Hawkins interviews RoveWorth reading, I'd like to find out what, if anything Rove would have to say about the giant Medicare expansion they spearheaded. Maybe it's in his book.
The biggest stud of CPAC-2010 was Marco Rubio, the first major speaker of the conference. He delivered an impassioned call for preserving American freedom from the creeping statism that would make us look like the countries people leave rather than the ones to which they flock. He also got his digs in against the Republican establishment, saying endorsements aren’t enough to avoid a primary challenge, and one-liners aren’t enough to avoid substantive policy discussions. Rubio and his introducer, Jim DeMint, repeatedly raised the specter of another, well, Arlen Specter. Most of all, Rubio was a stud because of the energy he brought to the room. Anybody there who didn’t have an emotional response to Rubio either wasn’t paying attention or had press credentials (-but I repeat myself).
Andrew Breitbart was another major stud at CPAC. The guy is intellectually savvy and media savvy. He called out the dinosaur media for failing to recognize the viscerally undeniable evil captured in the ACORN undercover videos. He captures an audience’s attention like few others. Breitbart will be a force to watch in conservative activism and punditry for some time to come.
It's a fine point, but there's a difference between (a) refusing an unlawful order and (b) creating a whole organized group that plans to refuse unlawful orders and predetermining what those unlawful orders might be.
Posted by: JoeCollins at February 24, 2010 03:20 PM (jtJig)
Posted by: chad98036 at February 24, 2010 03:30 PM (WNcvq)
4
Joe - You and Eddie are certainly entitled to your opinion re: the Oath Keepers. I do not have a problem with the organization.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at February 24, 2010 03:42 PM (nGBOJ)
5
Or, if you don't think my impression of the Oath Keepers is accurate, substitute some of the other organizations there, like the nullification/secession crowd. Point is, the ACU could downplay fringe elements at CPAC until Ron Paul won the straw poll. They really lose mainstream conservative cred for that.
Posted by: JoeCollins at February 24, 2010 03:50 PM (jtJig)
6
Joe - I believe the Paulbots would have crammed the poll no matter who was invited. But, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at February 24, 2010 04:10 PM (nGBOJ)
I am not convinced that homosexuals, about 2 percent of the population, are a big voting block that we should pander to. If homosexuals want to own guns and keep their income, they should vote Republican. But most don't, about 90% are leftists on all issues, not just homosexual marriage and military service. They just don't offer anything to conservatives, other than as window dressing so "moderates" don't think we are bigots. They offer nothing to the coalition.
On the other hand Birchers and ACU have larger numbers and lots of fervor, they are reliable Republican voters and precinct walkers. We need them. We don't need homosexuals.
It is not as if we want to execute homosexuals, so they have no reason not to vote for Republicans if, as I said, they are with us on all the non-homosexual issues.
But if what they are concerned about is destroying marriage and cruising the military for some action, we should have no truck with them.
Posted by: Federale at February 24, 2010 06:27 PM (q3Oy6)
9
Federale, who said anything about pandering? People who disagree can be civil in the same room. Again, let's assume I'm wrong about Oath Keepers, the JBS is pretty much demonstrably crazy. They have North American Union stuff on their website. Crazy people who believe nutty things should not be allowed in the room.
Posted by: JoeCollins at February 24, 2010 07:49 PM (jtJig)
10
I've read a bit more on Oathkeepers, I don't think they're quite as bad as it's been made to sound, as long as they don't go in some crazy direction with it. A lot of it seems to be in reaction to constitutional rights violations by law enforcement and National Guard during Katrina. I do think that we need to let the system work, it's not the best, but the city of New Orleans was found guilty of civil rights violations.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 24, 2010 09:18 PM (GcfAO)
11
Reading your comments Federale I have to assume you haven't met Alex.
Posted by: chad98036 at February 24, 2010 09:34 PM (WNcvq)
12They just don't offer anything to conservatives, other than as window
dressing so "moderates" don't think we are bigots. They offer nothing
to the coalition.
Federale, I mean this from the bottom of my heart, you just opened your mouth and removed all doubt.
I am one big ol' queer who happens to offer a rather great deal to the coalition. And the only window I dress is my own.
Really, your comments reveal nothing but your own ignorance of the very crapblog on which you make them.
Posted by: alexthechick at February 24, 2010 10:20 PM (lvYSc)
13
Federale, you're really trying to stick your own foot in your ass, aren't you? Why, yes, I'm piling on. This sort of ignorance deserves more than one smack in the head.
