Yours truly, from August of last year: "Trump as the national Christine O'Donnell"
Tweet from today, by an editor of RedState:
Donald Trump is Christine O'Donnell on a Presidential scale. His supporters, like hers, will be bewildered after he's trounced— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) April 24, 2016
It's a little easier when you're from the First State, I suppose. ;-)
The Tea Party wing of the GOP has wised up to the fact that The Establishment (GOPe) hates them. They know it and now even GOPe isn't pretending anymore. They've basically come to the point that they're willing to lose the presidency to keep control of the party. Exhibit A:
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus cautioned supporters of Donald Trump who vocally disapprove of the GOP's delegate allocation and selection process.
This is not going to endear him to anyone this side of John Boehner.
I am terrible at political prognostication. But that doesn't stop me. I see this as a major problem for the GOP. They don't want Donald. That would be conceding to The Great Unwashed that their Elders and Betters don't have control of the party. If they pull and end run around Trump and hand it to anyone else they're going to lose the significant numbers of supporters that Trump brings to the table. A brokered convention looks like a loss for the GOP.
Does that mean that the Democrats have a better candidate? No. The Sandernistas are the Bearded Spock version of Trump supporters. Hand the nomination to Hillary and watch them become incandescent with rage.
I think that literally anything can happen at this point. Paddy Power, the major bookmakers in Europe, have Hillary winning soundly. This is their business and they're not often wrong.
Given his penchant for suing/threatening to sue anybody who gives him a hard time, can you imagine him ... giving orders to the IRS?
Remember, Delaware conservatives, when in
2008 2010 many of you actually thought that Christine O'Donnell could beat out Chris Coons in the general US Senate election -- even though every poll showed her getting beat, most by double digits?
And remember how every poll showed that O'Donnell's primary opponent, Mike Castle, beat Chris Coons? Remember??
You voted for O'Donnell anyway.
Now look -- I get digging Donald Trump. I really do. He gives it right back to people, most especially the mainstream media, and that is incredibly appealing.
But he won't win the general election. The only chance he would have is if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, and he won't be. Even Hillary "What, Wipe It Clean With A Cloth?" Clinton still beats Trump head-to-head despite her criminal behavior. If things get too tough for Hill, the Dems will pull the plug, and someone like Joe Biden will jump in.
I remember O'Donnell beating Castle very well. I knew it would be a disaster. Thus, I worry about the Trump craze. I wanna grab people by the shoulders like Cahill (Oliver Platt) did to Grant (Kurt Russell) in Executive Decision and yell "LISTEN TO ME! LISTEN TO ME!!"
Maybe another time I'll address some of his head scratchers, like repealing the 14th Amendment and making Mexico pay for building a border wall.
Donald Trump is not a serious candidate for President. He knows it. You know it. I know it. He is in for the lights, cameras and free brand advertisement. He is some sort of egomaniacal populist. Every single time he talks to the press about anything, he always comes back to how smart he is and how much money he made. That's all well and good but it does not a President make.
That said, I have an idea for Mr. Trump. If he really, truly wants to turn it up a notch, organize gay pride parades across the country. Make sure the route goes through the largest Muslim neighborhoods and past the local mosques. First stop, Dearborn Michigan. There are cracks in the Blue Coalition and they're inherent. Leftists have decided to organize not along ideological lines but class and race and gender and identity. Exploit that.
Trump blames McCain for not having done enough for veterans. Really? How are the problems in the VA the fault of McCain who has always been a strong advocate for veterans? And what has Trump done for veterans? And how does a man who had three student deferments and a medical deferment for a bone spur get off criticizing a man who spent five and a half years being tortured? I don't mind someone of that era taking every opportunity to avoid serving in Vietnam, but at least he could have the grace to shut his mouth in criticizing someone else's service.
If you need a refresher as to why John McCain is indeed a hero, see here.
This was back in 2002 and the rep, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, said that he "was unaware at the time of the group's ideology and its association with racists and neo-Nazi activists."
Yeah, whatever. Maybe I'd be more concerned about this if the mainstream press was grilling our president on why he associates with a racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic race hustling punk like Al Sharpton.
UPDATE: Aaaaand, guess who didn't wait a second to jump on this?
Let he who hasn't given a speech to a conference of white supremacists and neo-Nazis, led by former KKK grand wizard, cast the first stone.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 29, 2014
Still waiting on your tweets about the number of times Sharpton has been to the White House, Ronnie.
He's run for just about anything you can think of in Delaware and lost; this time he primaried Janet Kilpatrick for a New County Council seat and ... lost. Again.
The other day in "slower, lower" Delaware, a controversy arose because two county councilmen -- Sam Wilson and Vance Phillips -- objected to the term "colored" in the NAACP name:
"People are hung up too much on who they are or what color they are. I don't get hung up on it," Wilson said Wednesday. "It's certainly not being racist to ask the question."
Wilson touched off the controversy when he objected to giving a county grant to the Lower Sussex Branch NAACP Youth Council.
"I'm not going to give anything. Unless you can describe what that says," he told a county staffer who was reciting to Council which organizations were asking for grants this week. "What's NAACP stand for?"
The group's acronym stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Wilson, in the Council meeting, indicated the phrase "colored people" signified the NAACP must be involved in "discrimination."
Vance Phillips, another councilman, said he agreed with Wilson and would not give the Youth Council any money from his discretionary fund either.
On Wednesday, amplifying comments, Wilson said he believed the NAACP advocated only for black people to the exclusion of white people.
Wow, where to start? Locally, the News Journal's Jeff Gentry probably says it best. He notes that anyone can join the NAACP -- including white people! -- and folks of all colors hold leadership positions within the organization. And withholding ... $100 grants? Really??
The state GOP, beginning with the fatuous Christine O'Donnell's candidacy, has continued its long slide into irrelevancy.
