With tea party-, Sarah Palin- and Jim DeMint-backed candidates winning Republican primaries all over the country, it’s hard not to conclude that the GOP is committing suicide.
Read more:
Tea Party Puts GOP on Road to Disaster
Tea Party Puts GOP on Road to Disaster
Mythbusters: Republicans
Tonight … on “Mythbusters” … we’ll look at myths about today’s Republican Party. Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman will look at what’s right … and what’s not right … about the party of the right. With recent election results … and even more recent primary results … there has been a lot of discussion about what actions the Republicans should take. The conventional wisdom … Is that the Republican National Convention? Ha ha. Very funny. The conventional wisdom is that if the Republican Party swings hard to the right, they’ll alienate most Americans and ensure that Democrats will retain power. We’re going to build a Republican Party that’s a Big Tent Republican Party. Then we’ll test how well it works. We’ll start with the base. There’s the gun owners. You know, the Second Amendment crowd. Over here, we have some who are proud of their country. Typical conservatives. Okay, that’s a start. This sounds a lot like the TEA Party or the Sarah Palin crowd. But aren’t we going to include more than just stereotypical conservatives? How about some independents, like those that helped elect Obama? You can’t win without them. Let’s throw in some Charles Johnson types. That’ll keep the religious right in check. We can’t leave out the Ron Paul group. Ron Paul! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!1!!!11!! There are the old guard. The establishment. They used to be called “Rockefeller Republicans.” And they crap themselves every time a candidate supported by the TEA Party is successful. Those scared of Sarah Palin? Got them covered, too. Can’t let her take charge of things, can we? What about those moderates that try to balance conservative principals with cooperating with liberals? Everyone knows that compromise is the way to go. As long as by “compromise with” we mean “give in to” liberals. What do you think? Do we have enough of a big tent crowd? We have those scared of Palin and the TEA Party, moderates, Ron Paul supporters, Obama voters, the Charles Johnson crowd… Let’s try this group out and see how it does. Tory? Go run an election with this crowd? OOF! OUCH! Tory’s election day performance with a Republican Party that compromised true conservative beliefs and included nutcases from all over the spectrum … didn’t go so well. Well, there’s your problem! This Republican Party we put together doesn’t stand true to conservative principals. Instead, it’s a large group of a bunch of small groups. Since they don’t share the same principals, they are always fighting each other. This Republican Party looks like Democrats Lite. That’s why the GOP lost the White House in 2008. Sure, the Republican candidate had some good qualities, is a war hero, and is an honorable man and a fine American. But he isn’t true to the conservative principals of Goldwater or Reagan. And he got his clock cleaned. Jamie and I have been exposed to this Big Tent Republican Party for too long. We need to scrub ourselves clean. While Adam and Jamie remove the stench of moderates, we’ll leave you with this reminder: conservatives will be attacked by Democrats, and by some Republicans. And, you won’t win every battle. But, you’ll come out stronger for it.
Read the original post:
Mythbusters: Republicans
Guinea Postpones Presidential Election
Guinea postponed second-round voting in its presidential election, scheduled for Sunday, due to instability, violence and logistical problems across the country. The election, the country’s first since it gained independence in 1958, has been riddled with allegations of vote-rigging and the inaccessibility of polling stations.
Read this article:
Guinea Postpones Presidential Election
Burning The Koran Is Unconstitutional? Says Who? Only A Supreme Court Justice
We don’t live under the Constitution in this country anymore. Instead, we have conservative judges who follow the Constitution and liberal judges who take whatever position is currently fashionable on the Left, and then they call that Constitutional law. In other words, justice isn’t blind in this country, it’s random. If you want a great example of how it works, look at Stephen Breyer’s Koran comments , During an appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America this morning, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer addressed the recent controversy over a Florida pastor’s plan to hold a Quran-burning rally on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, saying he wasn’t convinced the First Amendment would protect such an action if the case were brought to the court in the future. “Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Breyer told George Stephanopoulos during the GMA interview, referring to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote the opinion in a 1919 Supreme Court decision that addressed Freedom of Speech. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?” So, according to Breyer’s reasoning, can you burn a flag? Sure. It’s protected speech. A Bible? Sure. A Talmud? Yes. Copies of Atlas Shrugged ? Yeah, why not? But, a Koran: No, that might cause the cRaZY mUsLiMs to riot. Can’t have that! Continue reading at Right Wing News .
