UVA Football is Heard From in CW for Romney Fund

Just received a generous donation to CW for Romney from one of my favorite college football players of all time, a man who happens also to be one of the funnier men in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Let's keep it up, friends!  Dig deep and make your contribution to CW for Romney by clicking this link.  Don't forget to check the box saying you know your referrer!

Now is the Time to Name the V.P. Selection

Well folks, Mitt Romney took the show on the road to Europe and did not have that great a time of it.  Of course, it isn't anywhere near as bad as the Bought and Paid For Media would have you believe, but they have the narrative and the narrative seems to be that it was not a successful trip.  Most of the chatter stems from two statements--both of which were the truth, one of which was a self-inflicted wound and one of which is actually a plus.

Let's start with the self-inflicted wound.  It doesn't matter how prepared the UK is for these Olympic Games, and it doesn't matter how much experience Governor Romney has with running an Olympics--the only acceptable response to the question (which he answered honestly) about the UK's readiness to host the Olympics was "they appear ready and excited to host a very successful Games"--and that's it.  No one needed to hear the truth from a former Olympics organizer, because the question wasn't asked of a former Olympics organizer.  It was asked of a current candidate for President.

On the second front, Romney spoke approvingly of the cultural differences that seem to be at work in the productivity of the Israeli people.  Oh my...the Palestinians are beside themselves, some crying racism.  But you know what?  Mr. Romney isn't counting on a great outpouring of support from Palestinian Americans.  He is however, looking to court Jewish Americans, and there is little doubt that many greeted his comparison with approval.

All this said, the plain truth is that the echo chamber is reverberating with the "it was a disaster meme".  I don't think the campaign will be able to reverse this--so, change the story.  Announce the VP as soon as Romney lands.  Make THAT the story that they talk about.  Oh, and make sure the VP is Condi... :)

DDR Leben

This is East German swimmer Kornelia Ender. Fraulein Ender was the surprise of the 1976 Olympics winning four gold medals and breaking four world records (and sang a mean baritone from what I hear). She beat America's best, Shirley Babashoff in all but the 400 meter relay. Leading up to the games Babashoff had been hyped as the female Mark Spitz but ended up second time and again. Although it has been proven beyond question the East Germans were doping, the I.O.C. has never taken any action. Last I heard Babashoff was a mail carrier in California.

It seems we now have a Chinese phenom at the Olympics, Ye Shiwen. She broke the world record by a full second and her personal best by an incredible five seconds. She is faster than gold medalist Ryan Lochte. Not too shabby.

So, what are we to make of this? The Chinese weren't even on the radar until twenty years ago when they won four golds at the '92 Olympics and then 12 of 16 at the '94 World Championships. After these amazing performances there was a slight problem, they got busted for dihydrotestosterone. They've been viewed as cheats ever since, and with all those expatriated East German coaches hanging around justifiably so. If Ye ain't juicing I'll eat my hat.

Doping has been a problem for forty years now. There's only one sport I'm aware of that doesn't have these issues and that is soccer. FIFA has a zero tolerance policy and you can get yourself a two year suspension for testing positive for marijuana; hard drugs and you're finished. It's time the I.O.C. got off the dime and started enforcing their own rules. Doping can kill a sport, and with all the politics and professionals and all the other problems with the Olympics, they don't need this kind of trouble. And we don't need hopped up cheaters ruining everything.  

Our 55th Donation!

We received another donation today from the Old Dominion, the second donation from a kind gentleman inhabiting that great state (commonwealth).

I'd like to solicit your help--what should a good goal be for this Fund?  I've been using $25K--is that reasonable?  My sense is that it is, as few people are thinking very hard about the election, but that will change after the conventions.

What do you think?

Oh--in the meantime, please make a donation of your own to the CW for Romney Fund.  Don't forget to check the box that says you know your referrer. 

Quite Simply, The Most Ridiculous Apologia for Obama I Have Seen

Read this.  It is really quite breathtaking.  In it, a professor at Emory University (combined tuition/room and board $54K) explains why Obama might lose.  The reason?  He tried to be too bipartisan.  Really; that's the argument.  Oh--and also that his policies weren't liberal enough.  Apparently, he's made basically the same argument before, and he was eviscerated for writing that claptrap by lefty pundit Jonathan Chait. 

My heart aches for parents paying to fatten this tenure-protected imbecile. 

Even a Blind Squirrel Finds an Acorn Now and Then

Bill Keller of the New York Times speaks the truth on the need for entitlement reform.  Good on him.  He cites a report from a Democratic Think Tank that makes a distinction between entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc) and investments (national infrastructure, keeping our military equipped, helping assure that our work force is educated to a high standard, and underwriting the kind of basic scientific research that is too risky or long-term to attract private money), which includes a graph (you'll have to look for it, I can't reproduce it here) that shows entitlements rising over time and investments falling.  Of note, Keller seems to agree that "at least the Republicans have a plan" to deal with entitlements (the Ryan Budget). 

E.J. Dionne and the Republican "Go For Broke" Strategy

I'm sorry.  I did it again.  I know, I know....I 'm not supposed to read E.J. Dionne.  But sometimes, the temptation is too much.  Like this morning.  Perhaps it was the headline:  "Mitt Romney and the Go-For-Broke Election".   Whatever it was, Dionne did not disappoint.   Once again, he pontificates from his position well to the left of the nation's center and declares himself to be the center.  Once again, he looks at what Republicans do and finds horror and shame, while ignoring the same conduct from Democrats. 

His attempt to "explain" to all of us the President's pro-business, capitalist ways strikes reasonable people as odd in the face of what we know, what we've heard, what we've seen.  Echoing the fashionable talking point that the President was "taken out of context", Dionne assures us that in the same speech, Obama "...praised “hard work,” “responsibility” and “individual initiative.”  Was this after he minimized the importance of hard work and intelligence, to the affirmation of his sycophantic congregation?

 Dionne does have it right--there are fewer undecideds than in previous elections, a function of the truly distinctive nature of the candidates views.  Ensuring a huge turnout from "the base" is something both candidates have to pull off.  But in Dionneland, only Romney appears to be doing so, while Obama's obvious pandering on gay marriage, birth control and soaking the rich represents the moderate, centrist policies of this moderate and centrist President.  

