Ed’s two cents worth:
With all due respect, Senator Rubio, why should the American citizenry believe that our federal government – or any liberal state government, for that matter – will actually enforce new immigration laws they disagree with when they aren’t enforcing the ones they object to right now?
As for a secure border fence, we were promised one of those years ago, and it still hasn’t materialized. Tell me, how can the feds be trusted to do the right thing tomorrow when they’ve allowed sanctuary cities to exist – in conspicuous violation of federal law – for so many years?
While elucidating your plan, you mentioned a new commission who’s ultimate administrative authority would be “triggered” into play if the Mexican border remains less than 90% secure after half a decade. Yet the Obama regime tells us that this border is more inviolable today than ever before, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Suppose the Democrats win the White House in 2016. Are we to just accept the word of another leftist-controlled Department of Homeland Security when it inevitably tells us that the border is suddenly and miraculously more than 90% secure? Do you not believe that such a DHS might lie to us in order to retain its authority in this respect?
Perhaps after the southern security fence we’ve already paid for is actually completed, and government officials and business owners are prosecuted en mass for blatantly defying our laws as pertains to illegal aliens, we can begin to talk about a new set of rules that deal with our remaining immigration problems. Is that not a reasonable proposition?
Whether you believe so or not, Senator, I can only hope you will eventually come to understand that the reason why few conservatives are getting behind your plan isn’t because your ideas are necessarily objectionable. It’s because true right-wingers like me don’t believe that most of your colleagues are honest people who will keep to their word on this issue. In short, we have no reason to think that our federal government will do this time around what it has failed utterly to do in the past, which is faithfully enforce its own immigration laws.
Well, of course he does. If we tightened the border THEN reformed immigration, millions more “undocumented aliens” would not flood across the border to take advantage of the reform, A.K.A. amnesty
President Barack Obama is set to reject the key compromise at the heart of a bipartisan deal on immigration reform announced by eight Senators yesterday. The president, who will deliver an address later today in Las Vegas, NV outlining his own immigration ideas, is reported to oppose linking a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants, a Democrat demand, to stronger law enforcement and better border security, a Republican demand.
The president will apparently argue that the administration has met reasonable goals on enforcing current immigration legislation, and that additional security will merely create new obstacles to legalizing the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants thought to be living in the United States. The federal government accelerated deportations in the first years of the Obama presidency, and sent new personnel to patrol the southwestern border.
However, starting last year, the Obama administration declined to enforce existing law regarding the so-called “Dreamers”–immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children. The election-year move drew praise from Hispanic groups but preempted congressional legislation, and brought criticism from proponents of immigration reform, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who objected to the president’s clear circumvention of Congress.
The essence of the deal struck by Rubio with Senate colleagues in the “Gang of Eight” or “immigration eight” is that a path to citizenship would be contingent upon meeting law enforcement criteria. Republican critics of the Senate deal–including some who are otherwise supportive of immigration reform–argued that the deal would cause “instant legalization” of illegal immigrants, while the border security provisions would take time.
Just as an aside, I oppose the Gang of Eight deal for one basic reason. We cannot trust the same people who have refused to enforce laws to suddenly enforce these new laws. Tighten the border FIRST, then we can talk about a plan.
TED AND PAT OPAROWSKY
NEWT AND CALLISTA GINGRICH
Why do so many Americans think every politician is a liar, a cheat, a scoundrel, and is never to be trusted? Well, I suppose there are many reasons, but the biggest factor is exemplified by Charlie Crist. Crist was the Republican governor of Florida, he was a “Reagan Republican” he told us. Loyal to the party, and he was running for the Senate in 2010. Then Marco Rubio decided to run against Crist in the primary. And many Republicans in Florida got excited about Rubio, and Crist became angry. He began to drift leftward, attacking Republicans like Sarah Palin and other Conservatives. As he did, Rubio moved farther ahead in polls, and eventually won the Republican Primary.
