Meet Elizabeth Warren—Native American

Meet Elizabeth Warren—Native American

California is not the only liberal state with candidates who routinely lie and exaggerate those parts of their lives which will appeal to their large politically-correct constituency. If you can’t be a black woman, or a wise Latina, there’s always your popular victim ethnic background—be a Native American. I would use the old-fashioned “Indian,” but the Democrats have already proven they don’t much like Bobby Jindal.

So---here’s Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Senatorial candidate. She’s running against Republican Scott Brown. Brown won the seat that had been called the “Kennedy seat” for decades, handing the Democrats a very embarrassing defeat. The Democrats are not about to let that white, pickup-driving man hold onto that seat. So they picked a woman who has in the past claimed to be a Native American. In fact, it was one of the items which originally got her teaching positions at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard.

The truth is that Warren is about as much a Native American as her counterpart, the disgraced Ward Churchill, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The number of Americans whose families have been here for a long time includes a great many who have some Native American blood. Most are proud of their heritage, but rarely declare themselves Native Americans when their genes are 1/32 or less tribal. If anything Warren says about her bloodline is true, she is at most 1/32 Native American.

Warren first tried to establish her political bona fides with the common folk of Massachusetts by calling herself “the Okie from Harvard.” She was indeed born in Oklahoma City, but has spent most of her life living elsewhere, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. But before she tried to pass off that ½ truth, she first did her 1/32 truth in order to get preference for her teaching positions. When early reports came out showing that she had at least distorted her ethnic heritage in order to get preference for teaching positions, she waffled.

Instead of addressing directly the issue of her thin Native American bloodline, she indignantly denied that she had ever used that heritage to gain an advantage over other applicants for the positions. Even if that was partially true, there’s no question that she enhanced the original story as she moved from job to job, by calling herself a “minority professor.” She attended professional meetings and forums specifically as a minority professor. But knowing the best defense is a good offense, she got officials at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, University of Texas, and the University of Houston to state the she had not used her Native American heritage in order to get teaching positions there.

Well, what else would you expect? The criteria for hiring one potential professor over another are very arcane and secretive, and in this day of affirmative action backlash and anti-discrimination public hiring laws, no institution is going to admit that ethnicity was a determining factor. Still, those same universities proudly went along with Warren’s description of herself as a minority professor. Needless to say, Warren is blaming Scott Brown partisans for raising a “phony issue.” The mainstream media are assisting Warren, of natch. The Washington Post asks "why is this non-issue being treated as if it were important news?"

For a law professor and now a professional politician, Warren is not very good at deflecting criticism or arguing a point coherently (which actually qualifies her to be Barack Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee). At a recent press conference, Warren babbled about her use of the minority professor gambit. “I listed myself for nearly a decade as a minority law teacher in order to connect with others like me.” She then stumbled over why she de-listed herself as a minority professor when she no longer needed the leg up.

And then she managed to prove herself another racist liberal by stating that she never really claimed to be a Native American, "it was all about stories passed on in her family for decades." Most importantly, she identifies with Native Americans because her grandfather “had the high cheekbones possessed by all Native Americans." Is that anything like “a typical white person?” The schools she taught at never listed her as being specifically Native American, but went along with the minority professor gag. She alone embellished her tribal roots.

If Harvard wasn’t affected by her claims which resulted in her hiring and granting of tenure, they did a very good imitation of it. When administration officials were questioned about the issue, the reply was that even though they had never hired a professor from a second-tier law school for a professor’s position, her expertise on debtor/creditor law pushed her into top contention. And they were proud to have such a notable minority professor. The Harvard Crimson was a bit less scrupulous about her claims. The campus paper published several articles in which Warren touted her connections to the Delaware and Cherokee tribes.

In the long run, this may be a tempest in a teapot. But given her exaggerations about being the Okie Harvard professor and a Native American, one has to wonder what else she has been distorting about her life and credentials. If this turns out to be a pattern, she may find that her attempts to blend in with the non-Harvard elite and to match Scott Brown’s genuine middle class values will end up simply looking ridiculous. Better to admit she is a Harvard elitist than to claim to be something she is provably not.

California is not the only liberal state with candidates who routinely lie and exaggerate those parts of their lives which will appeal to their large politically-correct constituency. If you can’t be a black woman, or a wise Latina, there’s always your popular victim ethnic background—be a Native American. I would use the old-fashioned “Indian,” but the Democrats have already proven they don’t much like Bobby Jindal.

So---here’s Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Senatorial candidate. She’s running against Republican Scott Brown. Brown won the seat that had been called the “Kennedy seat” for decades, handing the Democrats a very embarrassing defeat. The Democrats are not about to let that white, pickup-driving man hold onto that seat. So they picked a woman who has in the past claimed to be a Native American. In fact, it was one of the items which originally got her teaching positions at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard.

The truth is that Warren is about as much a Native American as her counterpart, the disgraced Ward Churchill, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The number of Americans whose families have been here for a long time includes a great many who have some Native American blood. Most are proud of their heritage, but rarely declare themselves Native Americans when their genes are 1/32 or less tribal. If anything Warren says about her bloodline is true, she is at most 1/32 Native American.

Warren first tried to establish her political bona fides with the common folk of Massachusetts by calling herself “the Okie from Harvard.” She was indeed born in Oklahoma City, but has spent most of her life living elsewhere, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. But before she tried to pass off that ½ truth, she first did her 1/32 truth in order to get preference for her teaching positions. When early reports came out showing that she had at least distorted her ethnic heritage in order to get preference for teaching positions, she waffled.

Instead of addressing directly the issue of her thin Native American bloodline, she indignantly denied that she had ever used that heritage to gain an advantage over other applicants for the positions. Even if that was partially true, there’s no question that she enhanced the original story as she moved from job to job, by calling herself a “minority professor.” She attended professional meetings and forums specifically as a minority professor. But knowing the best defense is a good offense, she got officials at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, University of Texas, and the University of Houston to state the she had not used her Native American heritage in order to get teaching positions there.

Well, what else would you expect? The criteria for hiring one potential professor over another are very arcane and secretive, and in this day of affirmative action backlash and anti-discrimination public hiring laws, no institution is going to admit that ethnicity was a determining factor. Still, those same universities proudly went along with Warren’s description of herself as a minority professor. Needless to say, Warren is blaming Scott Brown partisans for raising a “phony issue.” The mainstream media are assisting Warren, of natch. The Washington Post asks "why is this non-issue being treated as if it were important news?"

For a law professor and now a professional politician, Warren is not very good at deflecting criticism or arguing a point coherently (which actually qualifies her to be Barack Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee). At a recent press conference, Warren babbled about her use of the minority professor gambit. “I listed myself for nearly a decade as a minority law teacher in order to connect with others like me.” She then stumbled over why she de-listed herself as a minority professor when she no longer needed the leg up.

And then she managed to prove herself another racist liberal by stating that she never really claimed to be a Native American, "it was all about stories passed on in her family for decades." Most importantly, she identifies with Native Americans because her grandfather “had the high cheekbones possessed by all Native Americans." Is that anything like “a typical white person?” The schools she taught at never listed her as being specifically Native American, but went along with the minority professor gag. She alone embellished her tribal roots.

If Harvard wasn’t affected by her claims which resulted in her hiring and granting of tenure, they did a very good imitation of it. When administration officials were questioned about the issue, the reply was that even though they had never hired a professor from a second-tier law school for a professor’s position, her expertise on debtor/creditor law pushed her into top contention. And they were proud to have such a notable minority professor. The Harvard Crimson was a bit less scrupulous about her claims. The campus paper published several articles in which Warren touted her connections to the Delaware and Cherokee tribes.

In the long run, this may be a tempest in a teapot. But given her exaggerations about being the Okie Harvard professor and a Native American, one has to wonder what else she has been distorting about her life and credentials. If this turns out to be a pattern, she may find that her attempts to blend in with the non-Harvard elite and to match Scott Brown’s genuine middle class values will end up simply looking ridiculous. Better to admit she is a Harvard elitist than to claim to be something she is provably not.

Meet Elizabeth Warren—Native American

View Detail

Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

It’s fascinating watching how this election is shaping up. Romney’s on fire. Obama is flailing. The left is demoralized. And the only people helping Obama are right-wing talk radio and one Barbarian RINO. These are interesting times.

Watching the Republicans attack has been refreshing. For decades, the Republicans played the game of trying to be the nice guy. . . the Charlie Brown of politics. It never worked. This time is different. Indeed, Romney has been savaging Obama every single day on every issue that comes up. He’s pounded away on the economy, on the lack of jobs, on Obama politicizing the killing of bin Laden, etc.

He called Obama’s mishandling of the protection of Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng “a dark day for freedom” and “a day of shame.” He blasted Obama’s attempt to find good news in April’s disastrous employment report (which shows both 8.1% unemployment and a record number of workers giving up trying to find jobs) and said “President Obama is out of ideas, he's out of excuses.”

He’s been verbally clever too, like when he flipped Obama’s claim Romney would not have killed bin Laden by both blasting the claim as politicizing military action and by implying that Obama doesn’t seem to realize he’s bragging about something truly anyone would have done: “Of course [I would have given that order]. Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” This makes Obama sound like quite a fool.

Moreover, he’s attacked the little things through surrogates, like how his people accused Obama of eating dog and how they’ve blasted his laughable new campaign slogan “Forward” because of its socialist roots. These attacks have dominated the new cycle sometimes for days and can’t be linked back to Romney by the general public.

At the same time, a bevy of Republicans in battleground states (and more) are blasting Obama on behalf of Romney: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Bob McConnell and more are all constantly attacking Obama. Rubio called Obama “divisive” and “cynical” and said he pits Americans against each other. “All the things that made him different and special four years ago are gone. And now all he does is run, dividing Americans against each other, obviously because he can't run on his record.” Then he added about Obama’s foreign policy, “there’s this propensity that this administration seems to have of an unwillingness to forcefully assert America's values.”

Kelly Ayotte blasted Obama’s Iran policy and accused him of remaining silent as the people of Iran sought free elections. She even suggested he could have solved the nuclear problem if he’d acted then. And she said she is more qualified to be President than Obama was in 2008.

Obama’s Julia ad brought dismissive attacks across the board from the right (a new tactic for conservatives). National Review called it “creepy” and “the perfect example of [Obama’s] cradle-to-grave welfare mentality.” Others called it sexist and pointed out the irony or portraying Julia as “a strong, independent woman” and then showing her life depending on Obama’s paternalism. Human Events called it “offensively patronizing.” Paul Ryan called the Julia website “creepy and demeaning.” He added this: “It suggests that this woman can’t go anywhere in life without Barack Obama’s government-centered society. It’s kind of demeaning to her. She must have him and his big government to depend on to go anywhere in life. It doesn’t say much about his faith in Julia.”

And many of these attacks have gotten under Obama’s skin. A good example was Romney parking his campaign bus across from where Obama planned to start his campaign. The news cycle spent more time mentioning this sleight than it did what Obama said. Fox has even noticed that Obama is suffering from early-on-set Romney Derangement Syndrome, which is causing him to take inappropriate personal shots at Romney and sink to defending things Presidents normally ignore.

Obama, by the way, can’t find a message. Nor has he found a way to counterattack. He tried the “out-of-touch rich, white guy” bit and that didn’t work. “Dangerous extremist” didn’t work either. The war on women imploded, so did the Trayvon Martin race war. Now he’s reduced (I kid you not) to “don’t take a chance on Romney.” That’s what Sarkozy tried. . . and Gordon Brown. . . and George Bush Sr.

Meanwhile, places like Politico are adrift. Obama has given them nothing, and all they can do is try to explain away the bad news. Obama kicked off his campaign to empty stadiums, so they ran Axelrod’s claim that it was the intensity which matters. Sure. They had Axelrod explain why Obama wasn’t really spiking the ball (again and again) by trying to claim credit for the killing of bin Laden. They whined that the Keystone Pipeline guys are overselling how many jobs Obama killed, and the attacks on the Julia website aren’t entirely fair. Robert DeNiro likes Obama again, did you know that? Oh, and Hispanics might be critical in the election. . . maybe. Hey, Romney had a gay staffer? That should bother you religious nuts, right? Ann Romney spends a lot on clothes! Come on people! //sigh

In fact, right now the best friends Obama has are uberRINOs like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fears people with principles and spent the weekend attacking the GOP as “too narrow and too rigid,” and people like talk radio. Indeed, talk radio and websites like HotAir are spending their time cherry-picking words out of the quotes of unnamed Romney staffers so they can prove his move to the center. . . he’s the real Alinsky Trojan Horse people!!! Fortunately, their idiotic bleating will only make Romney more acceptable to independents. . . assuming anyone is listening.

In any event, I shall leave you with this. I said the other day that this race really comes down to Ohio and Florida, and that still seems to be true. But the way things are going, I’m starting to wonder if that might not be too pessimistic? And before you say, “but the polls,” consider this. . . when the polls are normed to reflect the population, they use turn-out figures from the 2008 election, which was disproportionately Democratic. Think that will happen again?

It’s fascinating watching how this election is shaping up. Romney’s on fire. Obama is flailing. The left is demoralized. And the only people helping Obama are right-wing talk radio and one Barbarian RINO. These are interesting times.

Watching the Republicans attack has been refreshing. For decades, the Republicans played the game of trying to be the nice guy. . . the Charlie Brown of politics. It never worked. This time is different. Indeed, Romney has been savaging Obama every single day on every issue that comes up. He’s pounded away on the economy, on the lack of jobs, on Obama politicizing the killing of bin Laden, etc.

He called Obama’s mishandling of the protection of Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng “a dark day for freedom” and “a day of shame.” He blasted Obama’s attempt to find good news in April’s disastrous employment report (which shows both 8.1% unemployment and a record number of workers giving up trying to find jobs) and said “President Obama is out of ideas, he's out of excuses.”

He’s been verbally clever too, like when he flipped Obama’s claim Romney would not have killed bin Laden by both blasting the claim as politicizing military action and by implying that Obama doesn’t seem to realize he’s bragging about something truly anyone would have done: “Of course [I would have given that order]. Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” This makes Obama sound like quite a fool.

Moreover, he’s attacked the little things through surrogates, like how his people accused Obama of eating dog and how they’ve blasted his laughable new campaign slogan “Forward” because of its socialist roots. These attacks have dominated the new cycle sometimes for days and can’t be linked back to Romney by the general public.

At the same time, a bevy of Republicans in battleground states (and more) are blasting Obama on behalf of Romney: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Bob McConnell and more are all constantly attacking Obama. Rubio called Obama “divisive” and “cynical” and said he pits Americans against each other. “All the things that made him different and special four years ago are gone. And now all he does is run, dividing Americans against each other, obviously because he can't run on his record.” Then he added about Obama’s foreign policy, “there’s this propensity that this administration seems to have of an unwillingness to forcefully assert America's values.”

Kelly Ayotte blasted Obama’s Iran policy and accused him of remaining silent as the people of Iran sought free elections. She even suggested he could have solved the nuclear problem if he’d acted then. And she said she is more qualified to be President than Obama was in 2008.

Obama’s Julia ad brought dismissive attacks across the board from the right (a new tactic for conservatives). National Review called it “creepy” and “the perfect example of [Obama’s] cradle-to-grave welfare mentality.” Others called it sexist and pointed out the irony or portraying Julia as “a strong, independent woman” and then showing her life depending on Obama’s paternalism. Human Events called it “offensively patronizing.” Paul Ryan called the Julia website “creepy and demeaning.” He added this: “It suggests that this woman can’t go anywhere in life without Barack Obama’s government-centered society. It’s kind of demeaning to her. She must have him and his big government to depend on to go anywhere in life. It doesn’t say much about his faith in Julia.”

And many of these attacks have gotten under Obama’s skin. A good example was Romney parking his campaign bus across from where Obama planned to start his campaign. The news cycle spent more time mentioning this sleight than it did what Obama said. Fox has even noticed that Obama is suffering from early-on-set Romney Derangement Syndrome, which is causing him to take inappropriate personal shots at Romney and sink to defending things Presidents normally ignore.

Obama, by the way, can’t find a message. Nor has he found a way to counterattack. He tried the “out-of-touch rich, white guy” bit and that didn’t work. “Dangerous extremist” didn’t work either. The war on women imploded, so did the Trayvon Martin race war. Now he’s reduced (I kid you not) to “don’t take a chance on Romney.” That’s what Sarkozy tried. . . and Gordon Brown. . . and George Bush Sr.

