Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has officially entered the endorsement game Thursday offering his support for the candidacy of Mitt Romney.  Big Get?  If you are from the camp that believes endorsements are everything, absolutely.  If you’re a bit of a doubter, like yours truly, it’s still a big score for one reason; and it’s not the one you’re thinking of – foreign policy credentials.  What this endorsement gives Romney is a first class pit bull surrogate who will hammer the rest of the field on behalf of his chosen candidate.

Saw this yesterday, but failed to get around to sharing it because I was “busy” watching my Buckeyes lose to the Florida Gators in the flipping home game Gator Bowl.  Either way, this book looks more than interesting and may be among the first I “plan” to read in 2012.  A Navy SEAL with more kills than any other sniper in the history of the US military writes a book… yeah, I think that’s worth a read.

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has died according to state media reporting.  His son, Kim Jong Un, is set to take his place; and most “in the know” will readily admit that they/we “know” very little about the successor.  I say Rest in Peace because that’s what we are supposed to say when folks pass.  I’m fairly certain he’s probably not resting or in peace, but at least I said it.

UPDATE:

CNN’s covering this story minute-by-minute.  Where do they get these “analysts”; and why do they all sound like they’re from the UK?  I thought CNN was headquartered in Georgia, no?

UPDATE:  Video of the state broadcast here…

UPDATE:

North Koreans “Test the Mettle” of President Obama

Korea Clashes

South Korean Patrol Boat Torpedoed by North Korea: Confirmed By Gates

North Korea: Nuclear Proliferation, Arms Smuggling, Letters From Obama, Special Envoys, and Six Party Talks

North Korea Launches Short Range Missiles

American Tax Dollars to Dictators 

Thursday night, Republican hopefuls squared off in the final debate before the pivotal Iowa contest in the new year.  Fox News was the “host”, so the usual suspects served as moderators – Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly, and Brett Baier.  The format was relatively cut-and-dry with very little in terms of gimmicks – the Twitter nonsense and YouTube.  The candidates appeared polished and seasoned from an seemingly endless series of these debates and provided a rather encouraging glimpse of what Barack Obama may face as we head toward the general election.  On the whole, I thought it was a pretty good debate – but that could just be because it’s the “last one.”  I love the vetting process, but I’m not really sure I can stomach another one of these things for a while.

Either way, here’s the rundown.  Scoring’s nothing fancy.  (1-10)  Just in case you’re not that sharp.  Scoring a (1) is not a good thing.

—-

RICK PERRY:

I’ll be pretty plain about it; Perry did pretty well for himself Thursday night.  Coupled with a solid performance in his last outing, I do believe the Texas Governor will be making some rethink writing him off.  I can’t say he “won” the night outright, but he was certainly a contender for best moment of the night.  His “Reforming Washington” initiative which once spawned the Pelosi debate challenge was extremely well received by the audience and may have been the biggest moment Perry’s had since he proudly announced his candidacy and his intention to make Washington “inconsequential.”

After some back-and-forth about Newt’s alleged “lobbying” past, Perry drew quite a favorable response from the crowd and made me begin to wonder if the Texas Governor’s still got a role to play in this race.

“The issue we ought to be talking about on this stage is how you really overhaul Washington DC.  And the idea that you can’t tell the difference between lobbying and consulting, the idea that we have Congress staying there as many days as they do and the salary that they have….  That’s the reason I’ve called for a part-time Congress.  Cut their pay in half, cut their time in Washington in half, cut their staff in half.  Send’em home.  Let’em get a job like everyone else back home has.  And live within the laws of which they pass.  You do that and pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution and the conversations that we’ve been having up here will be minor.”  - The crowd really did go nuts.

Cavuto pushed back and said/asked “They worked 151 days last year – how much more would constitute part-time?”  Perry’s response?  ”I would suggest to you 140 days every other year like we do in Texas.”

Practical?  Probably not.  Popular?  Absolutely.

I think Governor Perry was attempting to play to that line of thinking when he also reasserted his desire to end lifetime appointments for the Federal Bench.  I’m not sure how he thinks making political the only supposedly non-political branch of government is going to improve the situation; but I suppose if you want to cut Congress’s pay, staff, and time in Washington; it is probably only a natural evolution to extend it over to the Judicial Branch as well.  Executive trumps Legislative – Executive trumps Judicial?

Perry was also – once again – willing to have a laugh at his own expense.  When it was pointed out that he has admitted publicly that he’s not the best debater and that may be problematic in a contest with President Obama, Perry responded by saying “I’m kinda getting where I like these things.  I’ll get there early.”  He then shamelessly attempted to tie in a Tim Tebow reference for good measure  - something about critics saying he can’t throw and would never be a good quarterback.  I guess that puts Perry in the camp of folks that somehow think Tim Tebow’s winning games because he’s actually a “good quarterback.”  Note to self – Rick Perry knows nothing about football, but the guy’s got his finger on the pulse of Evangelical football fans.

