How Sadie’s gloating got hijacked — by guest blogger Sadie

Background: I live in a building inhabited by a lot of seniors. When they moved in they were younger mid 50’s Democrats. Now, they’re aging Democrats and fear and wincing registers across their faces as if they were wearing — not a yellow Star of David, but something worse, much worse. They’re suffering the humiliation of wearing a fading blue D encased in a circle, which best describes their voting habits.

For most of their lives, they’ve been encased in their own little blue circles, carefully shielded from conservatives. I don’t need shields. Some months ago, when I saw a notice posted in the mail room that a ‘discussion’ group would be forming to talk about local, topical, political headlines and concerns, I decided I would try it out for size. At that time, the give and take was, to use the term, “fair and balanced.” The moderator moderated and even was more than happy to share the direction and scope of the discussions with my input.

I was therefore looking forward to the first post election gathering (we’re about 15-25 people who meet twice a month) as a time to sit, listen and, yes, gloat a little to myself. Sadly, gloating was impossible when the moderator began by reading pure, unadulterated drivel from a “left wing rag.” That just got me mad.  When I suggested that it was inappropriate, I was firmly told “don’t dominate the discussion.” Mr. Moderator went off the deep end. (And NO, I did not dignify his reaction with a comment at the time, but waited until the meeting ended and announced to friends of mine and within ear shot of Mr. Moderator’s wife just how incredibly rude and disgusting his behavior was.)

Not only did the Moderator hijack the discussion, which made me angry, I simply didn’t have the heart to gloat at the political “wake,” or in this case, since they were all Jews, a “shiva.” The most appropriate response to the group would have been to bring along a basket full of those black buttons mourners wear. They were beside themselves, blaming the loss on black voters, who did not turn out for Joe Sestak in Philadelphia, etc., etc. How quaint, how predictable. They’re beyond consolation that Pennsylvania went Republican.

Have your ‘blue’ friends and co-workers been exhibiting more/less passionate outbreaks of aggressive behaviors? Are they in need of a crisis management team? Are they stooped over, head held low staring at the tops of their shoes? And do you, like me, have the mildly compassionate urge to hide your gloating and send them a get well and get over it card.

[Bookworm here:  To which I’ll add that, though we are too good to gloat publicly, I hope that we never become so compassionate in the face of their despair that we’re willing to abandon our principles just to make these weenies happy.  Thanks for the lovely post, Sadie.]

Spelling it out

Since warnings labels seem to be dominating the news (that cigarette thing), Doug Ross has some suggestions for political warning labels.

Gerrymandering and what it looks like

You’ve no doubt heard that, with redistricting on the table, the Republican victories in local elections are incredibly important.  (Poor California….)  Zombie, in a pair of lucid, entertaining posts, explains why.

What people voted for in 2008

Democrats are wondering how the pendulum could have swung so quickly in two years.  The premise underlying this wonderment is wrong.  They perceived a pendulum swing to the Left, only because they managed to run an election that hid from the voters the fact that they were electing an exceptionally left leaning government.  As Rich Lowry says,

Just as Obama was taking office, public opinion was shifting to the right. In July of 2009, Gallup found that by a two-to-one margin people said they’d become more conservative in recent years. Gallup noted that “the results are conspicuously incongruous with the results of the 2008 elections.”

In that regard, Gallup’s remark about “incongruity” is just as wrong as the Democrat befuddlement now.  You see, Americans never elected the liberal agenda, because it was never sold to them.  What was sold to them was a beautiful black man who allegedly communicated well.  They liked that.  It was the feel good election, where they’d paint magical unicorns dancing across receding waters, all backed by delicately cloud-dappled skies.

The Dems and the media, working together, made damn sure that Americans had no idea what the actual Obama/Dem agenda entailed.  Oh, the goals were good — universal harmony, Gan Eden nature, and the promise that all of our children would be above average — but, as with sausage, the voters never got a look see at the insides of these promises.

A few Cassandras, mostly bloggers, hollered out “Ayers,” “Wright,” “ACORN,” etc., but, in true Cassandra fashion, they were roundly and soundly ignored.

This time around, Americans have elected an agenda.  I know it’s popular to say that the election was a repudiation of Democrats, but that’s too vague.  It wasn’t a vote that said, “we have no idea what we don’t like, but we don’t like it.”  (That would be the mirror image of the 2008 election, which had voters saying, “we have no idea what you’re selling, but we’re buying”).  In this case, Republicans ran on an explicit anti-Obama platform.  No dancing unicorns here.  It was strictly along the lines of “We will repeal healthcare; we will strengthen our national security; we will bring federal spending under control; we will lower taxes.”