Then Charlie Crist the “Reagan Republican” turned on his own party, he announced he would run for the Senate seat against Rubio and his Democratic opponent. This obviously showed that Crist was more about power than principles. Crist increased his verbal attacks on Conservatives, sounding more like a Liberal every time he spoke. He launched despicable personal attacks against Rubio, to be fair he also launched similarly despicable attacks on the Democrat too. And then election day 2010 rolled around, and Rubio crushed Crist handily. So much for the treachery of Charile Crist.
The story of Charlie Crist, though, does not end there. Most of us have forgotten about Crist frankly. We have moved on to bigger, better and more important things to blog, write and opine about. But, Crist, like pond scum has drifted to the surface once more. He would make his endorsement for president. But who would Crist give his nod too? Surely he would over being rejected in favor of Rubio by now right? Surely he would never let his overly-inflated ego lead him to endorse the sitting president. No, that would never happen, after all, Crist would surely put the good of the country above his own bruised ego right? I mean only the very worst kind of political low-life would root against every principle he claimed to have only two short years ago right?
Well, folks, meet Charlie Crist, the very worst kind of political low-life here is Crist in the pre-low-life stage
Now, Crist in his current low-life stage
I’ve studied, admired and gotten to know a lot of leaders in my life. Across Florida, in Washington and around the country, I’ve watched the failure of those who favor extreme rhetoric over sensible compromise, and I’ve seen how those who never lose sight of solutions sow the greatest successes.
As America prepares to pick our president for the next four years — and as Florida prepares once again to play a decisive role — I’m confident that President Barack Obama is the right leader for our state and the nation. I applaud and share his vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility. It is a vision of the future proven right by our history.
We often remind ourselves to learn the lessons of the past, lest we risk repeating its mistakes. Yet nearly as often, our short-term memory fails us. Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation’s calm through a historically turbulent storm.
The president’s response was swift, smart and farsighted. He kept his compass pointed due north and relentlessly focused on saving jobs, creating more and helping the many who felt trapped beneath the house of cards that had collapsed upon them.
He knew we had to get people back to work as quickly as possible — but he also knew that the value of a recovery lies in its durability. Short-term healing had to be paired with an economy that would stay healthy over the long run. And he knew that happens best by investing in the right places.
Good freaking grief! Does this man, and I use the word man verly loosely here, have any ideological compass? Sure, I get that someone might evolve ideologically on a position of two, but to be totally opposite of what you were just two years ago? That is not ideological evolution my friends, that is simply a man with no moral compass whatsoever. That is a man who will stop at nothing to make those darned Republicans pay for not electing him. That is a man that is out for himself and his own interests, no matter the cost to anyone else. That is, what most Americans today would call, with a look of disgust on their face, a politician!
To which I can only say MAYBE? No, definitely! I think Ryan IS the best choice, nosing out Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. I really only have one issue with Ryan as VP, and that is I would prefer a Ryan/Romney ticket, but, that is neither here nor there. Yes, I know, the GOP “insiders” and establishment types would say Ryan is too radical as the Wall Street Journal points out
Too risky, goes the Beltway chorus. His selection would make Medicare and the House budget the issue, not the economy. The 42-year-old is too young, too wonky, too, you know, serious. Beneath it all you can hear the murmurs of the ultimate Washington insult—that Mr. Ryan is too dangerous because he thinks politics is about things that matter. That dude really believes in something, and we certainly can’t have that.
All of which highly recommend him for the job.
Very solid points, and, I must be totally honest, I think the old establishment line that goes “you have to win elections first…” is true. The problem is that the establishment too seldom follows through AFTER winning elections. Ryan is exactly the type of politician we need. A politician that actually walks the walk while he is talking the talk. That is also why I really like some other Republicans Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Allen West, Rick Perry, Jim DeMint to name a few they are GENUINE! They are less political than principled!