Perry gets a (7).  A more than solid performance that will no doubt make some take another look at the first former front-runner.

MICHELE BACHMANN:

She won the Ames Straw Poll and has fizzled ever since.  Could this be her reemergence as a legitimate contender?

Probably not.

She continued pushing the Robo-Michele response that she’s “worked very hard” in Congress to push conservative principles.  Actually, I applaud the Fox moderators for not calling on Rick Santorum to once again point out that she’s worked hard, but never achieved a darn thing.  Considering the fact that the audience received Perry’s call for limiting Congress’s time spent “working”, she may need to play another angle.

I should also admit one thing about myself before we move forward because it does very much influence the way I judge Michele Bachmann’s performances in these debates.  And yes, I know it’s unfair.  It may even be somewhat sexist.  But man, it must suck to be a woman running for president.  Here I am watching her debate the big issues of the day and all I could think about was her wardrobe and her makeup choices.  Her face just looked tight and her makeup was more than unflattering.  The woman’s got an eye issue and she seems determined to show it off like a beauty mark.  Plain Jane, Mrs. Bachmann.  Plain Jane.  We know you’re attractive.  Downplay it.  Again, I know it’s not fair.  I couldn’t care less about what Romney was wearing short of him showing up like the “Rent is too damn high” guy.  But if Nixon can lose the presidency because he had a 5 o’clock shadow, Bachmann can lose points with this guy for looking like the SNL caricature of herself.

But that wasn’t her only problem.  She seemed determined to hit Gingrich every chance she got – I suppose desperation can bring that out of anyone.  After attempting to nail him on the Fannie /Freddie coziness, she then preceded to accuse him of loosely supporting partial birth abortion.  When Gingrich dismissed both assaults as lacking factual foundation, she threw what amounted to a presidential primary temper tantrum saying “I’m serious candidate for President of the United States” and she was tired of people dismissing her as if she didn’t have her facts straight.

But the night wasn’t all bad for Bachmann.  When she got away from Newt, she actually reminded me of the candidate that once rocketed to the top of the polls.  After Ron Paul gave what might have been the scariest defense I’ve ever heard a Republican give for a defense of a position on Iran, she quickly remarked “I think I have never heard a more dangerous for American security than the one we just heard from Ron Paul.”  I very much agreed and think most watching probably did as well.

She went on to say, “We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will use a nuclear bomb to wipe Israel off the map and use it against the United States – look no farther than their constitution… their goal to set up a world-wide caliphate… we’d be fools to ignore their plan.”

Bachmann gets a (3).  She had a window tonight to reclaim some of the momentum she once had in the state of her birth and I do believe she wasted it by attempting to chip away at Newt Gingrich rather than pointing out why she should be the Party’s nominee.  It may surprise some of you, but I’m disappointed actually.  I would have liked to have seen Bachmann stick around for a while.  It now looks like it may be Iowa, New Hampshire, maybe South Carolina, and done.

JON HUNTSMAN:

I received a very passionate and well-written email earlier today encouraging me to give Jon Huntsman a fair shake.  I guess the email’er didn’t like that I scored a couple of the last debates with (1) representing the Huntsman standard of suckiness.  Because I didn’t know the motives or the affiliations of the person that sent me the email, I took it upon myself to assume it must have been sent by one of his three daughters who have joined him on the campaign trail.  And in the spirit of vanity and optimism, I also assumed it was the really attractive one.

Soooo…. Either because I promised his most attractive daughter I’d give him another look; or because he managed to change the delivery and/or the message Thursday night, Huntsman was able to convince me that he’s not entirely RINO.  I still see no path that would lead me to voting for the guy, but I am taking the time to include him in the recap, so I’d say that’s progress.

The one area where I have agreed with Huntsman from day one is on the matter of these pledges.  I think they’re ill-conceived and counter to the notion of responsible government.  I think they make our representatives beholden to special interests that only purport to have the interests of the American people in mind.  Some represent sound policy, but even those are unconscionable to this conservative that believes the only oath a politician should take is to uphold and defend the Constitution.  Period.

So, I applauded Huntsman when he said he wasn’t “going to pander or sign those silly pledges.”  He scored more than a few points with me when he said he “wasn’t going to show up to a Donald Trump debate.”  And I also must admit, he certainly got my attention when he said “we’re getting screwed as Americans.”  Someone poll-tested the “youth vote.”

He made a fine argument that we have both an “economic deficit and a trust deficit.”  Frankly, I’m not sure which one is more in disrepair.  He called for term limits and said the Republican Party should make no effort to “pander to the Hispanic vote.  Instead, he said we should hold firm to our principles and let them come to us.  Much agreed.