Meanwhile, places like Politico are adrift. Obama has given them nothing, and all they can do is try to explain away the bad news. Obama kicked off his campaign to empty stadiums, so they ran Axelrod’s claim that it was the intensity which matters. Sure. They had Axelrod explain why Obama wasn’t really spiking the ball (again and again) by trying to claim credit for the killing of bin Laden. They whined that the Keystone Pipeline guys are overselling how many jobs Obama killed, and the attacks on the Julia website aren’t entirely fair. Robert DeNiro likes Obama again, did you know that? Oh, and Hispanics might be critical in the election. . . maybe. Hey, Romney had a gay staffer? That should bother you religious nuts, right? Ann Romney spends a lot on clothes! Come on people! //sigh

In fact, right now the best friends Obama has are uberRINOs like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fears people with principles and spent the weekend attacking the GOP as “too narrow and too rigid,” and people like talk radio. Indeed, talk radio and websites like HotAir are spending their time cherry-picking words out of the quotes of unnamed Romney staffers so they can prove his move to the center. . . he’s the real Alinsky Trojan Horse people!!! Fortunately, their idiotic bleating will only make Romney more acceptable to independents. . . assuming anyone is listening.

In any event, I shall leave you with this. I said the other day that this race really comes down to Ohio and Florida, and that still seems to be true. But the way things are going, I’m starting to wonder if that might not be too pessimistic? And before you say, “but the polls,” consider this. . . when the polls are normed to reflect the population, they use turn-out figures from the 2008 election, which was disproportionately Democratic. Think that will happen again?

Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

View Detail

White House Press Dinner Portends Doom

White House Press Dinner Portends Doom

The end of the Obama Reign of Error is nigh. Yep. The signs are everywhere. And the latest evidence comes from the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday. Oh yeah. Observe these mighty omens:

Omen One: I’ve pointed out several times now that Obama has no idea how to win back the public. Saturday proved that more than ever because Obama demonstrated that he and his staff have a tin ear for the things the public is upset about:

● Obama made jokes about the Secret Service scandal, as did Biden. Stupid. When a scandal is fresh, people want to know it’s being taken seriously. Making jokes about the scandal only shows that Obama is not taking it seriously. This also serve to highlight the question of whether or not Obama’s faked-outrage at the scandal was genuine or just for show. . . reinforcing the idea he doesn’t really care about anything.

Moreover, his joke on this topic rather nastily pulled in Hillary Clinton: “Four years ago, I was locked in a brutal primary battle with Hillary Clinton. Four years later, she won’t stop drunk-texting me from Cartagena.” Calling your Secretary of State a drunk, making her sound desperate and lonely, and suggesting she was connected to a hooker scandal is not a way to demonstrate class. To the contrary, it comes across as petty and vindictive, especially when this particular Secretary of State has already announced she won’t be attending the Democratic Convention. Start the “bad blood” talk again.

● For a President who spends his time on golf courses and lets his wife vacation at five star resorts with her entourage on our tax dollars while unemployment sits at 8-9% and real income is falling, the last thing said President should be doing is being seen hobnobbing with spoiled Hollywood celebrities. And then inviting Lindsay Lohan just made everything even worse. Talk about a poster child for spoiled, rich, undeserving, played-out, drug addicted tramps! Lohan has ruined every chance the public has given her and she is now a cultural icon for pathetic failure. . . not the kind of person a sitting President should associate with.

● Obama made a joke about eating a dog and combined it with a poke at moms: “what’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A pit bull is delicious.” Whoops. Having launched a slimy attack against Romney on the dog front, and having been called on it by Romney, who point out Obama ate dog growing up, the last thing Obama should be doing is joking about eating dogs. That’s like an accused child molester making a joke about under-aged sex.

Further, this joke smells of yet another attack on moms. With Hilary Rosen making a broadside against stay-at-home mothers, the timing couldn’t have been worse for suggesting that mothers are vicious. And by the way, this was meant as a Sarah Palin joke, telling us that Obama is stuck in the past and that he still hasn’t found a way to excite his base about attacking Romney.

All of this tells us that Obama does not understand what has upset the public or how to win them back. He thinks the criticisms of him and the blowback he’s received are a joke. And one thing the public will not stand is its concerns being treated as a joke. His campaign is doomed.

Omen Two: More telling, perhaps, was the fact that Jimmy Kimmel attacked Obama in ways you never see liberals attack Democratic politicians. . . unless they think the Democrat is finished. Check out these jokes from Kimmel (none of which were denounced by the MSM):

● "Remember when the country rallied around you in hopes of a better tomorrow? That was hilarious."

Translation: The public’s hope in Obama was a sick joke, you have failed Mr. Obama. This is truly vicious and I can only see this as evidence that even the left sees Obama as no longer worthy of propping up. This is a demoralizing joke for Obama supporters.

● “You know, there’s a term for guys like President Obama. Probably not two terms.”

Translation: This is Kimmel saying point blank that it’s so hopeless for Obama that they should laugh about it. This joke will soften the support of all the frontrunners and bandwagoners, who only stick with winners.

● "Democrats would like you to stick to your guns. And if you don't have any guns, you can ask Eric Holder to get some for you."

Translation: Kimmel is striking directly at an Obama scandal. This is like a joke about Nixon breaking into the Watergate, it’s just not done to sitting Democratic Presidents. This is the kind of thing which will get millions of little liberals and moderates accepting the fact Obama is corrupt and tainted.

The fact Kimmel is so open about these issues is stunning. I simply cannot see this as anything other than a declaration that Obama is finished. I also expect this may open the late-night floodgates. And when those “opinion-makers” start mocking him, the center-left sheepulation will give up on him.

Omen Three: Finally, there have been an incredible number of articles written and tweets sent out about the propriety of this entire WHCA dinner. Journalists from all over the spectrum are attacking the WHCA dinner and the ethics of the journalists who attended:

● Gawker's Hamilton Nolan: "It is the single most revolting annual gathering of pseudojournalistic ****suckery in all the land. The White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is a shameful display of whoredom that makes the 'average American' vomit in disgust."

● Politico’s Ben Smith: "Is the fawning, sycophantic worship service to wealth, power and celebrity over? Or is there more crap today?"

Personally, I think these critics are right. This dinner shows that our modern press corps has no ethics whatsoever. They happily respond like Pavlov’s dogs to the opportunity to rub elbows with the people they are supposed to be viewing impartially and investigating. It makes the MSM appear incestuous. But that’s not the point.

The point here is that leftist journalists are openly attacking this shindig with a Democratic President sitting in the White House. Usually these kinds of diatribes are saved for the few celebrities and journalists who cozy up to Republicans. The fact that so many are making broadside attacks against journalists who cozy up to Obama (and in an election year) tells me that they think Obama is finished and they are determined to score points with their readers for purity. In other words, they see no reason to be team players anymore because the team has lost.

The end of the Obama Reign of Error is nigh. Yep. The signs are everywhere. And the latest evidence comes from the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday. Oh yeah. Observe these mighty omens:

Omen One: I’ve pointed out several times now that Obama has no idea how to win back the public. Saturday proved that more than ever because Obama demonstrated that he and his staff have a tin ear for the things the public is upset about:

● Obama made jokes about the Secret Service scandal, as did Biden. Stupid. When a scandal is fresh, people want to know it’s being taken seriously. Making jokes about the scandal only shows that Obama is not taking it seriously. This also serve to highlight the question of whether or not Obama’s faked-outrage at the scandal was genuine or just for show. . . reinforcing the idea he doesn’t really care about anything.

Moreover, his joke on this topic rather nastily pulled in Hillary Clinton: “Four years ago, I was locked in a brutal primary battle with Hillary Clinton. Four years later, she won’t stop drunk-texting me from Cartagena.” Calling your Secretary of State a drunk, making her sound desperate and lonely, and suggesting she was connected to a hooker scandal is not a way to demonstrate class. To the contrary, it comes across as petty and vindictive, especially when this particular Secretary of State has already announced she won’t be attending the Democratic Convention. Start the “bad blood” talk again.

● For a President who spends his time on golf courses and lets his wife vacation at five star resorts with her entourage on our tax dollars while unemployment sits at 8-9% and real income is falling, the last thing said President should be doing is being seen hobnobbing with spoiled Hollywood celebrities. And then inviting Lindsay Lohan just made everything even worse. Talk about a poster child for spoiled, rich, undeserving, played-out, drug addicted tramps! Lohan has ruined every chance the public has given her and she is now a cultural icon for pathetic failure. . . not the kind of person a sitting President should associate with.

● Obama made a joke about eating a dog and combined it with a poke at moms: “what’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A pit bull is delicious.” Whoops. Having launched a slimy attack against Romney on the dog front, and having been called on it by Romney, who point out Obama ate dog growing up, the last thing Obama should be doing is joking about eating dogs. That’s like an accused child molester making a joke about under-aged sex.

Further, this joke smells of yet another attack on moms. With Hilary Rosen making a broadside against stay-at-home mothers, the timing couldn’t have been worse for suggesting that mothers are vicious. And by the way, this was meant as a Sarah Palin joke, telling us that Obama is stuck in the past and that he still hasn’t found a way to excite his base about attacking Romney.

All of this tells us that Obama does not understand what has upset the public or how to win them back. He thinks the criticisms of him and the blowback he’s received are a joke. And one thing the public will not stand is its concerns being treated as a joke. His campaign is doomed.

Omen Two: More telling, perhaps, was the fact that Jimmy Kimmel attacked Obama in ways you never see liberals attack Democratic politicians. . . unless they think the Democrat is finished. Check out these jokes from Kimmel (none of which were denounced by the MSM):

● "Remember when the country rallied around you in hopes of a better tomorrow? That was hilarious."

Translation: The public’s hope in Obama was a sick joke, you have failed Mr. Obama. This is truly vicious and I can only see this as evidence that even the left sees Obama as no longer worthy of propping up. This is a demoralizing joke for Obama supporters.

● “You know, there’s a term for guys like President Obama. Probably not two terms.”

Translation: This is Kimmel saying point blank that it’s so hopeless for Obama that they should laugh about it. This joke will soften the support of all the frontrunners and bandwagoners, who only stick with winners.

● "Democrats would like you to stick to your guns. And if you don't have any guns, you can ask Eric Holder to get some for you."

Translation: Kimmel is striking directly at an Obama scandal. This is like a joke about Nixon breaking into the Watergate, it’s just not done to sitting Democratic Presidents. This is the kind of thing which will get millions of little liberals and moderates accepting the fact Obama is corrupt and tainted.

The fact Kimmel is so open about these issues is stunning. I simply cannot see this as anything other than a declaration that Obama is finished. I also expect this may open the late-night floodgates. And when those “opinion-makers” start mocking him, the center-left sheepulation will give up on him.

Omen Three: Finally, there have been an incredible number of articles written and tweets sent out about the propriety of this entire WHCA dinner. Journalists from all over the spectrum are attacking the WHCA dinner and the ethics of the journalists who attended:

● Gawker's Hamilton Nolan: "It is the single most revolting annual gathering of pseudojournalistic ****suckery in all the land. The White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is a shameful display of whoredom that makes the 'average American' vomit in disgust."

● Politico’s Ben Smith: "Is the fawning, sycophantic worship service to wealth, power and celebrity over? Or is there more crap today?"

Personally, I think these critics are right. This dinner shows that our modern press corps has no ethics whatsoever. They happily respond like Pavlov’s dogs to the opportunity to rub elbows with the people they are supposed to be viewing impartially and investigating. It makes the MSM appear incestuous. But that’s not the point.

The point here is that leftist journalists are openly attacking this shindig with a Democratic President sitting in the White House. Usually these kinds of diatribes are saved for the few celebrities and journalists who cozy up to Republicans. The fact that so many are making broadside attacks against journalists who cozy up to Obama (and in an election year) tells me that they think Obama is finished and they are determined to score points with their readers for purity. In other words, they see no reason to be team players anymore because the team has lost.

White House Press Dinner Portends Doom

View Detail

Obama's Campaign Strategy Talking Points

Obama's Campaign Strategy Talking Points

It’s interesting when you notice Democratic talking point being passed around. The other day, The Economist put out an article which reeks of Obama re-election talking points. Almost instantly, I saw similar points being made at other websites. We even had a troll visit us with a cut-and-paste job of these. Without further adieu, here is how Obama apparently plans to sell himself for re-election.

● Defending Obama’s Glorious Record: The first big problem for Obama is his record. From causing the Great Recession to unbelievable debt and deficits, to the lost credit rating, to his failure to fix too-big-too-fail, his failure to fix the mortgage crisis, his failure to create any jobs, soaring gas prices, soaring energy costs, increased dependence on foreign old, overseas surrenders, his “failure”/attempt to enact gun control, “failure” to create a single-payer healthplan/his attempt to seize the medical system, his “failure”/attempt to enact cap and trade, his “failure”/attempt to end the Bush tax cuts and No Child Left Behind, his failure to close Guantanamo, or a dozen other things, no one left, right or center likes this man. Here’s how Team Obama plans to spin this.

First, blame Bush. The Economist put it this way, “considering the circumstances, he has not done badly.” In other words, Bush set him up for failure. They then credit him with preventing a Great Depression, rescuing Detroit’s carmakers and “stabilizing the banks.” If by “stabilizing” they mean “making the situation much worse” and by “rescuing” they mean “delaying the inevitable,” then sure, he did do those things. Claiming the Great Recession as a good thing is perverse, and they do it by claiming that “more Americans would be out of work today” if not for Obama. This is nonsense, but can’t be proven either way.

The Economist then finishes by crediting Obama with “battering al Qaeda” and killing Osama bin Laden. On point two: who cares, he wasn’t in charge anymore and it clearly didn’t stop a damn thing. On point one: where exactly is the proof for this? We are the ones with our tails between our legs in Afghanistan. Piracy, a new al Qaeda venture, is out of control. There are record numbers of terrorists attacks each year. How exactly did Obama neuter al Qaeda?

Our troll ran with this too. He points to bin Laden’s death (yawn), and he claims the Navy freed someone from the Somali pirates. He doesn’t seem to realize that under Obama there’s be a 625% increase in the number of ships taken, a 3,600% increase in the amount paid per ship, and a total increase in profits of 22,527%. At least somebody’s better off under Obama.

He then says: no one can name anything Obama did which “would remotely qualify as Marxist.” Well, I’m relieved. Then he lists some policies without mentioning they didn’t work -- the stimulus, the auto industry bailout, putting “attractive tax write-offs” on hybrids. . . which aren’t selling. He lists spending on various things as if that was somehow a good thing: high-speed porno for schools and increased infrastructure spending “after years of neglect.” He also lists some things that didn’t happen like healthcare coverage being given to four million more children, the closing of offshore tax safe havens, and “making more loans available to small business.” That’s all simply false. And this one I love, he “instituted enforcement for equal pay for women.” Uh. . . no. Obama made a point of not promising that the other day. Instead, he’s promising to pay for family medical leave and condoms.

That’s the laughable game plan for selling Obama’s record. Notice they don’t even try to defend the bad parts, they just gloss over those. But even more importantly, all of the above misses the key problem: the average American voter is much worse off than they were before Barry took over.

● The Campaign: Because Obama’s record is so horrible, Obama will run a vile, racist campaign. To prepare everyone for this, The Economist notes that this will be an ugly election. . . because of Romney. Apparently, the vile Romney must plead to the Republican base’s “hatred of Mr. Obama” to win the election. This will cause Mr. Obama to “run a more partisan campaign this time around.” Yeah, they really described it that way.

Then they said something hilarious. See, for reasons unknown to The Economist, Obama just happens to have been “portraying the Republicans as ruthless asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich,” when good fortune smiled upon him: “How lucky for Mr. Obama that the super-rich Mr. Romney made his fortune in the cut-throat business of private equity.” Wow, what a coincidence? Obama just happens to be blasting the vile rich for no apparent reason, and then the vile-rich Romney gets the nomination. That’s so perfect, you would almost think Obama was saying those things intentionally. . . unless you work for The Economist, then you just see this as a lucky coincidence.

They continue by noting that Obama has been claiming the Republicans “embrace a form of ‘thinly veiled social Darwinism’ that would deprive needy children of healthy food, slash cancer research, close down national parks and eliminate air-traffic control in swathes of the country.” Why The Economist says this isn’t clear, unless they just want to spread the word for Obama. Indeed, that seems to be the case based on the very next sentence: “It sounds scary, and it contains more than grain of truth,” even though the Republicans “have proposed none of these specific cuts.” In others words, it’s scary because it’s true, even though it’s not technically true. Wow.

At least they do point out that Romney responded to this by arguing that these are straw men arguments. Of course, then The Economist says: “Coming from the Republicans, this is rich. They have attacked a straw man since the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. They labeled his conventional Keynesian response to a deep recession ‘socialist.’ They called Obamacare unAmerican, even though this market-based scheme to extend health cover to 30m uninsured Americans is almost identical to the one Mr. Romney adopted.”

Can you feel the tears? Those evil Republicans made The Economist cry and we should therefore ignore the truth of what the Republicans say. Notice also the massive double-speak here. Obamacare is not a market-based scheme by any definition. It is not identical to Romneycare. It was supposed to cover 43 million Americans, not 30 million. Keynesianism plus nationalizing banks and car companies, taking over state budgets, forcing unionization on companies, etc. etc. is socialism.

