The Crazies Are Back

While I enjoyed taking last week off, other people had no such intention. In fact, we could call last week, “Return of the Fringe: The Idiots Want Attention.” Seriously, yikes. Here’s who tried to win your love last week:

● Grizzly Sarah Palin: The easiest way to kill a vampire is to drive a stake through their heart. To kill an attention whore, deny them attention. The moment the media learned that they could kill Palin by simply not talking about her, she imploded as a national figure. She has been desperate to find a national platform ever since. While our little site here was on vacation, Palin was letting it be known that she would happily join The View... you betcha.

When her overtures were denied, she decided to try to incite the fringe again. This time she screamed “IMPEACHMENT!!” Not that she hasn’t screamed it before, but this time she assured that the time had real come, if only those wimpy Republicans weren’t doing the Democrats’ work.

Not surprisingly, Drudge’s mouth-breather audience is right there with her. A poll at his site had 72% of his readers saying Obama should be impeached NOW, 15% said he should be impeached but not yet, and 13% used their brains and said no.

Of course, it never occurs to these fools that they have a zero percent chance of success, that by the time they got it done Obama would only have a few weeks left in office, that the last Republican Congress to try this got their butts handed to them, and that the politics on this would be entirely against them. Indeed, the public really dislikes Obama now. They see him as a joke because of his never-ending failures. Impeaching him turns the focus on the Republicans and their motives. It would be a Godsend for Obama and the Democrats as it lets them deflect all of their failures. It would probably cost us the Senate and it would likely give the Democrats a fresh start for 2016.

But hey, it would help make Palin relevant again.

● Rape Ape Todd Akin: Yeah, Todd is back. He dun wrote a book. And in this book, he admits what everyone pretty much knew – he was lying when he said he had been taken out of context when he spoke about “legitimate rape.” In fact, he doubles down on his idiocy by embracing the idea of there being legitimate rape (real rape, unlike fake rape, which is when the unclean woman lies about being raped), and he lays out his ideology about how you can’t get pregnant from rape – an ideology which relies on the discredited opinion of a discredited doctor.

Todd is also attacking all those RINOs who didn’t defend him when he opened his mouth and spewed his woman-hating crap. FYI, he uses the same list talk radio uses.

And lest you think that Todd is just a lone lunatic screaming in the woods, Mike Huckabee wrote the forward to his book.

Whether this ends up meaning anything is unclear. I doubt any voters will embrace him, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be brought into campaigns, which is exactly what I would be doing if I were a Democrat.

● From The Crypt: Pelosi reappeared last week too. First, she went to Texas to try to claim that all those kids slowly working their way under Drudge’s bed from El Salvador are Americans!. Uh, no. She’s seriously out of step on this. Even Obama has repeating that these kids need to be deported. Nice work, Nancy, keep people scared of your party!

● Clinton v. Obama: Finally, a new book by Edward Klein on the relationship between Hillary Clinton and the Obama’s has knocked Hillary’s book out of the top spot on the New York Times bestseller list. This book is called “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,” and it outlines a very nasty relationship between the Clintons and the Obamas. It also lays out how the Obama’s have turned off people like Oprah, who has since been wooed by Hillary. The most interesting idea in the book is that Obama has promised too support Elisabeth Warren if she runs against Hillary.

While Klein is known for being a little sensationalistic and anti-Clinton, the things he says do seem to fit with things we can observe. And his conclusion that the Clintons are much better politicians and much better liked than Obama isn’t really a shock. Ultimately though, it will be very interesting if this turns into a feud between Obama and the Clintons through the primary.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Cynicism Reigns Supreme At CPAC

Tomorrow, I’m going to start the Agenda 2016 stuff. By way of contrast, I thought I would discuss CPAC today. CPAC depresses me. CPAC seems to be broken into three groups: (1) those who understand the problem, but not the solution, (2) drooling idiots/cynical liars, and (3) a couple people who might actually get it.

The first group consists of people who understand the problem conservatives are facing, but have no actual solutions to offer:

● Jed Bush. I HATE saying anything nice about Bush, so you better read this closely. Bush very accurately puts his finger on the GOP problem:

“All too often we’re associated with being anti-everything. Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker and the list goes on and on and on. Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidates even though they share our core beliefs because those voters feel unloved, unwanted and unwelcome in our party.”

Bingo. But Bush offers no actual solutions because he’s a worthless turd. What Bush is doing is a con. He’s stolen the rhetoric of brighter people and he’s using that rhetoric as a cover for doing what the Bushes always do when they get into office.

● Scott Walker. Like Bush, Walker gets that the party has an image problem. It’s seen as a party of old white guys. But also like Bush, he offers no solution. His “solution” was this: “I’m not an old white guy” (actual quote). In other words, just like the insiders who label themselves outsiders, Walker hopes to convince you that HE is the answer you are looking for by telling you that he understands the problem and by assuring you that he is not the problem. . . or he suffers from gender/race dysphoria. Poor gal.