And then there was still the typical Huntsman nonsense.  On China, he said we “Need more than a transactional relationship”  - we need shared values –  that’s democracy, human rights, religious tolerance, and the Internet?  For a guy that’s supposed to be the foreign affairs expert on that stage, he sure seems unwilling to make a definitive statement on just about any issue related to foreign policy.  I think the guy wants us to take on faith that he has the answers – they’re just too complex to sum up in a 30-second window.  Newsflash Huntsman – throw me a bone.  Let me see if I can handle it.

But then there was the best moment of the night for Huntsman… and it came at the close of the debate, so I’m certain it hit home in more than a few households still tuning in – “I actually worked for Ronald Reagan.”  Can you think of six more powerful words to say to close a GOP debate?

Huntsman gets a (4).  He mattered for a change – and that matters.  Maybe not in Iowa, but last I checked they get Fox News in New Hampshire as well.

RON PAUL:

Rush said he can’t win and I’m not one to disagree with Rush just for the heck of it.  That said, I continue to give Paul the opportunity to demonstrate what it is that he would really intend to do if he somehow became our nation’s next president; and he has once again left me wanting.  Is he the babbling, borderline batshit crazy congressman that goes on rants defending Iran and blaming American foreign policy; or is he the guy that could write a book about Liberty that could serve as a treatise on limited and responsible government?  Going by the Rick Perry – what you see is what he is – standard, I’m inclined to go with babbling batshit crazy congressman.

On cutting spending, Paul said he would task the welfare / warfare camps with making cuts to each other’s interests and then hold them to it – that’ll work.  Someone wanna tell Paul that they just tried that with the “super-committee?”

When he was asked if he would pledge his support for the eventual nominee – should his/her last name not be Paul – and he refused to give an answer.  Instead, he opted to answer the “electability” question instead saying “everyone up here can beat Obama.”  Again, someone wanna tell Congressman Paul that if he runs as a third party candidate, NO ONE up there will be beating Barack Obama?

In his defense, he was on the verge of a great moment on the subject of GSE’s (Government Sponsored Enterprises).  He quickly pointed out that regardless of how Newt or anyone else spins them, they’re still not “free enterprise.” And then he went into one of those classic Ron Paul stringing words and topics together randomly rants.  Let’s just say he lost me.

And then there was the Cavuto question where he asked Paul to defend his own contributions to out-of-control spending in Washington where the moderator asked Paul to defend a March 15, 2009 statement where he said he would “take any opportunity to give money back” to the people of his district.  What ensued from there was an exercise in patience and a demonstration of what it likes to live in the mind of one Ron Paul.  He admitted that if 434 other members behaved the same way spending would grow exponentially.  He then proudly stated that he’s never voted for an earmark, but believed every piece of spending should be earmarked to prevent power from being given to the Executive Branch.  That turned into a proclamation that he doesn’t want to be a powerful Executive.  Again, he lost me.

Oh, and let’s not forget Iran.  (I’m paraphrasing here)

Congressman Paul – if you knew Iran was going to get nuclear weapon – you’d still be in favor of lifting sanctions?  You’d effectively be running to the Left of Barack Obama.  You cool with that?

Of course I would.  There is no evidence of it happening.  The situation’s no different than in 2003.  It’s another Iraq coming… War propaganda coming on.  The sentiment is mixed – even in Israel.  The greatest danger is overreacting…  We lived in cold war with 30,000 missiles pointed at us.  That was dangerous.  

What if there was solid intelligence? (Not paraphrasing…)

All we’re doing is promoting their desire to have it.  How do we treat people with a nuclear weapon – with a lot more respect.  Sanctions are an act of war.

Obviously I’d like to see a lot less nuclear weapons – iran not to have one -reduce them – less chance of war -but to declare war on 1.2 billion muslims and say all muslims are the same – this is dangerous talk-  yeah there are some radicals but they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous.  Do they go to Switzerland or Sweden?  That’s absurd. If you think that is the solution, then we have no chance of winning this.  They come here and they explicitly explain it – CIA has explained it to us- they want to do us harm bc we’re bombing them…  

Why were we flying a drone over Iran?  Why do we have to bomb so many countries?  Why do we have to have so many bases?  How you gonna rebuild the military when we have no money – how we gonna take care of the people?  Danger is us overreacting.

Paul gets a (3).  He matters in Iowa because everyone matters until they no longer matter.  Sadly, I think Paul will matter right up to the day he decides to get out of this race and run as an independent.

NEWT GINGRICH:

Charles Krauthammer says Newt Gingrich has an “establishment republican” problem.  Anyone wanna bet whether he solved that problem Thursday night?

No takers here.

That said, Newt once again demonstrated the undeniable talents that helped catapult his campaign to the forefront.  He was center-stage – literally and figuratively – and took the best shots from the rest of the field and the moderators; and I’m inclined to believe he emerged relatively unscathed.