Finally, there is the concept of a "go-for-broke" election.  Is Dionne serious?  Does he believe that a candidacy built around re-distribution of wealth, the growth of the reach and scope of government, the expansion of the bankrupting capacities of public sector unions, and the demonization of free enterprise--echoing through a the tunnel of David Axelrod's tear Romney apart personally strategy--is somehow something less than a "go-for-broke" strategy? 

Come on, E.J.  Put on your big boy pants. 

100 Days To Go

According to much of the media today, there are 100 days to go until the Presidential Election.  From a personal perspective, I can't wait.  I am so ridiculously invested in the outcome of this election, every day brings some new horror or wonder.  It takes a good bit of equanimity (something in which I am in short supply) to just let the latest gaffe, poll, or surrogate stupidity drag me down or if from the other side, elevate me.  I just wish it were over.

As of today, I think Romney is in good shape.  All the trends are working well for him, and though they've had a few bumps here and there, they are staying on message with the economy.  The longer Mr. Obama stays in office, the less fit for it he appears, and he is increasingly becoming shrill, as are his supporters. 

Romney needs to do just a few more things in the coming weeks:

1.  Continue to be upbeat about America's prospects and its place in the world
2.  Continue to hammer the President on the economy
3.  Begin to make the case that the economy we have is THE RESULT of the ideology of the President.  We got what we voted for.
4.  Begin to reinforce the specifics he has already released about his economic plan--pick four or five and hammer on them (to refute the charge of a lack of specifics).
5.  Finally--and this is for all of us....don't get cocky.

My Idea for a Devastating Romney Commercial

We've been treated over the course of the past ten days or so to an exercise in ridiculosity, in which the Obama Campaign attempts to walk itself back from the President's comments made in Roanoke, VA in which he made the famous "you didn't build that" statement.  The Obama Campaign would have us believe that our Constitutional Law Scholar, multiple-degreed, Ivy League President does not understand the the basic English fact that "that" speaks to a singular object (your business) and "those" is what one would choose to describe "roads and bridges" as they would have us believe.  The campaign is worried, very worried. 

But watch the first video again.  And again.  And again.  Even if they are right, even if our oratorically gifted President screwed up, why does that matter.  It's the first part that is offensive.  In his "get your preacher on" voice, followed by an approvingly sycophantic audience, the President mocks both hard work and intelligence.  He did not make a "gaffe" in Roanoke--he gave us yet another glimpse into his true, ideological heart.

But it hasn't been the first.  No, we've had many, many of them.  And the Romney Campaign needs to string them together.  One after another. 

It needs to feature the statements above.

It needs to feature the statement about people clinging to their guns and bibles.

It needs to feature the statement made to Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth.

It needs to feature statements he has made about the rich paying their "fair share".

It needs to feature statements from his writing, like ""Political discussions, the kind at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union" - Barack Obama (Dreams of My Father)"

It would feature his statements on taxes, such as:  " "Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." - Barack Obama"

At the end of the commercial, the moderator would say, "These statements were not mistakes, they are not gaffes, they are not taken out of context.  They are who Barack Obama is, and what he believes.  And we cannot afford another Obama term in office."  

Another Donation from the Old Dominion

Received a generous donation today from another conservtive Wahoo!  Thank you!

CW For Romney Cracks $12K!!!

Thanks to generous donations from an Army buddy of mine (S-6 guy, Hammer), and our first donation from the State of California, we've cracked the $12K mark.  I have it on good authority we'll be over $13K as soon as the Romney Campaign updates my dashboard again. 

Thanks to everyone who has donated and those who are thinking about it.  Pull that trigger...click this link to donate, and don't forget to check the box that says you know your referrer. 

They Think This Is It!

Talk about the screw up of all campaign screw ups, the mother of all campaign gaffes, Obama's "you didn't build that" remark will go down as the defining moment of the 2012 race. The Dems have been in a mad scramble to knock this one down before Obama had even left the podium, but it just won't go away. They've tried to say it was all taken out of context, but when you listen to the full speech IT GETS WORSE! They've hit it from every angle from editorial writers to talking head shows to popular culture to bogus polls; every arrow in their quiver has been fired and it still won't go away.

Obama has spent a lot of money these past six weeks trying to take out Romney early. They want to make him an unacceptable candidate while shoring up their base with goodies. But they still need those undecideds. They need the white, rust belt, working class Democrats. They need the Allentown voter. And the last thing you want when you're trying to distract from a bad economy is a defining sound bite that clearly and succinctly exposes your guy's leftist views. A greater contrast could not have been drawn if Romney spent every penny in his coffers.

Politicians as often as not get in trouble for either speaking the truth (typically Republicans) or for being truthful about their beliefs (typically Democrats). It didn't appear Obama was speaking off the cuff which makes this very troubling for the Democrats, especially those down ticket folks. They've got a left wing guy whom they want to position as a centrist, hard at it, working his butt off for the American people against overwhelming problems, and nobody could do better. And after all that money and work, he comes out with this nonsense and puts everything back to square one. I don't think they can recover. This could be it, and they know it.



 

An Air Force (Ret.) Donation to CW for Romney!

That's right folks, a great Air Force retiree and a wonderful friend of mine sent along a generous donation to the CW for Romney Fund.  Let's keep the momentum going, folks.  Lots of time between now and the election, and there will be a lot of scurrilous ads to answer!

Click this link to donate to the CW for Romney Fund, and don't forget to check the box that says you know your referrer.

On the Carnage in Colorado

Another mass shooting tragedy, another in a series of opportunistic opponents of the second amendment, another in a series of ridiculous responses by the pro-gun crowd.  When people bring up a need for more guy laws, the line about only criminals being able to get guns rings hollow for me.  Looking at this through the simple prism of logic, the ease with which law-abiding citizens can obtain firearms, clips, bullets, magazines etc is directly related to the ease with which criminals can get them.  Make it harder on the law abiding, and it will get harder on criminals. 

