*VIDEOS* CPAC 2013 Highlights: Day 3 – Saturday (03/16/13)

…TEA PARTY PATRIOTS CO-FOUNDER JENNY BETH MARTIN

.
…CONGRESSMAN STEVE KING

.
…WISCONSIN GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER

.
…FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH

.
…CONGRESSWOMAN MICHELE BACHMANN

.
…AUTHOR ERIC METAXAS AND NEUROSURGEON BEN CARSON

.
…FORMER CONGRESSMAN ARTUR DAVIS

.
…FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN

.
…EAGLE FORUM FOUNDER PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

.
…’10 CONSERVATIVES UNDER 40′ PANEL

.
…MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER PRESIDENT BRENT BOZELL

.
…SARATOGA SPRINGS, UTAH MAYOR MIA LOVE

.
…NRA PRESIDENT DAVID KEENE

.
…AUTHOR ANN COULTER

.
…SENATOR TED CRUZ

.
…………Note: more videos to be posted as they become available.

…………………..Click HERE to watch highlights from Day 1.

…………………..Click HERE to watch highlights from Day 2.

.

Yeah, about that Karl Rove Super-Pac

Let’s face it folks, too many big names, like Karl Rove, care more about their $$$ than moving Conservatism forward. It is not really about doing what is best for the country, it is about establishing, then preserving their place in the pecking order. There are some very dedicated Conservatives out there that put principles over politics, and personal fame. Many of those are bloggers. And yes, bloggers can engage in self-promotion, nothing wring with that. It is when self-promotion starts to dictate what you say or write that it becomes problematic, can you hear me Ann Coulter?. And, most bloggers I link and like are more concerned with helping the country than helping themselves. I am honored to be amongst those who do this every day, each in their own way, not as much for themselves, but for America.

Another blogger who I think balances self-promotion with sincere patriotism is Stacy McCain, and he has some solid advice on how to deal with Karl Rove and his Super-Pac

 

Until we get down to cases — in a clear-cut situation where a Republican primary pits a solid conservative against a Establishment RINO type hand-picked by Karl Rove — there’s no point getting all angry or frightened about it. Look for an opportunity to beat one of Rove’s picks, to teach the Establishment a lesson, but in the meantime, keep your powder dry.

Great advice. I had my fill of White Board Rove a while back. I always distrust people who seem to be concerned with pimping themselves than anything else. That and Rove always struck as one of those people that gets way too much credit for greatness. One of those people that makes you ask yourself “How in the Hell did they get where they’re at?”

Stacy McCain also notes that one of the critics of Rove is Newt Gingrich. Newt? Really, I guess Dede Scozzafava is just a distant memory, sort of like Newt’s wedding vows to his first wife.

 

Chris Christie, Andrew Cuomo’s kind of Republican

Just another politician, all about himself

Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), who is widely expected to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, may have justharmed his chances by signifying his support for the policies of ultra-liberal New York governor – and possible 2016 Democratic opponent – Andrew Cuomo. Talking with union leader Larry Bulman, political director for United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Steamfitters, Christie reportedly said, “I’m not much different from Andrew Cuomo. I probably agree with him on 98% of the issues.”

Christie leans liberal on a myriad of issues. While he maintains that he supports traditional marriage, that position is clearly malleable for him; he grandstands when it comes to federal disaster funding; he has ties to groups that are questionable in terms of Islamism; his anti-union rhetoric masks the fact that he gets along quite well with most of the unions in his state, including the much-maligned teachers unions; he blasts the NRA on a regular basis.

Ben Shapiro might be right, maybe this is just posturing for a 2016 run, I wonder if Ann Coulter will endorse him again? But, to me, this is the type of political gymnastics Americans are sick of, especially Republicans. Give us a candidate that says what they mean and means what they say! CONSISTENCY damn it!

 

Have you met the Queen of the Thought Police?

Her name is Bridgette Dunlap, she is 31, and is Campus Commissar of “Human Rights” at Fordham A.K.A. FU, which pretty much sums up her feelings about anyone who wants to speak any disagreement to Leftism. A certain infamous blogger has already crossed paths with her

You may recall this week I wrote an item called “Why Does @BridgetteDunlap Want to Suppress the Truth About Abortion?” describing a misguided effort to intimidate those who had written about the abortion-related death of Jennifer McKenna Morbelli. I closed that post by wishing Bridgette “good luck with your career as a commissar in the Thought Police.” Little did I realize Dunlap had already established quite a name for herself in that regard.