And again, notice how perfectly these whiny lies fit with the troll, who assures us there is no proof Obama is a Marxist. The troll also said, this is “why Republicans want to put the full weight of the National Debt on American Workers, while the super-rich get even richer.” Tell me that doesn’t sound like The Economist’s little tirade about the Republicans as “asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich.” Sounds like somebody cheated off somebody else’s paper!

To its “credit,” The Economist does note that Romney has correctly attacked Obama for not coming up with a serious plan to tame entitlements, BUT “there is plenty of blame to go around.” Then they point out how Obama tried to do this last summer but was frustrated by Congress, and then they credit him with $1.2 trillion in phantom cuts. (By the way, this same magazine attacked those cuts as dangerous at the time.) They also note that the “Buffett rule” is just a gimmick. The Buffett rule, in case you didn’t know, is “supposed to make millionaires like Mr. Romney pay at least the same tax rate as their secretaries.” And for the record, Obama paid less than his secretary this year. . . as did his crony buddy Warren Buffett.

Finally, they finish with the old “can’t we all just get along” which liberals always use when they are going to lose.

That is Obama’s campaign in a nutshell. These are the talking points you will hear liberals start repeating now ad nauseam until you are ready to strangle every last one of them. And if you do indeed feel that need, don’t let me stop you.

It’s interesting when you notice Democratic talking point being passed around. The other day, The Economist put out an article which reeks of Obama re-election talking points. Almost instantly, I saw similar points being made at other websites. We even had a troll visit us with a cut-and-paste job of these. Without further adieu, here is how Obama apparently plans to sell himself for re-election.

● Defending Obama’s Glorious Record: The first big problem for Obama is his record. From causing the Great Recession to unbelievable debt and deficits, to the lost credit rating, to his failure to fix too-big-too-fail, his failure to fix the mortgage crisis, his failure to create any jobs, soaring gas prices, soaring energy costs, increased dependence on foreign old, overseas surrenders, his “failure”/attempt to enact gun control, “failure” to create a single-payer healthplan/his attempt to seize the medical system, his “failure”/attempt to enact cap and trade, his “failure”/attempt to end the Bush tax cuts and No Child Left Behind, his failure to close Guantanamo, or a dozen other things, no one left, right or center likes this man. Here’s how Team Obama plans to spin this.

First, blame Bush. The Economist put it this way, “considering the circumstances, he has not done badly.” In other words, Bush set him up for failure. They then credit him with preventing a Great Depression, rescuing Detroit’s carmakers and “stabilizing the banks.” If by “stabilizing” they mean “making the situation much worse” and by “rescuing” they mean “delaying the inevitable,” then sure, he did do those things. Claiming the Great Recession as a good thing is perverse, and they do it by claiming that “more Americans would be out of work today” if not for Obama. This is nonsense, but can’t be proven either way.

The Economist then finishes by crediting Obama with “battering al Qaeda” and killing Osama bin Laden. On point two: who cares, he wasn’t in charge anymore and it clearly didn’t stop a damn thing. On point one: where exactly is the proof for this? We are the ones with our tails between our legs in Afghanistan. Piracy, a new al Qaeda venture, is out of control. There are record numbers of terrorists attacks each year. How exactly did Obama neuter al Qaeda?

Our troll ran with this too. He points to bin Laden’s death (yawn), and he claims the Navy freed someone from the Somali pirates. He doesn’t seem to realize that under Obama there’s be a 625% increase in the number of ships taken, a 3,600% increase in the amount paid per ship, and a total increase in profits of 22,527%. At least somebody’s better off under Obama.

He then says: no one can name anything Obama did which “would remotely qualify as Marxist.” Well, I’m relieved. Then he lists some policies without mentioning they didn’t work -- the stimulus, the auto industry bailout, putting “attractive tax write-offs” on hybrids. . . which aren’t selling. He lists spending on various things as if that was somehow a good thing: high-speed porno for schools and increased infrastructure spending “after years of neglect.” He also lists some things that didn’t happen like healthcare coverage being given to four million more children, the closing of offshore tax safe havens, and “making more loans available to small business.” That’s all simply false. And this one I love, he “instituted enforcement for equal pay for women.” Uh. . . no. Obama made a point of not promising that the other day. Instead, he’s promising to pay for family medical leave and condoms.

That’s the laughable game plan for selling Obama’s record. Notice they don’t even try to defend the bad parts, they just gloss over those. But even more importantly, all of the above misses the key problem: the average American voter is much worse off than they were before Barry took over.

● The Campaign: Because Obama’s record is so horrible, Obama will run a vile, racist campaign. To prepare everyone for this, The Economist notes that this will be an ugly election. . . because of Romney. Apparently, the vile Romney must plead to the Republican base’s “hatred of Mr. Obama” to win the election. This will cause Mr. Obama to “run a more partisan campaign this time around.” Yeah, they really described it that way.

Then they said something hilarious. See, for reasons unknown to The Economist, Obama just happens to have been “portraying the Republicans as ruthless asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich,” when good fortune smiled upon him: “How lucky for Mr. Obama that the super-rich Mr. Romney made his fortune in the cut-throat business of private equity.” Wow, what a coincidence? Obama just happens to be blasting the vile rich for no apparent reason, and then the vile-rich Romney gets the nomination. That’s so perfect, you would almost think Obama was saying those things intentionally. . . unless you work for The Economist, then you just see this as a lucky coincidence.

They continue by noting that Obama has been claiming the Republicans “embrace a form of ‘thinly veiled social Darwinism’ that would deprive needy children of healthy food, slash cancer research, close down national parks and eliminate air-traffic control in swathes of the country.” Why The Economist says this isn’t clear, unless they just want to spread the word for Obama. Indeed, that seems to be the case based on the very next sentence: “It sounds scary, and it contains more than grain of truth,” even though the Republicans “have proposed none of these specific cuts.” In others words, it’s scary because it’s true, even though it’s not technically true. Wow.

At least they do point out that Romney responded to this by arguing that these are straw men arguments. Of course, then The Economist says: “Coming from the Republicans, this is rich. They have attacked a straw man since the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. They labeled his conventional Keynesian response to a deep recession ‘socialist.’ They called Obamacare unAmerican, even though this market-based scheme to extend health cover to 30m uninsured Americans is almost identical to the one Mr. Romney adopted.”

Can you feel the tears? Those evil Republicans made The Economist cry and we should therefore ignore the truth of what the Republicans say. Notice also the massive double-speak here. Obamacare is not a market-based scheme by any definition. It is not identical to Romneycare. It was supposed to cover 43 million Americans, not 30 million. Keynesianism plus nationalizing banks and car companies, taking over state budgets, forcing unionization on companies, etc. etc. is socialism.

And again, notice how perfectly these whiny lies fit with the troll, who assures us there is no proof Obama is a Marxist. The troll also said, this is “why Republicans want to put the full weight of the National Debt on American Workers, while the super-rich get even richer.” Tell me that doesn’t sound like The Economist’s little tirade about the Republicans as “asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich.” Sounds like somebody cheated off somebody else’s paper!

To its “credit,” The Economist does note that Romney has correctly attacked Obama for not coming up with a serious plan to tame entitlements, BUT “there is plenty of blame to go around.” Then they point out how Obama tried to do this last summer but was frustrated by Congress, and then they credit him with $1.2 trillion in phantom cuts. (By the way, this same magazine attacked those cuts as dangerous at the time.) They also note that the “Buffett rule” is just a gimmick. The Buffett rule, in case you didn’t know, is “supposed to make millionaires like Mr. Romney pay at least the same tax rate as their secretaries.” And for the record, Obama paid less than his secretary this year. . . as did his crony buddy Warren Buffett.

Finally, they finish with the old “can’t we all just get along” which liberals always use when they are going to lose.

That is Obama’s campaign in a nutshell. These are the talking points you will hear liberals start repeating now ad nauseam until you are ready to strangle every last one of them. And if you do indeed feel that need, don’t let me stop you.

Obama's Campaign Strategy Talking Points

View Detail

Allen West’s “Gaffes”

Allen West’s “Gaffes”

Having failed to make Santorum the nominee (and with Ricky now dropping out of the race), the MSM is now trying to destroy various Republican VP candidates before Romney makes his choice. Last weekend, Politico took a shot at Rep. Allen West by listing his ten biggest “gaffes.” Of course, these were not gaffes, they were just things liberal do not want to hear. Let’s look at some of West’s finest moments:

1. The Right Principles: Allen West espouses all the right principles. West summarizes these nicely in several of his supposed gaffes.

● Here is West describing the economic foundations of America while attacking the Democrats for undermining them. To Obama, Reid and Pelosi, he says: “Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

● West has also made the same point more positively: “This is what America is about when it comes to understanding that it is equal opportunity versus equal achievement. Each and every one of us has the opportunity for greatness in this country.”

● And here is West explaining why he supports the Tea Party. Notice the reference to limited, constitutional government: “I think that if we get back to some basic fundamental principles, we can make sure that we resolve the issues. And I think that that's what the Tea Party was all about. It's getting back to a constitutional conservative government. And that is limited, but it's also effective and efficient. I think that that's what we'll be able to do.”

2. A Fighter Not A Lover: West also has a strong track record of fighting back against the Democratic smear/propaganda machine. Here are a few more of his “gaffes.”

● First, West is clear that the Democratic party is bad for blacks and others who get trapped in the dependence the Democrats hope to engender: “So I’m here as the modern day Harriet Tubman to kind of lead people on the Underground Railroad away from that plantation into a sense of sensibility.”

● He also makes no bones about the Democrats' willingness to lie and cheat and use any means to smear and destroy those with whom they disagree: “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the [Democratic] Party because they have an incredible propaganda machine.” This one really got the left upset, but if the jackboot fits....

● He has fought back against that vile Gollum-like create Debbie Wasserman Shits. . . er, Schultz, whose hateful public pronouncement would actually have made Goebbels blush. Indeed, he called her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable” member of the House. Then he added, “You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, and therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!”

● And when he was later asked what he thinks whenever Shultz’s name is mentioned, he said this: “I need a bucket.”

● Lastly, he gave us this one which I think of as “speaking truth to the power-mad”: “I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.”

What’s more, Allen hasn’t been blinded by the mob over the past two years like so many others. He’s recognized that you can’t play “take it or leave” in our form of government, and he’s recognized that you can’t build anything by destroying the Republican Party. He has proven to be a savvy operator and yet has maintained his principles. We need more Republicans like this.

BONUS ROUND: Here are some of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s recent quotes:

● On Paul Ryan’s budget: “As a result, many seniors in America will be forced into poverty, and worse. Some seniors will end up dying because they are forced to put off getting that pain checked out due to huge out-of-pocket costs that will skyrocket for them. This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors.”

● Calling ObamaCare “ObamaCare” is “a disparaging reference to the President of the United States.”

● Schultz said it would “belittle” minorities to extend hate crimes laws to veterans: “It really is belittling of the respect that we should have for [minorities] to suggest that members of the armed services have somehow systematically been the victims of hate crimes.”

● She held a rally to attack Allen West (before his election). At the time, she explained the difference between her crowd and the Tea Party thusly: “I don’t see any swastikas or any pictures of the President in black face or burned in effigy here. The difference between the way we express our First Amendment rights and the way I’ve seen Tea Party extremists—Republican Tea Party extremists—express their right is dramatically different.” So the “difference is different?” Bright.

● Then she despicably tried to latch onto the Giffords shooting by dragging her own daughter into it, and by trying to define the Giffords shooting as a result of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: “After my daughter heard that, you know, Gabby had been shot, the first thing she asked me was, you know, ‘Mommy, are you going to get shot? Does that mean you're going to get shot? But Mommy, Florida's going to pass an immigration law like Arizona and then people are going to be mad at you.’”

She’s a real piece of shitzu poo.


Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

Having failed to make Santorum the nominee (and with Ricky now dropping out of the race), the MSM is now trying to destroy various Republican VP candidates before Romney makes his choice. Last weekend, Politico took a shot at Rep. Allen West by listing his ten biggest “gaffes.” Of course, these were not gaffes, they were just things liberal do not want to hear. Let’s look at some of West’s finest moments:

1. The Right Principles: Allen West espouses all the right principles. West summarizes these nicely in several of his supposed gaffes.

● Here is West describing the economic foundations of America while attacking the Democrats for undermining them. To Obama, Reid and Pelosi, he says: “Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

● West has also made the same point more positively: “This is what America is about when it comes to understanding that it is equal opportunity versus equal achievement. Each and every one of us has the opportunity for greatness in this country.”

● And here is West explaining why he supports the Tea Party. Notice the reference to limited, constitutional government: “I think that if we get back to some basic fundamental principles, we can make sure that we resolve the issues. And I think that that's what the Tea Party was all about. It's getting back to a constitutional conservative government. And that is limited, but it's also effective and efficient. I think that that's what we'll be able to do.”

2. A Fighter Not A Lover: West also has a strong track record of fighting back against the Democratic smear/propaganda machine. Here are a few more of his “gaffes.”

● First, West is clear that the Democratic party is bad for blacks and others who get trapped in the dependence the Democrats hope to engender: “So I’m here as the modern day Harriet Tubman to kind of lead people on the Underground Railroad away from that plantation into a sense of sensibility.”

● He also makes no bones about the Democrats' willingness to lie and cheat and use any means to smear and destroy those with whom they disagree: “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the [Democratic] Party because they have an incredible propaganda machine.” This one really got the left upset, but if the jackboot fits....

● He has fought back against that vile Gollum-like create Debbie Wasserman Shits. . . er, Schultz, whose hateful public pronouncement would actually have made Goebbels blush. Indeed, he called her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable” member of the House. Then he added, “You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, and therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!”

● And when he was later asked what he thinks whenever Shultz’s name is mentioned, he said this: “I need a bucket.”

● Lastly, he gave us this one which I think of as “speaking truth to the power-mad”: “I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.”

What’s more, Allen hasn’t been blinded by the mob over the past two years like so many others. He’s recognized that you can’t play “take it or leave” in our form of government, and he’s recognized that you can’t build anything by destroying the Republican Party. He has proven to be a savvy operator and yet has maintained his principles. We need more Republicans like this.

BONUS ROUND: Here are some of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s recent quotes:

● On Paul Ryan’s budget: “As a result, many seniors in America will be forced into poverty, and worse. Some seniors will end up dying because they are forced to put off getting that pain checked out due to huge out-of-pocket costs that will skyrocket for them. This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors.”

● Calling ObamaCare “ObamaCare” is “a disparaging reference to the President of the United States.”

● Schultz said it would “belittle” minorities to extend hate crimes laws to veterans: “It really is belittling of the respect that we should have for [minorities] to suggest that members of the armed services have somehow systematically been the victims of hate crimes.”

● She held a rally to attack Allen West (before his election). At the time, she explained the difference between her crowd and the Tea Party thusly: “I don’t see any swastikas or any pictures of the President in black face or burned in effigy here. The difference between the way we express our First Amendment rights and the way I’ve seen Tea Party extremists—Republican Tea Party extremists—express their right is dramatically different.” So the “difference is different?” Bright.

● Then she despicably tried to latch onto the Giffords shooting by dragging her own daughter into it, and by trying to define the Giffords shooting as a result of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: “After my daughter heard that, you know, Gabby had been shot, the first thing she asked me was, you know, ‘Mommy, are you going to get shot? Does that mean you're going to get shot? But Mommy, Florida's going to pass an immigration law like Arizona and then people are going to be mad at you.’”

She’s a real piece of shitzu poo.


Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

Allen West’s “Gaffes”

View Detail

Weekend Roundup: Let’s Play A Game

Weekend Roundup: Let’s Play A Game

Big things are afoot at the Circle K. Well, actually, little things are afoot in our political process. Indeed, this weekend continued several recent themes: the Republican nomination is over, Obama has no idea how to win an election, and the leftist media is in full retreat. Read on. . . (bonus points if you can identify all the movie references).

● The End Is Extremely F*ing Nigh. . . Let’s start with the Republicans. This weekend saw a report that the superdelegates are starting to support Romney en mass. Most are still waiting to officially announce because they don’t want to be seen as deciding the race, but more and more are coming out for him each day and almost none support Ricky. In fact, Ricky has almost no endorsements of any kind. Romney, on the other hand, is racking them up, including several in Ricky’s home state -– where Romney now leads in the polls. The sudden flood of endorsements indicates that the party thinks it’s over. The RNC has even taken the hint and has begun fundraising with Romney.

Newt too is making conciliatory noises and sounds like he may endorse Romney. According to Newt, Romney “will run as a conservative” despite Newt’s prior claims to the contrary, and he dismissed all that unforgivable stuff Romney said about him (i.e. “he slimed me”) as just part of the campaign. Now they’re buds.

Even the Religious Right is starting to have doubts. Southern Baptist leader Richard Land stated this weekend that Ricky “ought to seriously consider leaving the race now.” Imagine that! “I said, NOW MISTER!” Will Rick listen? Probably not, but it’s clear the MSM is done with him –- so he can’t do any more harm.