Originally posted here:
Burning The Koran Is Unconstitutional? Says Who? Only A Supreme Court Justice
Rush Limbaugh Says He and Republicans “Not on the Same Side”
Today began like any other ordinary day. It was laundry day, and I was making some progress on what my husband calls “Mt. Laundry.” I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio and I heard him say something that made my eyes bug out like Buckwheat’s from “The Little Rascals.” He said that the fight over the candidacy of Christine O’Donnell has made him realize that he and the Republican Party “are not on the same side.” He went on to make the even MORE shocking statement that the Republican Party could be replaced by the Tea Party and become the minority party. Oh yes Mama, it is on like Donkey Kong! Rush Limbaugh- off of the Republican reservation? Hubba-hubba. Limbaugh went on to explain that the country is on the verge of collapse and socialism, and can not afford another RINO like Olympia Snow. This is potentially devastating to the Republican political machine who has already suffered several defeats by the Tea Party this year. Say what you will about Rush, and people certainly do, but his political instincts are akin to spidey senses. Rush has never been the Republican water boy as the Left has claimed, but this statement reveals a canyon sized gap that has grown between Republicans and Conservatives. The days of choosing the lesser of two evils all the way to the gates of hell may be over. No more John McCain or Bob Dole for President…imagine the possibilities. I’m going to have to say “Ditto” Rush. Where can I buy a Tea Party button?
Continue reading here:
Rush Limbaugh Says He and Republicans “Not on the Same Side”
Audiences Reject Robert Rodriguez’s Anti-American “Machete,” Film Critic Wonders Why
If you’re anything like me, the time you devote to entertainment is an investment. You work a day job. Maybe you have one or two part-time gigs on the side. You have a family and a home to attend to, chores to do, errands to run. Maybe you’re involved in a community group, a sports team, a social club. What little time you have left over is valuable and, if you’re going to spend it entertaining yourself, your choice of how is made with care. So, here’s a suggestion. After you’ve ground your way through a hard day’s work, ran to the store, picked up the kids here to drop them there, etc., how about going to to see a film where you and every institution and value you hold dear is mocked and demonized over the course of 105 minutes of gratuitous violence? What’s that? You’ll pass? Why? What’s wrong with you? [Robert] Rodriguez, the auteur who famously made his first film for only $7,000 , needed $20 million to foist “Machete” on the masses. But the film tanked in its second weekend, dropping 63 percent to come in fourth on the box office tally sheet. The big question is – why? Warning: Explicit Language and Graphic Imagery Gee, I don’t know. The film’s politics are as one-sided as any Michael Moore film, casting opponents of illegal immigration as monsters to be shunned, shot or both. The film’s B-movie attitude made such platitudes easier to swallow than your standard one-sided documentary, but it still cast a good chunk of the country in an unflattering light. That had to hurt on some level, something the film’s key players acknowledged through omission . The film was clearly a labor of love by Rodriguez, an otherwise successful director whose filmography includes the family-friendly Spy Kids series. He had to know it would not be a hit with (legal) American audiences. This was something he wanted to do, perhaps to purge himself of some cathartic rage, or maybe just as a nod to Grindhouse fans.
Read more:
Audiences Reject Robert Rodriguez’s Anti-American “Machete,” Film Critic Wonders Why
Nepal and Maoist Opposition Agree on UNMIN Extension
The government of Nepal and the Maoist opposition agreed late Monday night to extend the United Nations Mission in Nepal under its present terms for a period of four months. UNMIN’s mandate would have expired today had an agreement on extension terms not been reached. The groups agreed to use the additional time to conclude the remaining directives of the peace process that brought an end to the country’s civil war in 2006.