Standing by for criticism of my apostasy. 

If you'd like to read a few of my previous 2nd Amendment posts,  go here, here, here. 

ABOUT FACE!

According to some left-wing, tapped in liberal publications Obama is about to shift gears. Instead of focusing on taxes and how the wealthy should "pay their fair share" the Obama campaign will make the "most vulnerable" argument. It seems protecting foodstamps and welfare really does the trick with single women and minorities. And since the Bain attacks have done very little good, with the possible exception of Ohio, their reasoning is somethings got to work. They'll try to make the "Ryan budget" the new boogie man and hope like hell Romney names Paul Ryan VP (not going to happen).

So it looks like to get these government dependents to the polls they're going from "it's the economy stupid" to "it's the most vulnerable stupid". This is a tricky argument to counter. Although I think it's the stupid who makes us all vulnerable, I can see my approach might not play that well especially with women voters. Therefore Romney should keep hammering away at the economy saying some programs are necessary but alas overused and burdensome as a result of Obama's ineptitude. Argue these are temporary "safety net" programs, not a way of life. Get the economy up and running, get everybody working is the way to go. And hit Obama hard on the welfare work requirement they just did away with, that's a twofer. One, Obama's overreach ignoring the law and two, doing away with a valuable component of Clinton's welfare reforms. Position Obama as having things ass about face, as usual.

50th Donation to CW For Romney! My Big Brother!

That's right folks, we've received donation number 50 to the CW fund to elect Mitt Romney--and the man to put us at that lofty perch is my "big brover", who made yet another generous donation to the effort.  Way to go, Big Red.

Don't fret though, folks.  There's still a lot of time.  It will take a ton of money to defeat the Democrat/Media Cabal this Fall, and we here at the CW are going to do our part!

Click this link to donate to CW for Romney, and don't forget to check the block that says you know your referrer.

Dr. Krauthammer Nails It Again

Read and be humbled, as Dr. K knocks it out of the park yet again.  A sample?


The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.

It's Friday; Have You Made Your CW for Romney Donation Today?

It looks like this was a pretty good week; Mitt's gone on the offensive using the President's own words against him and the results have been encouraging.  It was fun to watch the President's supporters and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) trying to backtrack and diagram his sentences, all the while not realizing the extent to which the sentence structure wasn't the issue.  Hammer put it well in his post--there is a very clear distinction in this election.   Will you help make that distinction clearer to more people?  We're outraising the President--but much of that money can't be spent until after the election (ridiculous rules), so the President (who had not primary opponent, save for a felon serving time in West Virginia) is out there outspending us 4 to 1 in some vital places.

Won't you help build the war-chest, so that after the convention we can conduct a sixty day blitz?  Keep in mind, by that time, the President will have dissipated his funds---he'll be in a cash poor position.  What you give now will help drive home this election.

Plus, you have the chance of being making the 50th donation, which is only one away!  Click here to make your donation, and don't forget to check the block saying you know your referrer. 

Big Fat Friday Free For All

It's time again folks for your opportunity to shine!  What's on your mind?  Backtracking a bit from your inner socialist this week?  Just pay $71M for your new CEO and neither of you know how she's going to fix your crappy company?  Share, friend.  Get it off your chest!

Photo of the Day

Comedian Jon Lovitz, a Democrat who has recently turned on O, tweeted this photo today.

There's sure a lot of mileage to get out of this comment.  Thanks Mr. President!

Another Donation from The Old Dominion! CW for Romney

Thank you to a true Virginia Princess for stepping up and making a generous donation to the CW for Romney Fund.  We are sneaking up on $12,000 and we only need one more donation to get to 50!

Click this link to make your own donation to the CW for Romney fund.  You can see the gloves are coming off in this campaign, as the increasingly desperate President fights against the reality of his poor performance.

Stark Choice

This is one of those elections where everybody has a clear understanding of the choice: Romney the capitalist and Obama the socialist. And it really is that simple. I'm not suggesting everyone will make the right choice, or suggesting everyone is capable of making the right choice, but nevertheless in this election there has been no clearer contrast between competing views that I can remember. And for me that's kind of scary.

The Democrats have outworked us and outsmarted us. They have taken over the academy, the news outlets, popular culture, the great foundations and institutions and the permanent bureaucracy in government. Their power and influence is substantial. Since the days of Emma Goldman and the turn of the century anarchists, the left has steadily eroded the American way of life and our Constitutional protections. They know if American style capitalism falls their dreams of social and economic "justice" are realized. They don't see America as we do, they see intolerance, poverty and desolation. As long as the greatest example of capitalism and prosperity the world has ever seen, the greatest killer of poverty and want, the best hope for the millions of desperately poor people around the world is allowed to exist, their vision is dead. 

Those just described are most on the left, but never think they are all like that; misguided romantic visionaries. On the contrary, many so called Democrats have very little in common with garden variety liberals. In this small but influential group, if they have an ideology at all it's a perverted mix of Alensky, Machiavelli and Nietzsche. They believe in subversion as a means to power. They are not liberals, they detest liberals. They are not communists, socialists of any of those things. They don't limit themselves to some intellectuals construct. They use the tools available to them at any given moment in pursuit of their own goals. They are evil incarnate and they exist and they are among us. They are the Stalins and Pol Pots and the Zhou Enlais. And if the liberal's dream is ever realized, in very short order they will be the leaders. In my opinion that is the choice, and I pray to God we make the right one. Because if Obama is reelected we may not have a choice.

In The Shadow of Greatness

On 9-11, several hundred men and women were going about their business at the U.S. Naval Academy, when their lives changed in a tangible way.  They would be the first Naval Academy class to graduate into a state of war since the Vietnam era.




This book is their story, a story of coming of age, valor, and confronting a new reality.  I had the great honor and pleasure of serving in USS BULKELEY (DDG 84) with two of the authors of this book, John Ennis and Pat McConnell, and I could not be more proud of them.

Stolen, From Atlas Shrugged

The indispensable Glenn Reynolds provided this link, and it should send shivers up all of our spines.  Oh so smart lefties sneer smarmily at Rand's writing, but no one has yet captured the soul of the Looter better:

“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”

“Who?”