One more point here. I keep hearing that Mitt needs to pick Kelly Ayotte, or Bobby Jindal, or Marco Rubio, or maybe Condi Rice because it would send the “message”. The “message”, of course is that the GOP is diverse, big tent, open to change, and blah, blah, blah. The sad truth is if the GOP nominated two minorities for the next ten elections, and if half the GOP members of Congress were something other than White guys, the Democrats would still say the GOP was a party of bigoted old White men. Maybe the Beltway folks have not noticed that the Left lies, a lot! Maybe they have missed the rantings of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and others? Maybe they have missed the vilest of attack ads on Romney?
And, yes, I must admit to another reason for wanting Mitt to pick Ryan, watching Ryan debate Joe Biden? GOLD!
So, Mitt, take my advice, PICK RYAN!
I have been silent on Mitt’s choice for VP. I have also been very hopeful the pick will prove to be Paul Ryan. I think he would be far and away the best possible choice. And can you imagine him debating Biden? A certain other blogger, named McCain, is in agreement with me, which, of course makes him right! Stacy lays out his reasons, and makes some fine points, and yes, like me, he does not really think Pawlenty would be a great pick
There is no time now to fully explain the emergency nature of this post, but let me quickly make three points:
- My hatred of media “veepstakes” speculation is well-known. When I turn on the TV and see a bunch of pundits talking about who might get the vice-presidential nomination, I turn the channel. It’s a bunch of useless noise, and I can’t stand to watch it. Nevertheless, a sudden crisis makes it imperative that I speak out.
- My first choice — and what I think was the most obvious choice — was Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. However, the word among Republican sources is that there were problems with Rubio in terms of vetting. Loath as I am to repeat this, I’ve heard talk that because Rubio is the son of immigrants, there is concern that this might cost Republicans the “Birther” vote. Crazy? Yeah. But whatever the basis for the objections, the general belief is that there is indeed some sort of vetting issue. And so the smart money says that, although Rubio is still officially on the “short list,” he’s unlikely to be the final choice.
- The emergency? Two words: Tim Pawlenty.
Friday night, I was talking to some top activists at the AFP summit and one of them assured me that the word among Minnesota Republicans is that T-Paw is at the top of Romney’s VP list, all but guaranteed to be the running mate. Do I have to explain why this shocked me?
So shocked was I, in fact, that I refused to believe it. Certainly, the smart guys at Team Mitt could see the obvious arguments against T-Paw. But then Saturday, I talked to some well-informed D.C.-based operatives and they, too, said they’d heard that Pawlenty was top of the list.
Now I was truly concerned. Dear God, not T-Paw!
Driving home, this worry weighed heavily on my thoughts, and so I called a well-connected and experienced conservative journalist to talk about it — and he’d heard the same basic thing: Pawlenty might already have the VP spot locked up, said my friend, who happens to be a supporter of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. According to my friend, the word is that T-Paw is at the top of the list, with Ohio Sen. Rob Portman the nearest rival. And this is even worse news. While I like Portman OK, he’s a Bush guy, and we don’t need any ghosts of the Bush administration haunting the GOP in 2012.
So if Rubio has been more or less eliminated from consideration, as my sources suggest, we’ve got to do something to stop this crazy talk about a Romney-Pawlenty ticket. You can’t beat somebody with nobody, and of the remaining guys on the short list, Paul Ryan is the obvious pick.
He’s an Irish Catholic from the Midwest, a hero of deficit hawks, young and handsome, and pre-approved by Bill Kristol, who deems Ryan “the Republican party’s intellectual leader.”
So, there you are Mitt, take it from me, and that Other McCain guy. Say now to Pawlenty, and Portman and yes to Ryan
I am what you might call angry, and so are many others. and here are some of their reactions.
Zion’s Trumpet links Ed’s post, and offers his own take
Also keep in mind that all this happened back when the GOP still had a shot at getting Obama’s health care monstrosity overruled by our nation’s highest court. Since that option is no longer on the table, we the people have no alternative but to rid our federal government of every parasitic leftist we possibly can, even if that means replacing some of them with – shall we say – less than hard-right Republicans. To do otherwise is to commit national suicide, and even some Ron Paul supporters are now beginning to recognize that fact.