● They’re Digging In The Wrong Place. . . Obama continues to show he has no idea how to run a campaign. Now he’s buying $12.3 million worth of internet advertising so his smiling mug will show up every time you use the following search terms: “Obama singing,” “Obama birthday,” and “Obama bracket” (for basketballers), “Dream Act,” and a couple more. Notice anything wrong with this? The only people who would enter these search terms already support Obama or hate him, and neither group will be moved by internet ads! That’s $12.3 million down the Biden.

Along similar lines, Obama is now planning to “tailor” his campaign to attract “working women”. . . as compared to “slacker moms.” To do this, he plans to talk about contraception, his opposition to male-only golf clubs, and extending family medical leave for the families professionals don’t have (see Idiocracy). He will not, however, make promises about equal pay because he wants to save something for his third term. But again, here’s the problem: Obama already has these voters in the bag. He got 56% of them in the last election and he’ll get the same this time. This is like spending money to advertise to your friends and family. It’s stupid. And stupid is no way to go through life, Mr. President. Actually, who am I kidding, it’s the only way liberals go through life. So swing away Mr. President, swing away. And enjoy your retirement.

Oh, and excuse me while I whip this out: Obama is now attacking Romney by trying to tie Romney to Paul Ryan’s budget. Good luck with that McFly! Tying Romney to the budget of the sanest and most responsible man in Washington is a LOSER of a strategy.

● We’re Mad As Hell And We’re Not Going To Take It Anymore. . . It’s been a bad month for the media, particularly the leftist media. First, we had poor Keith Olberman fired by Algore’s network “Current TV,” which was named after a sour red berry. Keith and CommieBerry are now locked in a titanic death struggle as they lob charges of childishness at each other. Excellent!

Oprah also admitted her little network (“OWN” or “Oprah’s Worthless Network”) was not entirely successful. Perhaps going political and endorsing Obama was a clusterfudge of the highest order? And hiring (now fired) nasty leftist turdette Rosie O’Donnell didn’t help.

Then this weekend, Media Matters finally had to fire MJ Rosenberg because of his anti- Semitism, which I discussed HERE. And then NBC fired an anonymous producer in an effect to cover its rear in the Trayvon Martin disaster (what NBC did is explained HERE). But this will not be the end for either group. By not releasing the producer’s name, NBC is shielding the person who set out to create a national race riot, and all they will do is keep the scandal going until they fire someone else. Media Matters, meanwhile, must now explain why it kept a rabid anti-Semite on staff for so long. Cowabunga!

Finally, National Review fired John Derbyshire for putting out a racist article. I have nothing good to say about Derbyshire, but what I find interesting is that the public response to this seems to be that Derbyshire deserved to get fired BUT they want to know why black racism is allowed to go unchallenged. Sound like a bit of anger out there? Let’s hope Obama steps into this one too.

Anything I miss?

Big things are afoot at the Circle K. Well, actually, little things are afoot in our political process. Indeed, this weekend continued several recent themes: the Republican nomination is over, Obama has no idea how to win an election, and the leftist media is in full retreat. Read on. . . (bonus points if you can identify all the movie references).

● The End Is Extremely F*ing Nigh. . . Let’s start with the Republicans. This weekend saw a report that the superdelegates are starting to support Romney en mass. Most are still waiting to officially announce because they don’t want to be seen as deciding the race, but more and more are coming out for him each day and almost none support Ricky. In fact, Ricky has almost no endorsements of any kind. Romney, on the other hand, is racking them up, including several in Ricky’s home state -– where Romney now leads in the polls. The sudden flood of endorsements indicates that the party thinks it’s over. The RNC has even taken the hint and has begun fundraising with Romney.

Newt too is making conciliatory noises and sounds like he may endorse Romney. According to Newt, Romney “will run as a conservative” despite Newt’s prior claims to the contrary, and he dismissed all that unforgivable stuff Romney said about him (i.e. “he slimed me”) as just part of the campaign. Now they’re buds.

Even the Religious Right is starting to have doubts. Southern Baptist leader Richard Land stated this weekend that Ricky “ought to seriously consider leaving the race now.” Imagine that! “I said, NOW MISTER!” Will Rick listen? Probably not, but it’s clear the MSM is done with him –- so he can’t do any more harm.

● They’re Digging In The Wrong Place. . . Obama continues to show he has no idea how to run a campaign. Now he’s buying $12.3 million worth of internet advertising so his smiling mug will show up every time you use the following search terms: “Obama singing,” “Obama birthday,” and “Obama bracket” (for basketballers), “Dream Act,” and a couple more. Notice anything wrong with this? The only people who would enter these search terms already support Obama or hate him, and neither group will be moved by internet ads! That’s $12.3 million down the Biden.

Along similar lines, Obama is now planning to “tailor” his campaign to attract “working women”. . . as compared to “slacker moms.” To do this, he plans to talk about contraception, his opposition to male-only golf clubs, and extending family medical leave for the families professionals don’t have (see Idiocracy). He will not, however, make promises about equal pay because he wants to save something for his third term. But again, here’s the problem: Obama already has these voters in the bag. He got 56% of them in the last election and he’ll get the same this time. This is like spending money to advertise to your friends and family. It’s stupid. And stupid is no way to go through life, Mr. President. Actually, who am I kidding, it’s the only way liberals go through life. So swing away Mr. President, swing away. And enjoy your retirement.

Oh, and excuse me while I whip this out: Obama is now attacking Romney by trying to tie Romney to Paul Ryan’s budget. Good luck with that McFly! Tying Romney to the budget of the sanest and most responsible man in Washington is a LOSER of a strategy.

● We’re Mad As Hell And We’re Not Going To Take It Anymore. . . It’s been a bad month for the media, particularly the leftist media. First, we had poor Keith Olberman fired by Algore’s network “Current TV,” which was named after a sour red berry. Keith and CommieBerry are now locked in a titanic death struggle as they lob charges of childishness at each other. Excellent!

Oprah also admitted her little network (“OWN” or “Oprah’s Worthless Network”) was not entirely successful. Perhaps going political and endorsing Obama was a clusterfudge of the highest order? And hiring (now fired) nasty leftist turdette Rosie O’Donnell didn’t help.

Then this weekend, Media Matters finally had to fire MJ Rosenberg because of his anti- Semitism, which I discussed HERE. And then NBC fired an anonymous producer in an effect to cover its rear in the Trayvon Martin disaster (what NBC did is explained HERE). But this will not be the end for either group. By not releasing the producer’s name, NBC is shielding the person who set out to create a national race riot, and all they will do is keep the scandal going until they fire someone else. Media Matters, meanwhile, must now explain why it kept a rabid anti-Semite on staff for so long. Cowabunga!

Finally, National Review fired John Derbyshire for putting out a racist article. I have nothing good to say about Derbyshire, but what I find interesting is that the public response to this seems to be that Derbyshire deserved to get fired BUT they want to know why black racism is allowed to go unchallenged. Sound like a bit of anger out there? Let’s hope Obama steps into this one too.

Anything I miss?

Weekend Roundup: Let’s Play A Game

View Detail

Trayvon Martin Case Exposed Media

Trayvon Martin Case Exposed Media

We often talk about liberal media bias. But if you want an example of media bias and the kinds of negative effects that can result from media bias, look no further than NBC’s actions in the Trayvon Martin shooting case. NBC turned an innocuous quote on its head and caused a national race riot. Now NBC is investigating itself, and I’m sure we’ll all rest easier.

When NBC first reported on the Trayvon Martin shooting, they obtained a copy of the 911 call Zimmerman made before the shooting. Here is what NBC played on the air:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

This is a huge part of the reason the race lobby got into this case. They heard this and assumed that Zimmerman was a racist. Indeed, this quote could easily be read as Zimmerman stating that he thought the fact Martin was black was proof enough that Martin was up to no good.

Add in the report (still completely unconfirmed by ANY witness) that Martin was holding a drink in one hand and a bag of Skittles in the other, and the photo of Martin as a seemingly innocent child, the parents whining how he was a good boy who never hurt anyone, and NBC and the other networks using an old Zimmerman mugshot from a DUI which makes Zimmerman look like a criminal, and you’ve got a report which set the stage to make Zimmerman look like a predator who went after Martin because he was black.

But here’s the thing. The quote NBC gave above is deceitfully edited. Here’s the actual conversation:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: Ok, and this guy -- is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Notice several facts. First, Zimmerman gives actual reasons why Martin’s BEHAVIOR is suspicious. If Martin is just headed to a relative’s or girlfriend’s house as his supporters claim, why is he just wandering around in the rain? Further, Zimmerman notes that Martin looks like he’s on drugs, a look which would itself warrant calling the police for Martin’s own safety if nothing else. I have not heard about a toxicology done on Martin’s body, but it would be interesting to know what drugs were in his system, if any(. . . see what I did there NBC?), as they may well explain aggressive behavior and may well put the lie to the idea of the innocent kid going to 7-11. . . in the rain.

Next, notice that Zimmerman not only does not raise the issue of race. Instead, the dispatcher specifically asks Zimmerman what Martin’s race is, which is the first time it come up. Further, Zimmerman isn’t even certain what Martin’s race is. Notice that he does not say Martin “IS” black, he says Martin “LOOKS” black, as if there is some doubt. Moreover, if you actually listen to the tape, you will hear uncertainty in Zimmerman’s voice. He is not asserting, “oh heck, yeah, he looks black all right,” he is saying “looks” in the sense of “hmm, I’m not sure, but he appears to be black?”

So here you have a guy who gives a valid description of the type of behavior the police would use to stop and question ANY individual without reference to race, and who does not seem to know for certain what the other person’s race is, nor does he appear to care until he is asked. Yet, NBC edited this quote to make it sound like Zimmerman targeted Martin because Zimmerman thought he was black.

Why would NBC do this? Because that is how leftists think. They WANTED to see a race-based crime here and so they read the above transcript and they pulled out the words which confirmed their prejudice, whether that accurately conveyed reality or not. This is also why they keep using outdated photos of Martin to make him seem innocent -- because they want him to be. Here, by the way, is the photo Martin himself used for his Twitter Account “No Limit Nigger”:

That’s also why they keep using an outdated mugshot of Zimmerman when more recent, less inflammatory images are available, why they don’t report on things like Martin’s record or Zimmerman’s background working with black churches, and why they keep trying to call Zimmerman “white”: because that is what they WANT him to be. Why? Because the leftist media seeks to inflame racial tensions because it helps their cause to keep Americans divided into tribes. In fact, if Zimmerman had shot a white kid, you can bet it would be considered racist to keep using Zimmerman’s mugshot. And if a German-American had shot Zimmerman, you can bet that the “white” Zimmerman would suddenly be described as “Hispanic.”

The fact NBC has done what they’ve done here and no one noticed until Fox News called them on it, is evidence that NBC cannot be considered an unbiased or trustworthy source of news. They are an agenda-driven propaganda machine and they have no qualms about exploiting tragedies or inventing scapegoats for imagined racial crimes.

Interestingly, liberal bloggers have taken up the issue of “bias.” But of course, it won’t surprise you that the bias they see comes from places like The Daily Caller, which is not a news service like NBC and does not pretend to be unbiased, and which does not have national reach like NBC. Moreover, the supposed bias of which they are accused is pointing out Martin’s own words and deeds which contradict the leftist fantasy narrative. Imagine that. Once again, it is “racist” to quote something bad a minority has said, just like it was racist to repeat Obama’s own words (LINK.

The left has no credibility.

We often talk about liberal media bias. But if you want an example of media bias and the kinds of negative effects that can result from media bias, look no further than NBC’s actions in the Trayvon Martin shooting case. NBC turned an innocuous quote on its head and caused a national race riot. Now NBC is investigating itself, and I’m sure we’ll all rest easier.

When NBC first reported on the Trayvon Martin shooting, they obtained a copy of the 911 call Zimmerman made before the shooting. Here is what NBC played on the air:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

This is a huge part of the reason the race lobby got into this case. They heard this and assumed that Zimmerman was a racist. Indeed, this quote could easily be read as Zimmerman stating that he thought the fact Martin was black was proof enough that Martin was up to no good.

Add in the report (still completely unconfirmed by ANY witness) that Martin was holding a drink in one hand and a bag of Skittles in the other, and the photo of Martin as a seemingly innocent child, the parents whining how he was a good boy who never hurt anyone, and NBC and the other networks using an old Zimmerman mugshot from a DUI which makes Zimmerman look like a criminal, and you’ve got a report which set the stage to make Zimmerman look like a predator who went after Martin because he was black.

But here’s the thing. The quote NBC gave above is deceitfully edited. Here’s the actual conversation:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: Ok, and this guy -- is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Notice several facts. First, Zimmerman gives actual reasons why Martin’s BEHAVIOR is suspicious. If Martin is just headed to a relative’s or girlfriend’s house as his supporters claim, why is he just wandering around in the rain? Further, Zimmerman notes that Martin looks like he’s on drugs, a look which would itself warrant calling the police for Martin’s own safety if nothing else. I have not heard about a toxicology done on Martin’s body, but it would be interesting to know what drugs were in his system, if any(. . . see what I did there NBC?), as they may well explain aggressive behavior and may well put the lie to the idea of the innocent kid going to 7-11. . . in the rain.

Next, notice that Zimmerman not only does not raise the issue of race. Instead, the dispatcher specifically asks Zimmerman what Martin’s race is, which is the first time it come up. Further, Zimmerman isn’t even certain what Martin’s race is. Notice that he does not say Martin “IS” black, he says Martin “LOOKS” black, as if there is some doubt. Moreover, if you actually listen to the tape, you will hear uncertainty in Zimmerman’s voice. He is not asserting, “oh heck, yeah, he looks black all right,” he is saying “looks” in the sense of “hmm, I’m not sure, but he appears to be black?”

So here you have a guy who gives a valid description of the type of behavior the police would use to stop and question ANY individual without reference to race, and who does not seem to know for certain what the other person’s race is, nor does he appear to care until he is asked. Yet, NBC edited this quote to make it sound like Zimmerman targeted Martin because Zimmerman thought he was black.

Why would NBC do this? Because that is how leftists think. They WANTED to see a race-based crime here and so they read the above transcript and they pulled out the words which confirmed their prejudice, whether that accurately conveyed reality or not. This is also why they keep using outdated photos of Martin to make him seem innocent -- because they want him to be. Here, by the way, is the photo Martin himself used for his Twitter Account “No Limit Nigger”:

That’s also why they keep using an outdated mugshot of Zimmerman when more recent, less inflammatory images are available, why they don’t report on things like Martin’s record or Zimmerman’s background working with black churches, and why they keep trying to call Zimmerman “white”: because that is what they WANT him to be. Why? Because the leftist media seeks to inflame racial tensions because it helps their cause to keep Americans divided into tribes. In fact, if Zimmerman had shot a white kid, you can bet it would be considered racist to keep using Zimmerman’s mugshot. And if a German-American had shot Zimmerman, you can bet that the “white” Zimmerman would suddenly be described as “Hispanic.”

The fact NBC has done what they’ve done here and no one noticed until Fox News called them on it, is evidence that NBC cannot be considered an unbiased or trustworthy source of news. They are an agenda-driven propaganda machine and they have no qualms about exploiting tragedies or inventing scapegoats for imagined racial crimes.

Interestingly, liberal bloggers have taken up the issue of “bias.” But of course, it won’t surprise you that the bias they see comes from places like The Daily Caller, which is not a news service like NBC and does not pretend to be unbiased, and which does not have national reach like NBC. Moreover, the supposed bias of which they are accused is pointing out Martin’s own words and deeds which contradict the leftist fantasy narrative. Imagine that. Once again, it is “racist” to quote something bad a minority has said, just like it was racist to repeat Obama’s own words (LINK.

The left has no credibility.

Trayvon Martin Case Exposed Media

View Detail

Tragedy Becoming Tragicomedy

Tragedy Becoming Tragicomedy

By now, pretty much everyone is aware of the shooting death of black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida. The shooting was done by a wannabe cop and self-styled Neighborhood Watch captain. Perverting Florida’s “stand your ground” law, the killer was continuing a pattern he had been following for a very long time. A sensible neighborhood crime prevention program and a sensible law were twisted into the loss of a young life on the flimsiest of grounds.

The travesty is grounded in two perfectly acceptable concepts. First, neighborhoods have a basic right to make sure their families and homes are safe. Neighborhood Watch was created years ago to provide eyes and ears to accomplish that goal. But look at the name of the group: Neighborhood Watch. These are not duly-sworn police agencies, nor even well-trained armed private response teams. They are there to watch and report. They are not there to bag strangers or to shoot human beings that they perceive to be some kind of abstract deadly danger. Even well-trained police officers have made tragic mistakes misidentifying an innocent act as a deadly threat. In most cases, those were true mistakes, but they bear no resemblance to the homicide in Florida.

Here, an amateur protector of the peace essentially stalked a lone teenager whom he considered to be “acting suspiciously” and who looked like “he didn’t belong there” (more on that later). Instead of “watching and reporting,” he followed the kid like a bloodhound, finally calling the local police to report the “suspicious activity.” The police recognized the modus operandi of wannabe cop George Zimmerman, who had called in dozens of similar reports, none of which had turned out to be a genuinely dangerous threat to the neighborhood.