Posted by: Alice H at February 24, 2010 10:28 PM (qJHYy)
First off, I am extremely opposed to the Oath Keepers. I believe in the system, and its inherent self cleansing abilities. You can read my take on them, and my stance stands.
As for your statements on homosexuality, all I will say is you might want to reconsider your statements in light of where you are and the good people who frequent this site. That is all.
Posted by: eddiebear at February 24, 2010 11:05 PM (C/CRM)
CPAC Lies Down With Dogs, Gets Up With Fleas ( #CPAC10 )
There’s been quite a kerfluffle about Ron Paul winning the CPAC Straw Poll.
[Really? You voted for this guy?]
Well, the ACU was practically asking for it. Paul-bots are normally over-represented at CPAC, and bringing Glenn Beck on as the keynote speaker is going to bring the most rabid of the 9/12'ers out of the woodwork. Not content to just complain about the Federal Reserve, the Campaign for Liberty events were particularly aggressive this year. I made sure to attend an event on state nullification (“When All Else Fails: Nullification and State Resistance to Federal Tyranny”) featuring Thomas Woods.
One can tell Woods is a fairly smart guy, but it’s painfully obvious that he hasn’t an ounce of tact in his entire body, nor any grasp of electoral, political, or legal reality. He did take what was in my mind a completely insane topic and gave an interesting historical and philosophical defense of it... leaving out the part where it fell by the wayside and is now the favorite topic of cranks. Members of the public used the word “secession” a time or two in the Q&A session and nobody batted an eye.
Woods’ rather whimsical defense of the modern nullification/interposition movement is basically that nothing else has worked to stop government growth and encroachment, so why not try it. Well, you don’t try it because it isn’t legal and doesn’t work. (Ask anybody in a medical marijuana state who has been busted for pot.)
I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but did the “strict Constitutionalists” read this part of Article VI?:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
So I say the ACU shouldn’t have been too surprised at Ron Paul’s straw poll victory. They invited all the nutters to town and gave them all the rhetorical crack cocaine they wanted. If the ACU wants a more reputable poll outcome, they should take better care to vet their sponsors, speakers, and panel topics.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 22, 2010 09:18 PM (GcfAO)
2
Dick Cheney having chest pains is like shooting a bear with a BB gun. It just makes him meaner.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at February 22, 2010 10:12 PM (WhFvm)
3
The alien Xenomorph inside his chest is trying to get out, but Cheney won't let it.
Posted by: EC at February 22, 2010 10:46 PM (iWj1i)
4
The doctors are trying to remove the live polar bear he had for lunch.
Posted by: Spank at February 23, 2010 01:52 AM (muUqs)
5This Links London silver necklace is not only a classic one but a
masterwork. Links London Store makes sure that the three-dimensional and
hollowing heart can bring more admiring eye on you. Links London is your best choice!
Posted by: links of london at February 23, 2010 09:09 PM (AEJ3L)
Why I Will Never Be A Liberal
Here is the video of Ronald Reagan announcing his candidacy for President in November of 1979. This video, while a bit long, hits every point concerning why I am conservative, and will never be a liberal: optimism, faith in the future, belief in the goodness of mankind, contempt of government's spiked fisting of the people, and an unwillingness to accept our best days are behind us.
In recent months leaders in our government have told us
that, we, the people, have lost confidence in ourselves; that we must regain our
spirit and our will to achieve our national goals. Well, it is true there is a
lack of confidence, an unease with things the way they are. But the confidence
we have lost is confidence in our government's policies. Our unease can almost
be called bewilderment at how our defense strength has deteriorated. The great
productivity of our industry is now surpassed by virtually all the major nations
who compete with us for world markets. And, our currency is no longer the stable
measure of value it once was.
But there remains the greatness of our people, our
capacity for dreaming up fantastic deeds and bringing them off to the surprise
of an unbelieving world. When Washington's men were freezing at Valley Forge,
Tom Paine told his fellow Americans: "We have it in our power to begin the
world over again," we still have that power.
We--today's living Americans--have in our lifetime fought
harder, paid a higher price for freedom and done more to advance the dignity of
man than any people who have ever lived on this Earth. The citizens of this
great nation want leadership--yes--but not a "man on a white horse"
demanding obedience to his commands. They want someone who believes they can
"begin the world over again." A leader who will unleash their great
strength and remove the roadblocks government has put in their way. I want to do
that more than anything I've ever wanted. And it's something that I believe with
God's help I can do.