The Republicans said what they would do, and the electorate will expect them to do it.  While people had no idea what they were voting for in 2008, they have a very good idea what they voted against in 2010.  All of which is to say that the coming two years are not a time for compromise on the fundamental promises Republican candidates made to the American people.  Bringing federal spending half under control is just as bad as not bringing it under control.  Weakening the military only half as much as Bawny Fwank originally planned still means a military too weak to defend a nation under siege.

One thing I hope will make the Republicans’ task easier is that I think that, finally, Republicans will no longer be cowed by PC epithets.  In the years leading up to this election, you could stop Republicans in their tracks by accusing them of engaging in legislation that would offend the victim group.  With the true victims of Obama’s policies being all Americans, those disabling insults should be defanged forever.

Bob Etheridge is ungracious to the end — so Renee Ellmers needs your help.

Bob Etheridge is demanding a recount against Renee Elmer.  Apparently he understood what I said yesterday, which is that a candidate shouldn’t concede before the last vote is counted.  He seems to think that he shouldn’t concede even long after the last vote is counted.  But still, a recount is his right.

Recounts, though, mean election lawyers, and election lawyers mean big expenses.  Renee Ellmers ran a lean, mean campaign from the start.  She was never a big money candidate.  (No Whitmaning here.)  She therefore needs to have a refill on her war chest to make sure that she’s properly represented for this post-election recount.  If you still have a few pennies left over after this monumental campaign season, can you spare some for Renee?  Thank you.

A morning after post *UPDATED OFTEN*

I feel as if I should say something profound, but I don’t really have that much that is profound to say.  I do have a few observations, and then I’ll start compiling a running list of good post-election posts (so check back often):

I’ll repeat what I said yesterday:  it irks me when elections are called before the vast majority of votes are counted.  Projections are not votes.  If my vote is not counted because a projection shuts down the process, I’ve effectively been disenfranchised.  That’s just wrong.  (And as an extreme example, remember that early returns from Phillie had Joe Sestak winning by a mile.  It was only when all votes were counted that it was clear that Toomey won.  And a big yay for that, by the way.)

California gave the governorship and the Senate to Boxer.  Whitman was an awful candidate, so that’s kind of less surprising in a Democratic state.  Fiorina, though?  I don’t get it.  I liked her and her positions.  I think her problem was that she had quite possibly the worst ads in political history, which is really amazing, considering the kind of material she had to work with in Boxer.  If you’re going to run that lousy a campaign against such an easy target, I guess you deserve to lose.

On the other hand, since it’s likely that California is going down in flames anyway, especially since California voters turned down Prop. 23, which will allow the economically disastrous Prop. 32 to go forward, better that it goes down under Democrat leadership, which brought it to this point anyway, than under Republican.  (And yes, I know that Ah-nold is theoretically a Republican, but he’s such a RINO, the R after his name looks more like a typo than an intentional political designation.)

A lot of conservatives are crowing about Senatorial losses in Nevada, Delaware and, possibly, Alaska as proof that the Tea Party is a failure.  I beg to differ.  The House races show that the Tea Party is a wild success.  The other races show some different lessons:  First, with fewer seats up for grabs in the Senate, there was simply less margin for error.  With tons of House seats available, voters could weed out the more wacky Tea Party candidates and still elect Tea Party affiliated candidates in droves.  In the Senate, despite doing proportionately better than the Dems, there simply wasn’t enough margin to cross the BIG finish line and take over the Senate.

Second, the fact that there were fewer Senate races, and that Senate races are more high profile, meant that the media focused on them with ferocity.  As far as the media was concerned, it was “2008 and Palin” all over again when it came to the Nevada and Delaware races.  Voters are slowly wising up to what the media is doing, but if you’re told relentlessly by every local and national outlet that the Republican candidate is a freak, and that the Democrat candidate is a genius, that’s going to affect you, even if only subconsciously.  I know that, when I’m in the grocery store, old jingles still float into my mind as I debate which brand of hot dogs to buy.  It’s hard to resist those subliminal messages, unless you make a hard effort.

Ultimately, the Tea Party did spectacularly well on its first political outing.  If it learns from both its failures and successes, it will indeed mark a signal change in American politics.

Finally, I can’t resist sharing with you what my liberal friend said:  “Put this day on the calendar.  I predict that it will mark the beginning of America’s destruction and the rise of fascism.”  My friend is steadily resistant to the notion that fascism, and all other dangerous -isms have one thing in common:  Big government.

***

And now for a list of interesting posts, which I’ll update throughout the day:

Bruce Kesler on the meanings to be divined from the California results.

Big Lizards has some thoughts on California’s outlier status too.