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada anti-government rancher who has garnered a lot of news the last couple weeks (and sympathy from the Right), let it all hang out on racial matters recently. And it ain't good:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
At least the usual "progressives" actually have a REAL instance of racism to go after. And rightly so. Just beware of the typical ridiculous extrapolations to the Nth degree, natch. Because they will happen. Y'know, something like this:
Whereas, back in 2008 when the Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers stories came to light:
Let the MSM swarm-fest commence!
The Cape Gazette has more on the efforts by some on the Cape Henlopen (Delaware) school board to ditch the classic novel Brave New World from an Advanced Placement English curriculum. Previously noted board members Sandi Minard and Jen Burton say in this article that they don't want to ban the book, just give parents a choice: “If we have a choice, why can't we chose something that's not sexually explicit,” Burton said. “We can choose other books to show a dystopic society.”
Board Vice President Roni Posner defended the novel, but said that if parents don't want their kids reading the book, they should be able to opt out.
As I noted in my earlier post, the irony really is lost on some of these people. As Lea Tomer, young adult services librarian for the Lewes Public Library, notes in the article,
The overwhelming theme of the book is the loss of the individual and government control. While sexual promiscuity is portrayed in the novel, it is part of Huxley's negative description of a futuristic society. It's a small piece of the overall picture.
This is what I do not understand -- as conservative a place as Sussex County, Delaware is, Brave New World should, if anything, appeal to their political philosophy (as Ms. Tomer notes above).
It seems there was some pretty provocative happenings at this past week's Cape Henlopen (Sussex County, Delaware) school board meeting. Colossus has learned via an attendee of the meeting that it seems a couple of school board members cited Delaware Code Title 11 Section 1361 -- that related to obscenity -- regarding a teacher assigning the novel Brave New World to her high school class. That's right -- school board members insinuated that a teacher could be hauled out of his/her classroom in handcuffs, and arrested on obscenity charges ... for having his/her high school students read the eighty-plus year-old classic novel by Aldous Huxley.
The problem? GASP! There's an "orgy" scene in the book. Yep. But as anyone who has read the novel can attest, it's hardly written in language you'd encounter in a book today. It's full of figurative language, metaphors and other imagery. The book was written in 1931. School board member Jennifer Burton was the one who referenced the "relevant" Delaware Code in regards to the novel. A man who identified himself as a Delaware State Police officer spoke at the meeting and agreed with Burton's assessment of the novel with regards to Title 11 of the Delaware Code.
Part of the catalyst behind this whole affair is that it seems the same teacher who assigned BNW had also given a homework assignment involving the video for the hit song "Blurred Lines." When students Googled the vid to check it out, apparently they discovered there are several other versions of it that are very inappropriate. It seems the teacher was unaware of this. (Note: In my opinion, the teacher should have been.) What the assignment was and how it pertained to the class is still unclear. With regards to this whole matter, Cape school board member Sandi Minard went on Dan Gaffney's radio talk show to discuss it. This was a violation of the "current [Cape Henlopen] Contract, Board Policy and Delaware State Law," according to the Cape Henlopen Education Association. However, Ms. Minard remained undeterred, saying "I will not be intimidated nor will I be silenced." On the radio with Gaffney, Minard remarked that she (and parents) were (paraphrase) "prepared to move forward" past the issue, but then had heard about the assignment of Brave New World and ended up right back at "the beginning," so to speak.
Attempting to keep the issues separate, I ask: When hasn't a teacher been questioned about an assignment ... especially when the topic is something (even remotely) controversial? This happens all the time, especially in the humanities courses (English, social studies). Isn't the proper course of action, as the CHEA noted above, to follow procedure -- you know, like contact the teacher about any concerns first, and then [school-based] administrators if no satisfaction is given by the teacher? Dan Gaffney, on his blog, notes that Minard went public "after the complaints didn't seem to grab any traction with superiors within the school." But what does that mean, exactly? Does not "grab[bing] any traction" mean that the explanations given by the teacher and administrators weren't good enough for the [questioning] parents? What were the explanations by the school? Were there assurances by the school that steps would be taken to rectify lapses in judgment/procedure? We don't know.
But then ... how does all the above evolve into attempting to censor one the greatest classic novels of the last 200 years? Our source at the school board meeting said that school board member Burton remarked that dystopian novels should contain "positive" messages. Apparently irony escapes Ms. Burton ... in more ways than one. And if she (and her constituents) really want to see teachers taken away in handcuffs for having students read classic literature, then go for it. This may assuage a hard-right conservative base, but it'll scare the beejeebees out of many others, libertarians especially, left and right. And it will also assist in keeping the state GOP a statewide non-force for decades to come.
Here's the American Library Association's list of Banned and Challenged Books based on reports from the Office of Intellectual Freedom. Yep, some real head-scratchers on there for sure.
UPDATE: The class in question (reading Brave New World) is an 11th grade Advanced Placement class.
Also, as kavips notes in the comments, here's more from Delaware Beaches. Comment of the day by a father concerned about the book:
“Why would we teach kids what is negative in society?” he said. “Let’s teach them what is right, to become good citizens and improve the fabric of society.”
Irony really does escape a lot of people, doesn't it?
Failed GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell is pleading poverty. She needs $50,000 to battle a lawsuit brought by CREW -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington -- which accuses her of using campaign funds for personal use.
*Sigh* I don't know which is worse -- the fact that this vacuous woman is still in the news somehow, or the fact that the FEC (Federal Election Commission) is wasting its time on this matter. Perhaps because the head of CREW, Melanie Sloan, used to work for Joe "Plugs" Biden? Knowing the Boss Obama as we do, it shouldn't come as any surprise.
At any rate, if you want the in-depth scoop on all things O'Donnell, be sure to check out the Delaware Republican Record website. It's quite enlightening.