The police took the call, noted the report and said they would send a patrol car out to investigate. Zimmerman then asked if he should continue to follow the boy. The police were very specific: “That’s not necessary. Do not continue to follow him.” But this self-appointed protector of the public peace continued to follow the youngster anyway. His activity finally caused the mystified teenager to approach Zimmerman to find out what was going on and why he was being followed.

We’ll probably never know for sure what went on in Zimmerman’s fevered mind, but whatever his motivations, he decided that the teenager was now a physical threat, and proceeded to shoot him down. Had he followed the instructions of the police dispatcher, an unnecessary death would have been avoided, and the police would have gotten a completely valid explanation from the boy as to why he was moving through the neighborhood at that time of night. He had simply gone out to get candy and soft drinks for the relatives he was visiting. Zimmerman didn’t know that, and it’s my opinion that he didn’t want to know that. He just wanted an excuse to fire his weapon at someone he had decided didn't belong there.

Second, Zimmerman was [incorrectly] hiding behind Florida’s new “stand your ground” law. As with the concept of Neighborhood Watch, this law was perfectly sensible and was passed in order to protect citizens from criminal prosecution and/or civil liability for using deadly force to counter deadly force when confronted with a situation that previously required the potential victim to flee rather than protect himself.

The law was not designed to protect self-appointed peacekeepers who put themselves into a volatile situation voluntarily and provocatively. Such activity turns the innocent victim/aggressive perpetrator scenario on its head. Zimmerman’s use of the law is totally misplaced. Part of the problem is the long history of the law abandoning simple common sense and the ancient principle of “the reasonable man” standard (more recently, the “reasonable person” standard).

Both sides of the legal spectrum have erroneously gone to a more absolutist view of any criminal statute rather than inferring the actual “intent of the law.” The old view (and the far better one) is “what would a reasonable man, under the same or similar circumstances, believe he should do?” The teenager was out in the late hours of the evening, but he was not doing anything a reasonable person would consider dangerously suspicious. A reasonable person would have followed the instructions of the police and abandoned the activity of following the teenager.

A reasonable person, even if he decided to continue following the boy, would have done so at a distance and left when the police arrived. But Zimmerman continued to follow the boy, up close and personal. The youngster apparently got either tired of being followed or curious as to what was going on. What he couldn’t know is that Zimmerman appears already to have determined that a young, black man wearing a hoodie (hooded sweatshirt) with the hood up is automatically a deadly threat. So Trayvon Martin approached Zimmerman’s car, resulting in his own unexpected and violent death.

Whether Zimmerman was a racist vigilante or not will eventually be determined. But he is at best a dangerous fool who knew just enough law to get it all wrong and commit a homicide which should have been completely avoided. And then it got worse. The police investigated the shooting, and applying the same misinterpretation of the new statute as Zimmerman himself was pleading, they let the killer go and didn’t confiscate his weapon. Even a police officer who, in the performance of his official duties, shoots a suspect is automatically relieved of his weapon until the investigation is completed. But Zimmerman was sent home, with the deadly weapon in hand.

And then the race vultures got into the act. Those who automatically assumed that this was a race-based homicide called for the immediate arrest of Zimmerman. Not entirely a bad idea, but not automatically the correct thing to do either. But simply determining that Zimmerman bore no responsibility has resulted in the “stepping down” of the police chief. He didn’t resign, and he wasn’t fired, indicating that he still believes his cops did the right thing in releasing Zimmerman complete with his weapon. The city's police review commission issued a no confidence vote as a result of the chief's earlier actions.

[Note: The facts and statements continue to come out. The police have said that they had no contact with the police review commission. But one of the commissioners has stated that after she voted against the no confidence resolution, a police officer informed her that Zimmerman's clothes and gun had indeed been taken from him. That remains to be verified at the time of this writing.]

Our first post-racial President diverged from his usual pattern of not answering questions following a public announcement of the nomination of a new head of the World Bank, and did answer a question about the shooting. Rather than say that the legal authorities should do their job, he went into full emotional mode and declared that the youngster could have been his own son if he had had a boy. Well, he could have been my son as well, if his mother and I were black. But what does that have to do with the known facts? About as much as his “typical white person” grandmother, and the “stupid cops” who arrested his Harvard buddy. In the name of racial harmony, he has once again found a way to stir up racial resentment without actually saying so.

The ”Reverend” Al Sharpton immediately called for Zimmerman’s head. The same man directly responsible for the Tawana Brawley hoax and a riot which resulted in the death of a Jewish shopkeeper over “people who don’t belong in our neighborhood” is now calling for the immediate prosecution and conviction of a man who apparently did exactly the same kind of thing. Race hustler and filmmaker Spike Lee has Tweeted what he believes to be Zimmerman's home address, and asked all his followers to pass it on. Thousands have complied, many with the addition of death threats and exhortations to violence.

On the other hand, Geraldo Rivera (a man who routinely finds racism under every white bed) inadvertently supported the shooter and the police chief by contending that the hoodie was a valid reason to believe that the teenager was up to something dangerous. He was immediately reviled for his remark by hysterical partisans on both the left and right. And despite his being a licensed lawyer, Rivera also misplaced the intent of the Florida “stand your ground” law.

The hoodie may or may not raise reasonable suspicion, but every action the gunman took on that possibly-reasonable belief ignored the other half of the law. Which is to say that Zimmerman had no reasonable excuse to use deadly force even if his initial suspicion was reasonable. To add to the confusion, there's now a mystery witness who claims to have seen some kind of physical confrontation between Zimmerman and the teenager.

The mainstream media are treating this as a racist vigilante matter (and they may be right). But their role in stirring up racial animosities is to expand that simple possibility into a general theory that the Ku Klux Klan is ready, willing and able to use this opportunity to retake the entire South into its racist grip. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the killing of black suspects in northern cities by police officers is just another piece of evidence that white racism is still alive and well and waiting to put Jim Crow into place nationwide.

And while we’re at it, let’s not forget the poll-watchers of the New Black Panther Party. That organization has decided to fight vigilantism with, well, vigilantism. At a rally in Jacksonville, Florida, they passed around their new piece of racial retribution—a “wanted” poster. It reads: “Murdered in cold blood. Child-killer of Trayvon Martin wanted—dead or alive.” In case you think that was just rhetoric, they've added a $10,000 reward. Somehow, the mainstream media are ignoring or spinning that juicy little tidbit of news while roundly condemning the alleged racial vigilantism of the shooter and the police who let him go.

President Obama has ordered race-neutral Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department to investigate the killing. Considering Holder’s history of finding racism where it doesn’t exist and ignoring it where it does, this tragedy will soon turn into tragicomedy.

By now, pretty much everyone is aware of the shooting death of black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida. The shooting was done by a wannabe cop and self-styled Neighborhood Watch captain. Perverting Florida’s “stand your ground” law, the killer was continuing a pattern he had been following for a very long time. A sensible neighborhood crime prevention program and a sensible law were twisted into the loss of a young life on the flimsiest of grounds.

The travesty is grounded in two perfectly acceptable concepts. First, neighborhoods have a basic right to make sure their families and homes are safe. Neighborhood Watch was created years ago to provide eyes and ears to accomplish that goal. But look at the name of the group: Neighborhood Watch. These are not duly-sworn police agencies, nor even well-trained armed private response teams. They are there to watch and report. They are not there to bag strangers or to shoot human beings that they perceive to be some kind of abstract deadly danger. Even well-trained police officers have made tragic mistakes misidentifying an innocent act as a deadly threat. In most cases, those were true mistakes, but they bear no resemblance to the homicide in Florida.

Here, an amateur protector of the peace essentially stalked a lone teenager whom he considered to be “acting suspiciously” and who looked like “he didn’t belong there” (more on that later). Instead of “watching and reporting,” he followed the kid like a bloodhound, finally calling the local police to report the “suspicious activity.” The police recognized the modus operandi of wannabe cop George Zimmerman, who had called in dozens of similar reports, none of which had turned out to be a genuinely dangerous threat to the neighborhood.

The police took the call, noted the report and said they would send a patrol car out to investigate. Zimmerman then asked if he should continue to follow the boy. The police were very specific: “That’s not necessary. Do not continue to follow him.” But this self-appointed protector of the public peace continued to follow the youngster anyway. His activity finally caused the mystified teenager to approach Zimmerman to find out what was going on and why he was being followed.

We’ll probably never know for sure what went on in Zimmerman’s fevered mind, but whatever his motivations, he decided that the teenager was now a physical threat, and proceeded to shoot him down. Had he followed the instructions of the police dispatcher, an unnecessary death would have been avoided, and the police would have gotten a completely valid explanation from the boy as to why he was moving through the neighborhood at that time of night. He had simply gone out to get candy and soft drinks for the relatives he was visiting. Zimmerman didn’t know that, and it’s my opinion that he didn’t want to know that. He just wanted an excuse to fire his weapon at someone he had decided didn't belong there.

Second, Zimmerman was [incorrectly] hiding behind Florida’s new “stand your ground” law. As with the concept of Neighborhood Watch, this law was perfectly sensible and was passed in order to protect citizens from criminal prosecution and/or civil liability for using deadly force to counter deadly force when confronted with a situation that previously required the potential victim to flee rather than protect himself.

The law was not designed to protect self-appointed peacekeepers who put themselves into a volatile situation voluntarily and provocatively. Such activity turns the innocent victim/aggressive perpetrator scenario on its head. Zimmerman’s use of the law is totally misplaced. Part of the problem is the long history of the law abandoning simple common sense and the ancient principle of “the reasonable man” standard (more recently, the “reasonable person” standard).

Both sides of the legal spectrum have erroneously gone to a more absolutist view of any criminal statute rather than inferring the actual “intent of the law.” The old view (and the far better one) is “what would a reasonable man, under the same or similar circumstances, believe he should do?” The teenager was out in the late hours of the evening, but he was not doing anything a reasonable person would consider dangerously suspicious. A reasonable person would have followed the instructions of the police and abandoned the activity of following the teenager.

A reasonable person, even if he decided to continue following the boy, would have done so at a distance and left when the police arrived. But Zimmerman continued to follow the boy, up close and personal. The youngster apparently got either tired of being followed or curious as to what was going on. What he couldn’t know is that Zimmerman appears already to have determined that a young, black man wearing a hoodie (hooded sweatshirt) with the hood up is automatically a deadly threat. So Trayvon Martin approached Zimmerman’s car, resulting in his own unexpected and violent death.

Whether Zimmerman was a racist vigilante or not will eventually be determined. But he is at best a dangerous fool who knew just enough law to get it all wrong and commit a homicide which should have been completely avoided. And then it got worse. The police investigated the shooting, and applying the same misinterpretation of the new statute as Zimmerman himself was pleading, they let the killer go and didn’t confiscate his weapon. Even a police officer who, in the performance of his official duties, shoots a suspect is automatically relieved of his weapon until the investigation is completed. But Zimmerman was sent home, with the deadly weapon in hand.

And then the race vultures got into the act. Those who automatically assumed that this was a race-based homicide called for the immediate arrest of Zimmerman. Not entirely a bad idea, but not automatically the correct thing to do either. But simply determining that Zimmerman bore no responsibility has resulted in the “stepping down” of the police chief. He didn’t resign, and he wasn’t fired, indicating that he still believes his cops did the right thing in releasing Zimmerman complete with his weapon. The city's police review commission issued a no confidence vote as a result of the chief's earlier actions.

[Note: The facts and statements continue to come out. The police have said that they had no contact with the police review commission. But one of the commissioners has stated that after she voted against the no confidence resolution, a police officer informed her that Zimmerman's clothes and gun had indeed been taken from him. That remains to be verified at the time of this writing.]

Our first post-racial President diverged from his usual pattern of not answering questions following a public announcement of the nomination of a new head of the World Bank, and did answer a question about the shooting. Rather than say that the legal authorities should do their job, he went into full emotional mode and declared that the youngster could have been his own son if he had had a boy. Well, he could have been my son as well, if his mother and I were black. But what does that have to do with the known facts? About as much as his “typical white person” grandmother, and the “stupid cops” who arrested his Harvard buddy. In the name of racial harmony, he has once again found a way to stir up racial resentment without actually saying so.

The ”Reverend” Al Sharpton immediately called for Zimmerman’s head. The same man directly responsible for the Tawana Brawley hoax and a riot which resulted in the death of a Jewish shopkeeper over “people who don’t belong in our neighborhood” is now calling for the immediate prosecution and conviction of a man who apparently did exactly the same kind of thing. Race hustler and filmmaker Spike Lee has Tweeted what he believes to be Zimmerman's home address, and asked all his followers to pass it on. Thousands have complied, many with the addition of death threats and exhortations to violence.

On the other hand, Geraldo Rivera (a man who routinely finds racism under every white bed) inadvertently supported the shooter and the police chief by contending that the hoodie was a valid reason to believe that the teenager was up to something dangerous. He was immediately reviled for his remark by hysterical partisans on both the left and right. And despite his being a licensed lawyer, Rivera also misplaced the intent of the Florida “stand your ground” law.

The hoodie may or may not raise reasonable suspicion, but every action the gunman took on that possibly-reasonable belief ignored the other half of the law. Which is to say that Zimmerman had no reasonable excuse to use deadly force even if his initial suspicion was reasonable. To add to the confusion, there's now a mystery witness who claims to have seen some kind of physical confrontation between Zimmerman and the teenager.

The mainstream media are treating this as a racist vigilante matter (and they may be right). But their role in stirring up racial animosities is to expand that simple possibility into a general theory that the Ku Klux Klan is ready, willing and able to use this opportunity to retake the entire South into its racist grip. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the killing of black suspects in northern cities by police officers is just another piece of evidence that white racism is still alive and well and waiting to put Jim Crow into place nationwide.

And while we’re at it, let’s not forget the poll-watchers of the New Black Panther Party. That organization has decided to fight vigilantism with, well, vigilantism. At a rally in Jacksonville, Florida, they passed around their new piece of racial retribution—a “wanted” poster. It reads: “Murdered in cold blood. Child-killer of Trayvon Martin wanted—dead or alive.” In case you think that was just rhetoric, they've added a $10,000 reward. Somehow, the mainstream media are ignoring or spinning that juicy little tidbit of news while roundly condemning the alleged racial vigilantism of the shooter and the police who let him go.

President Obama has ordered race-neutral Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department to investigate the killing. Considering Holder’s history of finding racism where it doesn’t exist and ignoring it where it does, this tragedy will soon turn into tragicomedy.

Tragedy Becoming Tragicomedy

View Detail

The Conservative Tantrum Continues

The Conservative Tantrum Continues

In the past couple months, conservatives have proven that they don’t know what conservatism means, that they are hopeless suckers for the MSM rope-a-dope, that they are incapable of understanding math, and that they’re whiny hypocrites. Good grief. The latest involves their disparate reaction to two recent “gaffes” by Romney and Santorum.

Yesterday, Romney’s campaign spokesman was asked whether or not Romney had moved too far to the right to win the general election. He said:

“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”

Conservatives went insane. “This proves Romney’s a flip flopper” they whined. Meanwhile, last week, Santorum was asked how he plans to win over voters seeing as how he has no plan to create jobs. Said Ricky:

“I don't care what the unemployment rate is going to be. It doesn't matter to me. My campaign doesn't hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates.”

Conservatives stuck their fingers in their ears and pretended not to hear this one.

So which one is more important? Or said differently, if conservatives weren’t acting like retarded children, which one of these should have bothered them more?

First, note a critical difference between these two gaffes in terms of who said them. Santorum’s gaffe was said by Santorum himself. It thus provides an important insight into his mindset. The Romney “gaffe,” however, was made by a spokesman. It is therefore inappropriate to attribute this to Romney or to whine that he’s gaffe prone or to claim that this gives us an insight into his true mentality... as conservatives are doing. Instead, the proper response to such a comment is to seek clarification from Romney himself. Romney, by the way, immediately rejected this quote when asked about it -- though conservatives continue to whine about it. Santorum, by comparison, doubled-down on stupid and conservatives doubled-down on intentional blindness to keep ignoring it.

Secondly, the biggest test to determine whether criticism is valid or just hypocritical is to ask if the critic would still be upset if someone else had said it. If the Romney question had been asked of Santorum and he gave the same response, would conservatives get all whiny-outraged? Hardly. They would have said, “well, that’s true. That’s why it doesn’t matter that Santorum’s been whining about pornography and Satan because the general election is a whole new contest and everything said now pretty much disappears.” In other words, if Santorum had said this, conservatives would not have called it a gaffe. So calling it a gaffe because Romney’s spokesman said it is hypocritical.

Now compare the response to Ricky’s gaffe. There is no doubt that any candidate who claimed that the unemployment rate doesn’t matter and who says they don’t care about unemployment would be viewed as having committed an horrific gaffe. Yet, conservatives hypocritically ignored this one.

