January 27, 2009


Word is that the 'Cuda herself is starting a political action committee:

"SarahPac will support local and national candidates who share Gov. Palin's ideas and goals for our country," says the PAC’s Web site, which promises that Palin will be "a strong voice for energy independence and reform."

The PAC does not yet appear to be registered with the Federal Election Commission, according to an online search of the FEC database. But a spokesperson for the committee confirmed that Palin is behind the group and said it was registered on Monday evening. The Web site went live on Tuesday morning and is already soliciting donations.

"The PAC is a smart thing to do because she’s getting so many speaking requests still, so if she gets a request from, say, Bob McDonnell in Virginia, she could do that travel out of her PAC money,” explained the spokesperson, who noted that Palin has been in high demand from Republicans around the country since the campaign ended.

For those of us wondering how Palin would stay in the limelight while being up in Alaska, this appears to be the answer.  It's definitely a better option for her than joining the Maverick in his Country First PAC

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 01:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

stupid =/= unconstitutional

Which is good because otherwise I would have some major, major problems.

Ilya Somin has an interesting post up over at The Volokh Conspiracy concerning a First Amendment lawsuit brought by a woman claiming that a public law school failed to hire her due to being a conservative and that this is a violation of her First Amendment rights.  His position is that this is not unconstitutional though it is idiotic.  (I'm paraphrasing a bit)

Without reading the lawsuit due to laziness, I agree with his position.  This is not unconstitutional.  It's stupid,  it's idiotic, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's short sighted, it's moronic in the bad way but it shouldn't be unconstitutional.  I say this as someone who actually lost a job I desperately wanted on ideological grounds. 

There is no question that the deck is stacked against conservatives in academia.  But that doesn't mean that government interaction should occur.  After all, that's the type of interference that conservatives correctly decry.  I will say that there are some twists to this since we're talking about a public university but see re laziness as far as my discussing those ramifications. 

Having said all of that, I will admit that I am sympathetic to the desire to use the rules of the Left against them.  Sometimes the best way to point out how annoying and wrong and misplaced such suits are is to file them.  I am becoming more and more convinced that conservative and libertarian college students should use speech codes and whatnot as a weapon.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant and there's value to getting it on the record that some types of discrimination are perfectly fine.  Sure, we all know that's the case, but there is worth to having an explicit finding. 

I view this as I view sexual orientation employment discrimination - if an organization is so stupid as to cut off an entire group of intelligent, capable people, let them.  It will come back to hurt later on. 

I totally hope she wins though, just to hear the convoluted explanations about how rejecting a person due to her views is actually a win for intellectual freedom.

Posted by: alexthechick at 11:18 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

January 26, 2009

Sarah Palin head fakes the Alaska legislature

90% of Alaska's budget is based on the price of a barrel of oil.  Gov. Palin suggested a budget based on oil being $70/barrel.  The Energy Department was predicting that oil would be around $50/barrel.  State legislators, eager to criticize the governor, complained that the budget would cause a huge deficit. 

Imagine their surprise when her actual budget was based on the Energy Department predictions.

Read the whole thing.  It's comedy gold.

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 08:31 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

January 06, 2009

Not-so-random thought

If viable GOP candidates don't run because they think we can't win, how will the GOP ever win again?  How many seats would the Dems have won between 2000 and 2004 if they'd just bothered to put up a fight, even if it seems hopeless.

I certainly hope this hopelessness is gone before the 2012 cycle.  I know this will make Allahpundit sad, but we can beat Obama in 2012.  We just need a Republican who doesn't enter the race thinking it's a lost cause.

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 05:05 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

January 05, 2009

RNC Chair debate is on

The RNC Chair debate is on.  My favorite question so far: 'How many guns do you own?'  None of the candidates answered 'zero'.  This makes me happy.  Probably happier than it should have.

Update:  If you can't seem to register, or the feed is stuttering too much for your taxed little brain, a slightly better feed is at C-SPAN.

Posted by: Alice H at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

January 04, 2009

Some opportunities

ATR is holding a debate for the RNC Chair candidates and saw it fit to offer the public a forum to offer up questions.  Pat Ruffini at The Next Right argues that the questions shouldn't be based on policy, but can they effectively run the RNC and win election.  To an extent, I agree. 

Naturally, there is a good bit of Paulnut spamming (which I highly recommend we swat down), which grates at Ruffini, but I'd caution him a bit on throwing the Paulnut perjorative around, particularly toward pro-2nd set.  I see our fellow moron USCitizen (Gun nut? Hell yeah! Paulnut? Hell naw!) asked if the candidates would affirm the Second Amendment.  I'd argue that pro-2nd activists have been far more effective at utilizing the internet and achieving their policy goals than the GOP, RNC and conservatives at large.

A fair question, and if I had to guess, that question is meant for Michael Steele, who has gone on record as an anti.  But I'd also apply Ruffini's point here, instead of asking for an affirmation of the Second (which they'll all offer, even if we know it's bullshit from some of them), question Steele's anti-2nd policies and thinking, and try and show it'll adversely effect his ability to run the RNC.  Here are some of the ways I'd question Steele on the 2nd,

Would Steele's ignorance about firearms, the Second and pro-2nd activists adversely effect the RNC's ability to back up pro-2nd candidates and advocate for their cause?  I'd also ask him if he has learned anything from the highly successful organization efforts of pro-2nd activists, both in traditional media, person to person activism and a stout online presence.  They have been for the most part no-compromise, and hugely successful in pushing back the anti-2nd agenda, and then ask him what has learned from them.

Pro-2nd activists been credited with being a major factor in defeating the Democrats in 1994, Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004, and are known for being reliable voters, as long as you're on their side.  Democrats have gone from being aggressively anti-2nd to keeping their heads down and their mouths shut when the issue of gun control comes up.  Not to mention the defeat of the attempt to reauthorize the AWB and Heller.  Is Steele going to be able to learn lessons from the NRA's effectiveness?

Does Steele understand why the NRA and other pro-2nd activists are so effective?  Can he understand the importance of working with pro-2nd activists?  Is he going to be able to try and understand pro-2nd advocates?  What about gun control is conservative?  How does it mesh with the GOP's smaller government brand? 

There are ways to question Steele and other candidates on policy that are relevant to what an RNC Chairman does, make them squirm.  Robert Bluey takes a similar approach here, hammering Steele for repeatedly backing RINOs (who would later become Democrat turncoats) over conservatives, only to see the RINOs lose, and then turn against the GOP. 

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 08:26 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

January 01, 2009

The 10 Worst Republicans of 2008

Ron Paul only came in at #10.

I like #9, and the only reason this Republican is on there is because the author is an Obama birth certificate Truther.  Lame.

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 04:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
26kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.294 seconds.
60 queries taking 0.2759 seconds, 141 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.