But first, the negatives…

I thought Gingrich made an overly academic and shamelessly vague defense of his time working for the overlords of federally subsidized home ownership by defending GSE’s and attempting to compare the Freddie/Fannie giants to “your local electric cooperatives and credit unions.”  I very literally laughed out loud when I heard the words coming from his mouth.  I laughed harder when no one effectively called him on his BS argument.

While defending his Paul Ryan “right wing social engineering” Meet the Press remarks, Newt once again doubled-down on his position that sound leadership is governing from the most conservative position that Americans can support.  Probably a fine practical approach; but not exactly the kind of things folks like to hear in a primary debate, now is it?

The positives…

Anyone else notice that every time another candidate was about to unleash or Newt – or just unleashed on Newt – he paid them a compliment and rendered them absolutely silent?  Brilliant.

On Israel, Gingrich made one of the most articulate and grounded arguments of the evening for the flawed position on the “peace process” put forth by the Obama administration saying, “People talk about a peace process… 11 missiles fired into Israel last month; over 200 missiles fired at Israel this year.  You think if we had 11 missiles fired into the United States – well with this president he might say ‘gee if we could communicate you might like us more’ – most Americans would say if you’re firing missiles at me that might not be a very good gesture.”

When asked how he would advise Republican leadership to handle the Keystone pipeline / payroll tax cut debate, he took a shot at Romney’s “zany” remarks and said,

“I sometimes get accused of using language that’s too strong. So I’ve been standing here editing.  I’m very concerned about not appearing as zany.  The President cannot figure out — I’m using mild words here – it is utterly irrational to say I’m now going to veto a middle class tax cut to protect left wing environmental extremists in San Francisco so that we’re going to kill American jobs, weaken American energy, make us more vulnerable to the Iranians, and do so in a way that makes no sense to any normal rational American.”

Attach it to middle class tax cut- send it to president -make him veto it.

Perhaps, the best moment of the night for Gingrich came when Megyn Kelly asked Newt to defend comments he made regarding subpoenaing federal judges or possibly eliminating courts altogether.  Kelly said to Newt – some say that will shift the balance of power?

Newt’s response?

They’re right.   The courts are far too powerful, dictatorial, and way too arrogant in respect to their opinions on the interpretation of the Constitution.  Then he gave a history lesson on the judicial system – which will no doubt be fact-checked endlessly.

He drew a huge response from the crowd when he said, “If judges are so radically anti-american that they thought One Nation Under God was wrong, then they shouldn’t be on the court.”  In a nutshell, Newt said he would take on the entire judicial system if it refused to restrict itself.  When asked how he would respond to his critics, Newt fired back.

NEWT:  ”Have they studied Jefferson?  In 1802 he abolished 18 of 35 federal judges.”

KELLY: “Something that was highly criticized

NEWT:  ”Not by anybody in power in 1802… Jefferson was asked, is Supreme Court supreme?  That is absurd…That would be an oligarchy… Lincoln repudiates Dred Scott decision in his first inaugural address in 1861 and says no 9 people can make law in this country.  That would be an end to our freedom.”

I share that little history lesson from Newt not because it was all that impressive from where I sit, but only because I do believe the casual political enthusiast was more than impressed with his sense of history.  Newt’s been playing the “I’m a historian – not a politician” card for a while now, and I do believe this was the most effective argument he’s made directly to the American People to support that claim.  I guess we’ll have to see if the folks of Iowa were buying it.

Newt gets an (8) following the standard for front-runners from previous debates – emerge in one piece and the night goes down as a success.

MITT ROMNEY:

Some great lines from Romney Thursday night…

“Mr. President how’d you do running General Motors?”

“America’s in decline?  It is if he’s president; not if I’m president.”

“Obama asking for our drone back?  A strong America is the best ally peace has ever known… A foreign policy based on pretty please?  You’ve gotta be kidding?”

“This has to be the American century – America has to lead the free world.  And Free world has to lead the world.”

“A strong military doesn’t create war – A strong American prevents people from testing us.”

A few not so great moments as well…

When asked to clarify his previous position that those here illegally would have to return to their native countries and “get in the back of the line”; and how that would be squared with his seemingly opposing position that he would not “round them up”, Mitt said he would push for an ID card for legal immigrants – something that would require verification from employers like E-Verify.  The problem – while Mitt said he would sanction employers for not screening in a fashion similar to those issued tax offenders, he still never really answered the question of how he’d “round them up.”  I suppose he’s making the argument that if they can’t work – they won’t stay.  He didn’t say it, but I can only assume that’s what he was getting at.  Still a worthless argument in my book, but I figured I’d at least give him the benefit of the doubt on a half-way flawed idea and flesh it out.

He also took a pretty good shot from Chris Wallace when the Fox News Sunday host asked Romney to defend the evolution of his positions on gay rights, abortion, and “guns.”  I think Mitt did a fair job explaining the move to the Right – that is if you are of the mindset that one can evolve with such positions both adulthood.  Either way, just pointing it out for the casual viewer is problematic enough for Romney.  No defense would be a complete and adequate defense once that poison pill has been floated out there.