Confessions of a RINO-loving sellout (but we still have the Vikings, right, Dave?)
Dan Calabrese My friend David Karki appears to have had it with me, although I’m sure all will be good by the time my son and I visit him in November for our mostly annual Vikings trip. Even disagreements over political principle don’t trump football! But since Dave has posed some good questions to me, all stemming from my refusal to support Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell in the primary (although I hope she wins now), I think I’d like to offer some respectful replies. So here they are, in the order in which I feel like answering them: She makes me cringe, Dave. She's a phony baloney poseur. 1. In his headline, Dave asks, “How does electing liberals help conservatism?” My answer has two parts. First, it is not one of my goals to “help conservatism.” Conservatism is not a thing I serve. It is a general category into which a lot of different political ideas fit. Some of these ideas – like opposition to abortion and a preference for low tax rates – are completely unrelated to each other, but they’re all in the category. That’s fine. I happen to agree with most of them, but not because I feel compelled to, and not because I find it necessary to maintain some sort of conservative bona fides. Conservatism is not a thing that owns some sort of allegiance from me. Only the United States of America owns that. (Well, and God.) I don’t care about conservatism. I am not part of the conservative movement. I am a guy who writes what I think for a living, and if what I think agrees with conservatism (according to whoever gets to define it), fine with me. If not, I don’t care. My interest is in helping America, and if a “RINO” can be persuaded to support priorities that will help America ( which I believe is possible ), it doesn’t matter to me if conservatism was hurt or helped, only that America was helped. Second, Mike Castle is not a liberal. More on that . . . now: 2. Dave writes: “He (meaning me) seems to think the only way to get conservatives into power is to vote for liberals like Mike Castle.” Mike Castle is not a liberal. Mike Castle is a moderate northeastern Republican, a point Jay Cost makes in convincing detail here . Castle supports some things I really don’t like, particularly cap and trade. But he also has sponsored a bill to repeal ObamaCare, which to me is the single most important thing that needs to be accomplished in this country as soon as possible. If you don’t like moderates because they’re not conservative all the time, fine, but there is a difference between someone who sometimes votes with Democrats and someone who always does. The northeastern United States is a very liberal place, and a Republican has to be quite moderate to win there. Case in point: Scott Brown. He opposes ObamaCare too (yay!), but he voted for Obama’s dumbass Wall Street financial reform (hide the rope). Would you rather have Martha Coakley in the Senate? I don’t think Brown is a liberal. I think he’s pretty much what Mike Castle is – a moderate northeastern Republican who will sometimes vote as I prefer, and maddeningly sometimes will not. The political challenge for conservatives is to craft their legislation in such a way that the electorate clamors for its passage, and the likes of Mike Castle and Scott Brown want to support it, too. It is not to cast the likes of Brown and Castle into the nether regions, because you don’t have anyone better. 3. Dave writes: “We should not be projecting blame for the inevitable reaction to Castle’s action on anyone but him, and certainly not on O’Donnell or her supporters.” Irrelevant. I don’t care who’s to blame. I only care that Chris Coons is probably going to become Delaware’s new far-left socialist senator, and I think it’s kind of weird that this bothers me a lot more than it bothers all the oh-so-principled movement conservatives, who consider apostates in their own ranks to be a bigger problem than the people who openly seek to turn this country into the People’s Republic of America, and are not shy about saying so. Blame is a waste of time. Punishing Castle for his faults is stupid if it means Coons gets elected and the Democrats hold their majority. It’s classic nose-cutting-face-spiting. It’s for six-year-olds. 4. Dave asks: “What makes anybody think that if the GOP otherwise runs the table, and the Senate is 51-49, Castle wouldn’t pull a Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords and flip sides so that VP Joe Biden’s 50-50 tiebreaker vote would give the Senate back to the Democrats?” I guess we’ll never know, huh? I can guarantee you 100 percent that if it’s 50-50, Coons votes to elect Schumer as Majority Leader. Why do conservatives think this is somehow better? 