Mitt – if I may be so bold as to address you by your nickname – all you have to do to win the White House at this point is refrain from saying anything truly stupid or offensive to conservatives, stick to the topics of the economy and ObamaCare, and try to pick a running mate who isn’t as big a RINO as you are. Might I suggest Marco Rubio… or Allen West?
As for you, Barack, you’re political death warrant has just been signed, sealed and delivered by five smarmy, activist lawyers in black robes, and the genuinely comical thing is that you’re too dumb to realize it. While I’m sure the Jurassic press will join you in declaring victory today, I’m equally as certain that the real victors in all this will be the people of this country once they throw your sorry butt out of office and begin the process of retaking their liberties from a degenerate and dictatorial federal government.
Chris at Wyblog warns that we better start saving up for that
mandate, oh, sorry Mr. Roberts TAX that makes us buy a Volt!
The government is our master. We The People are powerless before it.
The Constitution means nothing. Limited government? Fuggedaboudit.
Someone needs to dig up Thomas Jefferson and have him beat Chief Justice Roberts over the head with the Declaration of Independence. Repeatedly.
Not that it would do any good. The damage is done.
The Obamacare abomination survives. Every American is compelled by the force of law to purchase health insurance. Because the individual mandate is in actuality a tax.
Welcome to the United States of Greece. Where our Socialist Overlords have big plans for us serfs. It’s been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
Liberty was destroyed today. We’ll probably never get it back.
UPDATE 28 Jun 2012 11:39:
The more I think about it, the madder I get.
Even if Obamacare gets repealed a terrible precedent has been set. Congress can tax our behavior. Get too fat? Pay the Obesity Tax. Don’t buy that Chevy Volt? Pay the Fossil Fuel Waster Tax. Homeschool your kids? Pay the Support Your Local Teachers Union Tax.
Nanny-state busybodies like Mike Bloomberg are having an orgasm right now.
Milton Wolf warned us yesterday that, in the end, we would have to kill this beast legislatively, he was right
Weasel Zippers reminds us that Romney lists job one as “Repeal Obamacare”
Charles Krauthammer offers his view on why Roberts did it
It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.
Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.
Go read it all, I think Krauthammer is exactly right, but I disagree on one point. Roberts has, in my view, discredited ANY standing he had as a constitutional conservative. He placed his principles and his duty on the back burner to help the “image” of the Court? If so, then he has forgotten what duty is, and is a disgrace!
The Right Scoop has Rush’s take
The Other McCain has Michelle Bachman’s response
Jill has a great post up including this
The bottom line from the dissent:
Scalia/Kennedy/Thomas/Alito dissent calls decision “a vast judicial overreaching.”
John Hayward comments via Twitter (older tweets at bottom):
You are now the property of the State, which can levy a special tax against you, if you don’t spend your money as ordered.
Remember, Obama didn’t just lie about ObamaCare being a tax. He LAUGHED at the idea, on national TV.
Prognostication winners: those who said the ruling would be both a win and loss for Obama. His tax hike on the poor survived the Court.
Shouldn’t a law be judged on what it actually says – i.e. “mandate” – rather than being rewritten by justices to keep it alive?
So the Court just changed a law nobody read to tell the authors what they really meant.
Hey, Obama voters! Your boy just hit poor and middle class Americans with the biggest TAX in history!
So statists can claim anything isn’t a tax, to get it past voters, then the Court will change it to a tax later.
So basically, the Court rewrote a clearly unconstitutional law, in direct opposition to the statements of its authors, to keep it alive.
Yeah, pretty much what I thought. Goodbye, Constitution, it was nice knowing you.
So Obama lied, said O-care’s not a tax, but SCOTUS says it is. Thanks for voting for this guy, chumps.
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has this nugget
The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.