Romney gets a (7).  I thought he did a more than adequate job of remaining sufficiently adequate.  I’m fairly certain that’s what he was shooting for, so I’d say that’s mittion accomplished.

RICK SANTORUM:

He might be a marginal candidate with no shot of winning the Republican nomination, but there’s no sign Rick Santorum is going to go down without a fight.  He bet his entire campaign on Iowa; and because of that, he may have had more riding on Thursday’s debate than anyone else.  Actually, he was anything but shy about admitting as much during the debate saying that he’s held more than 350 town hall meetings and he’s “counting on Iowa to help me catch fire.”

Was this the spark that will light the fire?

I’m frankly a little surprised that Santorum hasn’t seen a bump at least somewhere along the way in the race, so I guess he’s due.  In fairness, I do believe he is the most across-the-board conservative in the field.  Why he’s been unable to find traction is lost on me entirely.  We’ve seen Bachmann, and Cain, and Gingrich surges… Why not Santorum?

If he had a theme for the evening it was clearly “proven conservative leadership.”  He said of his time in the Senate that “if you were a conservative, you came to Rick Santorum.”  He then contrasted said leadership position and style with that of Speaker Gingrich by saying “he had a conservative revolution against him.”

When asked how he would handle the looming government shutdown, he offered the best line of the night.

“In 2008, the American public were convinced by Barack Obama that they needed something to believe in.  We now understand that what we need is a president that believes in them.”

Call me a flip-flopper, but I don’t care what I’ve said about the guy in the past… I’m buying what he’s selling there.  As a proud Reagan Republican, one of the things I appreciate most about the Reagan presidency was the fact that he made Americans proud to be Americans again.  Pride in country and pride in self.  If we are to emerge from the doldrums of this recession, it will take a leader who can inspire a sense of optimism – not in the brilliance of his leadership, but in the potential of the American People themselves.  I don’t know that Rick Santorum is that guy; but I do know I heard a little Reagan when I heard that line.

Santorum’s next best moments of the evening came in response to Ron Paul’s latest crazy Iran rant –  ”They’ve been at war with us since 1979… Iran is not any other country.  It is a country that is ruled by the equivalent of Al Qaeda at the top.  They are a radical theocracy.  The principle virtue of Iran is not freedom or opportunity.  It’s martyrdom.”  He went on to say that the situation with Iran is nothing like the Cold War – that this is no deterrent of mutually assured destruction with that regime.  ”MAD would not be preventing war; it would be an inducement to war.   This is their objective… calamity is their objective.  Their mission is to take on the west.  They don’t hate us because of what we do or our policies, but because of who we are.  We should say close them down or we’ll close them down for you.”

I can’t lie, I’m starting to warm up to the guy.  I never saw it coming and really still can’t believe it’s happening.  The guy’s a solid conservative; and I can’t say at all that I’d be even remotely worried about him going head-to-head with President Obama.  Either way, he gets a (7).  Anyone that can listen closely enough to Ron Paul to make an effective case rebutting one of his foreign policy rants is A-Okay in my book.  Another good performance and still no gaffes or deal-breaking moments to speak of.  Someone wanna tell me how this guy’s still in 6th?

—

As you’ve probably heard, Herman Cain was named one of the year’s “Ten Most Fascinating People” by Barbara Walters and whatever think tank of intellectual misfits she has working for her.  Personally, I’ve really got no beef with Cain’s selection.  He made a splash in 2011 as much – if not more – than anyone else in the political arena.  So, given the fact that this kind of list always boasts a political figure, I do think his selection was appropriate.  But let’s be real about it.  Barbara chose Herman because she’d get to ask him questions about alleged sexual harassment and extramarital affairs.  What I’m saying here is that if I’m Herman Cain, I’m not seeing this as much of an honor.  I’m thinking it’s more like winning The Lottery – the Shirley Jackson kind that is.

Either way, Cain was selected; gave the interview; and now will live on forever as a member of this illustrious group.

You can watch the interview here; or below.

But this segment is what has most politicos buzzing today as the choice is by all accounts unexpected and undeniably nothing more than a nonsensical dream.  If he had his druthers and could choose any Cabinet position for himself in the new administration, Herman Cain says he’d want to head the Department of Defense.

—-

Walters:  ”What kind of Cabinet position might you like if it were possible?”

Cain:  “We are speaking totally, totally hypothetical, right?”

Walters:  ”Right.”

Cain:  “Department of Defense.”

Walters:  “What?”

Cain:  “Yes.”

Walters:  “Not Treasury? I mean, you’re the 9-9-9 man. Why the Department of Defense?”

Cain:  “Because if I could influence rebuilding our military as it should be, that would be a task I would consider undertaking.”

—–

Kinda caught you off guard, didn’t it?