These guys get the problem, but they don’t have a solution. The next group, however, are snake oil salesmen. That group doesn’t want you to understand the problem because it doesn’t suit them to have you waking up to reality. So they play the victim card to keep you from using your brain and to deflect blame by trying to convince you that the reason conservatives keep losing is that we keep being betrayed by “establishment Republicans,” and if only we could wipe out the RINO pestilence, then victory will follow:

● Honey BooBoo Palin. Palin first repeated what thinking conservatives have been trying to get through the thick heads of people like Palin:

“As conservatives, we must leave no American behind. And we must share our message of freedom and liberty to all citizens, even those who may disagree on some issues. . . they’re not our enemies, they’re our sisters and brothers. They’re our neighbors and friends. It’s time we all stop preaching to the choir.”

True. But apparently, she doesn’t mean it, because she then did the exact opposite by claiming we need to overcome the “establishment Republicans” so we can purify the party and finally present a conservative message to the public. Yeah, nothing says “big tent” like purging moderates. More importantly, notice the idea that we are losing because “establishment Republicans” control the party and are undermining us. You’ll see this again and again.

● Newt Gingrich. Like Palin, private-jet-and-decades-of-insider-status Newt thinks that attacking the GOP is the way to go. First, he says the GOP needs to stop being “stupid” and “start framing its principles in a positive way that appeals to voters,” but he doesn’t define those principles. . . because he can’t. Why can’t he? Because if he tells you the principles he’s talking about, you will see that we have been running on those principles for decades and that would interfere with his victim strategy when he says, “The dominant wing of this party has learned nothing. It is as stupid as it was in 1976.” Yep, we are controlled by RINOs.

● The Superduper Magic Rush Limbaugh. Quoting Pat Caddell, Rush blames the “consultant, lobbyist, and establishment complex” for stopping the GOP from having a conservative message. This is a pretty clever bit of conspiracy theory logic because it allows him to escape the problem of not being able to name any politician who actually does what he claims the secret RINOs are doing. Basically, he’s attacking a phantom “THEY”. As an aside, he also claims we should stop trying to win over independents because we can win with conservatives alone. To back this up, he uses an inspired dose of delusion and bad math.

● Brent Bozell. Bozell told us, “Our days of playing second fiddle to moderates are over!” Drang nach osten! According to Bozell, we need to get rid of all those Republicans who “said all the right things to conservatives,” but then supported Obamacare (fyi, the total number of Republicans who supported Obamacare is 0.0). He also thinks that if we could just defund Planned Parenthood (or HHS) then something something victory!

There are more.

Ok, so the problem, according to these brainiacs and luminaries is that the GOP is dominated by RINOs who won’t let us poor, helpless conservatives ever present conservative positions to the public. Is this true? Consider this:

The platform is a Religious Right wet dream and Phyllis Schlafly is trying to get the GOP to refuse to fund any candidate who won’t support it dogmatically. The number of serious presidential candidates in 2012 or 2008 who didn’t sign all the abortion and anti-gay pledges the Religious Right wanted: none. Number who didn’t sign the Norquist anti-tax pledge: none. Number who didn’t try to outdo each other talking about defunding Planned Parenthood or the EPA: none. Number of Republicans in the House or Senate leadership who haven’t signed those same pledges: none. Number who advocated for amnesty for illegals (prior to this year): none. Number who voted for Obamacare: none. Number who supported any part of Obama’s agenda between 2008 and 2012: none.

See the problem? There are no RINOs, not in the leadership, not in the nominees, not in the rank and file. Sen. Rob Portman this week became the first GOP senator to endorse gay marriage. The Club for Growth has targeted all of eight House Republicans who they think aren’t sufficiently conservative enough on economic issues. . . 8 out of 232. Are McCain and Graham a pain in the butt? Sure, but they don’t control the party, nor are they liberal on most issues. And frankly, it conservatives can’t overcome two men, then conservatism is worthless.

The truth is this. These people are lying to you. Their agenda IS the agenda the GOP has been pushing since the late 1990s, and each year that agenda loses more people. But they don’t want to change because these issues are obsessions with them. So to keep you on board, they invented this phantom army of moderates who haven’t existed since Reagan changed the GOP and they lie to you about the moderates betraying their ideas. Just like liberals falsely claim liberalism has never failed because it’s never been tried, Rush and Palin and Newt falsely claim their agenda has never failed because it’s never been tried. That is garbage. Their agenda is identical to the agenda of every single presidential candidate, all of the leadership, almost all of the elected rank and file, all of talk radio, and all of the pundits (except a couple at the NYT), and it dominates the platform. Where is this RINO menace?

These people are pushing a paranoid conspiracy theory to keep you from thinking about the truth: “It’s not our fault, we’ve been undermined by secret enemies.”