I won’t have to unpack that for longtime readers of this site, but do allow me to unpack it — as I’ve done with similar linguistically incoherent statements in the past — for those who will spend today bemoaning a ruling that, when viewed from their own intepretative perspective (rather than their policy desires), they can’t honestly fault.
To wit: “Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”
Fine. How is this the case? Because, per Roberts, the mandate looks something like a tax might look and could look — much in the way a cloud formation may look like a randy sheep three way, if you’re inclined to see it that way. But unless you believe God or Nature intended to paint a sheep orgy in the gas and water vapor floating above Peoria, the clouds aren’t actually a sheep orgy save your intent to see it as such.
Intentionalism just is.
But, you argue, it clearly wasn’t intended as a tax (or if it was, there’s no way of ever knowing that, given that it was presented as a penalty and not a tax) — because the President publicly denied that it was a tax, and it was passed expressly as a penalty. Therefore, it was signified into being — at the point of passage — as a penalty. And a penalty is not a tax.
Or is it?
Intentionalism just is.
According to the CJ, a penalty is indeed a tax when it can be viewed as a tax for purposes of a ruling. Meaning, a penalty is a tax when a Justice decides to rewrite the law to turn a penalty into a tax. Which he justifies because the way the penalty looks to him suggests that “reasonable” people (or philosopher kings) can, if they squint — and if they ignore the intent that turned the law into law in the first place, and turned a set of marks into a set of signs, into language — see a tax. How that is “reasonable” is anyone’s guess: we know in no uncertain terms that Obama and the Dems who passed the law didn’t devise the mandate as a tax (despite what they later argued); for one to conclude that it is reasonably possible to “read” a penalty as a tax, therefore, what c0mes to count as “reasonable” must be redefined as “ignoring what we know to be true”. And that seems antithetical to “reason.”
Erick Erickson throws his back out, trying to defend Roberts.
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Good Freaking Grief! Tell me Erickson is not this stupid. If Roberts was swayed by public opinion, or by what he perceived MIGHT be a negative spin the certain people, then he is unfit for the highest court! He is there to rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of laws, not make his decisions to impress anyone!
Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue.
Oh, so the constitutionality of a law is “political” now, and not legal? Good Lord who is this buffoon posing as Erickson? I am with BC on this
What is sad is that a
conservativerepublican blogger is dumb enough put this stupidity out for review — and think he making an intelligent point.
The reality is that John Roberts have just given his stamp of approval on the biggest governmental encroachment on American liberty in our country’s history. This is not just about the individual mandate.
The supreme court has just set a legal precedent saying that it is okay for the federal government to force you to buy a service and penalize you if you don’t.
Now, thanks to John Roberts, if they decide it is in your best interest to buy a workout machine, a house alarm system, a book, a Communist government indoctrination video — or anything else for that matter — they can do it and it will be simple labeled as a tax.
Someone needs to tell this fat bastard to think, or to shut up!
Dear Erick, your head called, it is stuck in your ass, sorry, but I am done having patience for these “thoughtful” Republicans who excuse cowards like Roberts!
Nancy Pelosi credits a former fat, drunk disgrace for this, and Doug Powers skewers her!
Mary Jo Kopechne unavailable for comment.
“Ted can now rest. He’s finally f*#%ed everybody in the country.”
Actually, stamping Ted Kennedy’s name on what will eventually amount to a massive tax increase for increasing numbers of Americans as companies dump out of insuring their employees privately isn’t entirely inappropriate.
Maybe Ted’s been reincarnated. If John Roberts is spotted drinking Chivas tonight and chasing tail at Au Bar it’ll be confirmed.
I might be updating later, so please check back. I do hope this fires everyone up, and keeps them that way. REMEMBER in NOVEMBER!
From none other than Debbie Whats Her Name
Via Washington Examiner:
Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., indicated that she knows “a lot of reasons” why Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., should not serve as Mitt Romney’s running mate this year.