From where I sit, there are many things Herman Cain would be qualified to do in the next or any administration.  That said, Defense Secretary is not among them.  You can probably throw in Secretary of State as well if we’re making a list.  The guy demonstrated an uncanny ability to do many things during his run for the Republican nomination, but proving that he had even an elementary grasp of foreign policy was anything but a force behind his meteoric rise to the top of the polls.  Whether it was Israel, China, Libya, or Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan; Cain never met a foreign policy question that he didn’t have to later walk back or issue an apology for.  Is the guy dreaming?

I’m inclined to believe that Herman is simply a man that has yet to know his own limitations.  Admittedly, there’s part of me that actually likes that about the guy.  He sees a challenge; he sets goals; and he goes for them.  I think his failed presidential bid was simply a manifestation of that combined confidence and blind naivete.  He saw the presidency as the objective and began working toward it before he realized the massive undertaking it would come to represent.  He failed to have a plan for how to handle the baggage he must have known would emerge in a presidential election cycle; and he failed to adequately prepare himself for the questions he would inevitably asked and the job he ultimately wanted.

When I hear that Herman Cain’s dream Cabinet position is working for the Department of Defense, what I hear more than anything else is a guy that still doesn’t get it.  Until he realizes that allegations of sexual impropriety and extramarital affairs may have derailed his campaign, but it was his endless string of foreign policy gaffes that would up dooming it; I’m not sure that Herman really has a future.

As his selection to the “Most Fascinating People” list proves, he will always have a voice.  It just won’t be a voice that carries any weight until he realizes it was his own missteps and poor preparation – and not the media – that killed his chances of claiming the Party’s nomination.

It might surprise some of you, but I really don’t have much to say about the “earth-shattering” news that Time Magazine has once again made a ridiculous choice with its “Person of the Year” selection.  I ranted a bit last year when the Facebook tool took the prize; but I think that exercise cost me the ability to care.  You can read the magazine’s explanation of its selection here…  Or if you want a proper reaction to the decision, go here…

All I really have to add is this.  I’ve been doing this whole “blogging” thing for right around two years.  In that time, I’ve learned a few things about politics and a truckload about the “media” and the “business” of covering the “news.”  Part of what I’ve learned is that the “business” side of things drives everything; and the “news” is a creation of the “media.”  Essentially, those in the business of making money by reporting on the news get to decide what is or isn’t in fact – news.

Because of that, it doesn’t at all surprise me that last year – and the year before – that shameless rag overlooked the Tea Party.  Conservatives don’t read that nonsense and hippie liberals don’t want to read about a bunch of right-wingers peacefully “protesting” with permits.

And yes, I know the Time selection also focused on the Arab Spring and the spirit of protest globally.  Truthfully, that’s the angle of this story that makes my head hurt.  First off, Time appears to make the assumption or draw the dubious conclusion that “protest” somehow organically began anew in the United States in or around the 60′s.  I don’t know about you, but to me that assertion is more than a little convenient.  Here you have a magazine blatantly and obviously pandering to the hippie crowd of yesteryear that fancifully dreams and reminisces about its days of getting arrested for purposes unknown or unspoken; are you really all that shocked that they’d also try to  overstate their own historic importance?

But to the Arab Spring and that development somehow managing to find itself tied to the Occupy movement… Even if one buys the narrative that protest is protest – can even the most bleeding heart liberal begin to make a case for how the two protests even remotely share similar objectives?  On one hand you have people protesting to throw off their respective governments; and on the other hand you have a group of misfits defalcating in parks while blogging on their iPads about the perils of big business.  If protest is protest, I want to be included in the supplement for the tantrum I threw at my nephew’s soccer game last month.  I really let that 13-year-old referee have it.

Time Magazine.  Click here if you need a bio and a picture for the follow-up.

A second US drone crash in just over a week – this time on the Island nation of Seychelles –  is raising some very serious questions about our nation’s drone program, its effectiveness, and its reach.  I’ve got two questions that immediately come to mind. 1) How many of these things do we have flying around out there; and 2) Why the Seychelles?

While I know the answer to question number one will not be revealed any time soon; I can speculate about number two.

If you’re like me, you probably had to ask yourself, where the hell is Seychelles?  A simple Google Map search lands you here…  Don’t get frustrated if you can’t see the place on the map.  You’re going to have to zoom in.  That took me a minute too.  Zooming back out, I then noticed the relative proximity to Somalia and drew the conclusion that the drone must have been patrolling as part of our nation’s effort to combat piracy in that region.  Sometimes the simplest explanation is also the most prudent choice.  Sometimes it’s not.  Pakistan and India are only about twice the distance from the island nation as Somalia.  So, who knows?

