Topic: Stupid Republicans

If Norm Coleman's prediction comes true, kiss the Republican Party goodbye.

Norm Coleman – the former senator from Minnesota and a prominent advisor for Mitt Romney – suggested over the weekend in an interview that no matter who the Republican nominee is, they are unlikely to fully repeal Obamacare.

The conservative base of the GOP did not bust its butt to return Republicans to control in the House because we like pragmatism, bipartisanship, and tinkering around with Obamacare in an effort to "fix" it. The majority of Americans want it repealed. Obamacare is a malignant tumor on the Republic. If the GOP proves unwilling or unable to cut out that tumor before 2014 -- when it goes into full effect -- then we conservatives will eviscerate the GOP as a political entity and start over. The party cannot survive without us Google the sad fate of the Whig Party; it can happen again.

If the GOP doesn't bleed to get Obamacare repealed, we'll bleed the party dry. Bank on it.

Romney as "Mr. Inevitable?"


This post by Steve McCann has fouled my mood much more than the clouds and rain could ever do.

Multi-mouth MittThere now appears to be an inevitability surrounding Mitt Romney and the Republican nomination for president.   Are the American people prepared to sit through another term of George H.W. Bush?   The chances are that Romney would be the last Republican president, as the Party may fly apart under his rule.  The country would then have to face another round of the Left-dominated Democratic Party in charge and the inevitable collapse that would bring about.


At no time in the past 150 years has the nation needed a bold and decisive leader that could not only initiate change but be honest with the American people.

Yet the current governing class and in particular the Republican establishment is treating this election cycle as if it were no different from any other during the past sixty years.   Their reaction to the Tea Party movement is indicative of this mindset, as they choose to denigrate and dismiss this grassroots uprising as just another passing crusade by conservative ideologues.   They fail to understand that the appeal of Ron Paul is that he is willing to stick it to the ruling class.  The primary concern of the establishment, either Republican or Democrat, is to retain power through the control of the purse strings, and to put off any difficult decisions while "compromising" with the opposition.

The campaign strategy of Mitt Romney mirrors that of all the past moderate nominees chosen by the Party.   The formula: speak the language of the conservative majority in the Party, claim only a moderate can get elected, divide the vote among the conservatives running for the nomination, mobilize the media to destroy any real conservative challenger, and overwhelm these same challengers with money from the deep-pocket establishment contributors.


If Romney were to lose the election, there will be a grass-roots revolt against the Republican Party which will spell its demise.   If he wins and the nation, through the mis-directed policies of Romney and the Republicans in the Congress, continues on its current path of compromising and nibbling around the edges of the nation's problems, then Romney will be the last Republican president and the specter of the Democrats re-assuming power will be a reality.

This is not only the most important election for the nation in over a century but also one that will determine the fate of a political party founded in 1854 in opposition to slavery and the corruption in the Democratic Party.

But hey, maybe I'm just a Romney Denialist or a Bitter Clinger or some such.

Thankfully, my copy of Mark Levin's newest monster bestseller Ameritopia arrives today. I'm going to read it with my highlighter in hand, just as I did with Liberty And Tyranny.

Video: Mark Levin at the Reagan Forum


Listen to this, think about it, reflect, and be of good cheer. If you can't spare the time now, bookmark this link.

Ronald Reagan thumbs up

Is Herman Cain pro-choice? (Updated)


Logically, there are a limited number of possible positions for a person to hold regarding government policy on abortion. Here's a Venn diagram that lays them all out.

Venn diagram of possible abortion policies

Anyone who's thought about the issue for more than a couple of seconds understands this. So how do we make any sense of Herman Cain's stated position? He's never given any indication that he's in the blue area above, so we can rule that out. But when you watch this interview on CNN, it's impossible to pinpoint where he stands beyond that.

He says "I think it's a sin." That puts him in either the red or purple area. Moments later, he says "I believe life begins at conception, and abortion under no circumstances." That puts him squarely in the red area. But when pressed on making an exception if his daughter or granddaughter were to be raped and become pregnant, he replies:

It's not the government's role, or anybody else's role, to make that decision. ... It ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as President, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn't try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.


I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.

That puts him somewhere in the purple area. If we take him at his word, he would be morally opposed to abortion, but would reluctantly allow it on demand. That's squarely a pro-choice stance. When you take that position, you are in favor of a woman's right to abort her unborn child for any reason or no reason. That is not a pro-life stance.

Now listen to his statements in this Fox News interview with John Stossel.

The GOP Establishment hath spoken


Time to talk back, don't you think?

Echoes, not choices.

Ohio's new congressional district map


In what alternate universe does this gerrymandered monstrosity fit within the definition of "representative government?"

Ohio's gerrymandered 2011 congressional districts

I'd much prefer something objective and unbiased like this:

Ohio districts drawn with shortest splitline algorithm

We The Stupid


burning cashI understand Ann Barnhardt's frustration.

This debt ceiling increase was no victory. Giving the federal government a new $2.4 trillion slush fund makes about as much sense as giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Time to swap out more Congressmen and Senators for less corrupt replacements.

There are no cuts, and we all know it. There are reductions in the rate of increase of spending. We're just gulping slightly less fiscal poison, so we're dying slightly less quickly than before. Until inflation kicks in. And assuming future Congresses choose to abide by this Congress' promises. And if we don't get involved in another war.