He's (at left) been in the news in recent months first because he was slated to write a Superman tale (which was delayed due to the outcry), and lately because his classic scifi novel Ender's Game will soon be out as a major film. These instances had to deal with the controversy of Card being vehemently anti-gay.
Despite my (and other comics bloggers') posts either defending Card from boycotts or (more in my own case) pointing out the hypocrisy of the boycotters, I believe it safely can be stated that Card is pretty much a nut. A big nut. If calling for a revolution if gay rights continue to expand in the US wasn't enough for you, maybe this is:
Where will he (Obama) get his "national police"? The NaPo will be recruited from "young out-of-work urban men" and it will be hailed as a cure for the economic malaise of the inner cities.
In other words, Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies.
Instead of doing drive-by shootings in their own neighborhoods, these young thugs will do beatings and murders of people "trying to escape" -- people who all seem to be leaders and members of groups that oppose Obama.
Really? Really? Card thinks Boss Obama will actually be able to cull a "national police force" out of disaffected urban youth" to act as his personal ... gang? Even [ridiculously] allowing for the fact that if Obama wanted to do such -- how would he manage to do it?
This is 9/11 Truther territory, folks. But the problem with the contemporary comics world, though, is that they put out comics about the "truth" regarding 9/11, whereas views like Card's are in desperate need of Maoist re-education. Thus, I don't give much more than a shrug to the screaming and yelling from comics creators (and fans) about Card's nuttery.
UPDATE: As Nate notes in the comments, Card, in his original article, states that his is just a "silly thought experiment" and that he wasn't serious about it. But -- he also then writes
It isn't my work as a writer of science fiction and fantasy that prepares me to write about unlikely events. My job in writing sci-fi is to make impossible events seem not just possible but likely. Inevitable.
I admit this is one of the rare instances I didn't go to check out the original source material (which was linked to in critical article I linked to originally); however, while I agree that Card's "disclaimer" lessens the impact of his lengthy treatise, as noted he qualifies such enough throughout to get a reader wondering.
Because -- you guessed it! -- nobody demanded it, it's time for yet another Hube culture-oriented list, this time a subject which gets the hackles up on "progressives" (ex. 9/11 Truthers) and conservatives (ex. Birthers) alike: Conspiracies. In no particular order:
ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976). So good it keeps me watching every time it's on, stars Dustin Hoffman and (ultra-lib) Robert Redford play Washington Post reporters Bernstein and Woodward who slowly uncover what happened during Watergate.
CAPRICORN ONE (1978). There's still a whole cottage industry on the 'net dedicated to moon landing conspiracies; this flick plays on that as government entities nab three astronauts from their rocket moments before the first manned launch to Mars, and convince them they need to stage the whole deal. (Budget cuts play a big role, go figure.) The trio realize, after acting out their parts, that the gov. can't afford to let them live, so they steal a jet to escape. Unfortunately, it's almost out of gas; sas such, they crash land in the desert, separate, and the chase is on! OJ Simpson is one of the astronauts, and Elliot Gould is the reporter who pieces together the truth. Many other stars abound in this flick including James Brolin, Sam Waterston, Telly Savalas and Hal Holbrook.
NO WAY OUT (1987). Guaranteed to elicit big "WTF???"s when the "secret" is revealed, Kevin Costner, Gene Hackman and Sean Young star in this political thriller. Hackman is the Secretary of Defense who accidentally kills a lady friend ... who Costner has also been seeing. To help cover his tracks, Hackman invents the story that a Russian mole killed her. Major "WTF"s ensue. Will Patton (Falling Skies) is great as Hackman's loyal aide.
J.F.K. (1991). Star Kevin Costner plays Jim Garrison, the Big Easy district attorney who takes it upon himself to prove that the Warren Commission conclusions about President Kennedy's death were so much bullsh**. I actually include this on the list because if you manage to stay awake for all the three-plus hours of the film, you deserve kudos. I managed to make it on my third viewing, the first complete one.
SEVEN DAYS IN MAY (1964). Ever wonder if our military guys planned a coup right here in the U.S. of A.? This flim will scare the beejeebees out of you, then. Burt Lancaster plays the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who plans to oust the president (Fredric March). Kirk Douglas plays a Lancaster underling who blows the whistle. The scene where Lancaster and March confront each other is classic.
MINORITY REPORT (2002). In 2054 a trio a psychics called "precogs" (for "precognition") are the basis for a new police unit: "Precrime." In other words, they'll stop the crime before it's ever committed. The unit's chief, Tom Cruise, unearths a frightening truth about the unit's origins, and is then framed. Great evilly deviousness by Max Von Sydow.
VALKYRIE (2008). Speaking of Tom Cruise, one of his better roles is in this flick where he plays a disillusioned Nazi officer during WWII who joins the [very true] conspiracy to kill Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.
BLUE THUNDER (1983). Helicopter pilot Roy Scheider discovers a plot by -- who else? -- the government to use a highly sophisticated new chopper for "the quelling" of domestic disturbances. Malcolm McDowell is the gov. agent who tries to stop him. Great urban aerial battle scenes.
SOYLENT GREEN (1973). One outta two predictions ain't bad. Global warming leads to food shortages (that's the "one") and overpopulation (the "missed one") exascerbates it. Police guy Chuck Heston stumbles upon a conspiracy that the Soylent Corp. is making its new "Soylent Green" outta ... people. Yummy.
THEY LIVE (1988). "First World" aliens have been using Earth as their "Third World" for decades. Roddy Piper discovers the secret via a special set of sunglasses. Still wondering how the aliens could whisk someone away at faster-than-light but couldn't safely protect their cloaking transmission.
Everything that is wrong with the GOP summed up in one sentence:
Honestly. If they do make Jeb the candidate the only way they could win is if Biden gets the nod from the Dems.