Suppression of speech is a big deal for the Left, especially important because Leftist ideology crumbles in open debate. So, Statists like Dunlap step in and attempt to re-educate dissenters. Remember when FU dis-invited Ann Coulter to speak?

In November, College Republicans invited Ann Coulter to speak at Fordham University, where Dunlap is “Crowley Scholar in International Human Rights at the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice.” Apparently, this is the kind of sinecure that entitles the “scholar” to engage in radical mau-mauing wherever her fanatical obsessions are involved.

Crowley Scholar in International Human Rights at the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice. What a long title, when all they really have to say is Communist. See that is so much better!

The College Republicans caved under pressure and disinvited Coulter— thus providing Fordham CRs valuable experience in the cherished Republican tactic of caving under pressure — but the campus radicals, no more satisfied than Hitler had been with the cession of the Sudetenland, decided to take it a step further: Demanding reparationsmerely for the school having entertained the possibility that Coulter might be permitted to speak at Fordham:

Note to Republican groups on college campuses. NEVER cave! It wins you nothing but extra grief!

Though the College Republicans withdrew the invitation to Ms. Coulter in light of the outcry from their peers, the problem remains that the University was willing to allocate over $10,000 to this event even while denying funding to other student and departmental initiatives featuring speakers or topics with which it disagrees. We appreciate your statement distancing the University from Ms. Coulter’s hateful rhetoric and defending free speech and academic freedom. . . .

Defending free speech? By not allowing someone you disagree with to speak? Of course that is NOT defending freedom of speech, but, Leftists like Dunlap hate them some free speech unless they approve of what that speech says.

We would like you to explain how the decision was made to allow the College Republicans to use student activity funds to pay for the Coulter event while denying the use of such funds for other purposes deemed not to be in keeping with the University’s mission. For example, we understand that student groups may not use their budgets for the productions of the Vagina Monologues mounted by Fordham undergraduates each year to raise funds to combat violence against women. Along these same lines, Fordham’s anti-abortion club receives funding while pro-choice advocacy is censored. Why are these forms of student expression and association denied support while the Coulter event was not? Is pro-choice advocacy or the Vagina Monologues more inconsistent with the University’s mission than Coulter’s hate speech you rightly decry? Are they less entitled to respect in the free exchange of ideas in the Academy? . . .

Well Fordham IS a Catholic school Ms. Dunlap so, maybe that might have something to do with it? Stacy McCain explains

Fordham is a Catholic university and somehow, in the twisted pretzel logic of Commissar Dunlap and Comrade Higgins, permitting student funds to be used for College Republicans to invite Coulter to campus — an invitation the mau-maus forced the CRs to withdraw – means that the Jesuits are obligated to fund Eve Ensler’s obscene farce in the name of “the free exchange of ideas.”

This is a concept that a friend of mine long ago dubbed “diversity through homogenization”: Radical egalitarianism requires that all institutions be equally diverse, so that traditionally all-male institutions must be forced to accept females, each university must have a certain quota of left-handed Latina lesbians, and so forth. This rigid insistence on universal conformity to the dogma of “diversity” is the mindset that led to the death of Kara Hultgreen and the ritual humiliation of Lawrence Summers at Harvard.

I would pose one more question to Dunlap. were you forced to attend a Catholic University? Or did you choose to? Of course you were not forced, not at all. You CHOSE Fordham. But, like many malcontents, you think you have a right to impose YOUR values on to everyone else. How very Totalitarian of you.

Much, much more at the link, including details on Dunlap’s threats to sue people reporting on the Jennifer Moribelli case.

 

Rand Paul for President?

I would be happy to see him in the race frankly. We need a real Conservative who can deliver the Conservative message in a positive manner, Paul fits that bill I think. Sure the media would try to trash him, as they do any Conservative who even thinks about running, and the Dems would bring out the Extremist Card to play, but so what. Frankly, I think it is too early for talking about 2016, remember we DO have the 2014 mid terms next year, but frankly, traffic is slow today, and a bit of Rand Paul can only help.