If you want to know who at CPAC gets it, the guy is Artur Davis. Davis is a Democrat turned Republican and he laments the fact that many voters “think like us” but won’t support us. This is what I’ve found in talking to moderates as well. Here is the problem as he sees it:

“They just need to hear it from our politicians that our values will work for their lives and their circumstances. . . . for all that money [spent by Romney], we couldn’t find the language to tell enough Americans why our conservative politics and policies would work in their lives? We became the first Republicans since the ’30s who didn’t talk about middle-class tax relief. The first Republicans in my lifetime who didn’t have the self-confidence to talk about how our policies reduce the poverty and lift the poor out of dependency. The first Republicans since World War II who didn’t seem to get that in this competitive world, education is part of promoting the common defense. So is it any surprise that we are the first conservatives in the modern era to see the number of conservatives fall?”

This is exactly right. As you will see starting tomorrow, the problem with the “conservative” agenda is that it’s crap. It speaks to no one except pure ideologues. It offers nothing to average people who aren’t on a religious crusade or don’t own international corporations. It provides no jobs, no security, no opportunity. It does nothing to help people get ahead or keep what they’ve earned. It offers no help to people who’ve stumbled.

Rush, Palin, Newt, etc. are wrong. They are blind to reality and they have invented boogeymen to keep them from seeing the truth about what they offer. Tune in tomorrow and we’ll start talking about a better way.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Replace Biden? Are You Kidding?

Seeing as how it’s Thursday afternoon and I’m feeling lazy, let’s do a short topic today. . . about the man who rides the short bus to the White House. Should Obama replace Joe O’Biden? Can Obama replace slow Joe? Who would replace Biden?

● Should Obama Replace Joe: Absolutely. Biden is a massive liability on all fronts. The man is a joke. He’s gaffe prone and his gaffes are offensive. Even when he’s speaking intentionally, as he was when he twice suggested that the Republicans want to institute slavery this week, no one takes him seriously because they assume he went off script. He adds no gravitas to the ticket. He bring no worthwhile policy experience. He’s no match for Paul Ryan. And frankly, he does very poorly against the latest Republican line: “could you imagine this man as President?” Indeed, Rudy Giuliani said yesterday that he even doubts Biden has the intellectual capacity to be President. . . and it’s not like the rest of us weren’t thinking it. Said Giuliani:

“I’ve never seen a vice president that has made as many mistakes, said as many stupid things. I mean, there’s a real fear if, God forbid, he ever had to be entrusted with the presidency, whether he really has the mental capacity to handle it.”

Personally, if I were Obama, I’d drop Joe in a heartbeat! Obama has until September 6th to push the reject button.

● Who Would Replace Joe: This is where things get tricky. Sarah Palin yesterday suggested that Obama replace Biden with Hillary; John McCain echoed this last night. That would certainly make their base happy and it might even win back a couple moderates, but I doubt it would change the dynamic ultimately. And that’s the real problem for Obama. Who could he name that would change the dynamic? Hillary... maybe, but no one else.

And if the dynamic can’t be changed, then no one in their right political mind will want to be the wingman on a losing ticket! That’s a ticket to political oblivious and no one with a future will want to risk that. That leaves only people who are past their primes, ready to retire or truly questionable choices like Jon Huntsman, who may want to prove he’s not an evil Republican.

My money is on nothing changing.

But if I had to guess, I would say that Hillary would help the most. Andrew Cuomo would be the boldest choice. And nobody else would really matter.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obfuscating CPAC

With CPAC finishing Saturday, many people are trying to pick winners and loser. Actually, I should put that differently, many people are trying to spin winners and losers, Politico included. And boy are they wrong!

● Santorum the Winner? Politico declared Santorum the big “winner,” even though he came in second to Romney, because last year he had only 2% support and now he has 31%. This is ludicrous.

Let’s start with the obvious fact Politico skipped: Romney won. That makes him THE winner. Indeed, the real story here is that in the “anybody but Romney” world of conservatism, Romney should not have won this straw poll at all. He should have come in dead last. Instead, he won by 7% (38% to 31%) topping last year’s score of 22%. That makes him THE BIG winner.

If you don’t think that’s true, then ask yourself why Ricky went out Sunday and whined that the vote was rigged? He wouldn’t do that if this loss hadn’t hurt him. (As an aside, note that once again a “conservative” is playing into liberal smears by attacking other conservatives as vote riggers.)

And why did this hurt Ricky? Because with his huge margins of victory in Minnesota and Missouri, anything less than a 50% total among a gathering of 10,000 of the country’s most highly conservative activists must be seen as a declaration of a lack of faith in Santorum. That makes this a HUGE loss, and it means the real winners are Romney (as stated above) and Newt. Why Newt? Because this result tells us that Santorum can’t seal the deal and become the “anybody but Romney” guy. To the contrary, this vote shows a tremendous amount of unease among conservatives with Santorum.

That unease, by the way, was encapsulated by Christine O’Donnell who accidentally said into an open mic, “Santorum’s fiscal record is more liberal than Romney’s social record.” That plus some conservatives fear the whole Torquemada thing won’t sell.

● Obama the Loser? Politico also declared Obama a CPAC loser. They claim his contraception policy controversy couldn’t have happened at a worse time because it “galvanized conservatives at the conference.” Give me a break.