Contrast that optimism with the shit Obama spews on a daily basis. Contrast Reagan's optimism with Obama's clueless fatalism. Contrast Reagan's belief in the things that made and continue to make America great with a fool who bows before anything in front of him. And contrast the hope and change that Reagan promised (and delivered) versus what we have now.
America's best days are ahead of us, and fuck those who disagree. Fuck them with the sonicblasted hurty stick of hurt. Fuck them for pushing the clowns on us who are preventing our best days. Fuck those fuckduckcocks of FAIL. Fuck them because we need people at the helm who are optimistic, not whining fuckwhiners who blame others. And fucking fuck them with the fucksicle of fucking get outta my fucking way for being dead fucking weight holding America back.
We need people willing to dream and accomplish big dreams, not fucking pussies who tell us we should accept less in order to spread the wealth. We need people who refuse to leave a shithole for their children to live in, not clowns who continue to burden and enslave our future to a life of penury and chattelism to the bureaucracy. And we need somebody with the balls to tell the left to fuck off and take their fuckitude with them. And all of this was accomplished with the projection of strength, confidence, intelligence, and a refusal to accept nothing less than the best for all.
So, fuck you lefties. Take a look at how a real man with optimism can save the world. It happened once, and may soon happen again in 2012.
Posted by: mrfixit at February 12, 2010 03:47 AM (Bsm1s)
2We who are privileged to be Americans have had a
rendezvous with destiny since the moment in 1630 when John Winthrop, standing on
the deck of the tiny Arbella off the coast of Massachusetts, told the little
band of Pilgrims, "We shall be a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people
are upon us so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have
undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be
made a story and a byword throughout the world."
Hopenchange sounds a little hollow now, in comparison, no?
(I know, "RAAAAACIST!")
Posted by: Sean M. at February 12, 2010 04:20 AM (rLWHv)
I do not believe that I am capable of articulating how much I miss Pres. Reagan or how much he means to my life. I firmly believe that without him and Mrs. Thatcher, there would have been nuclear war and the Soviet Union would never have collapsed in the manner it did.
Happy Birthday, Mr. President. I know the Moron Horde misses you terribly.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 06, 2010 05:52 PM (Y3ISy)
2
Duh, double posting is part of the AoSHQ lifestyle.
Posted by: alexthechick at February 06, 2010 06:01 PM (TtXKB)
3
True, and at least it's Ronnie Raygun and not just some big-tittied Japanese girl.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 06, 2010 06:58 PM (22QX2)
4
During his time in office, he was known as "Pepre Reagan" in our house. :-)
Posted by: Scoop11 at February 06, 2010 07:13 PM (AEmfc)
5I do not believe that I am capable of articulating how much I miss Pres.
Reagan or how much he means to my life.
Ditto.
Posted by: Andy at February 06, 2010 08:29 PM (f1o8E)
6
An 18 year old voter was born in 1992. s/he has (1) never lived contemporaneously with the Soviet Union, (2) ditto for Reagan's presidency. The Cold War is an offhanded joke in the first Austin Powers movie... which was released when these chillin'z were in kindergarten.
Posted by: JoeCollins at February 06, 2010 11:03 PM (jtJig)
7
I don't remember Reagan's presidency, I was a little kid.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 06, 2010 11:24 PM (N/KIT)
8
I was in 1st Grade when he beat Carter, and he essentially was the President up to the time I started High School. I grew up in a Republican household, so I always just assumed he was great. It took me studying him after he left office, studying his works and writings, living through the fall of Communism and the economic boom, as well as seeing some of the foolishness of his successors to realize how great he was.
Maybe it was and is a by product of how old I was at the time, but he always seemed comforting to me when I saw him on TV (and my dad did love to watch the news and imbued in me a desire to be aware of all of the shit going on beyond what Optimus Prime had shoved up Megatron's ass of what the A Team blew up that week). He struck me as a reassuring, tough but lovable, grandfather type.
Posted by: eddiebear at February 07, 2010 12:15 AM (XjQLq)
9
yeah, I was pretty young too (born 1979), but I was interested in politics early and my parents had a subscription to Newsweek. I remember reading political cartoons about the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Reagan being on TV after the Challenger disaster, and the 1988 Presidential election. Super-nerd alert: I programmed the VCR to record GHWB's inauguration in 1989.
For Christmas 1991, one of my gifts was some edu-tainment board game that referenced the Soviet Union. It was obsolete the moment I opened it up.
So I can't say I have deep, well-formed memories of Reagan's presidency. Virtually nobody under the age of 30 would. (Guess who voted for Barry... The under 30's.)