But hey, we only control 1/2 of 1/3 of the gubmint. It's not like Cut Cap & Balance was popular or anything. And the media will be mean to us unless we compromise, and they'll be nice if we do. It's still 1995, and Teh Interwebz have no effect. Tea Parry? What Tea party? Best we could do. Even though "next time" has never come yet, our GOP betters will really & truly make actual cuts after we win in 2012. Pinky swear.

Eat your peas, drink your poison and smile!

Remember that 72 Hour Pledge?

The more things change ...


8/2/2011 2:28 AM Update: "Process is paramount," they once said.

Spending Cuts 101


Greetings, Republicans in the House and Senate who doubt that we rubes in Flyover Country understand baseline budgeting. We've seen what passes for "cuts" in the latest bill to raise the debt ceiling. You're not fooling anybody, geniuses.

Not a spending cut

Not a spending cut

Not a spending cut

A spending cut

Capisce? Good. Get on board.

On the Boehner bill


GOP as Lucy with the football


8:00 PM Update: Hey, our dose of fiscal arsenic just got reduced from "rapid death" to "slightly less rapid death." Best we can do. Declare victory and drink up, boys.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker!

So says the House Majority Leader:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) delivered a blunt message to the Republican Conference Tuesday morning: Quit the "grumbling" and "whining" and come together to rally behind Speaker John Boehner to pass his debt ceiling plan.


"The debt limit vote sucks," he said, according to an attendee of the closed meeting. But Republicans have three options, Cantor said: risk default, pass Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) plan -- which he thinks gives President Barack Obama a blank check -- or "call the president's bluff" by passing the Boehner plan, which not only cuts deeply into domestic spending but calls for a bipartisan commission to find more savings.

turd meal

I still remember the last "crap sandwich" we were asked to nosh. How'd that one work out?

Mitt Romney, front runner


Uh, which party is this guy from again?

Thankfully, he has competition.


Huckabee?  Hell no!

We can do much better.


10:00 PM Update: Not running. Good.

Y'know who this helps?

Donald Trump, conservative?


Let's go to the tape, shall we?

Those draconian cuts, again


Remember this? I was way off. Here's the Congressional Budget Office's assessment of the vicious slashing and bloodletting inflicted upon the budget by those heartless Republicans:

Andy McCarthy's not impressed.

A mere four months ago, the big controversy in conservative and Republican circles was whether the GOP had reneged on their vaunted pledge to cut $100B in spending in the current fiscal year because they had seemingly come down to $61B. As I noted at the time, there was no question that, if you looked at the fine print of the pledge, the commitment was $61B -- but that if you looked at reality, both $61B and $100B were laughably unserious. No matter. Folks around here pooh-poohed my criticism and insisted that a $61B pledge was a sober first step, showing real fortitude about getting our fiscal house in order.

So now they've stopped short, significantly short, of that purportedly serious step, and the reaction is, "We won!" You've got to be kidding me. The only thing Boehner won is future assurance that GOP leadership can safely promise the moon but then settle for crumbs because their rah-rah corner will spin any paltry accomplishment, no matter how empty it shows the promise to have been, as a tremendous victory.

And what's the rationale for settling? Why, that these numbers are so piddling -- that the $21 billion difference is so meaningless in the context of $14 trillion -- that it's best just to settle, make believe the promise was never made, make believe we didn't flinch, and put this episode behind us so we can begin the "real work" of the next promise, the Ryan Plan.

Regarding that plan, you're to believe that the captains courageous who caved on $21 billion -- and who got elected because of Obamacare but don't even want to discuss holding out for a cancellation of $105 billion in Obamacare funding -- are somehow going to fight to the death for $6 trillion in cuts. Right.

It strikes me that Boehner caved when he had -- as Hugh Hewitt describes it -- a "veto" on all spending. Won't the Democrats feel emboldened during the upcoming fights over the debt ceiling, the FY 2012 budget, and entitlement reform? Boehner eliminated a couple of days' worth of deficits, and got two symbolic votes in the Democrat-controlled Senate on Planned Parenthood and Obamacare. Why should the GOP base (much less the Tea Party) feel encouraged?

As an aside, I'm getting really sick of the "1/2 of 1/3 of the government" talking point. It's a weak excuse. Besides, the Judicial Branch isn't even involved in spending decisions whatsoever; Boehner actually runs 1/2 of 1/2 of the spending process.


6:00 PM Update: I just came across Mark Levin's take:

John Boehner has said over and over again that the Republican House is only 1/2 of 1/3 of the government - even though, by the way, no spending or taxing bill can pass without the House, period. He has also said that the Republicans will not shut down the government. So tell me, what is his strategy going forward with the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget? If he is already saying House Republicans are too weak to do much, and that we are not going to shut down the government, what is his leverage when these big battles take place? I don't think the man has a strategy at all.

The GOP's new "Pledge To America"


My reaction: *yawn*

Really? This is the best the GOP leadership can do? I can understand why Erick Erickson's upset, since this document is as tuned into the American people's concerns as a TV with bunny ears trying to catch HBO. Suggestion for Boehner, Cantor, and pals: stop fooling around and take Doug Ross' advice.

2:45 PM Update: Some call it a pledge to nowhere, some call it stupid, some call it milquetoast, some call it timid, some have a pithier alternative ... and then there's the plan involving bacon and giant robots.