Looking at 2016, I hope that we can for ONCE have a field of Conservatives without a Moderate to screw it up, why yes, I am talking to you Chris Christie. And I hope that field of Conservatives can debate without trying to destroy each other with unimportant issues or emotionalistic tactics, and yes, that is meant for you Michelle Bachman And PLEASE, Ann Coulter just shut up this time, we really do not need you telling us who CAN, or CANNOT win. Sorry for the negative tone, but, I am sick, and also tired of Conservative candidates picking each other off so that we get struck with the candidate the Democrats WANT to run against. And yes, that means you Mitt, and you Mr. Maverick. Finally, I want, more than anything, for a candidate’s record, and accomplishments to matter, not style. Yes, I am talking to you GOP voters!

While I am at it, let me add a list of GOP candidates I do not want to see run

Mike Huckabee, do I really have to explain why?

Jeb Bush

Chris Christie. He is the fatter, less tan Charlie Crist

Sarah Palin. the media would make a circus out of this, I do not think she could win.

Jeb Bush, yes, I already said his name once but I REALLY do not want him to run.

Joe Scarborough. Do we really want that tool running?

Rick Santorum. Two words sweater vests! Plus he is a whiner.

ANY “Moderate Republican”.

Newt Gingrich. I said him just to aggravate Ed Daley.

 

So, how long until Chris Christie is saying that the Republican Party left him?

I am not sure who said it, but recently, someone opined that the New Jersey Governor will one day complete his metamorphosis into a full blown Democrat. I was not sure that was right, but, when you add Christie’s pro-gun control beliefs with his throwing Romney under Hurricane Sandy for photo-ops with Obama, well, the direction that Christie seems to be taking is troubling. Chris, who lives in New Jersey, is starting to have doubts too.

Raise gas or ice prices more than 10% during a hurricane? Chris Christie will go after you with the full power of the law at his back.

But afterwards? Afterwards he’ll talk about raising taxes, because there’s no such thing as price gougingwhen government needs money.

Homeowners in towns hit hard by Hurricane Sandy could be in for an unpleasant surprise on their property tax bills.

Gov. Chris Christie said today that he expects property taxes to go up in towns that need extensive rebuilding.

“They’re probably going to have higher taxes,” said Christie. “It’s got to be paid for. This goes back to the old magic money tree. There’s no magic money tree.”

C’mon Christie! Your new bestest buddy Barry would beg to differ. He promised his peeps a magic money tree. They voted for a magic money tree. You can’t be dissing Prez BO! That’s like racist or something.

Yeah, one hug from Dear Leader is all it took to turn Governor Awesome into Robby RINO, tax hiker extraordinaire. Remember that tax cut Christie promised us earlier this year? Kiss it goodbye.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said he isn’t sure whether he’ll still pursue a tax cut that was the centerpiece of his economic strategy because Hurricane Sandy may have hurt state revenue in October and November.

At times like this, I cannot help but think about Ann Coulter who once said that unless the GOP nominated Christie, we would get stuck with Mitt Romney and would lose. Then she said that Romney was our ONLY hope when more Conservative candidates were still viable, and would have benefited from a Coulter endorsement. Odd isn’t it? The guy that Coulter backed first ended up helping give Obama a big PR win hurting the second guy Coulter endorsed. And people wonder why I am not especially impressed by Coulter?

And, a note to Chris up in Joisey, there is lots of room here in Texas, and our governor, well his record speaks volumes, he IS the real deal!

How convenient that Fordham University is also called FU!

Not being obscene here, just saying that those two letters sum up my reaction to this story pretty well

Via Beltway Confidential:

Fordham University president Joseph McShane, S.J., faulted campus College Republicans for inviting Ann Coulter to speak, saying that her rhetoric appeals to the “darker side” of human nature.

“To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement,” McShane said in a statement emailed to the university (the Young America’s Foundation has the email here). “There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative-more heat than light-and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.”

Oh shut up you whiner. Coulter is not my favorite Conservative voice, no she does not crack the top ten even, but she can be highly informative and entertaining, so, FU McShane. Just out of curiosity I wonder what McShane would have said if any number of hateful Leftsist would have been invited.

Hey, whadda ya know, Ann Coulter WAS right about Mitt after all

Remember this from Ann Coulter? Milton Wolf does

Sometimes you’re right but for the wrong reasons. Still, as we sift through the postmortems of this election and the last-minute effect of Chris Christie’s bromance with Barack Obama, remember that he was Ann Coulter’s first choice for Republican nominee.