“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”

She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”

Who Built This Business?

Romney gets the conversation moving back where it ought to be:  H/T:  Instapundit

Will John Roberts Win the Election for Mitt Romney? Ask Condi!

I had a conversation yesterday with a good friend of mine, who happens to think about as strategically as anyone I know.  We were having a wide-ranging political conversation, one in which he informed me that the folks back home had come to be more engaged in the Presidential Election as a result of Mitt Romney's more aggressive stances vis-a-vis The President in the past few days.  After a while, we started to talk about the VP slot, and I asked him who he wanted--not who he thought it would be.

He answered "Condi Rice"--this was odd to me, as I know this man to be a rock-ribbed Conservative, and Dr. Rice is generally considered too liberal on social issues for many Conservatives.  When pressed, he put it something like this.  "John Roberts shook up the whole ball game. Mitt Romney is now THE ONLY hope we have (folks on the right, presumably); Conservatives will not "stay home" for this election, and so Romney does not have to fear Conservative apathy.  This leaves him free to select a VP candidate targeted at the middle.  Condi Rice has the most upside."

Think of that...free from fear of a Conservative backlash, Romney can choose a running mate tailor made to attract voters to the ticket.  As I recounted last week, two women close to me in the past few weeks--both of whom were Obama voters--told me that if Romney picked Rice, they would vote for him--without consideration of any other matter.

Rice could be a powerful force in this election, no doubt about it.

Two More Donations to CW for Romney to 50!

So far, our quixotic little bundling effort has had 48 donations from across our great land.  Two more, and we get to 50!  How bout it friends?  Are you with me?  Are you in?

Click here to make your donation to Romney for President. 

On the Matter of Tax Returns

National Review made headlines yesterday in calling for Mitt Romney to release tax returns, which has been a dominant theme of the President's quest to keep his job in the face of a lackluster first term.  This request of the President's has been of course, taken up by Mr. Obama's supporters in the press, and there is now a fairly strong drumbeat calling for Romney to do so.  National Review's Neville Chamberlain-like advocacy of appeasement is regrettable, and Romney should resist it.

There is no legal requirement for Presidential candidates to release their tax returns. Virtually all do, to some extent.  Romney has released his 2010 return, and has said he will release his 2011 return.  This strikes me as sufficient.  That Romney's father did so in 1968 (with 12 years of returns) has proven to be the most delicious fact of all waved around by the "show me" crowd".

There are several reasons Romney should resist.  The first is to remind the American people that while he is running for President, he remains an American citizen with SOME shred of privacy.  President Obama resisted releasing his birth certificate for three years in the face of calls for its release, citing privacy over a document far less personal than the ones being called for today. 

The second is that there is no limiting principle.  How many years worth of returns?  Twelve?  Because his Daddy did?  No other candidate since has released that many.  Five? Is that enough.  The fact is that there simply is not a good answer to the question, because the answer always comes back to "as far as it takes for us to find things with which to gain political advantage."

Third, and related to the first and second, is the notion of "what is not on the table?"  Folks on our side of the aisle believe that President Obama should release his college and law school transcripts and his grades.  Exactly why?  Should Romney then do the same?  Have we a right to the same information from Michelle O and Ann R?  After all, they wield incredible influence on the candidates and/or the President. 

This is a ridiculous and ultimately destructive path.  Romney should lead on the issue; he should be bigger than this pettiness.  And he should do it in a major speech that serves as a full-throated defense of capitalism and free markets.  The speech should draw distinctions between free-markets and crony capitalism.  It should remind voters of the billions of people lifted from poverty worldwide by free markets, and the billions enslaved by collectivism.  And he should take on the tax return issue directly--something like this:

I married my great love and we are still together, 43 years and five accomplished sons later.  She and I lived humbly while I went to grad school and had our first children.  We worked, and we saved.  I did not get where I am today because I had a rich father, no matter how much the other side would want you to believe that . I went into business, and as some of you have heard, I've done pretty well.  I did well because over the course of 25 years in the private sector, I made a lot of decisions--most were good, some were not so good.  On balance though, my skill in selecting companies in which to invest was valued by many people, and that is why they chose me to tend to their investments.  

I want the American public to understand better what I did in that job, so they can have a set of facts with which to evaluate the President's often dishonorable charges.  I did not seek out companies to invest in that were healthy, profitable and well-run.  Those kinds of companies were simply too expensive, and there wasn't much I could do with them to earn return for my investors.  No--I sought out companies that had at their heart a good idea, a good model, a good business plan--but for whatever reason, were under-performing.  And by underperforming, in many cases, I mean that without Bain's investment, or someone like Bain, these companies would have failed and taken those jobs with them.  My job was to find these companies and inject money into them in order to get them headed straight and narrow, so that my investors would profit.  As a condition of Bain's investment, we sometimes restructured the companies to make them more efficient to improve their long term prospects, so that they could grow and hire more people.  This is what happened more often than not.

On occasion, I made a bad decision. I picked a business to invest in that simply couldn't be turned around.  Sometimes it was forces beyond anyone's control, sometimes it was due to easily identifiable causes, like extortionary wage demands from unions.  When companies like that failed, Americans should know it was after tens of millions of dollars had been invested in them.  Again--these were companies that would likely have failed without Bain's investment.  We put time, money and sweat into saving them, but we ultimately couldn't do it.  When they failed, good people lost jobs--but the narrative that you hear from the President never includes the years and money spent trying to save these companies and these jobs--only what happened at the end.

In the course of 25 years of loving my wife, raising good sons, and running a successful business, I became a wealthy man.  A very wealthy man.  I am told by the people that manage my investments that as of this day, I am worth approximately $300M (or whatever the number is).  I mention the people who manage my investments not to sound even more like a rich guy, but to bring up the very seldom mentioned fact that my money is not managed by me--it is managed in blind trusts, and it has been for over five years. Put simply, I have nothing to do with the investment decisions that guide where my money goes these days.  