Third, lets look at what was really said. In the Romney case, the aid was responding to a specific question about whether or not Romney could compete in the general election. His answer was both truthful and essentially what any candidate would have said -- general elections are fought differently from primaries and they essentially begin with a clean slate. He never said Romney planned to abandon his values. In fact, Romney’s values weren't even under discussion. What was under discussion was simply the question of candidate packaging. To interpret this as evidence that Romney has no values requires a deliberate misinterpretation because it requires assuming that the answer addressed a different question than what was really asked.

Now lets look at what Santorum said, because unlike the “Romney” quote, this one is vitally important. Rick has claimed repeatedly to be a Tea Party candidate despite the utter lack of an economic plan and lack of any plan to cut spending or the size of government. Rick also has whined that he’s been unfairly maligned as being concerned only about social issues despite the fact he has no economic plan, and he’s spent the campaign slurring Romney’s religion, slurring Obama’s religion, declaring himself the arbiter of what constitutes Christianity, waging a war against contraception, promising to push gays back into the closet, promising to somehow make people marry, and promising to focus the powers of the federal government like a laser beam on pornography.

So when Rick says that he doesn’t care about unemployment, Rick is accidentally admitting both that he does not care about Tea Party values AND that his attack on the MSM for “mischaracterizing” him is a lie. Indeed, Rick entirely confirms everything his critics have been saying with this quote, i.e. that he does not care about economic concerns.

Further, Rick wasn’t done talking when he said the above. He went on to say this:

“We have one nominee who says he wants to run the economy. What kind of conservative says the president runs the economy? What kind of conservative says, 'I'm the guy because of my economic experience that can create jobs?' I don't know.”

Think about this. Rick is essentially saying that HE BELIEVES conservatives should not get involved in trying to make the economy run better -- an interpretation which is completely confirmed by Rick’s lack of any economic plan. This is a declaration of satisfaction with the government the way it is today. And yet, conservatives weren’t stunned by this?

Moreover, Ricky then laughably claimed that his candidacy is about “freedom” (unlike Romney who wants to “control” the economy). Only his definition of “freedom” includes leaving Big Government unchanged, pushing gays into the closet, stopping people from having sex unless they intend to procreate, letting the government decide what people can read, having the government control the internet, forcing taxpayers to pay billions so Ricky can have HHS "promote families" (that’s his economic plan), having the government forcibly unionize companies like FedEx, etc. etc. etc. Again, conservatives ignored this.

Let’s be honest. To attack Romney for something his staffer said, which Romney immediately refuted, and which was both truthful and accurate and wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow if some other candidate had said it, and which wasn’t even discussing the point over which it has been used to attack Romney, is hypocritical and ridiculous and reflects very poorly on conservatives. To simultaneously ignore Rick's quote, which confirms all the worst fears conservatives should have of Santorum -- that he cares about nothing more than forcing his hateful version of Christianity on the country and that he utterly disdains economic conservatism and Tea Party values -- is even worse.

Conservatism has gone off the rails. It is in the midst of a temper tantrum and is acting hypocritically and childishly. It is making itself a laughing stock. And it’s going to take a lot to prove again that conservatives aren’t the mindless, idiotic zombies the left claims. Ug.

In the past couple months, conservatives have proven that they don’t know what conservatism means, that they are hopeless suckers for the MSM rope-a-dope, that they are incapable of understanding math, and that they’re whiny hypocrites. Good grief. The latest involves their disparate reaction to two recent “gaffes” by Romney and Santorum.

Yesterday, Romney’s campaign spokesman was asked whether or not Romney had moved too far to the right to win the general election. He said:

“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”

Conservatives went insane. “This proves Romney’s a flip flopper” they whined. Meanwhile, last week, Santorum was asked how he plans to win over voters seeing as how he has no plan to create jobs. Said Ricky:

“I don't care what the unemployment rate is going to be. It doesn't matter to me. My campaign doesn't hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates.”

Conservatives stuck their fingers in their ears and pretended not to hear this one.

So which one is more important? Or said differently, if conservatives weren’t acting like retarded children, which one of these should have bothered them more?

First, note a critical difference between these two gaffes in terms of who said them. Santorum’s gaffe was said by Santorum himself. It thus provides an important insight into his mindset. The Romney “gaffe,” however, was made by a spokesman. It is therefore inappropriate to attribute this to Romney or to whine that he’s gaffe prone or to claim that this gives us an insight into his true mentality... as conservatives are doing. Instead, the proper response to such a comment is to seek clarification from Romney himself. Romney, by the way, immediately rejected this quote when asked about it -- though conservatives continue to whine about it. Santorum, by comparison, doubled-down on stupid and conservatives doubled-down on intentional blindness to keep ignoring it.

Secondly, the biggest test to determine whether criticism is valid or just hypocritical is to ask if the critic would still be upset if someone else had said it. If the Romney question had been asked of Santorum and he gave the same response, would conservatives get all whiny-outraged? Hardly. They would have said, “well, that’s true. That’s why it doesn’t matter that Santorum’s been whining about pornography and Satan because the general election is a whole new contest and everything said now pretty much disappears.” In other words, if Santorum had said this, conservatives would not have called it a gaffe. So calling it a gaffe because Romney’s spokesman said it is hypocritical.

Now compare the response to Ricky’s gaffe. There is no doubt that any candidate who claimed that the unemployment rate doesn’t matter and who says they don’t care about unemployment would be viewed as having committed an horrific gaffe. Yet, conservatives hypocritically ignored this one.

Third, lets look at what was really said. In the Romney case, the aid was responding to a specific question about whether or not Romney could compete in the general election. His answer was both truthful and essentially what any candidate would have said -- general elections are fought differently from primaries and they essentially begin with a clean slate. He never said Romney planned to abandon his values. In fact, Romney’s values weren't even under discussion. What was under discussion was simply the question of candidate packaging. To interpret this as evidence that Romney has no values requires a deliberate misinterpretation because it requires assuming that the answer addressed a different question than what was really asked.

Now lets look at what Santorum said, because unlike the “Romney” quote, this one is vitally important. Rick has claimed repeatedly to be a Tea Party candidate despite the utter lack of an economic plan and lack of any plan to cut spending or the size of government. Rick also has whined that he’s been unfairly maligned as being concerned only about social issues despite the fact he has no economic plan, and he’s spent the campaign slurring Romney’s religion, slurring Obama’s religion, declaring himself the arbiter of what constitutes Christianity, waging a war against contraception, promising to push gays back into the closet, promising to somehow make people marry, and promising to focus the powers of the federal government like a laser beam on pornography.

So when Rick says that he doesn’t care about unemployment, Rick is accidentally admitting both that he does not care about Tea Party values AND that his attack on the MSM for “mischaracterizing” him is a lie. Indeed, Rick entirely confirms everything his critics have been saying with this quote, i.e. that he does not care about economic concerns.

Further, Rick wasn’t done talking when he said the above. He went on to say this:

“We have one nominee who says he wants to run the economy. What kind of conservative says the president runs the economy? What kind of conservative says, 'I'm the guy because of my economic experience that can create jobs?' I don't know.”

Think about this. Rick is essentially saying that HE BELIEVES conservatives should not get involved in trying to make the economy run better -- an interpretation which is completely confirmed by Rick’s lack of any economic plan. This is a declaration of satisfaction with the government the way it is today. And yet, conservatives weren’t stunned by this?

Moreover, Ricky then laughably claimed that his candidacy is about “freedom” (unlike Romney who wants to “control” the economy). Only his definition of “freedom” includes leaving Big Government unchanged, pushing gays into the closet, stopping people from having sex unless they intend to procreate, letting the government decide what people can read, having the government control the internet, forcing taxpayers to pay billions so Ricky can have HHS "promote families" (that’s his economic plan), having the government forcibly unionize companies like FedEx, etc. etc. etc. Again, conservatives ignored this.

Let’s be honest. To attack Romney for something his staffer said, which Romney immediately refuted, and which was both truthful and accurate and wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow if some other candidate had said it, and which wasn’t even discussing the point over which it has been used to attack Romney, is hypocritical and ridiculous and reflects very poorly on conservatives. To simultaneously ignore Rick's quote, which confirms all the worst fears conservatives should have of Santorum -- that he cares about nothing more than forcing his hateful version of Christianity on the country and that he utterly disdains economic conservatism and Tea Party values -- is even worse.

Conservatism has gone off the rails. It is in the midst of a temper tantrum and is acting hypocritically and childishly. It is making itself a laughing stock. And it’s going to take a lot to prove again that conservatives aren’t the mindless, idiotic zombies the left claims. Ug.

The Conservative Tantrum Continues

View Detail

Fighting Fire With Fire

Fighting Fire With Fire

ScottDS and I had an interesting discussion yesterday, related to the Andrew Breitbart’s Bigs. Later in the day, Rufus at Threedonia, posted some similar thoughts. So this is probably worth discussing. Right now, the Bigs are kind of annoying. . . BUT here’s why they are actually doing a good thing.

The reason the Bigs are annoying is because they are jumping on minutia and mercilessly pounding it into the ground. Game Change had some inaccuracies, but is it worth 500 articles calling Tom Hanks everything from a truth rapist to the last American communist? Tom Hanks also appears in a video with someone in blackface. Is that worth pounding away? Bill Maher says much worse things than Rush ever said, but do we need to hear about it 10,000 times? Etc. All of this seems petty and it’s somewhat hypocritical in the sense that the Bigs are judging these people under politically correct standards which conservatives don’t accept. And frankly, I don’t personally like it. I don’t find this interesting and I would rather they were more constructive.

So it’s bad, right? Well. . . no.

Here’s the thing. For at least two decades now, the left has worked to isolate conservatives from the culture and make them pariahs. Every time a conservative spoke their mind, the left attacked them using some faked-sleight invented by the left. They would feign offense at some non-offensive word or act and then smear the conservative as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. It didn’t matter that leftists routinely said the same things, they still attacked. In fact, they would hound these conservatives until the conservatives either left the public sphere or surrendered to the mercy of their persecutors. In this way, they made it impossible for conservatives to have their voices heard because every time a conservative got noticed, they were destroyed personally and professionally. The idea literally was to make sure conservatives were afraid to speak.

And how did conservatives respond? Most cringed and did nothing. And when they saw leftists saying or doing the exact same things the left had attacked conservatives for doing, they remained silent. Why? Because they decided to take the high road. They reasoned that if it wasn’t fair to attack conservatives because of X, then it wouldn’t be fair to attack liberals for X either, so they refused to attack. This was stupid.

For twenty-plus years now, conservatives have let the left destroy conservative after conservative with hypocritical attacks without a peep of challenge except to whine about the hypocrisy. Public life became intolerable for conservatives (look at what they did to Palin for example), while liberals got to skate through saying and doing anything they wanted, secure in the knowledge that conservatives were unwilling to attack them.

No more. The Bigs have declared war. They have taken the same pathetic, petty attacks the left has used to smear conservatives for years and they are now applying those same attacks to leftists. They are fighting fire with fire, because that's the only way to stop what the left is doing. When someone has a weapon they can use with impunity, they will. But when they suddenly realize that others will use it against them, they will stop. Think of it as the cultural version of Mutually Assured Destruction: if you want to try to destroy a conservative as racist/sexist for using a particular word, then we will destroy every liberal who uses that word. This may not make for a pleasant world in the short term, but it is the only way to put an end to these attacks.

Indeed, fighting fire with fire is the only technique which works against the left because they win through incremental progress. In other words, they can win by getting a little bit at a time each time they come to power unless conservatives roll back their gains. For example, for decades, the left concentrated power in the executive branch and the courts. They used that power to force leftist ideas onto businesses, schools, state governments, charities, churches and individuals. When conservatives came to power, they would stupidly declare that they would take the high ground and not use the powers created by the left. The left laughed. And once the conservatives lost power again, the left picked right up where they were before and kept right on pushing -- secure in the knowledge that conservatives lacked the will to use these instruments of power against them.

All of that changed under Bush, particularly in education where Bush used the levers of power liberals created to push liberalism onto schools as a means to impose conservatism instead. Suddenly, the left started howling about state’s rights and attacks on personal freedom and they did their best to strip away the powers they had created. Ditto in the courts, where the left now squeals about legal principles like stare decisis, binding precedent and judicial restraint. . . things they ignored for fifty years while the courts were pushing the country to the left.

It’s the same thing here. Taking the high ground equals surrendering. Conservatives must learn to make the left pay for creating these weapons. This means using the government to bring lawsuits against liberal businesses that violate the laws, sending the IRS after liberal churches, unions and charities which engage in politics, going after race hustler groups and black racist organizations under the civil rights laws, targeting Obama-crony companies like GE with the environmental laws they demanded. . . and making life hell for liberal celebrities who step into the traps liberals have set for conservatives.

That’s what the Bigs are doing. And while I don’t personally enjoy it, I absolutely recognize the value of what they are doing. They are firing back the same nuclear weapons the left has been lobbing at us, and they’ve been rather successful at it. And when the left starts to realize that they are living under an unfair microscope of their own making, they will surrender. . . just as they have every other time conservatives have fought back.

ScottDS and I had an interesting discussion yesterday, related to the Andrew Breitbart’s Bigs. Later in the day, Rufus at Threedonia, posted some similar thoughts. So this is probably worth discussing. Right now, the Bigs are kind of annoying. . . BUT here’s why they are actually doing a good thing.

The reason the Bigs are annoying is because they are jumping on minutia and mercilessly pounding it into the ground. Game Change had some inaccuracies, but is it worth 500 articles calling Tom Hanks everything from a truth rapist to the last American communist? Tom Hanks also appears in a video with someone in blackface. Is that worth pounding away? Bill Maher says much worse things than Rush ever said, but do we need to hear about it 10,000 times? Etc. All of this seems petty and it’s somewhat hypocritical in the sense that the Bigs are judging these people under politically correct standards which conservatives don’t accept. And frankly, I don’t personally like it. I don’t find this interesting and I would rather they were more constructive.

So it’s bad, right? Well. . . no.

Here’s the thing. For at least two decades now, the left has worked to isolate conservatives from the culture and make them pariahs. Every time a conservative spoke their mind, the left attacked them using some faked-sleight invented by the left. They would feign offense at some non-offensive word or act and then smear the conservative as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. It didn’t matter that leftists routinely said the same things, they still attacked. In fact, they would hound these conservatives until the conservatives either left the public sphere or surrendered to the mercy of their persecutors. In this way, they made it impossible for conservatives to have their voices heard because every time a conservative got noticed, they were destroyed personally and professionally. The idea literally was to make sure conservatives were afraid to speak.

And how did conservatives respond? Most cringed and did nothing. And when they saw leftists saying or doing the exact same things the left had attacked conservatives for doing, they remained silent. Why? Because they decided to take the high road. They reasoned that if it wasn’t fair to attack conservatives because of X, then it wouldn’t be fair to attack liberals for X either, so they refused to attack. This was stupid.

For twenty-plus years now, conservatives have let the left destroy conservative after conservative with hypocritical attacks without a peep of challenge except to whine about the hypocrisy. Public life became intolerable for conservatives (look at what they did to Palin for example), while liberals got to skate through saying and doing anything they wanted, secure in the knowledge that conservatives were unwilling to attack them.

No more. The Bigs have declared war. They have taken the same pathetic, petty attacks the left has used to smear conservatives for years and they are now applying those same attacks to leftists. They are fighting fire with fire, because that's the only way to stop what the left is doing. When someone has a weapon they can use with impunity, they will. But when they suddenly realize that others will use it against them, they will stop. Think of it as the cultural version of Mutually Assured Destruction: if you want to try to destroy a conservative as racist/sexist for using a particular word, then we will destroy every liberal who uses that word. This may not make for a pleasant world in the short term, but it is the only way to put an end to these attacks.

Indeed, fighting fire with fire is the only technique which works against the left because they win through incremental progress. In other words, they can win by getting a little bit at a time each time they come to power unless conservatives roll back their gains. For example, for decades, the left concentrated power in the executive branch and the courts. They used that power to force leftist ideas onto businesses, schools, state governments, charities, churches and individuals. When conservatives came to power, they would stupidly declare that they would take the high ground and not use the powers created by the left. The left laughed. And once the conservatives lost power again, the left picked right up where they were before and kept right on pushing -- secure in the knowledge that conservatives lacked the will to use these instruments of power against them.

All of that changed under Bush, particularly in education where Bush used the levers of power liberals created to push liberalism onto schools as a means to impose conservatism instead. Suddenly, the left started howling about state’s rights and attacks on personal freedom and they did their best to strip away the powers they had created. Ditto in the courts, where the left now squeals about legal principles like stare decisis, binding precedent and judicial restraint. . . things they ignored for fifty years while the courts were pushing the country to the left.