Cash For Clunkers is Betty Sutton's baby. She touts the wasteful program as the crown jewel of her dubious achievements in office. Under normal circumstances Cash For Clunkers would be a big fat target for any Sutton opponent to hit, but unfortunately our nominee seems unable to pull the trigger.

Judging from his lackluster performance to date, it will take a minor miracle for car dealer Tom Ganley to erase his earlier praise for the program:

Tom Ganley, owner of the Ganley Auto Group, estimates the government owes him $3 million for the cars he's sold.

"In essence, I and other car dealers are loaning money to the federal government, interest free," Ganley said. "I feel for some of the smaller dealers across the country. They could actually sell themselves out of business."


And despite being owed millions, Ganley called the program an overwhelming success.

"It has certainly primed the pump and accelerated auto sales," Ganley said.

That's bad. Blatant flip-flopping for political advantage is worse, and that's exactly the accusation that the Sutton campaign will use to tar her opponent. The Ganley campaign has so far made one weak attempt to backpedal:

Ganley and Renacci both maintain the sales program was a clunker and that they only participated to meet customers' expectations. They said it sparked a temporary sales spike followed by a slowdown, and had negative long-term effects on the industry and used-car consumers who could have bought trade-ins the program destroyed.

"The program was, at its basic level, an unnecessary intrusion of government into the private business sector," says Ganley campaign manager Jeff Longstreth, contending that the government payments helped car buyers, not dealers. "It was unnecessary federal spending that is indicative of the current administration's policy of spend, spend, spend."

Least trusted professionsThe argument's right on target, but how does Ganley plan to credibly criticize a program that reportedly paid him $20 million for selling somewhere north of 800 cars? Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. If he intends to pursue the "it was a temporary spike" line of attack, he'll have to cast doubt on a Maritz Automotive Research Group report that suggests otherwise (hint, hint). Ganley's campaign site makes no mention of the Maritz report, which was released three months ago. Nor is there any mention of Cash For Clunkers. Is the Ganley campaign waiting for an engraved invitation to deal with the elephant in the room?

Tom, I'll be blunt. You're a used car salesman looking to become a politician. That means you've got more than the usual public relations handicap to overcome. Unless you stop deluding yourself that you'll win simply because you're not Betty Sutton, and do it soon, you're doomed. A lazy campaign is a losing campaign. Get off your butt and convince your potential constituents that you're worth our votes.

He says he might run.

Why Newt Gingrich thinks he can be PresidentFormer House Speaker Newt Gingrich gives President Barack Obama only a 20 percent chance of being reelected -- and says he might be the one to give Obama the boot.


The former speaker said there is "more of a possibility now" that he'll run for president than when he was considering the idea ahead of the 2008 election. He said he'll decide in February or March of next year and will base the decision partly on whether there is "a potential to raise the resources to be a serious, major candidate."

Gingrich said he and his wife, Callista, will base the decision on two top factors: "Is the case for basic change clear enough, and powerful enough, that articulating it and carrying it is a legitimate part of my role as a citizen?" and "Is there a potential to raise the resources to be a serious, major candidate."

He's delusional if he thinks he has a prayer of winning the Republican nomination.

This document is purportedly a copy of a mailer from the Medina County Republican Party. Look for the section headed by "Had enough hope & change?" and read the second bullet.

Medina County GOP mailer on Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH)

Here's the text:

  • Let's replace Pelosi's Puppet John Boccieri with a good solid conservative. Let's see -- he was against ObamaCare before he was for it!
  • Let's take Betty Sutton out of the House and put her back in the kitchen!
  • Let's fire Harry Reid from his job as Senate Majority Leader by putting Republicans in the majority!
  • Let's put Governor Strickland in the unemployment line by electing a fiscal conservative who will tear down the barriers to job creation in Ohio!

If this is a real mailer, then the people who approved it need to be tossed out on their ears. This is 2010, geniuses, not an episode of "Mad Men."

First of all, homemakers deserve honor and respect. Wise cracks about sending a woman back to the kitchen are just plain offensive. Claiming that a move from Congress to "the kitchen" is a demotion has it precisely backwards. To say that I have more respect for the average homemaker than for the average congresscritter is an understatement on a par with saying I prefer strawberry ice cream to cockroach soufflé.

Second, this is just dumb politics. Only an oblivious tool would think that the contents of a public mailer will never get into the opposition's hands. Even internal documents (especially the stupid ones) find their way to the press. This was a public mailer, you morons. Way to play right into the Democrats' stereotype of Republicans as knuckle-dragging misogynists. All they need is one juvenile and insulting wisecrack from you and they've got ammo for attack ads all summer long. Never mind that the conservative movement is home to Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Liz Cheney, Laura Ingraham, Star Parker, Anita MonCrief, Michelle Malkin, Jill Stanek, S.E. Cupp, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and millions upon millions of women just as independent and hard-working as they are. The media and the Democrats are longing to play the victim card to defend Betty Sutton's uncertain seat in the House, and now they think they have an excuse.

Way to go.

4/29/10 Update: It took him a week, but Tom Ganley finally responded to the uproar.

