Can we all calm down a little bit about “drone strikes against American citizens”?

It is well-established by the courts that an American citizen who is an enemy combatant can be treated as an enemy combatant. It is also well established by the courts that it is not the role of the judiciary to interfere in the executive branch’s conduct of a war. When an American citizen joins a shadowy band at war with America and operating in areas beyond the reach of law enforcement, he is a legitimate target.

Brilliant.

Here’s a line you’ll either recognize or you won’t: “This is one time where television really fails to capture the true excitement of a large squirrel predicting the weather.” If you don’t recognize this little gem, you’ve either never seen Groundhog Day or you’re not a fan of what is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the last 40 years. As the day of the groundhog again approaches, it seems only fitting to celebrate what will almost undoubtedly join It’s a Wonderful Life in the pantheon of America’s most uplifting, morally serious, enjoyable, and timeless movies. …

What is it about this ostensibly farcical film about a wisecracking weatherman that speaks to so many on such a deep spiritual level?

Read more

According to Boehner’s advisers, the speaker appreciates Ryan’s willingness to be a conduit between the leadership and the House GOP’s many blocs. Conservatives, for their part, appreciate Ryan’s willingness to push for conservative policy when he’s meeting with Boehner.

“I’ve known the speaker for a long time. We’re both midwestern guys, and I went to college in his district,” Ryan says. “We’ve always gotten along. But we’re also of different generations. We have different styles. But we do understand each other quite well, and we listen to each other.”

Ryan says his close relationship with Boehner is, more than anything, about his desire for Republican unity in a period of Democratic control. “Forget the palace intrigue,” Ryan says, when I press him for more details about their friendship. “I’m looking to build a unified conference and a coherent strategy, even if they inevitably require varying tactics.”

Mark Steyn writes:

This latest painstakingly negotiated bipartisan deal to restore fiscal responsibility actually includes a third of a trillion dollars in new spending. A third of a trillion! $330,000,000,000! Fancy that! In most countries, a third of a trillion would be a lot of money. But in the U.S. it’s chump change so footling it’s barely mentioned in the news reports. Then there’s the usual sweetheart deals for those with Washington’s ear: $59 million for algae producers, a $20 million tax break if a Hollywood producer shoots part of a movie in a “depressed area” as opposed to a non-depressed area, like Canada.

See this is what I’m talking about.

Veronique de Rugy writes:

Taking the side of small government during these negotiations probably means that we will go over the cliff. But at least we would go over the cliff knowing that Republicans fought for the long-term fiscal health of this country. It’s also better than the scenario in which we go over the cliff knowing that the Republican leadership caved on raising taxes for higher-income taxpayers while fighting against spending cuts (in the form of sequestration). This is all the more disturbing because the sequester’s cuts are mostly cuts to the growth of spending and they won’t make a dent in our fiscal problem.

from Jay Nordlinger on NRO. Venting at conservatives who are now complaining about what a lousy candidate Romney was. I love it.

Some highlights:

Do you remember this moment during the primaries? Romney said, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. There’s a safety net there, and if it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the heart of America, the 95 percent of Americans who are right now struggling.”

I guess he meant the “middle class.” In this instance, he called them “the heart of America,” or “the 95 percent.” Anyway, conservatives went absolutely nuts. They wet their pants. “Romney said he doesn’t care about the poor! Eek, eek!” He had committed a terrible gaffe, according to the media at large. Romney was always being accused of committing “gaffes” when he said perfectly sensible things — such as the above.

So, what did Romney offer the “middle class”? I’ll tell you what: He offered to avert financial collapse. To do something about the debt and the deficit. To reform entitlements. To reform the tax code. To foster the conditions in which economic growth occurs. To help put people back to work. To save the frickin’ country.

That’s not program enough for the “middle class”? What does he have to do, enter each of their homes and bake them muffins? Swab their floors? (Actually, knowing him and his neighborliness, he would do that.)

Saving the country — that should have been enough. And if it wasn’t good enough for the “middle class,” then the “middle class” is an ass.

The “middle class” IS an ass, I’m sorry to say. I hate the “middle class.”

More:

We conservatives are schizophrenic. What I mean is this: When someone comes along talking about “compassionate conservatism,” we dump all over him. We recoil in horror. “Like freedom isn’t good enough, you big pansy? What are we supposed to do, change the nation’s diaper? Toughen up!”

Then we dump all over Romney for not being cuddly enough — for being too “capitalist.”

Republicans and conservatives are babies — maybe we need to be diapered. We’re always bitching that no politician is good enough to represent us. This is not only wrong, it’s ungrateful. We should be grateful that so fine a man as Mitt Romney wanted to throw his hat in the ring and carry the water for our sorry behinds.

Indeed.

At the moment, conservatives seem to be in love with Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and a few others. Don’t worry. Let one of them be nominated, and his name will be mud. He won’t be able to do anything right. And if he loses the general — worse than mud.

Conservatives can be so infuriating. Really, really infuriating. Especially social conservatives here in California. “Gee, I’m going to vote for this candidate who doesn’t stand a chance just to express my dissatisfaction with the party and show that they have to offer us better nominees than Meg Whitman!” Yeah, thanks, guys, and how’s that Jerry Brown working out for you? Right, then. Way to go.

But this might be my favorite part:

I spend half my life dumping on politicians — including Republican standard-bearers, including Mitt Romney. …

But I try to remember this: Politics is hard. Vote-getting is hard. Have you ever tried it? How many votes would you get? How many votes would any of us at National Review or National Review Online get?

We always think we know better than the men in the arena. … Look: Sometimes you sell your product the best you can, and the people aren’t buying. They don’t want it. So much the worse for the people. Romney is supposed to be a “failed” candidate. In a sense, sure. I think of the electorate as failed.

Well, I would say, I think of the culture as failed. I think that the culture has deteriorated to the point that families and communities aren’t expected to help one another anymore, that it’s more shameful to ask for help from people you know than to get a nice honest government assistance check. The glorification of single parenthood and divorce has led us to this economic crisis, in that people are less able to depend on each other and thus more dependent on the government. And that leads us to a point where a Mitt Romney is, indeed, out of touch with most people, because he is part of a culture where neighbors do rely each other.

What I’d like to know is, what’s so wrong with that culture?