Yep, Ann the Conservative, sure liked two less than Conservative guys in 2012.

 

If you just read one blog….

Of course it should be this one, but, Matt has a great blog Conservative Hideout, and he has some great links to share to whet your political appetite. Also check out Sentry Journal, for John’s tale of your neighbor’s campaign signs. Say Anything has tons of great links too Captain’s Journal looks at Christians, guns, and self-defense

Just some ideas for some Sunday evening reading

When Liberal Feminists talk about a woman’s “right to choose”, what they really mean is a right to kill her baby in the womb

Part of The Other McCain’s National Offend a Feminist Week

Feminists have one issue that they focus more of their energy on than any other. That issue is abortion, or, as Feminists like to say a woman’s right to choose. Ah, how nice does that sound. After all who can’t get behind a woman being empowered, Feminists LOVE the word “empowered”, to make choices for herself right? But, what do these Feminists really mean by choice?

Well, if you were to ask any number of women who are Conservative politicians, writers, speakers, or bloggers you would quickly realize that Liberal Feminists do not much approve of, or support these women’s rights to think as they choose, much less to express those views. Women like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Sarah Palin are often vilified by the Left, yet no Feminists rush to their defense, and often join in these attacks. Often these attacks focus on the very things that Feminists claim to be so offended over. Attacks on the looks, sex lives, and intelligence of Conservative women go unanswered by the Feminists.

What do Feminists say when women choose to pose for bikini shoots, or for a men’s magazine? Do they defend these women, and their choice? No, rather they verbally assault these ladies as demeaning and sexualizing other women. The fact that these women CHOSE to pose for the camera matters not. Apparently Feminists only defend a woman’s right to choose if that woman chooses to abort her baby. It is also apparent that Feminists have no plans to begin defending women who express Conservative views either.

Despite these obvious holes in the Feminists claims of being defenders of women’s rights, many women still fall victim to the propaganda the Feminists preach. Smitty has a perfect example of this at The Other McCain. Some actresses who are so brainwashed that they made a “funny” video that ought to revolt every mother. The video, which features Kate Beckinsale and celebrates that “wonderful right to choose”. To kill your baby that is.

What a creepy, sick, Orwellian world these feminists live in. Remind me again why any mature, masculine male would want to be in the same room as these abattoir-vaginas, much less offering them any essence to destroy? I guess I should say “choose to destroy”.

The sickness of the government-worship implied in this clip is only exceeded by the crypto-incest of talking about their dads and their vaginas at the end, if you can make it that far.

The video is disturbing because it shows how brainwashed these women are. They have been convinced that EVERYTHING about them revolves around the right to abort their babies. They have joined in the cheapening of human life that the Left is neck-deep in. And when I say Feminism has helped lead the charge of cheapening human life, I mean exactly that. Don’t think so? Well how else would you classify a “bowling for abortions for 14-year-olds” fundraiser?

CNS News reported:

The National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF), who last month raised over $400,000 for abortions through its Bowl-a-Thon, touted that it provided money for a 14-year-old’s abortion as part of the group’s “real stories of abortion access.”

On its website in a post entitled, “Getting an abortion means getting a second chance,” NNAF highlights the story of Darcy, a 14-year-old who terminated her pregnancy with the help of the group’s “George Tiller Memorial Fund.”

“I’m pretty smart for 14, I think,” Darcy writes. “I love biology, especially the stuff on animals. I’m pretty sure I’m going to be a vet — I definitely want to start my own practice so that I make enough money and when I have kids I can be home with them,” she said.

After finding out she was pregnant, the girl writes she did not want to tell her mother, “But in the state where I live, minors can’t get an abortion without permission from a parent or a judge,” she said. “So I did end up telling her.”

Darcy said a clinic put her in touch with NNAF because the “abortion was going to cost more than our rent.”

“There’s no way that me and my mom could have come up with that much,” she said.

Ain’t Feminism grand? Of course if Darcy ever feels any guilt over her abortion, and many women do, do not expect any Feminists to hold another bowl-a-thon for her. And God help Darcy if she ever leans Conservative. Beware the “tolerance” of Feminist wackos like Cher

Cher loses it. Via Twitchy:

You know, someone really should remind the GOP Establishcrats that a Constitutional Republic was once a “novel idea”

Well, well, the GOP establishment continues to be tougher on Conservatives that threaten the status quo than on Democrats, or so it seems anyway.