Let’s play Devil’s Advocate. Isn’t the timing a win for Obama? With one well-timed policy, he’s got all the CPAC lemmings worked up into a tizzy over abortion. They will now go home, full of rage, and tell all their friends that abortion needs to be THE issue for this race. That means supporting Reverend Ricky, the weakest candidate in the field. It means spouting a LOT of rhetoric that will freak out the straights. And it means taking their eyes off the real issue -- economics. Indeed, on Tuesday, Obama will unveil a new budget with a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit which lavishes money on his crony friends and raises taxes on everyone. . . but these CPACers will be busy foaming at the mouth over abortion.

Call me crazy, but it sounds like a brilliant bit of timing by Obama.

The real problem for Obama on the contraception issue is that the Catholic Church has declared war against him, and they have a lot of power in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where CPAC has less influence than a jelly donut.

Politico also ignored something else that was significant vis-à-vis Obama and CPAC, even after mentioning it in their article. To stop Ron Paul from winning their straw poll, CPAC made it much easier for everyone to vote. And guess what? They still got 300 fewer votes than last year. And that’s despite this being an election year with a highly contested primary. That’s a sign of trouble for conservatives. Win for Obama.

● Palin the Winner? Politico declared Palin a winner because she drew a large crowd. From this, they concluded she would be “a major figure on the right for decades to come.” Ok, but keep this in mind. Despite claiming to be neutral, she unofficially endorsed Newt right about the time polls showed that he would win South Carolina. He did win, which was no surprise. Then he got his butt handed to him in Florida by Romney and then by Santorum in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Which is more telling of Palin’s power, that a group of activists crowded around her celebrity-style at a conference or that conservative voters in four states ignored her endorsement?

● Ron Paul Loser? Politico says Paul lost because he did much worse in this straw poll than the last one, which “shows the limits of his support among conservatives.” Wrong. This completely misjudges Ron Paul’s goals.

There are many forms of winning. Paul knows he will never win the White House. That’s not his goal. His goal is to get the Republican Party to adopt his views. And with guys like Jim DeMint saying the Republican Party better listen to his views, Paul is riding a heck of a winning streak. Judging him on a straw poll he did not contest (at a convention he did not attend) is as stupid as judging Palin’s political reach on her ability to draw a crowd at CPAC. This is insta-nalysis and it’s crap. This is analysis designed to create a trend rather than expose a trend.

● Anybody But Romney Tantruming. Finally, Politico along with several conservatives are attacking Romney over his statement that: “I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”

See, it turns out that no conservative would say this, just as no British secret agent would order red wine with fish. Said a shocked Rush: “I have never heard anybody say, ‘I’m severely conservative.’” Added the always-perfect Newt, “Some things are too funny to comment on.” Several others called for an “explanation.”

The meme behind this is that conservatives shouldn’t trust Romney because he “doesn’t speak the language” of conservatism. This is ridiculous. Splitting hairs over a poor choice of words is not reasoned analysis, it’s a prejudice desperately searching for validation.

But I guess they’re right. How can we trust a man who would say “I’m severely conservative” in an off-the-cuff comment. We should instead put our faith in genuine conservatives like Newt who says conservative things like calling deportation of illegals “heartless” and “inhuman,” who pimped global warming as “settled science,” who attacks “bad capitalism,” and who supported RomneyCare and TARP because everybody was doing it. Or we should support genuine conservatives like Ricky Santorum who supported the creation of new entitlements, gun control, higher taxes, higher spending, a healthcare mandate (i.e. RomneyCare), and illegal immigration, and who also disapproves of “bad capitalism.” Why? Because Rick’s a real conservative, and he would never misspeak, like he did about women in combat this weekend.

My point is this. Conservatives need to stop playing these games. Disagreeing over the importance of particular aspects of the candidate’s records is fine, trying to invent things to dislike is not. Stop parsing words and crowd size. Stop trying to turn mirages of molehills into mountains. Let’s use our brains, not our knee-jerks, and demand that conservative talkers start using theirs as well. . . assuming they have them.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Palin Exposé Exposes Liberal Sexism, Racism

Liberals love to think everyone else is a bigot. We’re all sexist, racist, ageist, you-name-it-ists. Only they are enlightened because they don’t partake in such evil. . . except they do. In fact, they are the biggest purveyors of it. The latest proof comes from the book about Sarah Palin.

For those who don’t know, a weirdo with a Palin obsession just wrote a book about Sarah Palin. I won’t bother giving his name or the title of the “book,” because he’s not really relevant. . . even to his mom. This “book” is a collection of obviously false rumors strung together to excite liberals. What kind of rumors you ask?

How about this. Weirdo claims Palin snorted cocaine off an oil drum. I like the oil drum, that’s a nice touch guaranteed to get liberals all excited. But the creativity of the rumor aside, this is pure hypocrisy. See, liberals don’t actually mind people doing coke. Nope. Clinton did pot plus. Obama did coke. Marion Barry did (does?) crack. And yet, they’re all happy figures within the liberal pantheon. Since this isn't any worse than conduct liberals already routinely dismiss, how can they attack Palin for doing coke? Easy, they hate Palin. She could do charity and they would attack her for it. By the way, I heard Obama snorted coke out of George Soros’s ass! True story.