It’s the same thing here. Taking the high ground equals surrendering. Conservatives must learn to make the left pay for creating these weapons. This means using the government to bring lawsuits against liberal businesses that violate the laws, sending the IRS after liberal churches, unions and charities which engage in politics, going after race hustler groups and black racist organizations under the civil rights laws, targeting Obama-crony companies like GE with the environmental laws they demanded. . . and making life hell for liberal celebrities who step into the traps liberals have set for conservatives.

That’s what the Bigs are doing. And while I don’t personally enjoy it, I absolutely recognize the value of what they are doing. They are firing back the same nuclear weapons the left has been lobbing at us, and they’ve been rather successful at it. And when the left starts to realize that they are living under an unfair microscope of their own making, they will surrender. . . just as they have every other time conservatives have fought back.

Fighting Fire With Fire

View Detail

Slutgate: Saved By A Fluke

Slutgate: Saved By A Fluke

Politics is often a game of fools, with both sides vying to out-do the other in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That’s what’s happening with slutgate. Indeed, the ironies here are tremendous. Let’s discuss.

● Round One: Rush should be condemned for two reasons. First, Rush was wrong to call this girl a slut, even if she is one. It’s poor manners and he knows better. “Slut” is just one of those words you don’t use in polite company. And Rush knows he was wrong. We know this because he apologized and he did it on a Saturday morning (the ultimate “Friday night drop”), which tells me he was embarrassed by the whole thing. Conservatives should not have defended his initial conduct.

Secondly, Rush also should be condemned for handing the Democrats a victory. Putting aside Santorum’s anti-woman jihad, the Democrats were in trouble on this whole sex issue. Not only had they just tried to force religious organizations to provide birth control in violation of their beliefs, but they doubled-down on stupid with this Fluke idiot whining how a Georgetown law student couldn’t afford all the birth control she needs for her vast travels through the male population. This also followed Obama’s humiliating retreat from his plan to make the morning after pill available without a prescription (meaning angry boyfriends, husbands or just plain sickos could buy it and slip it to women). Things were looking pretty grim for the Donks. But along came Rush and wiped all that out. He turned this issue from one of religious freedom and the Democrats demanding money so rich kids could have sex into an issue about Rush “unfairly attacking some defenseless girl.” If the Democrats had left it at that, this would have ended poorly for our side.

● Round Two: It would have ended poorly for Rush too because his sponsors began pulling out. To understand why this was a real danger, you need to understand that the sponsors weren’t pulling out because they thought this was unforgivable. To the contrary, events like this are a good time to dump people you already want to dump. My guess is that several of his sponsors felt Rush was no longer providing the returns they’d hoped and they saw this as a great chance to break a costly long term relationship that was no longer worth the money. In other words, the danger to Rush wasn’t outrage, it was the excuse that would allow them to end their contracts with him. What’s worse, there were enough of these that their exodus was creating an appearance of momentum, which made it more likely that others would flee as well to avoid looking bad. Make no mistake, this kind of exodus could very well have ruined Rush and led to his being dropped all around the country.

● Round Three: But, sensing blood in the water, the Democrats got greedy, and they lost everything. Observe. . .

● One: First, Fluke blew any sympathy she won by refusing to accept Rush’s apology. Everybody accepts verbal apologies for verbal insults. That’s the way you have to play it. She didn’t. That made her petty as well as being a slut. Then she made it worse by pimping Media Matters’ website. Then it came out she’s got connections to various Democratic operatives. So she went from victim to opportunistic, deceptive petty slut who pimps for the left. Way to squander all your goodwill.

● Two: Then we learned Obama’s administration has been coordinating the increasingly fake outrage. Whoops. The public will accept lies, but they won’t accept faked-outrage, and they won’t look kindly upon Obama interfering in a private dispute to exploit it for political purposes. . . did the ridiculous beer summit teach Obama nothing?

● Three: Then the Democrats’ hypocrisy exploded in their faces because the new conservative media proved very good at using the same tactics the left has employed against them: they shifted the debate and made it about Bill Maher. Suddenly, everyone was demanding to know why the left didn’t condemn Bill Maher for all the vile things he’s called Sarah Palin (and every other Republican woman or black). Maher, who recently gave $1,000,000 to Obama is so vile he makes Andrew Dice Clay sound like the Pope.

The Democrats tried to talk their way out of this by claiming Bill Maher isn’t on the radio, he’s on a pay-channel, so he’s immune from criticism. Except, this is laughable. How can something be racist and sexist unless it’s said on pay television? And if that’s true, then why have the Democrats repeatedly attacked people for things they said on pay television like Fox. No one was buying this. So the Democrats came up with a new theory: Rush is the de facto voice of the Republican Party and Bill Maher is just some comedian. Nope, that doesn’t wash either. No one has ever appointed Rush as head of anything, and the Democrats have never accepted that distinction in the past in any event. No sale.

Now they’re trying the “but Fluke isn’t a public figure, Palin is!” argument. Only, when Fluke went before Congress with the intention of getting her idiotic views heard by Congress on the record, she made herself a public figure. When she pimped for Media Matters, she confirmed it. Keep trying.

With no real justification, the Democrats are slowly impaling themselves on their own hypocrisy. And if they keep this up, some conservative comedian needs to drop a few n-words on that big-assed b*tch Michelle Obama because she’s a public figure and none of us are on the radio or run the Republican Party. And when the Democrats get upset, we’ll just invoke the Maher Hypocrisy Doctrine.

● Four: Just when things seemed like they couldn’t get worse for the Democrats, attention whore Gloria Allred arrived to wipe out any last vestiges of a Democratic victory by whining that Rush should be “prosecuted” for crimes against a liberal. She really suggested that in Rush’s case, the use of the word “slut” should be a criminal offense. This is Orwellian, where noncriminal conduct is considered criminal because you don’t like the person who did it. It also exposes the hate-filled, totalitarian mindset of the left. Anyone who has ever doubted just how vile, evil and abusive the left is need look no further. Don’t ever tell me again that any Democrat believes in free speech, because that’s a lie.

That’s how the Democrats squandered a tremendous victory. But even more ironically, in their zeal to destroy Rush, they actually saved him from himself. They turned him from villain to victim. And there’s a good lesson there -- when life hands you a victory, take it, don’t get greedy.

So who you got in the tournament?

Also, can someone please tell me why we need a Facebook page? Specifically, what would it do that the blog doesn’t already do? Seriously.

Politics is often a game of fools, with both sides vying to out-do the other in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That’s what’s happening with slutgate. Indeed, the ironies here are tremendous. Let’s discuss.

● Round One: Rush should be condemned for two reasons. First, Rush was wrong to call this girl a slut, even if she is one. It’s poor manners and he knows better. “Slut” is just one of those words you don’t use in polite company. And Rush knows he was wrong. We know this because he apologized and he did it on a Saturday morning (the ultimate “Friday night drop”), which tells me he was embarrassed by the whole thing. Conservatives should not have defended his initial conduct.

Secondly, Rush also should be condemned for handing the Democrats a victory. Putting aside Santorum’s anti-woman jihad, the Democrats were in trouble on this whole sex issue. Not only had they just tried to force religious organizations to provide birth control in violation of their beliefs, but they doubled-down on stupid with this Fluke idiot whining how a Georgetown law student couldn’t afford all the birth control she needs for her vast travels through the male population. This also followed Obama’s humiliating retreat from his plan to make the morning after pill available without a prescription (meaning angry boyfriends, husbands or just plain sickos could buy it and slip it to women). Things were looking pretty grim for the Donks. But along came Rush and wiped all that out. He turned this issue from one of religious freedom and the Democrats demanding money so rich kids could have sex into an issue about Rush “unfairly attacking some defenseless girl.” If the Democrats had left it at that, this would have ended poorly for our side.

● Round Two: It would have ended poorly for Rush too because his sponsors began pulling out. To understand why this was a real danger, you need to understand that the sponsors weren’t pulling out because they thought this was unforgivable. To the contrary, events like this are a good time to dump people you already want to dump. My guess is that several of his sponsors felt Rush was no longer providing the returns they’d hoped and they saw this as a great chance to break a costly long term relationship that was no longer worth the money. In other words, the danger to Rush wasn’t outrage, it was the excuse that would allow them to end their contracts with him. What’s worse, there were enough of these that their exodus was creating an appearance of momentum, which made it more likely that others would flee as well to avoid looking bad. Make no mistake, this kind of exodus could very well have ruined Rush and led to his being dropped all around the country.

● Round Three: But, sensing blood in the water, the Democrats got greedy, and they lost everything. Observe. . .

● One: First, Fluke blew any sympathy she won by refusing to accept Rush’s apology. Everybody accepts verbal apologies for verbal insults. That’s the way you have to play it. She didn’t. That made her petty as well as being a slut. Then she made it worse by pimping Media Matters’ website. Then it came out she’s got connections to various Democratic operatives. So she went from victim to opportunistic, deceptive petty slut who pimps for the left. Way to squander all your goodwill.

● Two: Then we learned Obama’s administration has been coordinating the increasingly fake outrage. Whoops. The public will accept lies, but they won’t accept faked-outrage, and they won’t look kindly upon Obama interfering in a private dispute to exploit it for political purposes. . . did the ridiculous beer summit teach Obama nothing?

● Three: Then the Democrats’ hypocrisy exploded in their faces because the new conservative media proved very good at using the same tactics the left has employed against them: they shifted the debate and made it about Bill Maher. Suddenly, everyone was demanding to know why the left didn’t condemn Bill Maher for all the vile things he’s called Sarah Palin (and every other Republican woman or black). Maher, who recently gave $1,000,000 to Obama is so vile he makes Andrew Dice Clay sound like the Pope.

The Democrats tried to talk their way out of this by claiming Bill Maher isn’t on the radio, he’s on a pay-channel, so he’s immune from criticism. Except, this is laughable. How can something be racist and sexist unless it’s said on pay television? And if that’s true, then why have the Democrats repeatedly attacked people for things they said on pay television like Fox. No one was buying this. So the Democrats came up with a new theory: Rush is the de facto voice of the Republican Party and Bill Maher is just some comedian. Nope, that doesn’t wash either. No one has ever appointed Rush as head of anything, and the Democrats have never accepted that distinction in the past in any event. No sale.

Now they’re trying the “but Fluke isn’t a public figure, Palin is!” argument. Only, when Fluke went before Congress with the intention of getting her idiotic views heard by Congress on the record, she made herself a public figure. When she pimped for Media Matters, she confirmed it. Keep trying.

With no real justification, the Democrats are slowly impaling themselves on their own hypocrisy. And if they keep this up, some conservative comedian needs to drop a few n-words on that big-assed b*tch Michelle Obama because she’s a public figure and none of us are on the radio or run the Republican Party. And when the Democrats get upset, we’ll just invoke the Maher Hypocrisy Doctrine.

● Four: Just when things seemed like they couldn’t get worse for the Democrats, attention whore Gloria Allred arrived to wipe out any last vestiges of a Democratic victory by whining that Rush should be “prosecuted” for crimes against a liberal. She really suggested that in Rush’s case, the use of the word “slut” should be a criminal offense. This is Orwellian, where noncriminal conduct is considered criminal because you don’t like the person who did it. It also exposes the hate-filled, totalitarian mindset of the left. Anyone who has ever doubted just how vile, evil and abusive the left is need look no further. Don’t ever tell me again that any Democrat believes in free speech, because that’s a lie.

That’s how the Democrats squandered a tremendous victory. But even more ironically, in their zeal to destroy Rush, they actually saved him from himself. They turned him from villain to victim. And there’s a good lesson there -- when life hands you a victory, take it, don’t get greedy.

So who you got in the tournament?

Also, can someone please tell me why we need a Facebook page? Specifically, what would it do that the blog doesn’t already do? Seriously.

Slutgate: Saved By A Fluke

View Detail

Trolling For Women (Voters)

Trolling For Women (Voters)

Another one of Barack Obama’s major constituencies is a lot shakier than it was in 2008. He won the women’s vote by a heavy margin. That’s not such a sure thing this time. His numbers fell seriously over the past few months, although it seems to have had a temporary bump since Rush Limbaugh called the Georgetown Law student a prostitute, sort of. It also seems that Rick Santorum is scaring moderate and liberal women (fairly or unfairly).

Obama sewed up the women’s vote in the 2008 election. In the affluent suburbs, replete with moderates and independents, his margin among women was thirteen percent. Without winning the women’s vote by a healthy margin, Barack Obama would not be president today. But following the election, and after three years of a pathetic economic recovery and unemployment stubbornly holding at above eight percent, the dew was off the rose. Women were turning to economic issues, and Obama was not fulfilling any his promises about reinvigorating the economy.

Among independent and moderate women, generic Republicans were pulling very close to The One in approval and disapproval polls. The slide was slow but sure. But the Democrats have gotten a temporary reprieve. Rick Santorum, Republican candidate for the nomination, has made social issues a major part of his campaign. Polls clearly indicate that this has no effect on conservative women, but is starting to have an effect among moderates and independents. They may not reject social conservatism, but they don’t want it at the top of the list, and they’re unsure that other Republican candidates don’t harbor the same views.

Then came the Obamacare birth control/abortifacient mandates. Democrats were losing ground on the religious freedom issue, so they cleverly turned it into a debate about women’s rights. In fact, Obama’s minions had started to declare the conservative and religious objections to the mandates as “a new war on women.” When the issue was brought up in the Senate as a rejection of the mandates imposed on religious institutions, the Democrats said “this is a Republican attempt to roll back long-established women’s rights.”

Failing to get a witness approved who had nothing valuable or germane to say at the hearings on the mandates, Nancy Pelosi put on her own dog and pony show in the House. Her witness was Sandra Fluke (pronounced Fluck, for some strange reason), a ditsy Georgetown Law student who was too stupid to figure out how to get free contraceptives. This Georgetown Dunce is attending a very expensive private law school, but thinks that the public and religious objectors should pay for her birth control and abortifacients. It might have died a quiet death, if not for a nasty (though accurate) comment by Rush Limbaugh.

“Aha!” said the Democrats. Our big opportunity to detour the religious freedom debate and make it all about mean white male woman-haters who want women barefoot and back in the kitchen. The fake indignation spread like wildfire. Barack Obama, who recently couldn’t take time out of his golf games to talk with the Israeli Prime Minister suddenly felt it necessary personally telephone the Georgetown “slut” to apologize for a remark that he didn’t make and which wasn’t being attributed to him. Exactly on whose behalf he made the apology is unclear. But he felt it was imperative that he console this thirty year old helpless woman whose life was being ruined by the alleged lack of free birth control.

The whole social issue, “gimme my free condoms and pills” debate has had a negative effect on independent and moderate women. The gap that was narrowing is opening again. It may just be temporary if Republican candidate Rick Santorum will pay less attention to social issues and more attention to economic issues, but so far he’s showing no sign of doing so.

The deleterious effect on the women’s vote can be demonstrated by the results of exit polls after the Ohio primary. Married women leaned toward Santorum. Unmarried women leaned toward Romney. Conservative women said that the Fluke incident had no effect whatsoever on their choice. But when men were asked the same question, there was literally no significant difference between married and unmarried men.

This controversy will probably blow over. And it’s a long time until November. But I must commend two Republican women for refusing to cower under the Democratic attacks. First of all, Ann Romney, wife of candidate Mitt Romney, made it clear that Republican women were not going to be silenced because of a manufactured issue. Defiantly, Mrs. Romney addressed her comments directly to the leader of the Obamists: “Do you know what women care about? Women care about jobs. They’re angry and they’re furious about the entitlement debt we are leaving to our children.”

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski also made a definitive statement. “I’m right along with Ann Romney. There is clearly a direction we can take as Republicans that gives confidence and assurance.” She added: “Women in Alaska are worried about what they’re paying in energy costs. They’re worried about whether or not they’ll be able to put their kids through college, whether their savings are secure.”

Now those are the real women’s issues, not whether or not a Georgetown law student is a slut or a prostitute. And of course the mainstream media have jumped on the bandwagon, touting both Fluke’s innocent helplessness and Obama’s great empathy for women who can’t afford free birth control. If the Republicans, and particularly the women Republicans, can stay on message and keep the issues revolving around a woman’s desire for economic stability in her home and at work, the Democrats’ poster girl for entitlement and government largess will fade from memory. And then Sandy Fluke can go cry on Anita Hill’s shoulder. Another attorney who couldn’t take the heat.

Another one of Barack Obama’s major constituencies is a lot shakier than it was in 2008. He won the women’s vote by a heavy margin. That’s not such a sure thing this time. His numbers fell seriously over the past few months, although it seems to have had a temporary bump since Rush Limbaugh called the Georgetown Law student a prostitute, sort of. It also seems that Rick Santorum is scaring moderate and liberal women (fairly or unfairly).

Obama sewed up the women’s vote in the 2008 election. In the affluent suburbs, replete with moderates and independents, his margin among women was thirteen percent. Without winning the women’s vote by a healthy margin, Barack Obama would not be president today. But following the election, and after three years of a pathetic economic recovery and unemployment stubbornly holding at above eight percent, the dew was off the rose. Women were turning to economic issues, and Obama was not fulfilling any his promises about reinvigorating the economy.