I worked hard throughout my life in the private sector.  Twenty-five years.  Along the way, I helped create a hundred thousand jobs and spawned a number of successful, household brands.  And I became rich along the way.  I will not apologize for that, I will not indulge the President and his politics of envy.  I believe the American people continue to hold out hope that they too can move up the economic ladder like Ann and I did, and that they know that we all have our own ladders, that someone else's progress in no way limits mine.  That's really what's at stake in this election, folks.  We have a President and a Party that truly believe that the the size of the pie is constant, and that if someone else has more of it, that leaves less for me.  This creates envy, resentment, and class warfare--this animates the President's speeches and it whips his supporters into a frenzy of collectivist enthusiasm.  I see the pie and I see the need to grow the pie, so that each of us can have a bigger slice of it, and that one person's gain is not at the expense of another.

Which brings us to the issue of our tax returns.  I have released my 2010 return and I will release my 2011 return tomorrow.  That's all I'm going to do.  I am not going to go further--not because I have something to hide, but because there is not limit to what the other side asks.  Their sole desire is to dredge up facts that might embarrass me and lead to political gain.  They work to convince their pliant supporters that somehow the American people have a right to this information.  I'm sorry, they don't .

We are watching a President with an indefensible record try to change the conversation about his terrible record in guiding the economy to what I was doing while I was in the private sector.  Along the way, whatever honor or principle he had has diminished.  He is engaging in character attack simply to keep his job.  This is not an honorable approach, and I hope all of you can see it clearly.

How honorable would it be for me to cave on principle now just to enable my desire to take his job?  Do I somehow become more honorable and worthy of the office by engaging in the same kind of dishonorable behavior as the President?  I do not think so.

If you don't want to vote for me because I won't release a dozen or more years of tax returns, I wish you well.  And if the President wins the election because of this, so be it.  In that case, the country would have made a choice to reinstate a man in the Presidency who arrived there with no experience or accomplishments, and who has in his four years in office proved himself to be inexperienced and unaccomplished.  The American people deserve better, and that's why I hope they'll support me.

The People's State of Maryland is Heard From!

That's right folks--one of the Western Shore's finest Marylanders (who escapes to the Eastern Shore where the livin' is good) can generously donate ONCE AGAIN, why, you Red State folks ought to be hittin' those checkbooks!

Click this link to donate to Romney for President, and don't forget to indicate that you know your referrer!

On the Matter of Dr. Rice

Our airwaves were aflutter last week with news of the rise of former Secretary of State Condi Rice as a possible running mate for Mitt Romney.  The upsides of such a choice are obvious; she is black.  She is a woman.  She is accomplished and experienced in foreign policy (where Governor Romney is not).  She is obviously competent.  I have long supporter her as an option for the spot, as I believe she would go a long way toward attracting the muddled middle, those lost souls that we politically inclined people rely upon to choose our Presidents for us.  There are two women very close to me who voted for Barack Obama last time--each of which have said, without reservation, that they would vote for Romney if he picked Rice.   This is an intriguing development.

The anti-Rice forces are formidable, and they are not wrong.  Ramesh Ponnuru made a very tight case against Rice in National Review Online, though I think his prediction of "depressed" conservative turnout is off-base.  My sense is that conservatives want to win, and they recognize that the only guy in the race who can spell "limited government" is Mitt.

All this said, my Spidey-Senses are tingling on this one.  For some reason, I have become enamored with the line that Romney will choose someone steady, acceptable, conservative and safe.  Many people think that is Rob Portman from Ohio.  But with most Americans continuing to pin the blame for this economy on George Bush, I wonder about the wisdom of having his OMB Director and Trade Rep as a VP contestant. 

Where am I going with this?  I'm thinking Bobby Jindal.  Clearly a conservative, one of the best.  Steady as the day is long.  Choir boy.  In charge, smart as hell.  The kind of guy you can hand the health care mess to  and say--"fix this"--and get something done. 

If not Jindal, I'm all in for Paul Ryan. 

President Obama Commits to Collectivism

Please watch this video.  Please share this with your Democrat and liberal (but I repeat) friends. 



Here we have before us the theory of the case; Barack Obama is attempting to turn hundreds of years of American history on its ear, trying to convince us that the rugged individualist, the entrepreneur, the men and women with dreams who acted on them--really aren't important, that the roads and bridges and internets and schools that government creates are the IMPORTANT things.

Only problem Mr. President?  How do you explain the millions and millions of people who had all the same "help" afforded them?  If the key part of this equation is the "enablers" that you hang your hat on, why is it that we have so FEW men and women of vision and success?  Shouldn't we have Steve Jobs and Bill Gates types falling out of our ears?  Shouldn't Henry Fords and Thomas Edisons and Edward Lands have been EVERYWHERE? 

But they weren't--and they weren't because what REALLY matters is the individual.  The dream. The drive. The hard work. 

The President is serving up a thin gruel of populist porridge, one designed to ensure his undereducated, under-married, underachieving and over-receiving voters have reason to cheer.  "They're not special" should be the theme of this campaign of envy.  This is a disgusting speech, and this man must be defeated.

CW for ROMNEY Breaks $11K!

With today's generous donation from one of my favorite Mainers, we've broken the $11K mark in fundraising.  Keep up the great work, folks, and don't ever think that your donation won't make a difference, no matter how much you give.  We can see clearly how this thing is lining up; the Dems and their accomplices in the media can be drowned out, but it won't be easy and it will take a lot of money. 

Please continue to give; click this link to contribute and don't forget to check the block that says you know your referrer.   

The Trouble with the Republicans

Doing a bit of paperwork (you know that "earning a living" stuff that keeps me in H. Upmanns, Carolina Pale Ale and Jalapeño Cheetos) while watching "This Week" with George Stephanosaurus. Same old same old but Mathew Dowd said something that really got under my collar. He said that Romney's message was kind of old and worn out. Tax cuts, cutting spending, fiscal responsibility was from 25 years ago and most folks don't think that approach will help them.