Anyways, you’re here to see the liberal sexism and racism in action, not just to be entertained by the creative drug use of our first homosexual president and his Nazi-sympathizer friends. So let’s move on to the “big” allegations: did you know that Palin slept with a basketball player? Oh the horror! And her husband’s business partner! And now Mike Tyson claims she slept with him too. . . between prison stints. Oh my. How could anyone vote for her?

Ok, let’s take this in parts. First, why does it matter if she slept around? The left is all about sleeping around. They’ve been encouraging that since they all gave each other herpes at Haight and Ashbury. Bill Clinton fooled around and liberals said it was Bill being Bill. John Edwards fooled around, lied around and bribed around. Al Gore raped around. The Kennedys fooled around, raped around and killed their dates around, etc. etc. And yet these are liberal icons. In fact, a huge number of liberal males have fooled around and that apparently only adds to their charm among liberals. So how can this allegation excite liberals?

Well, liberals hold conservatives to a higher standard. They think nothing of attacking conservatives for things they do themselves -- that’s how liberals maintain the delusion that they’re better than everyone else. But even that doesn’t fully explain it. The truth is that liberals hold conservative women to an even higher standard than they hold conservatives generally. In their little world, conservative women better live like nuns or they deserve to be attacked for their behavior. Hence, the idea that a liberal man can be attacked for sleeping around is a non sequitur to them, but they happily consider it a high crime for conservative women. Why do they apply this higher standard? Because they’re sexist. What else do you call it when you selectively apply a moral standard only to women?

Moreover, the two ways liberals attack conservative women are the exact ways feminists always said it was improper to treat women. For as long as I can remember, feminists claimed that it is sexist to suggest that any woman is not "independent." They also particularly bristled at anything that suggested women are sex objects. Yet, when liberals attack conservative women, the most common lines of attack are (1) to assert that these women are mindless, stupid drones who slept their way to the top and are dependent on their husbands for their success, and (2) to attack their looks, the way they dress, and their sex lives. That's exactly what this book does, and that's sexism.

But there’s something even worse going on here. These allegations aren’t just about fooling around, they’re about fooling around with black men. Indeed, that seems to be the real “strength” of these allegations in liberal circles. Now think about that. This allegation is meant to demean her. Or, said differently, the allegation that she slept with black men is meant to demean her. If I said to you, “it is demeaning for a white woman to sleep with a black man,” you would call me racist. . . and yet, that’s what this allegation is: “Sarah Palin demeaned herself by sleeping with black men.” Nice, huh? That’s pure racism right there.

And before anybody suggests that not all liberals believe this because even the New York Times, the mouthpiece of dippy, hateful liberalism “defended” Palin against this book. Let me point something out. They didn’t say these allegations were racist or sexist and have no place in politics -- something they certainly would have screamed if a conservative had alleged this against Hillary. Nope. Instead, they criticized the book because it was sloppy, its allegations were not substantiated and this was a missed opportunity. There has been no condemnation of the nature of the attacks on Palin, there has only been an attack on weirdo’s failure to do a better job proving them.

By now, the evidence is overwhelming that liberals are sexist and racist to their cores. This is just the latest example. And if liberals were even 1% self-aware then they would see this. Of course, if they were even 1% self-aware, then they wouldn’t be liberals.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contenders: Recent Winners and Losers

With our Presidential hopefuls dropping like flies, it’s time to recalibrate the field. Who will get whose supporters? Who can step from whose shadow? Enquiring minds want to know. . . which means we should look at winners and losers of recent events. As usual, expect no prisoners to be taken in this contempt-riddled analysis.

1. Newt Implodes:

Loser: Newt Gingrich (candidate). Newt’s ill-advised and unfounded attack on Paul Ryan’s budget plan confirmed everything negative we feared about Newt. And his tar-baby-ish struggles to defend himself alienated the entire conservative base. This has basically sunk his candidacy.

Loser: Newt Gingrich (moronacle). Newt’s role as oracle may be endangered by this debacle. For nearly a decade now, Newt has used his flirtation with running for the Presidency to sell books and get people to come seek his opinion. His implosion has exposed the oracle as perhaps more of a moronacle, and this will likely lessen his influence on the party.

Winner: Sarah Palin (celebrity/moronacle). For every yin there is a yang, and Palin is Gingrich’s yang. She’s been trying very hard to become the female Newt, i.e. a moronacle who uses a flirtation with running to garner fame and fortune. In fact, she and Newt competed for this post throughout the 2010 election primaries by make rival endorsements. Newt’s implosion opens the door for Palin to take his place at Delphi.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Newt’s description of Ryan’s plan as “right-wing social engineering” will be enough to allow Obama to gather leftist and squishy-moderate support to block the plan.