Instead of talking about creating jobs, Betty Sutton wants to talk about a newsletter sent out by the Medina County Republican Party. I'm sure you all have heard about the newsletter and the idiotic comment about Betty Sutton included in the newsletter. For the record, I had nothing to do with the newsletter or the comment. My campaign, along with several other candidates, paid for an advertisement in an insert included in the newsletter. No one involved in our campaign saw the comment until it appeared in a Plain Dealer article last week. This is the equivalent of buying an ad in a newspaper and then being held responsible for the editorial content the next day. Further, we have not been endorsed by the Medina County GOP or the Chairman Bill Heck, and we have made it abundantly clear to them we do not support this kind of inappropriate language.

I believe the comment was very offensive, and I do not support it. I also think it was offensive how Betty Sutton's first response was to send out a fundraising letter. I hate stereotypes, and I do not tolerate them. As I am not an elected official or a member of the Central or Executive Committees and do not have any influence over the Medina County GOP, I cannot control what they decide to do about this situation. The only thing I can control is how my campaign conducts itself, and I am very proud of the race we are running. This will serve as our last comment on this subject. We should be talking about creating jobs, not this fake outrage.

Good reply, but way late.

Is Michael Steele trying to kill the Republican National Committee?

AP photo of Michael Steele and Al Sharpton, Wed Apr 14, 4:22 PM ET

How else do you explain his love-in with Al Sharpton?

Ron Paul, summarized


Over at Hot Air, they made Ron Paul (the Republican Party's version of Dennis Kucinich) the subject of yesterday's Quotes Of The Day thanks to his speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.

I'd say this parody comment by MadisonConservative aptly sums up the diminutive dingbat's political outlook:

Obama is pro-business, North Korea and Iran are harmless, and Israel is the new Nazi Empire. Hitler was misunderstood, Truman was a war criminal, and Lincoln is the anti-Christ. Plus, the Joos run everything. You should read this book called The Protocols. Have you ever heard of John Birch?

Leaked video of a night at Dr. Paul's house:

Watch the clip and you'll see yet another example of an elected official who doesn't bother to understand his job.

Article I, Section 1
U.S. Constitution

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Amendment I
U.S. Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Shame on Frank LoBiondo for not even having a pocket U.S. Constitution handy. Nobody would have objected if he had pulled out a copy of the document, because it would have demonstrated that he cared enough to check it. What a fool.

I hope moments like these happen at every town hall meeting in America for the next ten years.

Good grief. This is nuts.

According to two knowledgeable sources, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele once raised the possibility of using party money to buy a private jet for his travel.


The RNC explains that Steele charters jets only when commercial service is unavailable, or when his tight schedule requires it. "Anytime the chairman has taken any private travel has been a either to a route that doesn't exist or because of connections and multiple travel to where he just wasn't able to do so," Heye said. Yet Steele's office repeatedly refused to explain in specific terms the circumstances of the February charter flights.

Once on the ground, FEC filings suggest, Steele travels in style. A February RNC trip to California, for example, included a $9,099 stop at the Beverly Hills Hotel, $6,596 dropped at the nearby Four Seasons, and $1,620.71 spent [update: the amount is actually $1,946.25] at Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex.

RNC trips to other cities produced bills from a long list of chic and costly hotels such as the Venetian and the M Resort in Las Vegas, and the W (for a total of $19,443) in Washington. A midwinter trip to Hawaii cost the RNC $43,828, not including airfare.

And the GOP wonders why I refuse to donate when they call.


11:42 AM Update: Sorry, GOP. Nowhere near good enough.

2:30 PM Update: Good volley, Mr. Carlson.

5:33 PM Update: Michelle Malkin collects another round of rejected RNC solicitations.

6:08 PM Update: We don't call it "The Stupid Party" for nothing.


Milquetoast Medved


Good grief. Again with the moooooderate canard? Michael Medved writes:

Cowering wimpRepublicans may be the immediate beneficiaries of the Democrats' clumsy misinterpretation of the supposed mandate for change, but they run a very real risk of making similar mistakes. Polls show disillusionment and distrust regarding the Obama agenda, but that hardly signals an impassioned appetite for a conservative counterrevolution. If the GOP pledges massive, wrenching, systemic change -- cutting back, for instance, on cherished, widely popular government programs on which millions of Americans depend -- it will meet the same resistance and skepticism that confronts Obama and his liberal colleagues.

In other words, the people would welcome a concerted effort to "clean up the mess in Washington," but they don't want Washington cleaning up the mess in their private lives because they don't consider their personal status a mess.

Yes, the Democrats miscalculated by underestimating the deeply conservative nature of the American people, but the Republicans may yet miscalculate themselves by interpreting that conservatism as ideological rather than temperamental.

The public wants pragmatic, commonsense, problem-solving leadership more than purist dogmatism of the right or the left. Voters don't yearn for stirring 10-point programs, or radical readjustments of governmental institutions, or definitive demonization and defeat of opponents.

Ever since Medved sided with Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham on amnesty "comprehensive immigration reform" a few years back, and especially once Medved started pimping McCain's and Mike Huckabee's presidential campaigns, I've had a hard time listening to him.

Hey, Michael, we don't want "radical conservative change" anytime soon. Let's start by rolling back federal spending/taxation/regulation to August '08 levels. Then maybe we can shoot for Reagan-era levels. After that, we can aim further rightward. 'Kay?