Michelle Malkin takes note of this phenomenon 

Establishment Republicans are really getting unhinged by fresh, conservative voices — especially female and minority ones — who are on the rise.

You’ll recall that earlier this month, Romney supporter Ann Coulter took to ABC News to put down Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio as “novelty” candidates.

Ah yes Ann Coulter, whom I once suspected was more full of herself than of real passion for the Conservative cause. Looks like I was right about her all along. Just like the Establishcrats, she is all about keeping the pecking order right where it is. But, Ann Coulter is hardly the only one flapping her gums.

You know someone ought to tell the Establishcrats that at one time the very idea of a Constitutionsal Republic, like America, was a “novelty”. Luckily for us, the Founders had what the likes of the GOP EStblishment does not have, VISION, GUTS, ,and WISDOM!

Yesterday at the Utah Republican convention, where crusty incumbent Sen. Orrin Hatch failed in his $6 million bid to avoid a primary fight for the nomination, the state’s attorney general attacked 4th CD candidate and Tea Party favorite Mia Love as a…”novelty.”

Many Republicans were shocked Saturday when Attorney General Mark Shurtleff seemingly dismissed Mia Love — the first black woman nominated for Congress in Utah — as a “novelty.”

“You have to please pick a person with a proven record who can beat Jim Matheson this fall. Not a novelty,” Shurtleff said.

The reference drew boos from many in the audience and outrage from many Republicans.

Republican National Committeewoman Enid Mickelsen said she had an angry confrontation with Shurtleff over the comment.

“At first I didn’t believe it,” Mickelsen said. But Shurtleff, she said, didn’t back away from the comment.

“He said, ‘Enid, what else is her appeal?’ And I lost it,” Mickelsen said.

I suppose Mickelsen cannot figure out that the appeal of Love is EXACTLY because they are not career politicians, and because they do not have that vaunted “proven record”. The problem with these politicians and their proven records is, frankly, that most of the time that proven record stinks! Mickelsen ought to be sharp enough to figure out that people are fed up with the same old political games. They want people of principle. Face it, the guys, and gals with proven records, have too often let us down.

Smitty notes that the Mia Love success only proves that we Tea Party types are, well, you know…..

Everyone knows that Republicans are racist, or they would be Democrats. Also, Republicans have been waging a war on women, as indicated by their opposition to ObamaCare. Thus, via Legal Insurrection, we discover that Mia Love is the nominee for UT-4.

There is no way this could be motivated by agreement with Love’s politics. And it cannot be that Love has actual political talent. Furthermore, Republicans are immune to improvement, so overcoming their medieval ways cannot be the driver here.

No, there can be only one explanation. Through some quirk of space-time and excess coffee, the inherent misogyny of the Republicans must have momentarily cancelled all of the bias and bigotry in their hearts, and allowed Mia Love to slip through.

YUP! No way we would actually not care about skin color or gender. Truth is, Conservatives  care far less about those things than do Liberals, who suffer from Racial Obsession Syndrome All I can add is Go Mia! 

H/T to Adrienne on this

Mark Levin vs. Ann Coulter | Sarah Palin Criticism | The Daily Caller

I have been very critical of Coulter and her Romneygasms. Looks like Levin has issues with her as well. Basically, it sounds like Coulter is a tad jealous. Maybe she is worried that Palin has surpassed her in popularity?

Mark Levin vs. Ann Coulter | Sarah Palin Critic…, posted with vodpod

Scurrilous, untrustworthy, publicity-seeking fraud? Sounds like Trump to me, or Ann Coulter, take your pick

Image via Wikipedia

Stacy McCain used these words to describe Trump and I must agree, although I have called Trump a despicable publicity whore whose ego is as out of control as his hair. But, basically, Stacy and I agree. But  Stacy also ponders the question I ask every day, Has everyone gone crazy?

How many influential conservatives now supporting Newt have previously denounced Donald Trump as a scurrilous, untrustworthy, publicity-seeking fraud? The number is certainly larger than zero, but we will now be expected to forget about those earlier denunciations and instead pretend that Trump’s endorsement is the Good Housekeeping Seal of Conservative Approval.