Among independent and moderate women, generic Republicans were pulling very close to The One in approval and disapproval polls. The slide was slow but sure. But the Democrats have gotten a temporary reprieve. Rick Santorum, Republican candidate for the nomination, has made social issues a major part of his campaign. Polls clearly indicate that this has no effect on conservative women, but is starting to have an effect among moderates and independents. They may not reject social conservatism, but they don’t want it at the top of the list, and they’re unsure that other Republican candidates don’t harbor the same views.

Then came the Obamacare birth control/abortifacient mandates. Democrats were losing ground on the religious freedom issue, so they cleverly turned it into a debate about women’s rights. In fact, Obama’s minions had started to declare the conservative and religious objections to the mandates as “a new war on women.” When the issue was brought up in the Senate as a rejection of the mandates imposed on religious institutions, the Democrats said “this is a Republican attempt to roll back long-established women’s rights.”

Failing to get a witness approved who had nothing valuable or germane to say at the hearings on the mandates, Nancy Pelosi put on her own dog and pony show in the House. Her witness was Sandra Fluke (pronounced Fluck, for some strange reason), a ditsy Georgetown Law student who was too stupid to figure out how to get free contraceptives. This Georgetown Dunce is attending a very expensive private law school, but thinks that the public and religious objectors should pay for her birth control and abortifacients. It might have died a quiet death, if not for a nasty (though accurate) comment by Rush Limbaugh.

“Aha!” said the Democrats. Our big opportunity to detour the religious freedom debate and make it all about mean white male woman-haters who want women barefoot and back in the kitchen. The fake indignation spread like wildfire. Barack Obama, who recently couldn’t take time out of his golf games to talk with the Israeli Prime Minister suddenly felt it necessary personally telephone the Georgetown “slut” to apologize for a remark that he didn’t make and which wasn’t being attributed to him. Exactly on whose behalf he made the apology is unclear. But he felt it was imperative that he console this thirty year old helpless woman whose life was being ruined by the alleged lack of free birth control.

The whole social issue, “gimme my free condoms and pills” debate has had a negative effect on independent and moderate women. The gap that was narrowing is opening again. It may just be temporary if Republican candidate Rick Santorum will pay less attention to social issues and more attention to economic issues, but so far he’s showing no sign of doing so.

The deleterious effect on the women’s vote can be demonstrated by the results of exit polls after the Ohio primary. Married women leaned toward Santorum. Unmarried women leaned toward Romney. Conservative women said that the Fluke incident had no effect whatsoever on their choice. But when men were asked the same question, there was literally no significant difference between married and unmarried men.

This controversy will probably blow over. And it’s a long time until November. But I must commend two Republican women for refusing to cower under the Democratic attacks. First of all, Ann Romney, wife of candidate Mitt Romney, made it clear that Republican women were not going to be silenced because of a manufactured issue. Defiantly, Mrs. Romney addressed her comments directly to the leader of the Obamists: “Do you know what women care about? Women care about jobs. They’re angry and they’re furious about the entitlement debt we are leaving to our children.”

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski also made a definitive statement. “I’m right along with Ann Romney. There is clearly a direction we can take as Republicans that gives confidence and assurance.” She added: “Women in Alaska are worried about what they’re paying in energy costs. They’re worried about whether or not they’ll be able to put their kids through college, whether their savings are secure.”

Now those are the real women’s issues, not whether or not a Georgetown law student is a slut or a prostitute. And of course the mainstream media have jumped on the bandwagon, touting both Fluke’s innocent helplessness and Obama’s great empathy for women who can’t afford free birth control. If the Republicans, and particularly the women Republicans, can stay on message and keep the issues revolving around a woman’s desire for economic stability in her home and at work, the Democrats’ poster girl for entitlement and government largess will fade from memory. And then Sandy Fluke can go cry on Anita Hill’s shoulder. Another attorney who couldn’t take the heat.

Trolling For Women (Voters)

View Detail

The Ridiculous “Anybody But Romney” Spin

The Ridiculous “Anybody But Romney” Spin

The amount of spin on the right these days is stunning. And most of it is so obviously wrong that I can only assume our pundits know they are trying to mislead you. Let’s sort some of this out.

1. Romney underperformed. This is garbage. This is a trick pundits use to make you think someone is winning/losing when they aren’t. Once they know how a race is likely to go, they set fake expectations just beyond what the polling suggests and then declare the candidate a winner/loser for exceeding/failing to meet those arbitrary “expectations.” This lets them declare any winner to “really” be a loser and vice versa.

Michigan gave the perfect example of this. Michigan was ignored until the polls showed Romney losing Michigan. The pundits ran with this and said Romney would be finished if he couldn’t win Michigan. Then the vote came in and Romney began to pull ahead. Suddenly, they raised the expectations. Now Romney needed to win by 10,000 votes to be credible. When he passed that, they raised it to 20,000. Then they just gave up and talked about his failure to connect even though he had exceeded all the expectations they set for him. They did the same thing with Ohio.

They tried to claim Romney “underperformed” in Virginia because he only got 60% of the vote. Yet, they failed to mention that only 250,000 people voted (5% of the state) because they were told the race didn’t matter. That makes this an outlier which can’t be used to judge Romney’s performance.

They even tried to argue that Romney “underperformed” in Oklahoma. Huh? Oklahoma is evangelical country. Evangelicals have been backing Santorum 51% to 19% in other states, so Santorum should have won by 25% easily, but he won by only 5%. Yet the pundits claim Romney underperformed? How?

Further, to promote this under-performance meme, they’ve ignored all contrary facts. For example, after spending the week saying Massachusetts was not excited about Romney, Romney won with 72% of the vote. That’s a blowout. Yet it was quickly dismissed as “expected” even though the pundits laughingly suggested the opposite a few days before. Also, compare their dismissal of this with their initial glorification of Newt’s 47% in Georgia.

The truth is this:

● Romney won 216 delegates on Tuesday compared to 84 for Santorum.
● Romney won 6 of 10 states on Tuesday.
● Romney has blown the others out several times. Santorum’s wins have come in small states and he failed to crack 40% in any state last night.
● Romney has won both “key” states where Santorum needed to win -- Michigan and Ohio.

You tell me who’s winning? Also let me ask: if Santorum can’t win in Ohio or Michigan where will he win?

2. Primaries versus the general election: gaps. The pundits are trying to mix the apples of the primary with the oranges of the general election to attack Romney. Specifically, they claim Romney’s inability to win over evangelicals and hillbillies will hurt him against Obama. Huh? To suggest, that these people might flock to Obama because they don’t like Romney is ludicrous. They would rather vote for Hitler than Obama, who they see as a Muslim who is waging a way against Christianity.

But what if they decide to stay home? First, that won’t happen. These people will turn out to vote even if it’s raining fire to be rid of Obama. Moreover and more importantly, these people live in states like West Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Georgia, Mississippi. . . where Obama will lose in a landslide. In other words, they are irrelevant to this election.

Hence, the pundits are fretting over something which simply cannot happen and which will not matter.

At the same time, they are openly ignoring the real gap in this race: Santorum’s problem with women. As with Michigan, Santorum lost women in Ohio by about 9%. That’s conservative women. In a general election he will probably do what he did in Pennsylvania, when he lost “women” (liberal and conservative combined) by 19%. Women make up about 53% of the electorate. That means Santorum needs to win 65% of men just to break even. That’s impossible. So why are the pundits ignoring this or dismissing it?

3. Primaries versus the general election: RomneyCare. The pundits also want you to believe that it will be hard for Romney to win in November because of RomneyCare. Their argument is that the public will be uneasy with Romney because the base has proven to be uneasy about RomneyCare. Give me a break.

The base is not the public. The November election will be fought in the middle and will likely be won or lost in New Hampshire. That means, whoever wins the moderates wins. Because Romney is not a doctrinaire, fire-brand conservative, it will be easy for him to appeal to moderates. Santorum, on the hand, scares moderates. They will not support him. As for RomneyCare, what better person to propose killing ObamaCare than someone who has done something similar and can look voters in they eye and say, “I know why this doesn’t work, because I’ve tried it.” Or do you think the guy who says, “Jesus told me to kill it” is going to be an easier sell to moderates?

4. Can’t buy me love. This has been a consistent pundit meme throughout the primaries: Romney only wins because he has money. Except. . .

● The other candidates also have millions of dollars they are spending.
● Unlike Romney, Newt and Santorum have vast amounts of free paid-in-kind cheerleading from talk radio. They don’t need ads when they have all of talk radio ripping into Romney every day.
● Advertising cannot sway people unless there is reason to be swayed. Or are conservatives zombies who do what Romney commands because they see his ads? If that’s the case, why don't they do what Obama commands or talk radio? Why does this only work for Romney? Magic?
● Finally, if we assume this is true, then doesn’t that mean we need Romney as our nominee because Obama has even more money than Romney, so Santorum will be even more outgunned?

5. Newt + Rick = Nothing. The latest meme is that if Newt would just drop out of the race, then Santorum would win. I doubt it. There is little reason to think Newt’s supporters will jump to Santorum. If that were the case, they would have abandoned Newt in places like Ohio and Michigan where Newt could not win and would have worked with Santorum to take down Romney. They didn’t. It is more likely these are people who aren’t thrilled with Romney but like Santorum/Newt even less. And when Newt drops out, they will switch to Romney or Paul rather than Santorum.

Indeed, if you want a sense of the actual strength of the Anybody But Romney crowd, look at Virginia. In Virginia, the only challenger was Paul. That made Virginia a free vote for the ABR crowd because they could all vote for Paul as a protest against Romney without hurting their own guy (Gingrich/Santorum) by helping the other guy (Santorum/Gingrich). And how did the ABR crowd do? They won 40% of the vote, that’s it. Moreover, only 5% of the electorate turned out even though they had a chance to smack Romney hard (i.e. only 2% turned out to oppose Romney). That’s hardly earth shattering opposition.

The idea that Santorum or Gingrich would win if the other would quit is just more spin. It’s designed to give their supporters hope that something will happen soon to change the race dynamic. But it’s mathematically impossible. Romney only needs to win 48% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. Santorum needs to win 65% and Newt needs to win 70%. If Newt dropped out and Santorum somehow got 100% of his supporters (an impossible task), he still would only have gotten 51% in Ohio and 45% in Michigan. Even in their best state Georgia (an outlier because it’s Newt’s home state) they would have needed 100% of the vote just to get to 66%. It's just not enough. Romney wins. All Santorum is doing now is playing the spoiler.

The amount of spin on the right these days is stunning. And most of it is so obviously wrong that I can only assume our pundits know they are trying to mislead you. Let’s sort some of this out.

1. Romney underperformed. This is garbage. This is a trick pundits use to make you think someone is winning/losing when they aren’t. Once they know how a race is likely to go, they set fake expectations just beyond what the polling suggests and then declare the candidate a winner/loser for exceeding/failing to meet those arbitrary “expectations.” This lets them declare any winner to “really” be a loser and vice versa.

Michigan gave the perfect example of this. Michigan was ignored until the polls showed Romney losing Michigan. The pundits ran with this and said Romney would be finished if he couldn’t win Michigan. Then the vote came in and Romney began to pull ahead. Suddenly, they raised the expectations. Now Romney needed to win by 10,000 votes to be credible. When he passed that, they raised it to 20,000. Then they just gave up and talked about his failure to connect even though he had exceeded all the expectations they set for him. They did the same thing with Ohio.

They tried to claim Romney “underperformed” in Virginia because he only got 60% of the vote. Yet, they failed to mention that only 250,000 people voted (5% of the state) because they were told the race didn’t matter. That makes this an outlier which can’t be used to judge Romney’s performance.

They even tried to argue that Romney “underperformed” in Oklahoma. Huh? Oklahoma is evangelical country. Evangelicals have been backing Santorum 51% to 19% in other states, so Santorum should have won by 25% easily, but he won by only 5%. Yet the pundits claim Romney underperformed? How?

Further, to promote this under-performance meme, they’ve ignored all contrary facts. For example, after spending the week saying Massachusetts was not excited about Romney, Romney won with 72% of the vote. That’s a blowout. Yet it was quickly dismissed as “expected” even though the pundits laughingly suggested the opposite a few days before. Also, compare their dismissal of this with their initial glorification of Newt’s 47% in Georgia.

The truth is this:

● Romney won 216 delegates on Tuesday compared to 84 for Santorum.
● Romney won 6 of 10 states on Tuesday.
● Romney has blown the others out several times. Santorum’s wins have come in small states and he failed to crack 40% in any state last night.
● Romney has won both “key” states where Santorum needed to win -- Michigan and Ohio.

You tell me who’s winning? Also let me ask: if Santorum can’t win in Ohio or Michigan where will he win?

2. Primaries versus the general election: gaps. The pundits are trying to mix the apples of the primary with the oranges of the general election to attack Romney. Specifically, they claim Romney’s inability to win over evangelicals and hillbillies will hurt him against Obama. Huh? To suggest, that these people might flock to Obama because they don’t like Romney is ludicrous. They would rather vote for Hitler than Obama, who they see as a Muslim who is waging a way against Christianity.

But what if they decide to stay home? First, that won’t happen. These people will turn out to vote even if it’s raining fire to be rid of Obama. Moreover and more importantly, these people live in states like West Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Georgia, Mississippi. . . where Obama will lose in a landslide. In other words, they are irrelevant to this election.

Hence, the pundits are fretting over something which simply cannot happen and which will not matter.

At the same time, they are openly ignoring the real gap in this race: Santorum’s problem with women. As with Michigan, Santorum lost women in Ohio by about 9%. That’s conservative women. In a general election he will probably do what he did in Pennsylvania, when he lost “women” (liberal and conservative combined) by 19%. Women make up about 53% of the electorate. That means Santorum needs to win 65% of men just to break even. That’s impossible. So why are the pundits ignoring this or dismissing it?

3. Primaries versus the general election: RomneyCare. The pundits also want you to believe that it will be hard for Romney to win in November because of RomneyCare. Their argument is that the public will be uneasy with Romney because the base has proven to be uneasy about RomneyCare. Give me a break.

The base is not the public. The November election will be fought in the middle and will likely be won or lost in New Hampshire. That means, whoever wins the moderates wins. Because Romney is not a doctrinaire, fire-brand conservative, it will be easy for him to appeal to moderates. Santorum, on the hand, scares moderates. They will not support him. As for RomneyCare, what better person to propose killing ObamaCare than someone who has done something similar and can look voters in they eye and say, “I know why this doesn’t work, because I’ve tried it.” Or do you think the guy who says, “Jesus told me to kill it” is going to be an easier sell to moderates?

4. Can’t buy me love. This has been a consistent pundit meme throughout the primaries: Romney only wins because he has money. Except. . .

● The other candidates also have millions of dollars they are spending.
● Unlike Romney, Newt and Santorum have vast amounts of free paid-in-kind cheerleading from talk radio. They don’t need ads when they have all of talk radio ripping into Romney every day.
● Advertising cannot sway people unless there is reason to be swayed. Or are conservatives zombies who do what Romney commands because they see his ads? If that’s the case, why don't they do what Obama commands or talk radio? Why does this only work for Romney? Magic?
● Finally, if we assume this is true, then doesn’t that mean we need Romney as our nominee because Obama has even more money than Romney, so Santorum will be even more outgunned?

5. Newt + Rick = Nothing. The latest meme is that if Newt would just drop out of the race, then Santorum would win. I doubt it. There is little reason to think Newt’s supporters will jump to Santorum. If that were the case, they would have abandoned Newt in places like Ohio and Michigan where Newt could not win and would have worked with Santorum to take down Romney. They didn’t. It is more likely these are people who aren’t thrilled with Romney but like Santorum/Newt even less. And when Newt drops out, they will switch to Romney or Paul rather than Santorum.

Indeed, if you want a sense of the actual strength of the Anybody But Romney crowd, look at Virginia. In Virginia, the only challenger was Paul. That made Virginia a free vote for the ABR crowd because they could all vote for Paul as a protest against Romney without hurting their own guy (Gingrich/Santorum) by helping the other guy (Santorum/Gingrich). And how did the ABR crowd do? They won 40% of the vote, that’s it. Moreover, only 5% of the electorate turned out even though they had a chance to smack Romney hard (i.e. only 2% turned out to oppose Romney). That’s hardly earth shattering opposition.

The idea that Santorum or Gingrich would win if the other would quit is just more spin. It’s designed to give their supporters hope that something will happen soon to change the race dynamic. But it’s mathematically impossible. Romney only needs to win 48% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. Santorum needs to win 65% and Newt needs to win 70%. If Newt dropped out and Santorum somehow got 100% of his supporters (an impossible task), he still would only have gotten 51% in Ohio and 45% in Michigan. Even in their best state Georgia (an outlier because it’s Newt’s home state) they would have needed 100% of the vote just to get to 66%. It's just not enough. Romney wins. All Santorum is doing now is playing the spoiler.

The Ridiculous “Anybody But Romney” Spin

View Detail