Newt is shocked, shocked


Newt on Scozzafava:

As other Republicans threw their support behind Hoffman's momentum, Gingrich argued that the party needed to be more inclusive of moderates if it had a hope of retaking the majority.

He told The Associated Press he was disappointed, and "deeply upset" that Scozzafava endorsed Owens.

"How could she have accepted all that support?" he said, adding later: "I'm very, very let down because she told everybody she was a Republican, and she said she was a loyal Republican."

Gingrich now backs Hoffman.

Gimme a break. Newt's a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.

My theory on the GOP's thinking


Maybe I'm just indulging my inner Tom McMahon here, but I suspect this is what passes for candidate selection strategy among the leaders of the Republican Party.

Republican strategy

How else do you explain Dede Scozzafava?

Has Pat Buchanan lost his marbles?


How else do you explain stuff like this?

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world -- Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia -- why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can't get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser's fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Those pesky Poles and Joooos had it coming, huh, Pat?

Addressing the GOP's media woes


The Other McCain has several good points:

The people who control access to Republican leaders go out of their way to prevent their bosses from ever having direct contact with any rank-and-file conservative who wants to help. It's a tragically familiar story.


A key reason the [George] Allen campaign couldn't fix the "macaca" problem was because they had no friends in the MSM -- and this by design, rather than accident. Republican campaign operatives routinely and habitually treat reporters as the enemy. Somewhere, I believe, there must be a boot camp where GOP staffers are trained in an attitude of hostility and suspicion toward the press.


Republican leaders habitually blame media bias for all their woes, but rank-and-file Republicans need to start asking to what extent this media bias is fomented and exacerbated by the cluelessness of GOP leadership and the insulting arrogance of GOP political operatives.


So, whose fault was it that the MSM portrayed Sarah Palin as a ditzy bimbo? You can blame the press all you want, but at some point -- if the Republican Party wishes to present itself as representing the principles of accountability and personal responsibility -- the role of GOP campaign staffers in mishandling the media needs to be examined.

Read the rest. It's quite thought-provoking.

Newsweek's Katie Connolly interviewed former Massachusetts Governor (and former GOP presidential candidate) Mitt Romney about his experiences with health care legislation yesterday. When she asked him "What lessons can be gleaned from your experience in Massachusetts?", Romney replied:

After we crafted the architecture of our plan, the first person I went to was Ted Kennedy. He and I met numerous times and what we fashioned was not perfect in either one of our eyes, but we worked together, because only together could we know that we would have the support of all the parties necessary to make it work.

Multi-mouth MittThe states are laboratories of democracy. Well, our state passed a bill. It's been in place now for several years. Have they studied it? Have they spoken with the Republicans and Democrats in Masssachusetts? Have they spoken with hospitals? Doctors? Have they sent the GAO there to take it apart to see what is working well and what is not? Nobody has given me a call, except Republicans. I've received no calls from Democrats saying what do you think about it? What would you do differently if you were to do it today? There's a whole series of things I'd do differently. And yet, there seems to be such a rush to act. I understand that President Obama wants to get this done in his first term, but more important than getting it done in the first year is getting it done right, before he is out of office. There is time here to get it done right.

What's Obama supposed to ask Mitt to explain? How to screw up health care through rationing, high taxes, obscene spending, and over-regulation? Both men have mastered those skill sets already.

Connolly also asked Romney "In terms of the reform proposals before Congress, what do you see that you like and dislike so far?"

I'm not happy that the President wants to provide a so-called public option. There is no need for the government to become an insurance company. I'm convinced, as many before me have said, that this is a step towards a single payer system; that it will result in billions, if not hundreds of billions, of subsidies down the road and a new entitlement, which is one of the last things America needs right now. On the other hand I am happy that he is actually working to reform healthcare. It's important for us to get everyone insured. It's important that there be an effort made to reduce the excessive inflation in the healthcare sector.

This is just rich. Mitt Romney, the man who orchestrated Massachusetts government's takeover of its citizens' health care, is warning about a government takeover of health care?

I think Mitt's been hitting the medical marijuana.

7:00 Update: We've got health care, yes we do! We've got health care, how 'bout you?

According to well-known RINO and general gadfly David Brooks, an unnamed male Republican Senator seated next to him at a dinner apparently fondled his thigh as Brooks just sat there.

First of all, what kind of wuss lets Mister Grabbyhands cop an extended feel, then protects the scumbag's identity?

Second, Brooks apparently doesn't grasp the concept of "too much information."

Too Much Information

Third, a long-overdue suggestion: take a vacation. Just go away for a few weeks. You're really creeping us out.

Video: Senator Cornyn gets booed


At the Austin, TX Tea Party on this past July 4th, Republican U.S. Senator John Cornyn got a resounding round of boos (except when he talked about our military) for his vote on TARP, the bloated bailout:

Notice how he tried to slam "Washington" as if he isn't part of it. Remember this back in April?

Cornyn should have seen it coming.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

The guy can't be trusted to be faithful to his wife and kids, and he can't be trusted to perform his duties without running off to Argentina for some sweet, sweet lovin'. Hey, Governor! Resign and disappear, already.


RINO huntersThe Ohio Republican Party appears to be moving full steam ahead toward endorsing John Kasich for Governor. That's funny ... I thought the primary contest was still underway. When last I checked, Kevin Coughlin was still angling for a chance to take on Ted Strickland.