It’s been a while since I’ve done one of these; but given that this may be one of the worst news weeks we’ve had in quite a while, I guess there’s no time like the present.  Pretty much the usual suspects here; but here are a few new additions certainly worth taking a look at.  My morning reads typically take me to the same handful of sources, so it’s no surprise that many of the new sites included here are place they frequent on a daily basis.  What I’m saying here, is check out some of these links.  If I can’t find anything worth writing about, I’m certain at least a few of these folks will be banging out something to catch your interest.  Enjoy.

(Just a technical note: My apologies to anyone that’s been linking RR and not getting so much as a “thank you” response.  Still working out some issues around here.  If that applies to you… again, sorry.  Shoot me an email and we can see if the situation can be remedied. )

LONELY CONSERVATIVE:

• Attorney General Eric Holder: Fast and Furious Weapons Will Show Up at Crime Scenes for ‘Years to Come’
• Rush Limbaugh on Obama’s Marxist Speech
• Democrat Party Loses Nearly One Million Voters in Battleground States
• The Lessons of Pearl Harbor

HOTAIR:

• Fact-checking the Kansas Declaration
• Kathleen Sebelius finally does something right
• Gingrich raised $4 million in first half of Q4

JUST A CONSERVATIVE GIRL:

• Obama’s America, A Place Divided
• Do You Talk to Your 8-Year-Old about Your Sex Life?
• Christmas Comes to the White House

THE OTHER MCCAIN:

• ‘Womyn’ Gripped By Tim Tebow Terror?
•  SANTORUM’S SURGE: Tells Palin Supporters, ‘I’m Your Guy’
•  In the Presence of His Newtness
•  Let’s Face It: Jesus Railed Against The ‘Archbishops’ Of His Day

ACE OF SPADES:

• Newt’s Gay Half-Sister Is Going to Vote For Obama, Because She Doesn’t Like Newt’s Anti-Gay-Marriage Official Stance
• Reality Check: Chris Christie Notes Occupy’s Antics Are Driven By Disappointment In Obama’s Miserable Failure
• Ron Paul’s Actual New Ad, And Conan O’Brien’s Parody Version of the Ad

INSTAPUNDIT:

• TEN YEARS AGO ON INSTAPUNDIT: Explaining guns to David Brooks.
• DAVID BROOKS ON CORRUPTION AND DEMOSCLEROSIS.

MICHELLE MALKIN:

• Jon Corzine Receives Third Subpoena From Congress; Update: ‘I Simply Do Not Know Where the Money Is’ 
• Capitol Hill hearing/vote watch: Holder, Corzine, Cordray; Update Holder: Nobody lied; Corzine: Don’t know where $ went; F&F impeachment?; Issa turns up heat; Holder “possibly” will clean house; vids added
• Culture of Corruption watch: Blago begs for “mercy;” “my life is in ruins;”Update: 14 years

FOUNDING BLOGGERS:

• REPORT: SEIU DIRECTLY ORGANIZING #OCCUPY PROTESTS IN DC NEXT WEEK
• WE ARE THE O%
• RED CROSS/CRESCENT WANTS TO POLICE VIDEO GAMES

LEFT COAST REBEL:

• Suppose You Were an Idiot
• Nine Reasons Why Herman Cain’s Supporters Should Join The Ron Paul Camp
• An Advantage for Newt Gingrich via Google Ngram Viewer

BIG GOVERNMENT – GOVERNOR RICK PERRY:

• Time to Get Serious About Insider Trading in Washington

BIG GOVERNMENT:

• Robin Hood Tax Would Hurt the Little Guy More Than Big Banks

RIGHT KLIK:

• A State of Constant Fear

PROOF POSITIVE:

• Obama Says Selling Unicorn Burgers Can Revitalize the Economy

NAKED CAPITALISM:

• Dog whistle economics’ code words
• Central Banks Plan for Possible Euro Breakup as Merkel Focuses on Wrong Issues

POLITICAL REALITIES:

• No Abortions Because of Race or Gender?
• Can Ron Paul Win Iowa?
• Neal Boortz and Ron Paul
• What’s With the Recall Elections?

THE STRIDENT CONSERVATIVE:

• Adam Corolla Explains The Occupy Wall Street Generation

FLOPPING ACES:

• If bipartisan hatred is the measure for a successful GOP candidate, Newt’s the guy…
• Tea Party vs. the GOP establishment – Begging for a brokered convention… [Reader Post]

FULL METAL PATRIOT:

• Obama’s fairness speech is short on Teddy Roosevelt, long on Karl Marx
• Well, crap. Cain is out. So now what?

ADRIENNE’S CORNER:

• A Crisis of Truth…
• This is not just a Catholic issue…

LEGAL INSURRECTION:

• Iran displays downed drone
• Romney brings out big guns, shoots self in foot

THE WYBLOG:

• Thaumaturgical Thursday: Immaculate Mary, your praises we sing
• Google Knows Best, and doesn’t care what you or I think
• Monday Myopia, or bankers are only evil until they give you a job
• A loophole in the incandescent light bulb ban?