Loser: Medicare. Lack of reform = collapse.

2. The Huckster Drops Out:

Winner: Conservatives. Apparently, God doesn’t want the Huckster as President, which is good because conservatives shouldn't want that either. His version of conservatism, i.e. big government liberalism and leftist social theory masquerading as social conservatism, is a disastrous dead end for conservatism. Now we're spared that. And make no mistake, the Huckster stood an excellent chance of winning because of the evangelical-heavy early primaries.

Winner: Sarah Palin (candidate). Palin and the Huckster had been the prime competitors for evangelical voters. With the Huckster gone, these people will look for a new candidate. Should Palin choose to run, she should be able to pick up most of his support.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty Pawlenty apparently has been working hard to win the backing of the religious right. He’s rather bland and forgettable, but out of those who are left in the race, Pawlenty seems to be the best fit for these voters. So if Palin doesn’t jump into the race (and I think she won’t), then he could win them.

3. Mitch Bails:

Loser: The GOP Establishment. The GOP establishment settled on Daniels some time ago and they’ve been pimping him hard in the MSM as the best candidate. With him gone, they need another candidate. Sadly for them, their favored choice, Jeb Bush, refuses to run in 2012. So now they need to find someone else they can trust to not make any waves.

Winner: Jeb Bush. If Bush wants the nomination, the establishment is ready to give it to him now that Daniels is gone. He just has to say the word. But let me offer a word of caution, I (and many people I know) will NEVER. . . EVER vote for another Bush.

Winner: Chris Christie. Christie is a potential dark horse alternative to Jeb Bush. He sounds conservative and he sounds like he’s a disruptive reformer, but as Commentarama readers know, he’s a safe RINO, which is exactly what the establishment wants. If the misguided "draft Christie" campaigns succeed, expect Bush to stay out and establishment support to shift to Christie. Oh happy day.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty. Yeah, Tim’s bland enough for the establishment. If they can’t get Christie or Bush, expect the establishment to adopt Pawlenty and make him the eventual nominee.

4. Trump Fires Himself:

Winner: My Sanity. nuf said.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Trump was causing Obama fits. Trump constantly raised issues the other Republican candidates were “too polite” to raise and he has a sufficiently large soapbox that people listened. With Trump gone, Obama can now focus on a weak Republican field.

Winner: Small Candidates. Guys like Herman Cain and other “second tier” candidates need to get noticed. The way to get noticed is to say what’s on your mind. . . the more outrageous the better. That was nearly impossible with Trump absorbing all of the media’s attention like some egotistical black hole. Trump’s departure opens the door for guys like Cain and Bolton to get some media attention.

Winner/Loser: Big Candidates. Despite the circus aftertaste found in the "Nutty Trump Bar," our bigger candidates look like duds by comparison. With Trump gone, they no longer need to face the daily comparison. This is technically a win, though it’s also an indictment as it highlights just how pathetic our current field is.

So what we have here is this. Movement conservatives lost with Newt. The religious right lost with the Huckster. The establishment lost with Daniels. And the lunatic fringe lost with Trump. That's got some perfect symmetry if you ask me.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Leftists Sink To Vile New Lows. . . Again

Every time I turn around, the left sinks to new lows, especially when it comes to their Palin Derangement Syndrome, which is much viler than their Bush Derangement Syndrome, which is much viler than their Reagan Derangement Syndrome. Their latest spewage involves attacks on Sarah Palin’s down syndrome child Trig. And low doesn’t really describe it. . . subhuman is more accurate. So pardon my anger.

For many weeks now, the left has been promoting a hateful little conspiracy in which they claim that Trig is not actually Palin’s son. Everything from leftist professors to anonymous web-posting idiots are claiming that Trig is actually the son of Bristol Palin, not Sarah Palin. Why would the Palins try to hide this? Because, claim these sickos, it would have embarrassed them to have an unmarried, pregnant daughter during the 2008 campaign. . . which you may recall is actually what happened.

Of course, this is insane and the left knows this. There are copious amounts of photos from the time showing that Palin was pregnant and that Bristol was not. There are also medical records. But that doesn’t stop these sickos because they get off on bullying Palin’s kids, see e.g. Kathy Griffith, as they do with all of their opponents kids. And this is how leftists give themselves delusions of adequacy, by attacking children.

And if you doubt me, pay attention to this story.

Two days ago, jack stuef of Wonkette, a leftist political “satire” site, put up a posting called “Children’s Treasury of Trig Crap” to mark Palin’s youngest son’s birthday. Beyond the incoherent headline, jack included in this post a series of vile attacks on Palin as well as attacks on Trig. For example, jack included “jokes” about Trig like the following:

“What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded.”

Funny stuff jack. Your hero Hitler would have been proud. jack then added “jokes” about child rape, incest and fetal alcohol syndrome. For example, jack said:

Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.)

So jack thinks it’s funny to ridicule down syndrome Trig as a “gentleman scholar” and to imply that Todd Palin has sex with his own daughter. Nice jack, your jackal mother must be very proud. By the way, you better hope there is no such thing as karma jack.