Ok fine IF YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT! But this chump is supposed to be a Republican! Furthermore, since when did good government and living within our means become old and stale? Are we to believe that tax and spend and borrowing 40¢ out of every dollar is somehow fresh and new? Every read a history book Mr. Dowd? By the way, have the laws of physics changed? Is water still two atoms of hydrogen with one of oxygen or is that some tired theory from the past that just doesn't play that well with, I grant you, possibly the dumbest electorate in the history of this country?

Instead of making absurd pronouncements to ingratiate himself with network lefties this clown should be educating the voters. Most weren't around for the devastation of the sixties and seventies. Most know nothing of how the Democrats nearly ruined the country and how Reagan saved us, if they did they could easily see history repeating itself. But with those absurd public school educations they can at least be forgiven their ignorance. But not you Mr. Dowd. You're just ABC's Republican stooge.

The New York Times Discovers that Marriage Matters

If you read no other story tonight, or early this week, read this one from Saturday's New York Times.  In it, two women who started from similar positions in life find themselves a few years down the line in dramatically different positions.  The culprit? Marriage, or more correctly, the failure to marry.  Read closely, as you find the NYT figuring out (finally) that the dreaded "income inequality" and "decline of the middle class" has not actually been a plague visited upon our society by depredations of the 1%; rather, they are in no small measure the result of the explosion in out of wedlock births to women of all races.

Are there men to be blamed here?  Yes, indeed.  But in these days of ridiculously inexpensive birth control, the accumulation of out of wedlock children (above the first in a relationship) seems somewhat preventable.  Additionally, this "lack of marriageable men" phenomena must in some way be enabled by the easy availability of commitment-free sex, reinforcing their status as not worthy of marriage.

Here's Mitt Romney--speaking the truth before the NAACP:  "A study from the Brookings Institution has shown that for those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and wait until 21 before they marry and then have their first child, the probability of being poor is two percent. And if those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76 percent."


Yes folks, that's Brookings--as in left of center.  Was the NAACP listening?  Will they go back into their communities and "preach" this gospel?  One hopes, but one would likely be disappointed.

When George Bush and Karen Hughes said these things, they were sneered at by the liberal intelligentsia.  Hell, when Dan Quayle said it, he was vilified.  Perhaps now that the NYT has said it, liberals and Democrats (why, I repeat myself) will listen.

North Carolina is Heard From!

Received a kind donation from one of North Carolina's finest political thinkers yesterday, bringing us within striking distance of $11,000.  Who will put us over the top? 

Click here and make your donation--Hope for a Change--send Barack back to Hyde Park!

Don't forget to click the link saying you know your referrer.

David Brooks on Why Our Elites Stink

I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with David Brooks.  Most of the time, I find him to be one of the most intelligent and thoughtful proponents of a restrained politics and a conservative worldview.  Every now and then, he goes off the reservation and says something that appears aimed at mollifying his masters at the New York Times.  THIS article is NOT one of those times. 

In response to a new book on the downside of meritocracy, Brooks puts forward a nicely stated defense of the old guard---what he refers to as a "... relatively small network of white Protestant men..." and the way that they maintained and guarded the very institutions that make our society great.  Acknowledging that they were not perfect, Brooks makes a nice case for the ethics and morals of the WASP leadership and its superiority over a far more diverse (and potentially more talented) leadership structure of today.  Where today's leaders fail (and by extension, where leaders of the past excelled) is named here:  "The problem is that today’s meritocratic elites cannot admit to themselves that they are elites.Everybody thinks they are countercultural rebels, insurgents against the true establishment, which is always somewhere else. This attitude prevails in the Ivy League, in the corporate boardrooms and even at television studios where hosts from Harvard, Stanford and Brown rail against the establishment. As a result, today’s elite lacks the self-conscious leadership ethos that the racist, sexist and anti-Semitic old boys’ network did possess."  

Looked at another way, Brooks isn't saying that things were better in the past because white, sexist men ran the show.  He's saying that things were better because they OWNED the responsibilities of running the show, that they measured themselves by standards of stewardship that policed their conduct, and they while they did not necessarily brag about their status, they did not deny it.  Implicit in Brooks' argument is that there is nothing elemental about today's multi-cultural, multi-gendered meritocracy that would keep them from taking on this approach.  Nothing except their thoroughgoing denial of their own status.

What's This? Another Donor to Romney for President?

That's right, folks.  Dear Ol' Dad came through with his donation and the campaign posted it to my dashboard today!  Thanks Pop--let's hope we win this thing.

For those of you who haven't donated, or who wish to donate more, click this link and don't forget to check the block that says you know your referrer!

Friday? Must Be Time To Donate to Romney for President!

Folks, there's no doubt about it--last week was a great week.  This week?  Not so much.  Time to step it up and make those donations, friends.  Mitt's financial edge is the ONLY thing we have to counterbalance the Bought and Paid For Media.  Give until it hurts!

Click this link to donate and don't forget to check the block saying you know your referrer.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

What's eatin' you, Bub?  Get booed at the NAACP Convention?   Skip the NAACP Convention?  Share your pain, friends.  Share. 

$100 Billion a Month

Our government under Barack Obama spends $100,000,000,000 a month in borrowed money, month after month after month. Obama's new proposal of leaving the Bush tax cuts in place except for those who make over 250k per year (or as termed by the liberal press a "tax cut" for the middle-class) would generate enough revenue to keep the federal government running for eight and a half days. The world's capital reserves have been nearly sucked dry by the overspending of this administration. Interest rates are kept artificially low so we can service the debt. There is so much monetary mischief going on even if Mitt Romney is elected President along with a Republican majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate, and they do everything perfectly in terms of fiscal responsibility, we are still headed for at least a global mini-depression...AT BEST! The left has done something it could not achieve legislatively, it has transferred wealth on a scale even they could not have envisioned. But while liberals were attempting to take from the haves and give to the have nots, what they in fact have done is the hard left's bidding and destroyed wealth. They have eaten the seed corn. By the time they're finished there will be little left to build on. If Obama is reelected the hard left will attempt to confiscate personal property and institutional wealth, starting with pension funds. The nationalization of banks and finance will be the inevitable consequence. The debt will be renounced of course, it couldn't possible be repaid anyway. If Obama is reelected, the America we grew up in is dead, and I have come to believe that was their goal from the start. 