Posted by: JoeCollins at February 07, 2010 12:36 AM (jtJig)
Hey! Not all of us did. Let's see... *looks for five minutes to find exit polling* 32% of people 18-24 and, dear God, 31% of people 25-29 voted for McLame.
It's also interesting to look at the education breakdown. People who went to some college/community college/college graduates were statistically split between McCain and Obama. People who have a high school education or less and people who went to postgraduate school broke hard for Obama. Never let the liberals say they are for the middle class.
I was just a year and a half old when Reagan left office and I have to say I am incredibly glad that I was born under a great president. Obviously I wasn't old enough to appreciate him while he was in office, or even during his lifetime, but I sure do appreciate him now. Every time I hear or read one of his speeches and compare it to the words of the current occupant of the White House, it just depresses me.
PS. I totally have a picture of Reagan hanging on my wall.
Posted by: Jeff M at February 07, 2010 01:25 AM (8P3+x)
11
I used to date this girl, circa 1986, and I'm still pissed off at her. My favorite poster was one of a manly body, all Ahnuld-looking, holding a belt-fed machine gun like an M-60, with a jungle in the background. It had Ronnie's head and the caption was "Ronbo".
She threw that one and the bicycle race poster from Queen away.
Bitch.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 07, 2010 12:59 PM (C7b1Y)
Hawkins interviews Christopher Barron of GOProudGood interview, and affirms my opinion on GOProud and the whole Liberty University CPAC situation. It sounds like most in the right blogosphere is in support of GOProud in this situation, at least according to Hawkins, who I know reads and follows a lot of sites, including this one, for reasons inexplicable.
Rush Limbaugh in hospital after experiencing chest painsStory here.
Meanwhile, leftists around the world begin new contest to see who can offer the most ghoulish comments on this breaking news. Not that I'm Outraged!TM by that kind of conduct, you can't be outraged when you know well enough not to expect any better.
1
Man if he dies we are screwed. Limbaugh isn't always right but he is personable. If he dies we are left with Hannity, Savage, et al who, IMHO, all have the personality of a rectal exam.
Posted by: chad98036 at December 30, 2009 10:30 PM (WNcvq)
2I say if MSNBC keeps it up, Olbermann's "shortcomings", Matthews' booze problems, and Maddow become fair game
Posted by: eddiebear at December 30, 2009 10:41 PM (wpLzP)
Rush isn't always right, it's true, but the man speaks his mind and defends what he thinks is right. I believe that, for sure. My thoughts are with him.
Posted by: Ember at December 30, 2009 11:32 PM (LdRAG)
Union thugs considering withdrawing support?
Sweet, they're turning on each other. They're gonna collapse in 2010 and 2012, and we need to try and begin working to take advantage of the chaos, both in the GOP and Democrat parties. The Democrat base is not gonna fund these guys if they can't bring them Marxist medicine, or at least a Trojan Horse that they'd find acceptable. This was probably the best shot these guys had at Marxist medicine, and I think they've blown it. Doesn't mean they can't cause a lot of destruction with some "compromise", but I think we'll avoid a Worst Case ScenarioTM.
1
As I've been recently educated, I'm aware that we should not let this crisis go to waste.
Posted by: leoncaruthers at December 17, 2009 01:47 PM (PH0UW)
2
yeah, and fuck anybody in the GOP "leadership" who thinks that putting forth and pushing for moderates in this climate is the way to go. Fucke them olden schoole.
Posted by: eddiebear at December 17, 2009 02:30 PM (wnU1W)
3
The "Tea Party" is polling better than each party and I'm not sure I'm ready to hand the keys right back to the GOP as it has been. Now is a time, with such sentiments popular to shatter and rebuild a better, galvanized GOP that includes the Queers and other more libertarian leaning individuals. You could get to a damn-near permanent majority with a coalition like that.
We'd lose some of the Hard Core Uber Social Cons but as long as we stood strong on abortion, immigration, and made the party platform on gay marriage "Government shall make no law regarding..." I think we'd hang onto enough to stay in business.
Certainly, the demographics of the Tea Party movement include far more than angry, rich, straight, white men and its time the party's image changed along with that. Make Cheney the guy that leads the charge. He's got standing in the Old Iron segment of the GOP and could frame the discussion in a way that wouldn't threaten anyone's long-held, stupid beliefs*
* - If you think that A) All gay people are evil and sinful inherently anymore than everyone else AND B)The government should DO SOMETHING about it, I'm calling your beliefs stupid. Sorry.
