexism where there’s no sound reason for inferring either.


Harry Reid Tries To Describe President Trump And Ends Up Describing Himself. streiff – “In a lengthy interview in the New York Times, Reid held forth on all manner of things as though his opinion actually mattered.” Streiff has the Left’s view about Trump (many allegations and assertions at significant odds with reality) but is seeing the mirror as well.


“There is really nothing Reid said about Trump that can’t be laid at his own doorstep. I don’t think there was a single person in DC, of any political party, who thought you could rely on Reid’s word or honor. I’m not sure there are very many…including Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and, famously, Claire McCaskill…who thought he was ever a competent caucus leader.


Where I really think he gets Trump wrong, however, is in saying he’s “oblivious to the real world.” I don’t see the man that way. I think he’s very aware of the world but is dismissive of processes and traditions that constrain his ability to act. …


Truth be told, a lot of Reid’s criticism of Trump as president comes directly from Trump not hesitating to play hardball rather than be the Republican piñatas he was used to dealing with.


And in this corner, there’s Romney. neo – “ Romney’s op-ed is about what he calls “character” but is more about what I’d call “tone”. Referencing Dr. Seuss and Hemingway in the same breath?


“And right on cue, the WaPo itself demonstrates this, albeit in a somewhat subtle way. On the very day of Romney’s op-ed—which must have had them chortling with glee—they have also published this piece by their very own correspondent Philip Bump entitled “Timeline: Romney’s criticisms of Trump have always been moderated by his own ambitions.” It’s long and detailed, and must have taken some time to research; probably Bump was given the assignment as soon as Romney’s op-ed was received and the decision made to print it.


Bump’s piece attempts to show Romney as a craven opportunist whose stated opinion of Trump waxes and wanes depending on whether he needs him or not. In this, of course, Romney shows himself to be what he is: a politician. And the WaPo shows how it repays Republican gentlemen such as Romney.


How Democrats Teach Immigrants to Be Criminals. Roger L Simon – “In turning a blind eye or taking a blasé attitude to illegal immigration, Democrats are actually encouraging or even teaching these immigrants to be criminals, that crime pays.”


“Don’t believe me. Believe Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. After all, it was Blumenthal who was scholarly enough to remind us at the Kavanaugh hearings of the importance of that apothegm of Roman law “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything).


It’s no great stretch to say that by allowing people to enter our country “undocumented” (i. e. break the law), Democrats are simply telling them the laws of our country don’t really count.

the Democratic Party’s immigration non-policy is essentially a school for crime. But we here in the great beyond are being led to believe the putative #governmentshutdown is the real problem. As if. (Actually, I kind of like it.)


Lawsuit Claims SPLC Abetted Theft, Spread Lies to Destroy Lawyer for ‘Thought Crime’. Tyler O’neil – “the liberal group allegedly violated laws and legal codes of conduct by receiving and then paying for stolen documents in violation of confidentiality agreements. The group went after Allen with the intent of getting him fired by the city of Baltimore and permanently destroying his future prospects.”


“Allen’s suit claims that the SPLC should have its 501c3 tax-exempt status revoked, that it owes him restitution for racketeering, and that it should pay $6.5 million in damages. …


Perhaps most importantly, the suit attacks the liberal group for undermining America’s tradition of free expression. …


“This East Europe Communist thought-crime surveillance mentality is antithetical to fundamental American cultural and Constitutional principles protecting freedom of expression and association,” Allen wrote in the suit, which can be found on his website. His lawsuit uses concrete claims of lawbreaking and defamation to expose the SPLC’s Orwellian strategy of branding its opponents “hate groups” and orchestrating campaigns against them.

The SPLC should also lose its tax-exempt status for mail and wire fraud, false statements on its tax forms, and campaigns of destruction and defamation against its perceived enemies, the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit includes no fewer than nine counts against the defendants, so even if one or more fail, it would be very difficult for the SPLC to convince the court to dismiss the case.

This lawsuit is serious, and the SPLC cannot just brush it off as the ravings of some racist bigot with a grudge. Allen was a top arbitrator at one of the largest law firms in the world. His claims are strong and comprehensive.


Texas Judge Doubles Down on Obamacare Ruling. David Catron – “And the law’s apologists are more worried than they admit.”


“Most “news” reports focused exclusively on the stay, which comprises one page of the document, while ignoring twenty-nine pages that Judge O’Connor devotes to a detailed elucidation of his previous ruling.

That 29 of the order’s 30 pages were ignored by the legacy media is significant. They have also studiously avoided substantive discussion of the judge’s December 14 decision, choosing instead to denounce him as a (gasp) conservative who (even worse) frequently ruled against the Obama administration.


What we have learned so far (5). Scott Johnson – “In this series we have sought to recall what we have learned so far in the matter of the greatest scandal in our history


“The [Steele] dossier operation has not only damaged institutions like the FBI and DOJ, it has also poisoned the public sphere, perhaps irremediably. As a result, it is now accepted journalistic practice to print, and reprint, any garish fantasy so long as it’s layered with Russian intrigue and Trump team treason. Even as the rest of the country sees an institution that has made itself a laughingstock, the press continues to salute itself for its bravery—or the courage and industry required to take leaks from law enforcement and intelligence officials and Democratic operatives in an effort to topple a president it doesn’t like, elected by neighbors it holds in contempt.


contempt. moral preening. virtue signalling. modern politics.


Comments are closed.