It's not up to the Ohio GOP to pick the party's nominee. It's up to us, the voters, to choose our nominee in the primary election. The state party ought to butt out until then.

After all, Bob Taft, "Uncle Bob" Bennett, Kevin Dewine, Ken Blackwell, Jim Petro and friends haven't exactly covered themselves in glory over the past several election cycles.

We'll pick our guy without your interference, thanks.

Republican aide sends racist e-mail


If I had a staffer who had done this, she'd be packing up her desk five minutes later. The Tennessee GOP must be run by amoral creeps, oblivious morons, or both. Shame on State Senator Diane Black (R-Gallatin).

If this unethical tactic for pushing an immoral policy doesn't justify a full-throated attack, what does? Via Drudge:

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

Hey, Ohio Republican Party bigwigs! What in the world are you waiting for? Blast this! Get aggressive. This is a no-brainer in at least two ways. 1) Americans don't want socialized medicine. 2) Americans hate biased media outlets that claim to be unbiased.

Couple that with cratering support for Obama's policies and you guys have a perfect opportunity to contrast the statist path of the Democrats with the traditional GOP values of rugged individualism, independence, and capitalism. Yes, Obama's popular. So what? Attack his policies and his plans, not him.

Stop worrying about being treated badly by the media. You lost that war in the 1960s. They'll never like you. Use it to your advantage. Say things that they can't afford to ignore, things that they'll have to cover. Call ABC "a wholly owned subsidiary of ACORN and the Democratic Party." Draw comparisons to Joseph Goebbels' "Big Lie" strategy. Remind people of what Pravda used to publish. The media and the statists on the Left have just exposed their weakest point of vulnerability to you. Hit it with a sledgehemmer!

Learn from Sun Tzu:

You may advance and be absolutely irresistible, if you make for the enemy's weak points; you may retire and be safe from pursuit if your movements are more rapid than those of the enemy.


Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards.

So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.

Get off your asses and attack!

Details here.

The more we give to Marco Rubio, the more the folks at the NRSC have to realize we mean business.

If donations are all the National Republican Senatorial Committee understands, then I say let your money talk.

Jon Husted doesn't deserve support


I echo Tom Blumer's open letter to John Kasich. Politicians like Husted aren't the solution to Ohio's woes. They're a big part of the problem.

David Frum demonstrates:

  1. Smear Rush Limbaugh
  2. Get called out on the air by Mark Levin
  3. Call in to complain
  4. Receive beatdown

Bravo, David. Not even T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII could outdo you.

Well, not yet. But the Paulbots have certainly spammed the heck out of lately. Just look at all the lickspittle paeans mixed into the questions submitted by the Ronulans. Geez, these cranks almost make Obama worshipers look rational.


Hats off to Sword At-The-Ready for the image.

Does McCain actually want my vote?


I have my doubts, and so does John Hawkins.

Focus, John! You've got to defeat this slick, socialist Chicago punk!

McCain blew it last night


Andy McCarthy sums it up nicely:

We have a disaster here -- which is what you should expect when you delegate a non-conservative to make the conservative (nay, the American) case. We can parse it eight ways to Sunday, but I think the commentary is missing the big picture.

Here's what Obama needed to do tonight: Convince the country that he was an utterly safe, conventional, centrist politician who may have leftward leanings but will do the right thing when the crunch comes.

Now, as the night went along, did you get the impression that Obama comes from the radical Left? Did you sense that he funded Leftist causes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? Would you have guessed that he's pals with a guy who brags about bombing the Pentagon? Would you have guessed that he helped underwrite raging anti-Semites? Would you come away thinking, "Gee, he's proposing to transfer nearly a trillion dollars of wealth to third-world dictators through the UN"?

Nope. McCain didn't want to go there. So Obama comes off as just your average Center-Left politician. Gonna raise your taxes a little, gonna negotiate reasonably with America's enemies; gonna rely on our very talented federal courts to fight terrorists and solve most of America's problems; gonna legalize millions of hard-working illegal immigrants.

McCain? He comes off as Center-Right .. or maybe Center-Left ... but, either way, deeply respectful of Obama despite their policy quibbles.

Great. Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn't; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he's qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clealy qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists.

If that's what the public thinks, good luck trying to win this thing.

With due respect, I think tonight was a disaster for our side. I'm dumbfounded that no one else seems to think so. Obama did everything he needed to do, McCain did nothing he needed to do. What am I missing?

Does McCain even have a prayer anymore? I have serious doubts.

We're going to regret this


President Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This will not end well. Socialism never works for long.

I used to think of Ron Paul as a flighty "Republican Dennis Kucinich" with better fundraising skills. But it turns out that he's just a run-of-the-mill loathsome racist turd.

You can read excerpts from his creepy newsletters, if you feel the need.

OH-13 GOP primary: the clock is ticking


The Ohio Republican Party doesn't have forever to pick someone to challenge U.S. Representative Betty Sutton (D-OH) for her seat in the 13th District. The primary election's on March 4th, 2008. That means potential candidates must file paperwork declaring their candidacy with Ohio's Secretary of State by December 1st (75 days before the primary).

Who's going to challenge the freshman incumbent? She's beatable.