Posted by: Moron Pundit at December 17, 2009 02:34 PM (GC5S2)
I would suggest that most Americans are somewhere on the libertarian scale, we don't like or trust our gov't.
Too bad the ones who like and trust gov't are Minitru and the rest of our political, social, moral and intellectual betters.
Posted by: Veeshir at December 17, 2009 02:43 PM (zXUuJ)
5
@3, MP... your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Posted by: MikeD at December 17, 2009 02:43 PM (FkL60)
6
"I would suggest that most Americans are somewhere on the libertarian scale, we don't like or trust our gov't."
They're libertarians until you can buy them off with shiny objects, anyway. It's a tragic consequence employers withholding taxes - people don't feel the pain so they never run that cost benefit analysis of what they're paying vs. the value they get back.
Thank God for Democrat overreach and their obsessive need to control the minutiae of your everyday life.
Posted by: TheUnrepentantGeek at December 17, 2009 02:57 PM (g1cNf)
7
Withholding income taxes was Milton Friedman's worst idea. My solution, which would almost instantly cause a revolution in this country, would be to abolish withholdings. Have the vast majority of individuals do what private contractors do, pay taxes in quarterly estimated installments. Once people are writing out multi-thousand dollar checks to the government every four months, I suspect people will be much more interested in how the government is spending their money.
Posted by: Jeff M at December 17, 2009 03:52 PM (8P3+x)
8
Yeah, imagine getting all your money in your paycheck.
I've always thought that was a great idea. If only we could get one batch of idealistic pols in there all at once, a huge turnover. As it stands, people who've been in office for decades are absolutely positive they're better and smarter than we are, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. They think we're too stupid to be trusted knowing too much about how gov't works, if the hoi polloi see how much of their money they're giving to the gov't, they will just get all agitated.
Less money is less for them to buy votes.
If we had a big batch who could push forward a bunch of libertarianish stuff in one session, it would be beautiful.
The more gum in the gov't works the better as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Veeshir at December 17, 2009 05:49 PM (+rrcg)
Posted by: JoeCollins at October 31, 2009 10:51 AM (jtJig)
2
last I heard, she "released" her supporters. I would assume a good portion of them would either go for Hoffman or not vote at all. This guy made a great point
NEVER believe you don't have power. NEVER let them tell you that. Michael Steel, John Cornyn, RNC... NEVER believe this is the end of it. Learn from it or lose because of it. Harry
Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the rest of the thieving, corrupt, smug, lying
Democrat Party... NEVER believe we aren't coming for you.
Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 10:51 AM (wNR37)
For me, I'm hoping the 3rd party candidate does well enough to encourage others to run for congress across America. Let's be honest, both parties are corrupt & no longer represent you or me....just big govt. Let at the news yesterday where 'dozens' of congress members are under investigation.
1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 3. From courage to liberty; 4. From liberty to abundance; 5. From abundance to complacency; 6. From complacency to apathy; 7. From apathy to dependence; 8. From dependence back into bondage
I'm encouraging everyone to read that new book just out about a small town in America that does stand up to federal tyranny & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution. It's that good plausible with all that has been recently. It's a great read if you want to see what's nxt for all of us.
Well, that just makes my Sunday morning coffee a LOT better (bought a welder yesterday, so no online stuff).
Posted by: davis,br at November 01, 2009 12:14 PM (uCShA)
6
Stunning silver jewellery from tiffany, Gucci, Links of London; quality designer silver jewelry at online prices. We have silver Bracelets, Solid Silver ...
Posted by: louis vuitton at November 02, 2009 02:12 AM (B2yzp)
Posted by: laser pointer at November 22, 2009 10:19 PM (Hb0Ez)
8
Great!! In dark sky, you can hand a <a href="http://www.laserto.com/" title="laser pointer">laser pointer</a>.It is quite a mysterious thing to see the laser beam of <a href="http://www.highlasers.com/" title="green laser pointer">green laser pointer</a>pointing directly into sky. Will you want a laser pointer?
9 Great!! In dark sky, you can hand a laser pointer .It is quite a mysterious thing to see the laser beam of green laser pointer.compointing directly into sky. Will you want a laser pointer?
3
Is it my imagination, or is David Frum a total douchebag? What a pussy. F. Lee Levin is an intellectual powerhouse, Frump is a Quisling lackwit.
End Global Warming
™!