THE BLAZE:

• PROTESTERS HECKLE CHRIS CHRISTIE WITH ‘MIC CHECK’: ‘WE’RE USED TO DEALING WITH JOKERS LIKE THIS’
• FORMER CBC CHAIR: GOP ‘TURNING THE CLOCK BACK TO THE DAYS OF JIM CROW’ WITH VOTER ID LAWS

MOTOR CITY TIMES:

• The Community Organizer in Chief went to Kansas and gave a speech
• I think the Detroit News is on to something

I OWN THE WORLD:

• Lindsay Lohan’s Playboy Cover Leaked
• There’s Something Odd About This Perry Ad
• I Used To Think Dems Were Being Coy By Ignoring Scandals – Now I Know the Truth

DON SURBER:

• Australia discovers poverty in West Virginia
• Does money matter in 2012?

CONSERVATIVE HIDEOUT 2.0:

• Teaching and Brain-Dead Liberal Students
• Moonbattery: Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer Encourages Bullying?
• Anti-Semitism Alert: Increasing on College Campuses
• You Mean That ObamaCare is Cloward-Piven for Private Insurance?

THE CLASSIC LIBERAL:

• Newt Gingrich: Progressive “Tea Party” Candidate
• National Defense Authorization Act: Presidential Dictatorship

THE LIBERTARIAN PATRIOT:

• TLP Quik Hits: ATF Used Fast & Furious To Promote Gun Control
• TLP Quik Hits: The Twelve Days Of Fascism

MATT LEWIS

• GOProud chair hits Rick Perry over ad
• Read his lips: John Sununu hates Newt Gingrich

DC TRAWLER

• Alec Baldwin’s latest temper tantrum struck a noble blow against the declining standards of the airline industry
• TheDC Morning: Break a leg, Attorney General Eric Holder

WASHINGTON REBEL:

• Some perspective from Louis CK

THE WHITED SEPULCHRE:

• Nanny State Update, with a light sprinkling of Cronyism
• Why Newt Gingrich isn’t all bad

ED DRISCOLL:

• ‘Lying,’ Holder Says, ‘Has to Do With Your State of Mind’
• Alec Baldwin Stands Up for the #99 Percent

MIND-NUMBED ROBOT:

• Your Help is Needed to Defeat #Texas #RINOs

PIRATE’S COVE:

• Awesome! James Hansen Says CO2 To Melt All Ice

PROTEIN WISDOM:

• “Obama’s economic plan? Back to the ’70s!”

ALTHOUSE:

• Class warfare, Madison-style.
• Recent Obama gestures in the gay rights and abortion categories. 

REDSTATE – ERICK ERICKSON:

• The Horserace for December 8, 2011

REDSTATE – REINCE PRIEBUS:

• Unaccountable and Unacceptable: Fast and Furious and the Incompetent Administration

RED STATE – TOBY TOONS:

• What It Means To Be In The Tank For Obama

REAGANITE REPUBLICAN:

• I Hereby Endorse Newt Gingrich for President of the United States
• Israel Blazing Trails with a New Type of Stealthy, Underground War in Iran

FREEDOM’S LIGHTHOUSE:

• Chris Christie Laughs at, Mocks Hecklers in Iowa: “You’re So Angry Aren’t You. . . Oh, Work It All Out, Work It All Out for Yourselves” – Raw Video 12/7/11
• Rick Perry Touts Finish in “Hot Gas” (Hot Air.com) Candidate Survey in CNN Interview – Video 12/7/11

And the plot thickens…

Remember that super-top secret stealth drone that was “reportedly recovered” on Iranian soil?  You know, the one that everyone with military clearance said was patrolling over Afghanistan, but somehow managed to end up in the hands of the Iranian regime?  Okay, the one that looked like a miniature stealth bomber?

Glad you’re with me.

Iranian officials have been claiming that they used “electronic cyber warfare” to bring the drone down.  American officials have, of course, submitted alternative theories.  Who to believe?

Considering the thing looks to be nearly fully intact, I’m inclined to follow Iran’s version of this story – yes I said Iran.  Look at the picture.  That thing didn’t crash.

Courtesy of Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

Video at the BBC…

Newt Gingrich pledged to tap Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton to serve as his Secretary of State should the Former Speaker successfully claim the Republican nomination and ultimately win race for the White House.  Whether Bolton would accept or whether Gingrich would make good on his pledge may be different issues entirely; but make no mistake about it, it’s a wise and calculated decision either way to put it out there.

Just in case you’re wondering, I loves me some John Bolton.  Dude is sharp as anyone out there and he’s the epitome of a straight shooter.  I’m not certain that the second quality there lends itself to being the nation’s top diplomat, but I still give Newt an A for effort here.  Just associating himself with Bolton will endear him to many on the Right.

That said… knowing Ambassador Bolton, I’d expect a response or reaction is probably just a matter of time.