I've been watching the utter inactivity developing race in Ohio's 13th District in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I haven't seen squat from the Ohio Republican Party. Democrat blogger Scott Piepho (an eminently reasonable and likable guy) wonders why the GOP is leaving Sutton unchallenged.

Hello! Earth to Bob Bennett, Alex Arshinkoff, and Kevin Coughlin! When will one of you recruit a credible challenger?

If you thought Ron Paul supporters were odd to begin with, wait 'til you see what they think of the dastardly neoconservative bogeymen lurking in the shadows. Apparently, some author from the far right lunatic fringe named Philip Atkinson wrote an essay urging President Bush to crush democracy and become "President-For-Life", all in the name of national security. His essay supposedly turned up on the Family Security Matters web site, but it's not there at the moment. Was it scrubbed? I don't know, so I just sent e-mails to Atkinson and to Family Security Matters requesting an explanation.

Although it's all a tempest in a teapot as far as I'm concerned, the comments at One Oar In The Water (a fellow SOB Alliance blogger) sure raised my eyebrows. Talk about drinking the Ron Paul Kool-Aid. The chickenhawk trope pops up early. Side question: since Ron Paul never served in combat, can a President Paul ever conduct a war without being labeled a chickenhawk? Just, y'know, wondering.

I'm no neocon. I'm just a plain old conservative, and I've been one ever since I began to follow politics in high school eons ago. It's amusing to see the nutty losertarians libertarians going weak in the knees over a crank like Ron Paul, while accusing the sane majority of conservatives of worshipping George W. Bush as some kind of messianic savior of America. How blinkered and paranoid must one's outlook be to lump all conservatives into two camps, either Ron Paul Groupies or Neocon Bush-Worshippers?

Ah, well. Even loons have a right to say patently silly things.

Leave Jennifer Brunner's son alone


This is just wrong. Picking on an elected official's kid is out of bounds. I disagree with Jennifer Brunner on everything I can think of, but she's not responsible for the behavior of her adult son. Matt Naugle, who posted the hit piece on Brunner's son, ought to apologize. I know that if a lefty blogger ridiculed Ken Blackwell's son, Matt would unload both rhetorical barrels. I know I would.

The same standard applies to everybody, Matt. Apologize.

And not like this.

Update: Amen, Jill.

The following e-mail from Mike DeWine landed in my inbox today. The first sentence was enough to instantly seal my decision to vote against John McCain in the Ohio primary, but I can't resist a mild fisking.

Dear Friend,

You may have heard that I am heading up John McCain's Presidential campaign in Ohio. I'd like to take a few moments to tell you why.

I have known John McCain for almost 25 years. We both were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. I worked closely with him during our years together in the House and during my 12 years in the U.S. Senate. No one is more qualified to be our next President. [Ed.: Wrong. Fred Dalton Thompson is.]

While our Party is truly fortunate to have such a strong field of qualified candidates, I believe that John McCain has what it takes - the experience, knowledge, and foresight - to lead our Nation. He is decisive. He has guts. And, he leaves no room for ambiguity or uncertainty in his reasoned policy decisions. [Ed.: Yup, he's unambiguously a squish on everything but national defense.]

I don't agree with John McCain on every issue. [Ed.: That's supposed to reassure me that he's not a RINO like you?] But, I do know that when we elect a President, we elect the Commander-in-Chief. We elect someone who is going to be making life and death decisions every single day. There is only one person I want making those decisions - and that person is John McCain.

The fact is that the future and security of this country hinges on next year's election. The Presidency requires a person of sound judgment, with an extraordinary grasp of foreign and military affairs - someone who can navigate our country through very dangerous and unchartered waters. Again, that person is John McCain. [Ed.: No, it's Fred.]

Over and over, John has proven his leadership. He was right about Iraq and the need for more troops. He was also right way back in the fall of 1983. I remember John giving a courageous speech in the House against extending our military presence in Lebanon. He believed our presence would not be sufficient to keep the peace, nor were we prepared to exercise our full military capabilities. Less than one month later, 241 U.S. military personnel lost their lives in Lebanon.

John McCain, like he has so many times, stepped forward. He didn't sit back. He didn't cower. He knows both the strengths and limits of our military forces. That kind of understanding is vital if a President is to exercise measured judgment on when and where to use our military to defend and protect our country and our interests.

The bottom line is this: I've watched John McCain for years. I know him, and I'm for him. Please join me with your support. Whether it is through a financial contribution or your volunteer efforts, John needs your help. Visit to join the team.

Very respectfully yours,

Mike DeWine

P.S. Click here to make a quick online contribution.

Paid for by Mike DeWine for U.S. Senate and authorized by John McCain 2008. [Ed.: DeWine still has money in his campaign war chest, and he only spends it on McCain?]

Every time I think McCain can't be any more tone deaf to the conservative GOP base, he out-does himself.


Update: I'm not the only one wincing. Check out VikingSpirit, Nasty Brutish & Short, Return of The Conservatives, and PoliticsExtra.

Update 2: Jerid at the lefty Buckeye State Blog wonders just exactly where DeWine's disagreements with McCain lie. Good question.

Republicans in the Senate are about to vote on a measure that will encourage our enemies and demoralize our troops. Sign here and tell them to ...

Show some spine

Pledge reminder


Click, pledge, and spread the word.

I've taken the pledge. Will you?