There is always talk about one party or the other splitting. Each time it looks pretty serious. The Republicans crushing defeat last election has created a bifurcated GOP. The GOP Establishment as they are called is seen as elitist and out of touch and driven mainly, if not exclusively by self interest. I confess this is a view I share. I am not a Republican. I left them long ago when they decided to be the Party of the Preachers (c.f. Goldwater's Admonishon)
The Right Scoop has a (very) long audio clip of Mark Levin in full rant mode about Karl Rove:
Listen to the whole thing but it can be boiled down to this:
1. Rove has a poor track record in getting GOP candidates elected.
2. The candidates he favors are often not conservative
3. They are invariably of the GOP Establishment
4. Rove did nothing to curb Bush's Big Government programs
5. Rove is interested in being a power broker and little else.
Me? I've been saying as much since the prescription drug plan was born. I am of two minds on this. I'm not sure I can see the GOP splitting (which means they probably will). Rather, I see this as a big opportunity for the Libertarian Party if they ever got their act together. Not to worry though, they won't.
I think there will be some back and forth but the soul of the party is what's at stake here. The Democrats went through this after Bush was re-elected and the radical wing of the party won. They were more devoted and were able to organize their online effort to put the DLC out of business and purge the Blue Dogs from their ranks. Perhaps the GOP is going through the same thing? Who wins the GOP? The Social Cons? The Tea Party? If the GOP does split into a Conservative party and Tea Party (using whatever names they use) it will put both of them in the minority for the forseeable future. I don't know how this is going to go but I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Karl Rove and rich GOP donors wage war on Tea Party: "The effort would put a new twist on the Republican-vs.-Republican warfare that has consumed the party’s primary races in recent years. In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election."
This is the end. Anyone who thinks they can vote for the GOP in hopes they will do anything to further the cause of liberty is at odds with reality. There was a time when the GOP, at least nominally, was the party of individual liberty. They are not. Karl Rove is interested in exactly one thing: Power. He does not want anyone not coming from the GOP Establishment ranks to be in any position of power or influence. He means to see the Tea Party destroyed as they are a threat to his Grand Plan. I suspect that there is a healthy strain of isolationism in the Tea Party he fears nearly as much as the financial sanity part. Rove knows that in order to curb our insane spending, the military is going to have to take some cuts. Probably significant ones. That won't do. How else are we going to bend the globe to our will? We can't possibly keep our selves neutral and friendly with everybody through trade, right? That would be crazy.
If this goes forward I could see this splitting the GOP into a Conservative party of largely social conservatives and interventionalist neocons. The other wing becomes the Tea Party that is largely concerned with fiscal issues and pushes towards federalism and away from Washington. That would likely mean dominance by the Democrats at the national level for a very long time.
I am notoriously bad at political pontificating (as seen by my last two electoral college predictions) so take all of this as wild conjecture.
Can anyone see this another way? What other motives could Rove have?
Dr. James H. Fetzer, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD), claims that the killing of 20 elementary school kids back in December was due to -- wait for it -- a secret plot by Israel's Mossad:
... members of Israel’s security force known as the Mossad had carried out the shooting to “strike fear in the hearts of Americans.”
“The killing of children is a signature of terror ops conducted by agents of Israel,” he wrote. “[W]ho better to slaughter American children than Israelis, who deliberately murder Palestinian children?”
Just as nutty, Florida Atlantic University's James Tracy thinks the US government, local law enforcement and the media all conspired to make Sandy Hook "appear" real.
Good to know we have such "geniuses" teaching our college kids.
Courtesy of RightWing News, and a mighty fine list if I may say so:
20) Chris Hayes
19) Mike Malloy
18) Meghan McCain
17) Joe Biden
16) Melissa Harris-Perry
15) Piers Morgan
13) Elizabeth Warren (at right)
12) Paul Krugman
11) Harry Belafonte
10) The Non-Fox Media
9) Andrew Sullivan
8) Michael Moore
7) Michael Bloomberg
6) Jamie Foxx
5) Harry Reid
4) Debbie Wasserman Schultz
3) Chris Matthews
2) Barack Obama
1) Sandra Fluke
Honorable Mentions: Bill Ayers, Bob Beckel, Joy Behar, Eric Boehlert, Margaret Cho, Candy Crowley, Code Pink, Lena Dunham, Dianne Feinstein, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Kathy Griffin, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, Ezra Klein, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Bill Press, Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, Jon Stewart, and Jeremiah Wright.
But in the interest of fairness (because, after all, "progressives" care about that above all else), here are (in no particular order) Hube's 10 Most Annoying Conservatives:
* Christine O'Donnell, Jonathon Moseley, Evan Queitsch. Three local (Delaware) annoyances, the first of which is obviously the most well known. Rarely has there been a more completely vacuous candidate than O'Donnell, and Moseley (who frequently comments over at DE Politics) and Queitsch (most recently a failed state rep. candidate) are former campaign associates of hers.
* Mike Protack. Protack is probably best known by his running for (and losing) just about every Delaware office conceivable, including US Senator, governor, state rep and county council. He visits the local blogosphere every now and then (he used to frequently), and his tone and demeanor can cause one to wonder why in the hell he even seeks elected office. (And demonstrates why he probably lost all the time.)
* Chris Christie. Dude, wake and smell the fact that the mainstream media only loves you because you help them make the GOP look bad. Whether it's thanking Boss Obama for his "help" during Sandy, or bitching about the GOP for more Sandy relief, the MSM eats it up. Especially since in the former instance Obama did nothing more than a photo op, and in the latter, the MSM turns Obama's ineptitude into the GOP's fault.
* Ann Coulter. I admit that her "never back down" attitude towards libs is refreshing, but it too often gets overdone. And I hate the way she always says "Right!" whenever someone is setting her up with a question.
* Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. There's a reason why these two are listed on the Colossus blogroll under "Good for Cheap Laughs."
* Joe Scarborough. He's supposed to be one of MSNBC's "conservatives," but every day he seems less and less so. He's certainly fulfilling his function for that network, that's for sure. He's a lot like WPHT talk radio's Michael Smerconish, who used to be labeled a "conservative" (thus he can't be on this list, technically) -- until he lost a screw (or two) and voted for Boss Obama. Now his show is beyond mealy-mouthed "centrist."
* Michael Savage. Have you ever tried to listen to this guy? At times he sounds like a schizophrenic taking LSD while getting audited. Manoman.
Wow, there's a lot here that agrees with what I just posted about the election. Titled "Conservative Self-Deception In 2012 Hid Need For Policy Changes," here's an excerpt with a notable mention about Delaware's own Christine O'Donnell (emphases mine):
Making these erroneous predictions about the election was profitable for those who made them. Claims that the polls were biased against Republicans were like “political porn” that misguided Republicans ate up, because they wanted to believe it. Of the hundreds of political blogs at Examiner.com, the one with the most readers in the last month was a blog called “Arlington Conservative Examiner,” which constantly peddled the notion that Romney would outperform the polls on election day, and that the polls were biased against Republicans. Before the election approached, few people read that obscure blog, but its readership mushroomed after it started claiming that the polls were biased, putting hundreds or thousands of dollars in its author’s pocket. (Examiner.com bloggers are paid for each hit or page view.)
Right-wing commentators do not seem to suffer any penalty in lost credibility with their viewers when they make false rosy predictions about the GOP winning elections. Right-wing author Mark Levin is a case in point. He ludicrously supported the neophyte right-wing candidate Christine O’Donnell for Delaware’s Senate seat (her “I am not a witch” ad was a case study in political malpractice), claiming that Delaware — which Obama carried by a 5-to-3 margin — was a relatively conservative state she could carry if nominated.
Thanks to people like Levin, and the Tea Party Express, O’Donnell won Delaware’s 2010 GOP senate primary, defeating the state’s veteran Congressman Mike Castle, a moderate who was popular with independent and even some Democratic voters. She went on to easily lose the general election to a weak liberal candidate (Chris Coons -- Hube) with a history of imposing huge tax increases as a County Executive. The moderate Castle, although not beloved by conservatives, would have crushed the liberal Democrat in the general election if he had won the primary. He was much more conservative than the Democrat on issues like Obamacare and the stimulus package). Levin has never paid any price for his faulty election predictions, in this and other races where right-wingers lost races that mainstream candidates would have won, and, instead, has been invited by the conservative Heritage Foundation to speak this month about the election results.
Note, too, what Hans writes about his wife and her political philosophy .. and for whom she voted.
The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers takes on former Christine O'Donnell goon Evan Queitsch who's apparently running for (DE) state representative. (Yes, I said "apparently" because I don't much follow local First State politics. Because usually watching paint dry is an exciting experience by comparison.) It seems lunkhead Queitsch sees a conspiracy in something called "Agenda 21." The LGOMB is correct (yes, a rarity) in calling him out on this lunacy.
But, then again, recall that LGOMB founder Jason "Trust Fund" Scott once wrote this on their blog:
While reasonable people can disagree about whether or not George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, nobody disputes the fact that he wanted a "pearl harbor" type event to happen in order to create a pretext for attacking Iraq.
Yep, "Trust Fund" Scott is apoplectic about a nobody like Queitsch seeing black helicopters, but "reasonable people" can come to the conclusion that our former president had prior knowledge that al Qaeda planned to ram four planes into buildings on US soil. That's beyond rich, don't'cha think?
And then there's El Somnambulo, a failed DE state representative candidate himself just like Queitsch soon will be, who wrote the post in question. His blog avatar continues to be a photoshop of George W. Bush posing for mug shot. Because, y'know, he is a war criminal. Or something. Yet somehow our current president doesn't warrant any such graphic design ingenuity because, y'know, he never continued any of G.W. Bush's policies nor upped the ante on them now, did he? (/sarcasm)
As seen on the Libertarian Party's Facebook page:
Republican Party, you did this to yourself, you managed to alienate such a huge percentage of the populace that you can't beat a guy who has alienated an almost equal percentage of the populace.
You just couldn't leave social issues alone. You just couldn't end the wars. You just couldn't actually prove to be fiscally responsible, or even understand the Fed's effect on the economy.
Don't blame us when you don't get elected.. blame yourselves.
As many regular Colossus readers may know, I consider myself more libertarian (or, as I prefer, "classical liberal") than pretty much anything else, and as such, the above really hit me. Really -- how is it that a guy with the economic record that Boss Obama has is ... deadlocked with the GOP nominee?
Despite the fact that mainstream media indeed has gone overboard in overblowing insane statements like those made by Missouri's Todd Akin, the fact that there are Akins out there in the GOP -- and the fact that they seek to legislate their beliefs -- let's face it: it's a big problem for the GOP. Yes, the Democrats' and the MSM's "GOP War on Women" prattle is 99% ideologically motivated drivel. But, there are many women across the political spectrum who say to themselves "If the GOP is for less government, then why do they want more of it when it comes to my personal life?"
Of course I recognize that abortion is a very delicate issue. It's certainly not, as dogmatists on both sides of like to make it, an "always or never" proposition. The vast majority of the American public have a middle-of-the road approach to the subject. Just take a look at these recent polls. The first question asks, "Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" A total of 82% believe in the first two. When it comes to various exceptions for allowing abortion, 88% believe it should be allowed when the woman's life is in danger, 83% when the woman's physical health is in jeopardy, and 83% in cases of rape or incest. On that last one, 76% of Republicans agree. (90% of Democrats agree, and 81% of Independents.)