Posted by: botnet at October 27, 2009 08:09 PM (7lGnQ)
4 Shop creations of timeless beauty from cheap tiffany jewelry that will be treasured always. You can buy cheap tiffany jewelry but high quality from us
Posted by: lii at November 02, 2009 03:59 AM (90fqm)
1
Yeah, I wonder if that DKos poll out that shows Owens still winning (sampled before the Palin endorsement) will change any now, especially given Dede's recent silliness.
Posted by: eddiebear at October 23, 2009 02:03 PM (wnU1W)
2
If the district is 60% conservative and the vote breakdown falls that way (I think it will fall a little more conservative if we're lucky, it's an off year and old people and people who never miss a vote have a stronger turnout on off years), it only takes either Scozzafava or Hoffman pulling a little over a 20% minority to give the election to Owens.
I'm hearing a lot of speculation on what's going to happen between the tea partiers and the GOP establishment there, but I'm not hearing any conservative radio or seeing any conservative blogs speculating on who's actually going to win the race. Research200/DKos are polling Owens in the lead as of Wednesday, with the following breakdown:
Scozzafava 30 Hoffman 23 Owens 35 Undecided 12
I think the numbers will be more telling next week after Palin's effect is evaluated. I think it'd be nice to see how much of the $116K that Hoffman pulled in from Palin's endorsement came from within the district - I still think there's going to be a backlash from all the out-of-staters pushing their opinions on a local election - it's the opposite of grassroots.
And I'm really curious as to whether at any time in the past year the number of conservatives volunteering for the GOP (to try the supposed party takeback) in any of the counties for that district has substantially increased.
I guess what I'm asking is, do conservatives really want to win, or do they just want to wave signs and be outraged? And is the money and effort that's being brought in from out of state being taken from money and effort that could be directed toward getting conservative grassroots candidates elected locally?
Posted by: Alice H at October 23, 2009 08:02 PM (qJHYy)
3
I think you're being impatient. Give it time. You have to remember who you're talking about philosophically. Conservatives by nature view government and politicians at best a necessary evil, at worst downright abhorrent. Conservatives as a whole are going to want to keep them at arm's length wherever they can by default. That we're seeing as much activity as we are is surprising.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at October 23, 2009 08:37 PM (f7MRC)
4
Are you thinking this is going to turn into either a Hoffman or Scozzafava win in the next ten days? Is the first thing the Tea Party movement is going to accomplish going to be putting a Democrat in the House?
I'm also concerned by something I found in this poll. I have no idea how reliable the polling source is, so take it with the requisite shaker of salt.
“Hoffman remains the least known candidate,” Greenberg said. “Nearly half of those who say they are voting for Hoffman don’t know enough about him to have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him.”
Posted by: Alice H at October 23, 2009 08:49 PM (qJHYy)
5
Beyond all that, at this stage, this whole thing is not about beating the Democrat, that's a secondary objective. Right now the primary objective is to try and slap some sense into the GOP leadership. If they continue to demonstrate the same level of epic stupidity the GOP leadership has been showing in recent years, I think we'll see people get much more actively involved. Is the path being taken the best, tactically or strategically? Probably not, conservatives aren't used to the idea that they're going to have to live for politics, liberals live for that shit. It's gonna take time for people to get into the political game, and even longer to find it enjoyable in any way.
And I do agree that there's a high risk of voter backlash because of perceived outside interference, we'll just have to see where that goes.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at October 23, 2009 08:50 PM (f7MRC)
6
I suppose the other question I have is, when is the supposedly-outraged conservative base actually going to start making the effort to take back the party, as opposed to expecting people who don't share their conservative convictions to behave as if they do?
Posted by: Alice H at October 23, 2009 08:55 PM (qJHYy)
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”- Winston Churchill
Posted by: doubleplusundead at October 23, 2009 09:28 PM (f7MRC)
8
We have given it time. This isn't the anger at one bad presidential nomination, this is every bit of bullshit from Bush 41 on. The stupidity of nominating McCain should have been the over-the-edge, not the beginning of the outrage.
Posted by: Alice H at October 23, 2009 09:44 PM (qJHYy)
9
We're gonna have to give it more time, or do what we need to in order to buy time.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at October 23, 2009 09:49 PM (f7MRC)
10
Nominating McCain wasn't the beginning of the outrage, it was near the final straw.
Or didn't you notice the election before that? You know, 2 years earlier when I also had to listen to people call me names because I was sick of the GOP.
People who after the election were all "See what you did? You elected Democrats!!!"
No. I. Fucking.Didn't.
The fucking GOP acting like Democrats is why they lost the fucking elections. If 9/11 hadn't happened, the GOP would have started losing sooner. Probably in 2002 what with Bush and his "compassionate conservatism".