As I continued checking the headlines, the news just kept getting crazier and crazier:

The Newt Gingrich campaign is gearing up to challenge the results of the Florida Republican presidential primary based on the Republican National Committee’s own rules which state that no contest can be winner-take-all prior to April 1, 2012.

Does anybody else remember how, in 2000, we all hated Florida Democrats for trying to change the rules of the election after the election was over?

Then there was Ann Coulter praising RomneyCare’s individual mandate— the same kind of individual mandate that conservatives are demanding that the Supreme Court declare unconstitutional.

Image via Wikipedia

Ah yes Ann Coulter. Is she crazy? No, she is just exposing herself for what she has always been. A publicity whore. Ann is not, I fear, that much different from Trump. Sure she wears heels, and a bit less make up than Trump does, and has slightly better hair. But, aside from those differences, Coulter could be Trump in drag. The obnoxious voices, the over inflated egos, the grossly exagerated sense of self-importance, and the complete lack of any real credibility. Yep! I had long believed that Coulter was over the top in her self-promotion, and was more about selling books, and getting her face on TV than really defending Conservative principles. But her idiotic defenses of Romney have been so over the top, that one has to ponder what she is getting out of this?

Coulter has praised Romneycare now, and ignored Romney’s self-admitted admiration for health care mandates. She has decided that Romney was the ONLY candidate that could beat Obama, only months after she declared Romney unelectable! She has attacked good Conservatives like Santorum and Perry in untruthful ways. She has even bashed the Tea Party, and the voters of South Carolina with the race card. All to endorse a candidate that was the least Conservative in the GOP field. So, I must ask not why she is doing this, but how much is she doing it for? What is in it for Ann if Romney is president? Sorry, I just have to wonder.

Maybe a new reality show starring Trump and Coulter together? It could be called Everyone Look at Me, I am Important! Coming to network TV this fall?

Matt wonders if possibly Coulter has been replaced by some alien pod. Hmmmmm

Romney Adviser Norm Coleman: ObamaCare Will NOT Be Repealed in Total | Maggie’s Notebook

Put this video in with Romney’s statements that he would repeal the “bad parts” of Obamacare, and that he likes the “incentive” AKA mandate in Obamcare, and tell me THIS is the most electable guy!

Someone better find Ann Coulter and show her this as well. Since she has somehow deluded herself into thinking that ONLY Romney can win, and that he will get rid of Obamacare! Oh yes, I know Mitt is soooooo smart and polished right?

Via Maggie

Romney Adviser Norm Coleman: ObamaCare Will NOT…, posted with vodpod

Sarah Palin’s foot meets Chris Christie arse!

Via The Gateway Pundit!

YES! Thank you! The fact is this, the most qualified guy in this race is not Mittens Romney, sorry Christie, sorry Ann Coulter. Sure, newt has his faults, but Mitt has his, and so does Prince Christie for that matter. But, if you look at what Mitt and Newt have done to advance Conservatism, Mitt loses! And, let us remember just how important winning in November is. Let us remember what we have now, as a president shall we?

CNS News reported:

President Barack Obama says the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is the chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

Because a woman cannot have dreams if we respect human life? Moral retardation run amok!

Last night’s debate

The highlights for me were Perry and Newt making a pinata out of Juan Williams, good grief does Williams not possess the ability to ask any serious questions? Perry was VERY GOOD but, apparently the talking heads only noticed Newt. Yep, Newt was very good, but so was Perry! I saw a comment today on one blog. The commentor said that if Perry could only articulate his views better, like Newt, he would win in a landslide. Sorry, I do not see a damned thing wrong with Rick Perry delivering his message. I wonder how many people think that is the case because the “analysts” ignore Perry too often, or put such a negative spin on Perry.

I think everyone agrees, well, everyone except Ann Coulter and the establishment types, that Romney looked bad, unpresidential, pathetic last night.

Ron Paul, oh who cares about him.

Santorum looked OK, maybe a tad petulant at times. I did not like his answer about why he wishes to tax some businesses at higher rates than others though. That is nothing but big government playing favorites. His defense of his vote AGAINST right to work was gutless frankly. Just what I would expect from a guy wearing a sweater vest.

For more great analysis that you will NEVER get from the “political experts” head over to Jill’s place!