Clearly, the above is a problem for the socially conservative segment of the GOP -- the segment which has maintained a strict pro-life platform for some thirty years now. Now I know that party platforms do not actually mean much anymore, and that the plank on abortion the way it's written can leave wiggle room for the exceptions noted above, especially at the state level. (Which, by the way, would be what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned -- a return to letting states decide, not a comprehensive ban on abortions altogether, which is a common --usually liberal -- misconception.) Mitt Romney has stated that he believes in exceptions in the case of rape, incest and the health and life of the mother, putting him clearly in line with the plurality of Americans' views. His running mate's views are another matter, however, and tie directly into the Libertarian Party's point.
Seven years ago I posted why I was against the Iraq War. And while I do not believe that the US should vacate all its foreign obligations, especially where danger still lurks (such as towards Israel and South Korea, to name two), and shouldn't look the other way when countries which harbor those who attacked us (Afghanistan), why should we commit the lives of our own boys and our tax dollars to "nation-building" to countries that don't want it (or aren't ready for it)? And continue to maintain bases/troops in regions which are clearly capable of taking care of themselves (NATO countries, Japan)? A GOP which seeks to claim the high ground on fiscal responsibility, yet is engaged across the globe in a mostly out-dated Cold War posture, has definite trouble reconciling the two, no?
Remember: Voters tossed out 1994's historic Republican Revolutionaries after a measly dozen years. How come? Because these revolutionaries gave way to those who spent money like drunken sailors. They expanded government (Bush's No Child Left Behind, anyone?). The GOP only recently regained power (in the House, at least) because ... Boss Obama was spending money like a drunken sailor.
So, 'ya get it yet, Grand Old Party? People want you to be true to your word. Be fiscally prudent. Be consistent about less government. You're tied in the polls with this train wreck of a chief executive because people are wary -- they don't quite believe you mean what you say. They want proof, based on one of the oldest maxims of all: Actions speak louder than words. It might be wise to listen a bit more to your libertarian-minded brethren.
It goes without saying that I vehemently abhor 99.9% of what the LGOMB stand for; however, once in a blue moon, they nail a post. This is one of those blue moons.
There's a lot wrong with the First State's GOP, and Mike Protack is certainly included in it.
Felix has put up some really good links lately to our buddy Hans Bader's education-related articles; I found this one to be particularly interesting considering my feelings on our last US Senate election. The [local] money quote:
The ideological-purification strategy fails in the short run. In 2010, the Tea Party Express helped hand the Democrats control of the Senate through a small-tent strategy grounded in wishful thinking that conservatives can do well in any state without tailoring their message to moderate voters. Candidates it helped nominate for the Senate in Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado went on to lose elections that their primary rivals would have likely won. These candidates all made needlessly controversial ideologically-loaded remarks about subjects that had little relevance to the issues before the U.S. Senate.
In Delaware, which went for Obama by a 5-to-3 margin, it was obvious that only a moderate Republican could possibly hope to win the general election in Delaware’s Senate race, and it was mathematically impossible for even a seasoned, well-qualified staunch conservative to win. But some Tea Party activists, in a fit of wishful thinking, successfully pushed the nomination of a conservative neophyte with no experience in government, who ran a memorably awful TV ad saying, “I am not a witch.” They shunted aside the state’s veteran moderate Republican congressman, who would surely have won the general election had he been nominated, since he led comfortably in general election polls, was well-liked by independent voters in Delaware, and had voted against unpopular legislation like Obamacare and the $800 billion stimulus package.
Only one guess as to who that "conservative neophyte" happened to be.
In the first hour of Rush Limbaugh's show today, he actually wondered if the release of the upcoming Dark Knight Rises wasn't so coincidental -- because the villain in the film is named ... Bane.
Ye gads. First of all, Bane was created back in 1993. Second, Dark Knight Rises has been in the works for a few years now. And lastly, not the least of which, many have opined that Bane and his actions are actually an allegory to the Occupy movement (just Google "Dark Knight Rises Occupy movement"), which could be seen is a detriment to Boss Obama, not Mitt Romney.
UPDATE: The Hollywood Reporter picked up on Rush's silly idea yesterday as well.
Boss Obama quickly hired Truther Van Jones to his staff ... and remained on staff until [the conservative] media continued to point the ugly truth (pardon the pun) out. Most recently, MSNBC hired Truther Touré as part of its latest pundit show. Locally, Jason "Trust Fund" Scott of the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers once wrote
While reasonable people can disagree about whether or not George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, nobody disputes the fact that he wanted a "pearl harbor" [sic] type event to happen in order to create a pretext for attacking Iraq.
Now, in Missouri, a prominent Democrat -- and 9/11 Truther -- is running for statewide office:
MD Rabbi Alam is an Obama campaign ally and Missouri-based Democratic activist who chairs the National Democratic Party Asian American Caucus (NDPAAC), a Democratic National Committee-sponsored organization that liaises with Asian minorities.
Alam, who was born in Bangladesh, served as a “satellite campaign manager” for then-candidate Barack Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 elections, and has since been invited to the White House.
Alam has speculated about Jewish involvement in the September 11th terrorist attacks and participated in an event with a Muslim cleric who has accused Israel of terrorism and alleged that the U.S. invented the HIV disease.
“Why [was] 9/11 was a official holidy [sic] for all jewish [sic] people worked in the the [sic] WTC?” Alam asked in an Internet discussion titled, “Was 9/11 a conspiracy??”
Alam went on to tout the 9/11 Truther film Loose Change 9/11, and challenged readers to “tell me how many of the Jewish people died on the 9/11 tragedy?”
Asked in an interview Monday about his provocative views, Alam stood by his controversial writings, admitting that he has been “waiting to discuss it with somebody.”