John Fucking Kerry was, until 2008, the worst presidential candidate in history and he barely lost to Bush. Think about that. Do you think that maybe the fucking tea party folks were getting of Dem-lite back then? If the GOP hadn't been able to say, "See? We're killing jihadis." they wouldn't have won. Hillary would have run in 2004 and probably won in 2004 without 9/11. They won on single issue voters, and that single issue was the war with a dash of tax cuts. The Dems have been trying to lose the war since 10/01 if not sooner and trying to raise my taxes since, well, probably in the 1700s.
Or don't you remember disaffection over Harriet Myers? Or Bush's Medicare vote-buying scheme? Or the immigration brou-ha-has.(plural) I could insert a long list but you should know it.
We're long after the final fucking straw and you're sticking up for the assholes and attacking the people who are sick and tired of the fucking GOP acting like fucking Democrats.
The tea parties are full of people who usually don't pay too much attention or get angry easily. They're fed up with all the lefty bullshit and the socialized medicine while the GOP is arguing how much the gov't takes over!
Mitt Fucking Romney has been seen talking about his experience with gov't run health-care and he's one of the current front-runners for the nomination.
There are many more conservatives than Republicans, if the GOP is going to expect party loyalty from people who aren't in their party, well, they're going to be sadly fucking disappointed for a long time to come and we're all screwed.
Fuck them. But we're screwed if they keep going leftward so if they refuse to learn lessons after 2 elections, well, we're going to have to keep teaching them lessons until they figure it out. "Gee, us acting like Democrats, acting all "electable, hasn't worked. What to do? I know! Act more like Democrats! Brilliant! We'll be even more electable!"
And your defense of the indefensible, Alice, is actually making me more militant against the fucking bastards.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 24, 2009 02:38 PM (GLHMP)
Chutzpah
In a Christian Science Monitor article about how "Mainstream Republicans" (read: RINOs) don't like people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, we see the following nugget:
Steve Schmidt, former campaign strategist for John McCain, said Friday that nominating former Alaska governor Sarah Palin for president in 2012 would be “catastrophic” for the party.
Pardon my French, Steve, but fuck you. The GOP should be taking advice from the guy who ran the oh-so-successful McCain campaign last year? As Bugs Bunny would say, "It is to laugh." Shit, the people who ran the Dole campaign back in '96 look like geniuses compared to a pantload like you.
We. Lost. To. An. Empty. Suit. You. Fucking. Ar-tard.
Go ahead and read the rest, though I'd advise you not to have any liquids in your mouth as you might need a new keyboard upon reading the advice of leading conservatives such as (and I shit you not) David "Pant Crease" Brooks about the direction the party needs to take. Yeah.
Posted by: davis,br at October 04, 2009 11:24 AM (uCShA)
2
Jonah Goldberg had a column way back when CNN hired Michael Savage. He figured the conversation went like this 'We need a conservative, how about George Will? No? He's busy. Okay, how about Michael Savage? I hear conservatives like him.'
Most of them have never even met someone who doesn't think Bush is an ultra-conservative.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 04, 2009 11:53 AM (m+liU)
Sully is probably weeping into his cosmopolitan
Sarah Palin's book is number one on Amazon right now, it was in second place when I left for work. I'll be curious to see if she stays up there. I hope she sells five million, then starts filling stadiums with crowds again.
I’m not
pre-ordering a copy. I just can’t deny myself the satisfaction of going
to a B&N in downtown L.A. and plopping it down on the counter in
front of some Lib. If I don’t get a dirt eye roll or a sigh out of
someone I’ll be let down.
Heh. Of course, given the deranged reaction liberals have to her, in a socialist hellhole utopia like LA, leftists may just steal all the copies of the book like leftists on college campuses steal conservative newspapers and newsletters.
Posted by: eddiebear at September 30, 2009 09:57 PM (Yvk/s)
4
^I'm seriously disappointed that no morons have reviewed Frum's book on Amazon and called him a Twat. Seriously, it's like you people have jobs or something!
Posted by: Jeff M at September 30, 2009 10:22 PM (8P3+x)
5
They prolly won't steal the books, but you can bet that dutiful lib
shoppers will shift books around at places like Costco so that copies
are buried under some leftist tome.
Oh, and good find, eddie. Fuck you, Twat.