For America's crimes, the crimes of capitalism, the crimes of Western imperialism, the crimes of racism and homophobia; America has been sentenced to death. Rehabilitation is not an option. It must be torn down and rebuilt into a classless, economically and socially just society. There is no other way, and anything in pursuit of this goal is not only acceptable but necessary. A World-wide economic catastrophe, the destruction of our way of life and all the travails and suffering that entails is the price we must pay for our sins. 100 billion a month? No big deal, it has to be done.

"The Hammer" Speaks Before the NAACP

Well no, not really, but Mitt Romney will this Wednesday. However, if I every land a speaking gig before such an esteemed and storied organization such as this one, I'm ready.

Here goes:

Introduction followed by something between perfunctory applause and the reception one would receive from a 20 year old's mom after discovering her daughter was impregnated after a first date.

TEXT:

Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Blah blah, blah-blah-blah. Joke...followed by nervous laugher...blah blah blah. So happy to be here... blah blah blah.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have serious problems in the black community…your community...our community. Nearly 50 years after Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society you are no better off: In fact quite the opposite. From the time of the great civil rights struggles a promise was made to Black America, and the promise was equality. Equality before the law and economic equality. But that promise was a lie. Too many thought you were inferior, too many thought you needed help, too many held the view that you were as children to be coddled and protected... and too many still hold that view. Look around you. Look at Detroit, the South Side of Chicago, South Central Los Angeles and Liberty City. Black crime statistics are through the roof. Black poverty remains unabated. By any sociologically or economic measure Blacks are more or less: More likely to do badly and end up in prison, on welfare or addicted; less likely to do well and achieve. Public money is not the problem. We have flushed TRILLIONS down the drain with this program or that, all to no avail. Opportunity is not the problem. We have spent TRILLIONS on education in conjunction with quotas and set-asides designed specifically for Black Americans; and I might add, with total disregard for the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Too many profited from this voracious Byzantine government behemoth ostensibly designed to raise all black Americans into the middle-class. Not only hasn't it workd, it has almost destroyed Black America. Many years from now, in the cold light of day, I believe historians will report that the great welfare programs were as devastating for Black American as slavery.

But that was then and this is now, and we must look forward. I do not stand before you and claim racial prejudice and bigotry are things of the past. Slavery was a reprehensible blight on the character and promise of America. It is our national shame. But we must learn from our history, not relive it. We must take wisdom from the mistakes of the past, not sink into an abyss of self-doubt and moral weakness. When one looks at the state of Black America in the 50’s when racism was an institutionalized part of the fabric of America, and see by comparison your community was in so many ways better off then than now, we must recognize the problem is not solely racism. The problem is with the very programs and policies designed to give a leg up.

I do not want to diminish the accomplishments of Black America. Millions of African-Americans have embraced the American dream and are steadily progressing up the socio-economic ladder. There are more Black millionaires than ever before. The Black economy in American is the 14^th. largest in the World; bigger than Mexico, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. For African-Americans as well as all Americans of different creeds and colors, this country has provided untold opportunity and wealth. So now we must call on you. You have the tools, the wealth, the education and the know-how to raise up your brothers and sisters. Hate is not an economic system. Hate produces no wealth. Self-destruction is self-destruction no matter the cause or grievance. Victims beget more victims and the cycle must be broken, and it can only be broken by you. After decades of distrust, abuse and maniputlation you are the only ones who can fix the problem. You must show your brethren the promised land because no one else can. You, the leaders sitting in this room today, must stop profiting from poverty. You must stop blaming others. You must recognize in yourself that the plantation is over, and trading places with the overseer is a crime before God. You must reject the path of profitting off other's misery. You must demand a higher standard from yourselves and your people. You must not tolerate the sin of failure. You must hold your community accountable, both collectively and individually. To expect anything less would make you no better than the most hateful racist. Acceptance of anything less is an acknowledgement that you as a people are second-class, subservient and menial. I don't believe that and I don't think you do either. With effort and perseverance and focus, and with the help of God Almighty you will take your rightful place in America and the World. And know this, America will help you in anyway possible, apart from just more of the same. The days of unlimited money and benefits and special treatment are over. These policies offer only desolation, dependence, desperation and despair. They shackle the spirit, the drive, the ambition and the creativity of your people...our people. This abomination, this welfare state, this cancer of the mind and soul has failed. It's now time for you all to excel, create and succeed. Rise up and lead the Black Renaissance. Rise up you doctors and lawyers and business entrepreneurs. Rise up and teach your community the values of your ancestors. Rise up and show the World the brilliance of your people. Too many think you can't do it, but they are wrong. Now is the time, rise up and lead!   

CW FOR ROMNEY BREAKS $10K!

That's right, folks, two new donations showed up on my dashboard this morning, one from Governor Christie's biggest Princeton NJ fan, and one from my favorite resident of Virginia's Eastern Shore.  We've broken the half-way point in the CW for Romney Fund, but there's a lot of campaigning left, and the Democrats are pounding away.

Take a moment to make your donation; click this link to contribute to Romney for President, and don't forget to check the box that says you know your referrer.

Tampa Bound!

Well, I've gone and done it, I'm going to attend the RNC Convention in Tampa, 27-30 August.  I'm only there Monday through Thursday morning, so I won't be around for Mitt's acceptance speech on Thursday night.  That's ok, though, I'll have plenty to do while I'm there.

I've cobbled together a plane ticket, a rental car, a place to stay and the proper credentials, the latter two due to the kindness of good friends. 

I hope to post dispatches from the convention in my best Hunter S. Thompson manner.

Biden: Private Sector = "So-Called Job Creators"

Folks, any of you who haven't made up your minds about who you think our next President ought to be need to get your act in gear.  There is nothing remotely alike about the two men running, so an inability to choose between the two really is just an excuse for being too lazy to make up your mind.

Here's an example.  Our Vice President, in a speech in which he argues for MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, sneers at free enterprise and the American private sector, referring here to "so-called job creators". 