“Marco Rubio is a nice guy, but not someone who, I think, belongs on a national ticket — for a lot of reasons,” Wasserman Schultz said yesterday onNewsmakers. As for whether he could help Romney win Florida, she said that “in the polling that I’ve seen recently [Rubio] doesn’t really make much difference; in fact in some cases [he] actually hurts Mitt Romney, or does very little.”
Remember the FIRST RULE of politics. If Democrats say the exact opposite of what they really think.
Imagine if there was a drinking game where you took a shot every time David Brooks said, or wrote something inane. I guess we would all be passed out a lot! Via Newsbusters
DAVID BROOKS, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, first I would say the conventional wisdom among Republican donors and Washington officialdom is that Marco Rubio isn’t ready to be vice president…
Marco Rubio is not ready to be VP? Possibly, but Brooks is certainly a guy who is not ready to be a nationally syndicated columnist, so let’s reserve any judgement on Rubio’s readiness shall we? Brooks continues
BROOKS: …emotionally. And so I think Rob Portman, senator from Ohio, he’s–Ohio sort of matters, he might help. But basically the, the goal for a challenger in an, in an incumbent election is, are those guys decent enough?
BROOKS: Now a Romney/Portman race would be like a bunch of boring white guys. So it wouldn’t be like scintillating, but it would be, oh, they’re decent enough.
Oh no! not White guys! Sorry, I do not think that would matter much. Sure, it would hurt Romney with race-obsessed voters who are already in the tank for Obama, but with most people, the big issue starts with an “E” and ends in “conomy”. David Brooks ought to try thinking. It beats saying what you think you are supposed to say!
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!
If you believe that the media wants to derail any Republican candidate that poses a threat to President Obama, well…………
A vehicle Perry currently rents t had previously been used in a drug ring. So, like, it’s haunted by Cocaine Ghosts and stuff.
What I’m now waiting to hear is that the plane’s name is an ethnic slur. Like, The Flying Taco-Bender or something.
I wonder what will be next? Maybe Perry wears the same type of shoes as some mobster? Good grief the media is reaching as far as claiming that the word “brother” is, well you know, RAAAAACIST!
I watched the Republican debate last night and didn’t witness a micro-second of racism.
But, I guess I’m just blind to the “code” racists talk, because Rick Perry apparently got his inner Klan member on by calling Herman Cain “brother.”
No, really. That’s what the left is saying:
Hmmm, I am sure that the media will get after Romney should he get the nomination. But for now, they seem to be pulling for him by only attacking Romney’s challengers.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Kind of reminds me of 2008, when McCain got the media love until he got the nomination. Gee, perhaps we ought to be looking at supporting the candidates (Perry, Cain) who the media is attacking, instead of talking about what a fine debater Mitt Romney is?
Friedman, you useless tool, why does sincere patriotism, and love of our Founding principles offend you so? Oh, of course, I forgot, you are a Leftist, you do not believe in those things.
As Senator Marco Rubio said yesterday, “if we had $1 billion for every time I heard the words ‘tea party extremist,’ we could solve this debt problem.”
Bring Back Poppy — Thomas Friedman, NYT
WATCHING today’s Republicans being led around by an extremist Tea Party faction, with no adult supervision, I find my mind drifting back to the late 1980s when I was assigned to cover the administration of George H.W. Bush, who I believe is one of our most underrated presidents. I have long admired the elder Bush for the deftness with which he dealt with the collapse of the Soviet empire. But, in later years, I came to admire him even more for the fact that he believed that math and science were not matters of opinion — a view increasingly rare in today’s G.O.P.
Despite having run on the promise of “Read my lips: No new taxes,” when the deficit started spiraling to dangerous levels under his presidency, Bush agreed to a compromise with Democrats to raise several taxes, along with spending cuts, as part of a 1990 budget deal that helped to pave the way for the prosperity of that decade. It definitely hurt his re-election, but he did it anyway.
In other words, he admired Bush 41 because Friedman thinks he caved to Democrats? Typical!