Posted by: Sean M. at September 30, 2009 10:24 PM (rLWHv)
Posted by: Douglas at October 01, 2009 12:17 AM (uU+Ss)
7
The good thing about your information is that it is explicit enough for students to grasp. Thanks for your efforts in spreading academic knowledge. logo design | design logo
If you ever want to make your eyes bleed, try reading pretty much any section of the US Code. Seriously, do it. It's next to impossible to comprehend what the hell the statutes mean most of the time. I've actually had to sit down and make a chart to attempt to understand just what the hell happened when SCHIP passed and the amendments to the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions went through. (My life is so freaking interesting, let me tell you) Hell, there's still a huge fight as to what precisely all of it means and what, exactly, was amended. Then there's the implementing regulations and oh I have an enormous rant about how Congress is punting legislative authority off to the administrative process.
Actually reading the damn bills may, possibly, prevent some of the worst of this. No law should leave a person scratching his/her head and saying "But what does it mean?" It shouldn't.
Reason 12,384,287,003 that people hate lawyers is because lawyers make the simplest sentence complex. "Don't bang a 12 year old" turns into "In the instance when a child (see 99 USCA 231.99(b)(4)(C)(iv) for definition of "child")[term to be used to mean both male, female, intersexed and/or transgendered] is touched in a sexual manner (see 188 USCA 213.862(a)(4)(D)(ii) for the definition of "touched" and 163 USCA 74.23(b)(ii)) for the definition of "sexual") by a person who exceeds the age of majority for the jurisdiction in which said touching occurred, then such person shall be subject to penalites as set out in 176 USCA 34.53(c)(3)(DD)(ii)(a)."*
There's no need for all of this complexity. There's not. Maybe, possibly, reading the damn bills will prevent that.
*If it's not obvious, that example and all citations there in are totally made up.
[This post is not to be used in the BFF's ongoing attempt to prove that I'm a wide eyed optimist].
1
What was it MP said about not having bills longer than the Declaration of Independence and at a high school reading level?
Posted by: Alice H at September 28, 2009 01:06 PM (qJHYy)
2
Yeah, well even easy statutes are hard to figure out. Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
That statute has changed dramatically and repeatedly over the last 10 years. Some of the changes have changed it to mean exactly the opposite of what it meant before that, and then back. And then back. And then sideways. Then up, then down. Now? Nobody really knows, everybody's waiting for the Supreme Court to decide. For some lawyers pulling their hair out, go to any patent blog, especially 12:01 Tuesday, or Patently O. Or, just search for "Bilski patent" for some hilarity, one day it means this, the next it means that and sometimes, it means nothing. Go to 12:01 Tuesday and check out "Milking Bilski". High-larious.
And realize it's all based on the above, easy to understand statute.
A statute that says "don't bang 12 year olds" will just have some lawyer arguing that if you do it nicely (no banging) then it's legal. Others saying catching a BJ is fine as long as you don't touch her head. Others saying if you marry her it's not banging.
The problem is that we let lawyers make the laws, lawyers figure
out the laws and then we make lawyers into judges and they decide what
the laws mean.
Heck, look at the problems God's had with lawyers messing with the simple meaning of His Thou Shalt Not...s. Even Jesus messed with Him saying that there were only 2 commandments. I bet He got a boatload of crap when He got home.
Posted by: Veeshir at September 28, 2009 03:36 PM (KoPMG)
I'm not so sure that this is what the GOP needs - Sean Hannity will not rule out bid for Presidency in 2012
WASHINGTON – Talk-show host Sean Hannity, a vocal opponent of Barack Obama's policies, said today he would not rule out a bid for the presidency in 2012.
...
Hannity would make a formidable candidate, with the likability of Reagan, good looks and strong convictions. He's also a polished communicator and knows the issues inside out.
Really? I've listened to his show and hollering "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" doesn't really strike me as debating.
Maybe I'm wrong maybe that is what the GOP needs to counter the likes of Biden and Franks. I have never thought that Hannity has shown a particularly good grasp of issues but maybe that doesn't matter either. At least he isn't a consistently grumpy guy like McCain and he may have more energy than Fred Thompson exhibited.
I wanna have his childrenDoctor Zero has been on fire lately.
That right there says what I feel. One taste but if you want the cone you're gonna have to click. Republican candidates must recognize the Obama disaster as a unique
opportunity to explain the fundamental flaws in the statist model our
nation has pursued for generations....snip...
We’ve had enough of people like Obama trying to use the government to
change us. We’re tired of being slammed with thousand-page bills that
tell us what we have to sacrifice, and what we’re not allowed to do. We
want to see some one-page bills that list things the government is not
allowed to do.
Go. Read. Bring a sock.
Posted by: Veeshir at
06:21 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.