That's right, undecided people.  The Vice President of the United States seems perfectly comfortable casting doubt about the fundamental engine of our economy, relying instead on his misplaced sense of the centrality of government in the recovery of our economy.

This is what happens when you've been on the public dole for forty years, as Joe has.

Again people--how can you possibly not choose between Obama and Romney?

We're Over $9K for Mitt!

Received a wonderful donation today from the smartest guy in my Middle School (damn him!) class; he moved away before he could REALLY drive me into the dirt, much to my fragile ego's delight.

We're over $9K now and rapidly moving in on my goal of $20K.  Keep up the great work, folks.

By the way--don't let the press stories get you down--there's a lot of time left, there is a lot of campaigning to be done, and the Romney Campaign is by all appearances, pretty strategically adept. 

Add to this the nature of political reporting (a.k.a.  "fight promotion"), and you get a real sense of the need for the press to make stories that simply aren't supportable.

To make your donation, click this link and don't forget to check the block that says you know your referrer!

Now EVERYTHING is Free (sorta)!

Cyndi Lauper is pumped! You see Cyndi lives in a rent controlled apartment in New York City. She had been paying about thirty two hundred to live in her "rent stabilized" Manhattan apartment (New Yorkers hate the word 'control', sounds way too Republican). Anyway, the actual market value of said apartment is about 10k, so not a bad deal right? WRONG you provincial hayseed hick. In fact, Ms. Lauper was so outraged by the boorish demands of her landlord she took him to court seeking rent reduction to a much more manageable $508.00. Well, as you might imagine when all this got before one of New York's famously prudent and level-headed jurists, he was not about to be intimidated by the World Famous, International Superstar Lauper (catch her at the Brighton Bar, Long Branch, N.J. Aug. 17th-19th). So they compromised. The new rent would be $989.00. Take THAT you famous person you!

Unfortunately for property owners in the Empire State, Ms. Lauper is not the exception. There are lots of well-heeled people enjoying the benefits of rent control, like Mia Farrow (11 room Central Park West apartment $2500/mth.), Carly Simon, Gloria Steinem and on and on. And to be fair not all are rich or famous. The NY Post did a story recently on a couple of guys paying $71.23 and $54.46 for apartments in SoHO; both were old as Methuselah and lived there for decades. But the rich get more than their fair share. The median income of tenants in these rent regulated apartments is nearly twice the average, and the "hardest hit" areas (Central Park, SoHo etc.) are almost all lily white.

The point I wish to make here is that if the government controls the trough, the first at the trough will be the elite. Does anyone think for one minute THESE PEOPLE will be standing in line for cancer treatment? Do you think THESE PEOPLE will mind if you pay for their free ride, so long as they get what they want and need? They don't mind eating government cheese, so long as they get it first and they get to choose the cheese.

These people are the true 1%'ers. They do want to transfer wealth from your pocket to theirs, even though they have more. They are taking advantage of the system to the detriment of all, and they couldn't care less. And they are ALL DEMOCRATS!

That Candidates, at Leisure

This shot never gets old....

Our President, relaxing. 














                                                                                                 The Romney's at play.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

What's got you down, Bub?  Melting in the summer heat?  Wondering where your conservative majority on the Supreme Court went?  Share your anxieties...better out, than in!

It's Not Your Job to Uphold the Constitution?

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." CJ John Roberts

Well let's just forget for the moment the countless times the courts have stuck their noses into the "people's...political choices". Let get past the meddling, harassment and the flagrant partisanship displayed by the Federal courts over the years. Let's just set all that aside...for the moment. So what exactly is your job Mr. Chief Justice if not to decide adherence to the principles of the Constitution, both in verity and in spirit? Do you not have a duty to defend and protect the Constitution from pernicious, ill-conceived law? Or is it your job to explore every way possible to uphold a law regardless of the "consequences"? 

You may in fact be right. Perhaps Obamacare is "Constitutional" within the limits of language. But the mechanism you use is clearly in violation of the "spirit" of the Framers. If you had ever read a word of the Federalist Papers you would know Madison and Hamilton made it very clear the General Welfare clause was not a license for the Federal Government to do anything it damned well pleased. The Constitution was written to set clear and distinct boundaries for Federal power. What you have done with your prep-school politics and legal brinksmanship is open the floodgates to tyranny. The power to tax is the power to destroy and unlimited taxation connotes unlimited destruction. You have made this country defenseless before the enemies of the Constitution and the Republic. You Sir, have not done your job.

Dear Justice Roberts: Still have a Constitution or not? Please advise.

Some conservatives have been running around saying the Obamacare decision isn't all bad. They are thrilled that Roberts got the court to go along with not regulating commerce that doesn't exist (hmmm let me think about that one).
"The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. ... The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.”
Apparently Justice Roberts has stopped the expansion and abuse of the commerce clause in its tracks, to which I say "My Ass!" (you may quote me without permission).

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce, but has since been interpreted as anything that effects commerce. That hasn't changed one iota. So if you're a Kansas farmer and you grow corn to feed your livestock and the stuff never leaves your farm, Ag can still regulate it. Tough noogies.

But what Roberts did do was expand another enumerated power; the General Welfare Clause.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

So if I understand Roberts correctly, it's unconstitutional to regulate commerce that doesn't exist but it's ok to tax commerce that doesn't exist? Wow! That goes completely over my head. Thank God I didn't go to law school. 


But I do have one question. What is all this "enumerated powers" nonsense about anyway? If Congress has an unlimited power to tax for any reason it sees fit then why didn't the Court just do away with the Constitution entirely and declare "Congress has the power to promote the general welfare" and let's be done with it? 

Sometimes it's a tax. Sometimes it's a penalty. Sometimes it's all of them at once. You must try harder.

'Do you remember,' he went on, 'writing in your diary, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four"?'
'Yes,' said Winston.
O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'
'Four.'
'And if the party says that it is not four but five--then how many?'
'Four.'
The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four.'
The needle went up to sixty.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!'
The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Five! Five! Five!'
'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'
'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'
Abruptly he was sitting up with O'Brien's arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O'Brien who would save him from it.
'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.
'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'
'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'