Also look over at Wyblog, Chris raises some great thoughts

Professor Jacobsonsums up my impression of the trainwreck that is Mitt Romney’s impending nomination.

We are on a path to nominate someone who campaigned against Reagan, campaigned against the Contract with America, campaigned against those who are pro-Life, campaigned against 2d Amendment rights, campaigned against conservatism, and designed and enacted the precursor to Obamacare from which he will not back away.

Meanwhile the only guy who’s never actually lost an election on the merits can’t get any traction, because ostensible “conservatives” are enamored by Rick Santorum’s sweater vests and Newt Gingrich’s adverbial allegories.

Again, I am as amazed as Chris. Perry has a record the others cannot touch, yet too many of us are obsessing over a big government guy, in a sweater vest no less, who wants the government in our bedrooms, has issues with “unrestrained individualism”  and wants to use the tax code to favor some businesses over others? Good freaking grief!

Ah yes, Ann Coulter lets her mouth override her brain

Ann is hopelessly devoted to Mr. Romneycare, and does not mind taking cheap shots at the Tea Party apparently. What a hack! And, today’s Daley Douchebag!

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Ann Coulter already told us that Tea Partiers opposed to Mitt Romney were just a bunch of “birthers” (emphasis mine):

Pemmaraju pressed Coulter on Romney’s conservatism, adding that the Tea Party has resisted him strongly, an indication he may not be as conservative as she thinks. Coulter replied that the Tea Party was “wrong about this” because “they’re looking at who is going to go around bombastically demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate or calling him a Kenyan,” instead of substance. She added that “Rick Santorum and [Rick] Perry are very bad on illegal immigration” despite being considered more conservative.

Bill quick at Daily Pundit sums up my feelings pretty well.

And Coulter is just another fellating tool of a hack propagandist drowning in the tank for a shit sandwich named Mittens Romneycare.

What can I add to that? Nothing!

Selective Outrage Syndrome Strikes Sarah Palin

I have diagnosed many Liberal Maladies over the years. Among these is  Selective Outrage Syndrome. This malady usually strikes Liberals but, at times, even Conservatives can be stricken apparently. Sarah Palin seems to be suffering the ravages of SOS. She is outraged that anyone dare criticize Donald “Someone Please Look at Me” Trump for saying he might run for president as a third-party candidate.

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

“I’m getting pretty sick and tired of people condemning and cutting down Donald Trump for calling it like he sees it and exercising his right as an American to express his views — even via talking about a third-party candidacy,” Palin said. “I couldn’t do that because I believe personally a third-party candidacy will allow greater assurance that Barack Obama would be re-elected, and that is the last thing on earth I want do see happen.”

 

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, I, like you KNOW damned well that a Trump run WOULD put Obama back in office. It would be a disaster frankly.  But surely, surely Sarah Palin would extend the same right to speak out to those opposed to a Trump third-party run right? WRONG!

 

“For those would have continued to cut down Donald Trump, I say, you know, enough is enough,” she said. “Just shut up about it and don’t vote for him if he is a third-party candidate.

 

Oh, so Trump, who is nothing but a publicity whore, can say what he wishes, and we should just keep our displeasure to ourselves? Trump flirts with destroying any chance we have of defeating Obama, and Palin says “you betcha!” But we, the PEOPLE, speak against Trump and that is OUTRAGEOUS? Sounds like Selective Outrage Syndrome to me. Excuse me, but since when did Sarah Palin become like the GOP establishment? I thought she wanted us to fight, to be vocal. I thought she would approve of me, and others expressing our concerns that Trump could, well, you know, get Obama re-elected. But, I suppose Sarah now knows what is best for us, and apparently it is for us to shut up. Sorry Sarah, that ain’t going to happen.

 

Sadly this type of thing seems to happen a lot. We get a Republican that embraces  the base, but then, the publicity gets to them, and they begin to abandon the principles that made them so popular to begin with. I truly hope that Sarah Palin is above falling into that trap. Odd, first Ann Coulter loses her mind and goes gaga and confuses Romney for a Conservative, and now Palin confuses Trump for a Conservative.

 

Palin touted the credentials of Trump as a conservative and insisted he has the best of intentions.