“My question was, ‘What’s the reason not a single Jew was killed on that day,’” Alam said, maintaining that his inquiries are based on facts, rather than a bias against Jewish people. “Was there a single Jew killed on that day?”
For what it's worth, the State Dept. estimates that between 200-400 Jews died in the 9/11 attacks.
Don't politicians and pundits who even raise (not agree with) the issue of Obama's birthplace get roundly -- and quickly -- panned? Are there any Birthers with their own show (or routinely featured) on Fox News?
(Or Ultra-Right -- when they're that far afield, they tend to run together!) From the Newsbusters e-mail bag (which goes to all contributors, not just me) and it's signed! (But I'm not publishing the complete name.)
Dear Jews Busters,
Of course, Whoopi was right on both counts! Jews bombed Pearl Harbor, for the same reason they brought down WTC. How can the Jews be discriminated against, when they own the whole planet!? Come on! These Jewish wheedlings and whinings are getting a little worn out!
Dan G., Swedish Liberation Party "For a Jew-free Sweden!"
Apparently this Hitlerian nutjob's party has its own blog (which I'm not linking to because such nausea-inducing hysteria doesn't deserve such; but feel free to Google it if you so desire) which unsurprisingly (and thankfully) doesn't seem well put-together nor well visited.
As for the Whoopi reference, a search at Newsbusters reveals this past post which seems to be the one Danny boy is alluding to.
It seems Rick Santorum was in attendance when a "fiery" pastor made some rather unsettling remarks:
Rick Santorum attended a revival-type church service on Sunday night in Louisiana, where the Rev. Dennis Terry, pastor of the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, offered some fire and brimstone in a videotaped sermon that on Monday was going viral because of his fiery comments.
“I don’t care what the liberals say, I don’t care what the naysayers say, this nation was founded as a Christian nation,” Mr. Terry said.
“There’s only one God, and his name is Jesus,” he continued. “I’m tired of people telling me that I can’t say those words. I’m tired of people telling us as Christians that we can’t voice our beliefs or we can no longer pray in public. Listen to me. If you don’t love America, if you don’t like the way we do things I have one thing to say — get out!”
Santorum stood and applauded after Terry was through.
But ... these are the very same folks who said our current president -- after sitting in the pew for twenty years in the church of one Jeremiah Wright -- can't be tied to his inflammatory remarks.
WTF is Glenn Beck's problem now? He thinks that supporting Newt means ... you're racist??
“If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy (Gingrich), it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.”
Yeah, it is the policies that matter. And if you think Gingrich is another Obama, then you've got a big screw loose. YEESH.
Elsewhere, a group called The Florida Family Association is urging advertisers to pull spots from the new reality show “All-American Muslim":
“’All-American Muslim’ is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law,” the Florida group asserts in a letter it asks members to send to TLC advertisers.
Right. As if there are no everyday Muslims who don't subscribe to Sharia law and fundamentalism, and who act as apple pie American as anyone else. Please. Look, I'm for being as vigilant and as non-PC about radical Islam in the US as anyone else, but this show seems completely harmless. It's a freakin' reality show, for heaven's sake. There are literally uncounted numbers of them infesting the (cable) airwaves these days. What's one more about a non-fundie American Muslim family? C'mon.
... when considering the Cain "sexual harassment" controversy, courtesy of Insty: There's a group out there called JournoList who "got together and talked about how to bury stories that hurt Democrats and push stories that hurt Republicans." Here's the complete list of the group.
Nevertheless, while obviously I believe the mainstream media has a preposterously brutal double standard when it comes to political scandals (particularly those involving sexual inpropriety), Herman Cain more and more demonstrates that he really ain't up to the job. I've previously opined on his absurd comments regarding Muslims, and now we read this:
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you view China as a potential military threat to the United States?
HERMAN CAIN: I do view China as a potential military threat to the United States... we already have superiority in terms of our military capability, and I plan to get away from making cutting our defense a priority and make investing in our military capability a priority, going back to my statement: peace through strength and clarity. So yes they're a military threat. They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat.
Dude -- the Chinese have had nukes since 1964. Regrettably, Ace -- to whom the hat tip goes for this story -- also doesn't know when China first tested a nuke, saying "For what it's worth, super-smart media genius Judy Woodruff seems to have not known China's been a nuclear power since the late 50s, too."
Close, but no cigar.
In Wednesday's News Journal....Christine O’Donnell is in a legal dispute with a former campaign worker who claims he wasn’t paid in full. Virginia attorney Jonathan Moseley has demanded $18,250 for work and expenses this year and in 2008 for the former Delaware Republican Senate candidate, according to a declaratory judgment complaint O’Donnell filed last week.
Fox News's Facebook page asks "Should Paul Krugman be fired for his comments in the New York Times?"
Er, uh, whaaaaat?? Like, why?
Hey, I, like many others, thought that Krugman's column yesterday was a pathetic POS, but why should he be fired for it? The column is not even out of the ordinary for him, and his views are pretty much in line with the publication for which he works.
It was offensive, yes. But that's what "freedom of speech" is all about. It's easy to protect speech everyone likes; the challenge is allowing unpopular views to be aired. If Krugman should be fired for his comments -- and remember, he is paid to do just that, offer his opinion -- then that would send a chilling signal to freedom lovers across the land.
Initially invited to speak at a Tea Party rally headlined by Sarah Palin, Delaware's own (yes, we have to claim her) Christine O'Donnell was later dropped from the appearance line-up.
Tea Party of America had announced late Monday that O’Donnell would speak shortly before Palin at its “Restoring America” event in Indianola, The Des Moines Register reported.
But by Tuesday morning, the group had uninvited O’Donnell, but for differing reasons.
Ken Crow, founder of Tea Party of America, said he overbooked the lineup of speakers and that he believed O’Donnell would drop by the event to sign copies of her new book.