Thanks to Hugh Hewitt, I've heard about the latest boneheaded idea proposed by our Republican Senators in Washington. They're ginning up a "non-binding" resolution that whines about the pending troop surge into Iraq. Not one dimeIt's no surprise that General Petraeus testified that such legislative grandstanding encourages the enemy and endangers our troops.

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution.

Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Take the pledge ... and get ready for stormy weather.


Call it what it is: amnesty


Michelle Malkin's latest roundup on the Republican Senate's immigration wuss-a-palooza says it all.

I also like this handy visual retort to the open borders crowd:

© 2005 Jay D. Dyson
(click image to enlarge)

As I said yesterday, build a wall first and deal with the rest later. I'll let Michelle rip the amnesty deal for me. My temper's too short on this subject to write anything temperate right now.

Julie Myers in the crosshairs


The blowback continues. Julie Myers, President Bush's nominee to head the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency under the Department of Homeland Security, looks like a baldfaced example of a political crony being rewarded with a fat paycheck for having all the right connections.

Michelle Malkin fires a second blog broadside into the Julie Myers nomination, and follows up with a syndicated column. Debbie Schlussel's latest post lifts the slimy rock concealing ICE's corruption, mismanagement, and border-enforcement laxity, and asks how Myers can possibly be qualified to clean it all up. joins the chorus, and even finds legal support to torpedo the cute 36-year-old lawyer. The Roanoke Times posts a three-paragraph editorial that's dead on-target.

Bush crony nominated to guard U.S. borders

Bush crony nominated to guard U.S. borders


Julie MyersI'm happy to see that Michelle Malkin is on the warpath against Julie Myers, President Bush's nominee to head the the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Myers is a woefully underqualified 35 year old Washington lawyer whose resume reveals scant experience with immigration law ... or law enforcement of any kind. If confirmed, this youngster will report to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and she'll be running the second-largest investigative agency in the federal government. Among other things, she'll have a multi-billion-dollar budget, 20,000+ subordinates, and she will be responsible for guarding our leaky borders against terrorist infiltrators, illegal aliens and drug smugglers.

Here's the real outrage. Myers has two family connections to the Bush Administration, says The Washington Post:

Her uncle is Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She married Chertoff's current chief of staff, John F. Wood, on Saturday.

Holy freakin' cannolis! Rescind that nomination now, Mr. President, and deliver a swift kick in the rump to whoever advised you to choose Julie Myers.

Incidentally, The Washington Times jumped on this four days ago.

Hat tip: Froggy Ruminations (who rips the nomination a new one)

More conservative criticism:
Diggers Realm
Debbie Schlussel (I love the "Brunette Barbie" line)
Ankle Biting Pundits
Rod Dreher
Jack Kelly

Michelle Malkin asks a great question about Social Security and Homeland Security.

Green card given to 9/11 victim ... in 2005


Remember when the INS sent visas to two of the dead 9/11 hijackers? Well, the idiots in the federal government have outdone themselves. On January 15th, 2005 the Department of Homeland Security finally got around to issuing a green card to Mr. Eugueni Kniazev. He won't be coming in to pick up his card ... because he died in the 9/11 attacks.

Michelle Malkin has all the details. Unbelievable.

SpongeBob SquarePants is a manly sponge


Can we all stop fussing over SpongeBob SquarePants and his alleged dalliances with Patrick the Starfish or other male toons, please?

SpongeBob is a manly sponge

He's a manly sponge, and definitely not gay. If you have further photoshopped evidence of this, please send it my way (me at brainshavings dot com) and I'll post it here.

Armstrong Williams fallout continues


Thanks to conservative pundit Armstrong Williams (who secretly took $250,000 from the Bush administration to hawk the No Child Left Behind Act, and claimed that others did too), minority conservative pundits are catching major hate from the venomous wing of the loony Left. Not that the lefties were sweet and kind before, mind you, but it's still a nasty display of racism and bile from the folks who claim to be champions of downtrodden minorities.

Not only did Williams do something wrong and unethical ... he's given fuel to the mouthbreathing moonbats, and hurt the rest of the conservative movement much more than Michael Moore ever could. Way to go, Armstrong.

Armstrong Williams payola


I've been thinking about how to express my disapproval of conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, who recently admitted taking money from the Bush Administration to become a booster for the No Child Left Behind Act. But now I don't need to worry about finding the words. They turned up on Michelle Malkin's blog because she thought of them first.

Canada's drooling over this idea


Senator Chuck Hagel (R-France) wants to restart the draft.

A senior Republican lawmaker said Tuesday that deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft. "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.

"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.

How does forcing rich kids and poor kids into service improve our military? The purpose of our military is to kill people and break things, Chuck, not to make you feel better about the demographics of those who serve.

James S. Robbins aptly summarizes the problem with Hagel's view:

Why should the United States destroy the world's most-effective armed force, delay promising careers of young people who can contribute more to society in the civilian workplace, and establish a mammoth public-service bureaucracy, just to encourage our elected officials to deliberate more soberly about issues of war and peace? If that is the problem, a much-easier way to achieve the same result is to draft better candidates for Congress. Or maybe just have a lottery.

Kos & Bunning skewered by Chris Muir

Day By Day, a cartoon by Chris Muir

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Details on Kos: here. Details on Bunning: here and here.

RSS   Twitter

SOB Alliance posts
Web Analytics