Of course, Wonkette’s readers thought this was funny, at least until conservatives noticed. Suddenly the spotlight got awfully bright as the rest of America didn’t find jack’s bullying of Trig all that funny. Indeed, as this story spread, sponsors started running away from Wonkette. Papa John’s Pizza, Huggies, Nordstrom, and Holland America Line have announced they would no longer advertise on the site. Vanguard Group is trying to have it both ways by trying to continue advertising at the site, but just not on the hateful posts. . . you might want to give them a call.

Eventually, Wonkette had to respond, and this is where it gets even more sick. Did Wonkette distance itself from jack? No. Instead, Wonkette editor ken layne tried to justify this disgusting attack with the following:

I have four kids myself and I wouldn't want them mocked on the Internet by a bunch of cretins on the Internet. And that's just one reason why I wouldn't parade my children around in the media. What kind of mother does that? . . . Anything involving Palin, I want to make it extra clear that *Palin* is the problem with America. Not her kids. Not her little kid, anyway. The older ones seem to be on their own path and you can't really blame Sarah for it, although she certainly encourages the sleaziest possible behavior from her grown children, which is hardly a very "family values" thing to do.

Right, so Palin entrapped jack by “parading” Trig around the media?! Give me a break. Everybody knows Palin did no such thing -- though Obama has done this repeatedly with his own kids. And even if she did, ken and jack should have known better than to attack Trig. Notice, by the way, that ken can’t bring himself to admit that his own hateful writer is actually in the wrong for any part of this. Moreover, notice that ken also can't stop himself from taking shots at Bristol Palin and Sarah Palin in the process. This is evidence of mental illness and ken and jack should stop stroking each other and seek help.

And that wasn’t all ken wrote. Indeed, when another website called ken out on this (“Jack Stuef’s column 'honoring' Trig Palin’s birthday is about the most irredeemably vile, unfunny thing I’ve ever seen. . . If there is any expression of disgust that I have failed to convey, consider this my signature on it.”) and wanted to get his response before posting a scathing attack on this, ken responded by first saying the real problem was “Palin fans” who aren’t smart enough to get the satire. Funny, I’m no fan of Palin but I don’t get the satire either. He then tries to defend the column by saying:

“we should always — it is a *moral duty* — show how reprehensible it is to be using *any baby* and especially a special needs baby as a political prop. That is gross, and sane people know it’s gross.”

That’s right ken, what you and jack have done in using Trig is “reprehensible.” It is “gross” and “sane people” don’t do this. So why did you do it? And why do you keep doubling down on subhuman with every fresh sentence? ken continues:

“And with two kids of my own and another on the way, I am obviously a great fan of children, especially mine. And I respect the rights of children to not be mocked on the internet just because their mom is a cow-demon. It’s not the kid’s fault. Who gets to pick their parents? I sure didn’t.”

So it’s not ok to mock kids on the internet? But it is ok to call their mother a “cow-demon” -- a term that should probably get ken fired for misogyny. And since ken still refuses to apologize for jack’s vile attacks on Palin’s son Trig or ken’s own attacks on the other Palin kids, what are we to make of this statement? Is it just hypocrisy or something worse? And let me point out that ken just made his own kids props in the defense of his own hate. ken, you are a sick f#$%.

ken then finishes by claiming that the outrage is “feigned,” before launching into yet another slander of Sarah Palin and her “poor white people” fans. That’s a nice touch ken, finishing on a racist note.

Finally, Wonkette deleted jack’s name and deleted the comments, but left the article.

What we’ve learned here is that the left has become a diseased carcass. They are riddled with hate, racism, and misogyny, and they get off on savaging disabled infants. This is what has become of an entire ideology, an ideology of greed, envy and hate. They have become so blinded by their hate that they no longer have any boundaries. They will attack other people's children, exploit their own, and pass the vilest, most delusional lies all to make themselves feel adequate and smug.

They are subhuman.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Mischaracterizing The Tea Party

For those who don’t know, the Politico is an interesting site that gets a lot of good political stories. It also leans left, often very much so. In fact, a couple of their writers are little more than Democratic spokesmen (at least one has Soros ties). Now they’ve written a very deceptive article about the Tea Party. Basically, they’ve mischaracterized it as a gathering of Palin-lovers or Ron Pauliacs, even though the poll they are relying says the opposite.

Here’s what the article says. Let’s start with the headline: “Tea partiers in two camps: Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul.”

Based on this, you would assume two things about the Tea Party. First, that it is split. Secondly, that its supporters by and large follow one of these two figures, both of whom happen to be the most controversial figures in the Republican Party. This, to the left, is like saying: “Tea Partiers split between Hitler and Satan.”

The article then says the following, which confirms the assumptions we just made:

“The results, however, suggest a distinct fault line that runs through the tea party activist base. . .”