“It is all my fault. I’m taking the sword. Ms. O’Donnell did nothing wrong. I did,” Crow told The News Journal in a telephone interview Tuesday. “It was my fault.”
However, Tea Party of America’s co-founder, Charlie Gruschow, told the Wall Street Journal that the group decided to drop O’Donnell from the lineup after receiving numerous “emails from a lot of tea party folks that were very disappointed that she would be speaking.”
“We decided not to have her speak,” Gruschow told WSJ’s Washington Wire. “We felt it was in the best interest of the movement.”
Looks like people are finally getting tired of the "oh, poor little me" and "I didn't do anything wrong/it's not my fault" m.o. of Ms. O'Donnell. Not only are her book signings drawing paltry "crowds," the Tea Party itself is recognizing that she is a liability.
UPDATE 2: COD is out again! And, oh gee, wonder if now COD will go on the attack against Sarah Palin for this:
The Palin source said O'Donnell's representatives misled the tea party group about the extent of the governor's relationship with O'Donnell.
O'Donnell's representatives told event organizers that she would be in Iowa on the date of the rally and would like to come by and "say hi" to Palin, the source said. O'Donnell was then added to the speaking agenda.
The source told CNN that O'Donnell aides lied to organizers and said Palin had been communicating via text message with O'Donnell about the rally.
"The governor hasn't spoken to her in a year," the Palin source said of O'Donnell.
Christine O'Donnell -- LIE??? Noooooo .....!!
Great. Here we go with another Anthony Weiner-style scandal, this time featuring Puerto Rican Senator Roberto Arango:
Senator Roberto Arango of Puerto Rico has been accused of posting naked pictures of himself on mobile gay hookup site Grindr.
The Puerto Rican TV show Dando Candela presented the conservative lawmaker with a photograph of a man, naked except for a pendant necklace, whose face was obscured by an iPhone as he snapped a photo of his reflection in a mirror.
Arango didn't exactly deny he was the subject in the photograph: “You know I've been losing weight. As I shed that weight, I've been taking pictures. I don't remember taking this particular picture but I'm not gonna say I didn't take it. I'd tell you if I remembered taking the picture but I don't.”
“It would be my pleasure to tell you I'm the person in this photograph, but honestly I don't remember,” he said with a big smile.
Indeed. What better way to document your weight loss than by uploading your pics to a gay website -- especially a pic like this! (Warning: despite pixelation, sort of graphic.)
Arango was vice-chair of the 2004 George W. Bush reelection campaign. He also voted to ban gay "marriage" in Puerto Rico back in 2009.
COD was just on Bill O'Reilly's show and claimed that she was leading Democrat Chris Coons ... until the GOP establishment turned on her.
I just spent Lord knows how long on Google using several search permutations and found ZERO evidence to support this assertion aside from a Free Republic comment (whose link did not work) stating that he/she heard Rush Limbaugh say he saw a poll showing O'Donnell leading by 4%. Everything else reports Coons leading COD, usually by double digits.
Chalk about another one, folks.
UPDATE: As Paul Smith noted in the comments, this must be the poll to which COD was referring. Two things: 1) It was taken before the GOP primary was decided, and 2) she had a lead of two points -- within the margin of error and nine points less than Mike Castle's then-lead over Chris Coons at that time.
Last Thursday, Delaware Politics had put up a post about Christine O'Donnell walking off the Piers Morgan Show. A little while later, however, we get this when we go to the link.
Via Twitter, I asked the group there what had happened to the post. The response?
I just think that crowd is mad because Piers didn't grant this type of interview to COD -- about the only kind she can handle.
... in what he dubs his "shortest interview ever."
That is about the only type of interview COD can handle.
Via the News Journal:
On Friday, just a handful of book buyers reportedly showed up to meet [Christine] O'Donnell at the Barnes & Noble in Exton, Pa.
"There were maybe six to eight people in line," said Bill Russo of Exton, who dropped by the store after learning she was running late via a post on Twitter.
Here we go AGAIN. The Queen of Embellishment, Christine O'Donnell, now claims that she "was close to snagging one of the co-host chairs" of ABC's "The View."
There's just one problem: ABC has no such recollection:
The Joy Behar Show reached out to a rep for "The View", who responded with the following statement: "We have no memory of her and no record or contract nor does Ms. Walters remember meeting her."
Well that's awkward.
When Behar's guest host, E.D. Hill, pointed out the discrepancy to O'Donnell, the former Delaware GOP Senate candidate said “You can check with Bill Geddie we did meet we did have the interview but I guess they just chose to go in a different direction and I was okay with it because I do believe that all opportunities are not good opportunities.”
Let's guess what'll happen if/when Mr. Geddie is contacted. First, notice what COD says -- that they "did meet" and "did have the interview." But that's not what she wrote in her book. There, she pens "The interview with Walters went so well they drew up a proposed contract, but ultimately the job went to Lisa Ling." So, the script, if followed as usual, will have COD claiming "perhaps she 'misremembered' who did the interview" (as if one could not remember an icon like Barbara Walters doing the interview), and/or she'll outright completely ignore the fact of the actual person who did the interview, and just concentrate on the fact that she had an interview. Her handlers will likely follow this latter tact -- just continue to emphasize that COD had an interview; it's not all that important who conducted it, or that ABC claims that no contract was ever drawn up.
And if you continue to question these discrepancies, you're just part of "the state GOP establishment" which has been "out to destroy COD from the start," or you're part of the liberal MSM which has done same.
Which begs, again, why the hell is COD even going on shows like Piers Morgan and Joy Behar when their political bent is so freakin' obvious? The answer, in my opinion, is a calculated one: COD and her handlers are hoping for dust-ups like that which happened on Morgan's show ... in hopes of generating sympathy.
Good luck with that.
And with this post, we inaugurate the new Colossus category "Right-Wing Nuttery."