“With Donald Trump — he has been a stalwart fiscal conservative in his ideas that he has supported, and that he has progressed as he flirted with the idea of running in the primary and until he switched to his voter registration to independent, he was a strong supporter of many of these Republican candidates and a lot of them turned on him, I think unfairly, unnecessarily in order to appease.”

 

Of course, Palin forgets that Trump donated heavily to ultra Liberal candidates like Anthony Weiner and  Charles Schummer in the past. How is that for a “stalwart Conservative”? And I fail to see how the candidates “turned” on Trump. How is that? Because they refused to be part of his “Look at Me I am The Donald Debate”? Face it, Trump is all about one thing, TRUMP! Sarah Palin ought to be smarter than that. I have, and will happily continue to defend Sarah against the radical Left’s unfair and mean-spirited attacks. But, again, Sarah, there ain’t no way in Hell I will just “shut up” while Trump threatens to screw the country just to masturbate his ego!

 

Video-Hannity and Michelle Malkin discuss GOP infighting

Donald Douglas has the video, and I must say, Hannity seems really rude and agitated over what he sees as the GOP eating its own. Michelle tries her best to talk him down by pointing out that this is NOT new, it happens during the primary process. More thoughts after the video

The first thing I have to ask is what is Coulter smoking of late? First, at CPAC, she says Romney will doom the GOP if nominated then she says he is the only hope we have. In part, I suppose, we must consider that Coulter is given to making hyperbolic statements, and she never runs from an opportunity to engage in a bit of self-promotion. So maybe she is just doing it for the publicity. However, as Michelle, who unlike Ann cares more about Conservatism than publicity, points out, Romney is hardly a Conservative, much less the MOST Conservative candidate in the field, as Coulter claims. Sorry, but something is off with Coulter, there is some reason she is so into Romney after being so into Christie, when she was completely anti-Romney.

Now, to the point that Hannity seems stuck on. I do not know what he expects. Should these debates be just giant group hugs? There is nothing dangerous in the candidates mixing it up, and that is certainly not going to hurt the eventual nominee. Further, Hannity seems to think that just because any of these candidates would be better than Obama, no one should point out their faults. Come on Sean! Newt has a history of putting politics over principles, that disturbs a lot of us. Others support Newt in spite of that, and that is fine. Mitt changes positions like a porn star. Again, to many that is a big issue. My candidate, Perry, has his detractors too, again, that is OK. We can fight this out, and still get behind the eventual nominee. Hannity seems to be having problems grasping this.

One more thing in closing. Did it seem to anyone else that Sean and Michelle were genuinely angry with each other? Sean cut Michelle off, and was snappy, that is unlike him. Michelle seemed surprised at Sean’s demeanor, and I wonder if she was upset, she seemed so.

Smacking down a Nanny Stater

Duane Lester does it in style, taking a letter-writer in Des Moines to the woodshed

However, this letter by Bill Leonard leaves me wondering if he’s a liberal or a conservative.  I really don’t know, since nanny-staters reside on both sides of the political spectrum.  Bill isn’t my type of conservative, if he’s leaning right, but if he leans left, his dependence on the government for control is right on target:

Does it make sense to take $60 million from the billfolds of Iowans to gain $13 million in taxes?

Well, of course, say advocates of online poker, the latest proposed gimmick for separating you from your paycheck. Iowans should be able to go broke from the comfort of their living rooms via computer without having to waste money driving all the way to a casino.

First off,  no one is “taking” $60 million from anyone’s billfolds.  The free people of Iowa, and the surrounding states, choose to enter these gambling establishments, knowing the likelihood of losing every penny they wager is higher than winning the jackpot.  So in the first five words, Bill shows flaws in his premise, but let’s continue:

Go read it all, Duane lays out the common sense this guy should embrace. The key point being this. Once you allow government to decide what we can do in our homes……..

Where does it stop?  Should I be allowed to eat Cheetos and drink Mountain Dew?  No, you’ll get fat and weigh down an already overloaded health care system.  BANNINATED!

Should I be allowed to read “Catcher in the Rye,” or even more controversial books like Ann Coulter’s, “Godless?”  No, Holden Caufield will corrupt our youth and Coulter says things we consider hateful and wrong, so you’ll be misinformed.  BANNINATED!

The fact is, in a free society, some people are going to engage in behavior or activities that you don’t approve of them doing.  As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone not involved, it’s really none of your business.

EXACTLY!!!!!