Note that a fault line, like a rift, is a split and implies a great deal of anger when used in describing human relationships. Do you see the Tea Party splitting in two? The quote continues:

“. . . characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who ‘best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement’ -- former Alaska Gov. Sarah Plain and Rep. Ron Paul.”

There it is, the Tea Party is split into two diametrically opposed wings, one that follows the teachings of Sarah Palin and one that follows svengali Ron Paul. Note the particular use of the words "led by." What does that tell you about the relationship between Paul/Palin and the Tea Party? Clearly, the Tea Party is nothing more than a vehicle for Paul/Palin supporters.

To back up this claim of leadership, the article points to a poll. Read this closely:

“Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values.”

There you go, proof that they are indeed the leaders of the movement because Palin gets 43% support and Paul gets 42% support, right?

Actually no, not even close. This misleading quote is the writer trying to create facts that don’t exist. He gives you the truth, but he hides it under the spin. Palin’s support is 15%, not 43%. Paul’s support is 14%, not 42%. That’s 29% support for both combined, not the 85% that is implied by the quote. How can 29% support fairly be turned into the quotes above which suggest that the Tea Party is hopelessly split 43/42 between these two? The answer is that it can’t, but it’s what the left wants to hear.

The idea of painting the Tea Party as beholden to either Palin or Paul or both is ridiculous. In fact, when asked if they would support Palin if she ran for President, a full 53% of Tea Party people said they wouldn’t even consider voting for her. Paul does even worse, with 59% saying they wouldn’t even consider voting for him. That means that 15% support Palin, 53% don’t, and 32% would consider it. That’s hardly the makings of a Tea Party leader. Ditto for Paul.

So why describe the Tea Party as split between these two? Because it makes the party sound like two fringe groups battling for the soul of the right. Moreover, it makes them sound like they are worshipping the cult of personality, rather than presenting rational ideas. But nothing is further from the truth.

Consider that split on values. Seventy three percent of Tea Partiers are “angry” that the government intrudes too much into personal lives. That doesn’t sound like much of a split. In fact, anything above 60% is phenomenally uniform in a poll.

So where does this crap about a split come from? It comes from this. When asked whether the government should promote a particular set of values, 51% said no and 46% said the government should promote traditional family values. Oh my! Clearly, them’s fighting words. . . except that the writer doesn’t factor in one big detail. The biggest issues people identified (those about which they were “most angry”) were: the national debt, bailouts, earmarks and frivolous lawsuits. The least important were the social issues.

What that tells us is that the Tea Party is a happy gathering of people with a common purpose -- to oppose the government's continued interference in economic and regulatory matters. To the extent they disagree on social issues, they have apparently decided to agree to disagree. And that’s no big deal. It’s the same thing when Catholics and Protestants and Jews come together on common issues. They have agreed to put aside their differences to work toward their common goals. To spin such a gathering as a deeply divided group ready to split apart as they each fight for their theology is dishonest, stupid and wishful thinking.

The reason the left can’t understand this is because the Tea Party people have done something the little tribes on the left never could: they’ve put aside their individual issues in favor of working on the things about which they agree. The left can’t see this because they can’t imagine putting aside their issues. When you are an environmentalist, all other issues come second. Ditto gays, abortion, unionization, blacks, women, etc. To the left, the other guys are there to help you, you aren’t part of a team. That's why they don't understand the Tea Party. The Tea Party people are different. They are working for a common goal.

That must be terrifying to the left.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Is Barack Obama A Misogynist?

As I watched Barack Obama give his healthcare address this morning, something struck me. No doubt, you have already guessed where I’m heading, but I’ll go there anyways -- always give the audience what they want, right?

At the end of Obama’s press conference on healthcare today, Nancy Pelosi asked to make a final comment. She then gushed about how Obama’s leadership has done more to muck up. . . er reform healthcare than anyone else ever, anywhere, any time. Barack looked annoyed. When she finished, he wished everyone good day but never acknowledged Pelosi’s comments. Not even a “thanks.”

This struck me as rude. Sure, Pelosi asking to make an additional comment was a bit of a breach of protocol, but still, simple politeness says that you acknowledge her comments. He didn’t.

Then I remembered the rather sexists things he said about Palin during the election (remember “small town mayor”?) and how he never once disowned the misogynistic comments that his followers threw at her. Then I remembered the dismissive and condescending manner in which he treated “Hillary” -- note he never uses her last name as he does with males. Even his joke about her at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner seemed kind of nasty.

So is it just that he views these particular women as competitors? Or is there more.

He abandoned Nancy Killefer, but he fought for Tim Geithner, even though both had the exact same problem. Indeed, Geithner’s was arguably worse on many levels. He did dump Daschle, but not until feminists started to complain that after Killefer/Geithner, he better not protect a second male (he also didn’t abandon Daschle until Daschle’s lobbying became a big issue).

He seems to have appointed many more men than women. And come to think of it, I can’t think of a woman he’s been particularly nice about since Oprah.

Does this mean he’s a misogynist? No, not yet -- I’m not a leftist so I don’t accuse first and look for proof later. But this is an issue that is worth watching.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...