5. Dave writes: “With all due respect to my colleague, Dan Calabrese, apparently for whom no RINO is too liberal to support . . .” That’s simply not true. I support Joe Miller in Alaska over Lisa Murkowski with great enthusiasm (and Murkowski is considerably further to the right than Castle, by the way). I support Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist in Florida (and did even when Crist was still pretending to be a Republican). The difference is that Miller and Rubio are both excellent candidates and appear likely to be excellent U.S. senators. I did not support J.D. Hayworth over John McCain in Arizona for two reasons: 1. On the three issues about which I care the most – ObamaCare, spending and national security – McCain is as good as Hayworth on the first and better on the other two. My top policy priorities are in good hands with McCain in the Senate, although I will acknowledge there are a lot of other issues where I have big problems with McCain; 2. Hayworth is a blowhard, a charlatan and a moron. I don’t want people like that in the U.S. Senate, even if they purportedly agree with me on some things. And that brings us to Christine O’Donnell. O’Donnell’s thin-skinned supporters are very upset with Karl Rove this morning because he was highly critical of O’Donnell on Fox News last night. They need to grow up and deal with the reality of what Rove said. He spoke of some very real and serious problems with their glamor girl: “One thing that Christine O’Donnell is now going to have to answer in the general election, that she didn’t answer in the primary, is her own checkered background . . . I’ve met her. I’ve got to tell you, I wasn’t frankly impressed with her ability as a candidate. There are serious questions about, how does she make a living? Why did she mislead voters about her college education? How come it took her nearly two decades to pay off her college loans so she could get a college degree? How does she make a living? Why did she sue a well-known conservative think tank?” When Sean Hannity responded lamely that she is a “solid conservative,” Rove refused to let him get away with that: “It does conservatives little good to support candidates who, at the end of the day, while they may be conservatives in their public statements, do not evince the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for.” Exactly. What the hell makes Sean Hannity, or David Karki for that matter, so sure that Christine O’Donnell is a “solid conservative”? Because she says so? What record does she have of proving it? None. What record does she have in public office? None. What record does she have of any sort of accomplishment whatsoever? None. She can’t even explain what she does for a living. And yet this is the woman you’re counting on to go to Washington and bring about the conservative revolution? Given a viable option, I will always support the more conservative candidate over a moderate. But ideology – especially publicly stated but entirely unproven ideology – is not the only thing I care about. I will not support a candidate who is fundamentally unqualified. I will not support a candidate who does not have a track record of achievement in his or her own life. I will not support a candidate who gives every indication of being a mere blowhard. And I won’t support candidates who have no chance of winning. If you “true conservatives” find it necessary to ignore all this and support the likes of Christine O’Donnell anyway, then you understand why I am not a member of your movement, which brings us to . . . 6. Dave writes: “And I don’t understand it at all from ‘conservatives’ like Dan.” I don’t know who Dave’s quoting here, but it’s not me. I don’t go around labeling myself as a conservative, and I’m certainly not interested in defending myself to those who scream that I am a RINO or an apostate or not a “true conservative” or whatever. I am me. I am Dan Calabrese. If you read what I write and want to label me as conservative, go ahead. I suspect most would. But I’m not on a mission to maintain good standing in the conservative club. I think for myself, and I think I’d rather have Mike Castle in the Senate, with all his flaws, than Chris Coons. And I think Christine O’Donnell is a phony-baloney poseur who never deserved to get this far. And yet, I do hope she wins. Because when Tony and I arrive in Bloomington, Minnesota on Nov. 6 for our weekend of football and tailgating with Dave, it would be great to spend our time enjoying the Republican takeover of the House and Senate that had just occurred. Even if that means we’ll spend the next six years wincing every time Senator O’Donnell opens her mouth. Become Dan’s friend on Facebook . Become a fan of The North Star National on Facebook . Buy Dan’s novel, Powers and Principalities. To book Dan as a speaker, contact Lourdes Swarts at Speakers Access.
Continued here:
Confessions of a RINO-loving sellout (but we still have the Vikings, right, Dave?)