Thomas Lifson notes that California Dreaming, sadly, is becoming a reality — a nightmarish reality.

You can’t go wrong reading Jennifer Rubin’s recap.

Erick Erickson thinks that, even if the outcome wasn’t as good as the most optimistic predictions, it was still a tsunami.

And here’s a link to my own blog:  Danny Lemieux explains why he’s optimistic.  I feel much better after reading his well-reasoned post.

An astute reader points out that, if you look at the numbers, “As of 1130 Wed there were NO DEM pickups in the Senate, and a measly 3 in the House.”

Fred Barnes has a solid rundown of the Republican landslide.  It’s a reminder that the party of “old white men” elected blacks, east Asians, Hispanics, and lots and lots of women, all bound together by two significant common denominators:  their love for this country and their believe in individual freedom.

Rosslyn Smith notes a huge trend:  State houses have gone Republican (except in California, of course).  Considering that states that have Republican governance do better economically, this shows great wisdom on the part of many American voters (except in California, of course).

Victor Davis Hanson helps understand Obama speak, with a funny lexicon.

On its home page today, the New York Times has a very cool, and quite honest, assessment of what happened yesterday, in the form of a bunch of graphics.

An observation based on reviewing the NYT’s graphics:  Despite a few aberrant states, the message is clear — conservatism was an overwhelming national trend.  Our only hope now is that the conservatives don’t blow it.  The biggest thing will be if their years in the wilderness, and especially the Obama experience, have taught them not to drop and pander instantly when their political opponents start accusing them of non-PC behavior (i.e., racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.).  That is, those words could always stop conservatives in their tracks.  Maybe they’ve now lost their magical power.

Apropos my rant about the fact that the counting should stop only when there are so few ballots left that they cannot affect the outcome, please recall that those ballots most frequently ignored come from overseas troops — the ones willing to fight and die so that the rest of us can vote.

I liked Michael Steele very much when I first became aware of him, and was terribly disappointed by his missteps as RNC chairman.  Jay Nordlinger suggests that his performance last night indicates that he may finally have found his footing.  I hope that’s true.  Like the little girl in the poem, When he’s good, he’s very, very good; and when he’s bad he’s horrid.

If you want an insight into all the wrong-headed things Obama piled into his first post-election interview, read Peter Wehner.  I’m not surprised, of course.  I’ve been predicting since the Year 0 in the Obama administration that this narcissist will find it impossible to concede that he had something to do with his regime’s failure.

“Why I voted Democrat” (and it’s not because I’m smart or informed) *UPDATED*

American Digest is getting lots of hits for this list, and deservedly so.  It surely explains what’s happening in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc.

UPDATE:  And if you want something that will make you laugh, this will.  I need to laugh.  I’m bummed, although not surprised, about California.

UPDATE II:  SGT Dave said in a comment that the call for Boxer and Brown was made with only 8% of votes counted (which assertion made sense, ’cause the call came in practically minutes after the polls closed).  That really gets my goat.  No one should ever concede until the last vote is counted.  Statistical projections are not votes.

Last I heard, it appears that Renee Elmers won against the execrable Bob Etheridge, but he isn’t yet conceding.  Although it galls me to say it, I think he’s right.  Although I sincerely hope he loses, it’s not over ’til all the votes are counted.

If you need a reminder to vote tomorrow

J.E. Dyer provides a comprehensive California voting guide

If you’re in California, it’s easy to figure out which people should get your vote:  Fiorina over Boxer, Whitman over Brown (and yes, that’s something of a nose-holder), anyone over Pelosi, etc.

It gets much more confusing when you get to the numbered items on the ballot.  Prop. 23 is easy:  Vote for that unless you want the state bankrupt in a couple of years.  But all the other numbered ones, the ones about taxes and fees and assembly majorities, are ridiculously confusing, especially since some of the tax and fee propositions appear virtually identical in wording for the confused voter, but will have markedly different outcomes if passed.

Fortunately, someone sane has stepped into this confusion.  J. E. Dyer, a former military analyst, and current blogger at Commentary’s Contentions, Hot Air’s Green Room and Patheos, also has her own blog, and it’s there that she spells out the numbers. (And yes, I did mean to be silly with my words there.  This is such a serious time that a teeny bit of humor is a nice safety valve.)

If you are a California voter, and you haven’t yet cast your vote, I urge you to study Dyer’s post very, very carefully.

Californians: Vote a straight Republican ticket

My friend Sally Zelikovsky says it in the clearest words possible:  Unless conservatives in California vote for the Republicans, we will have a Sacramento government made up entirely of San Francisco Democrats.  If that horrible outcome sounds painfully obvious to you, you don’t know California.

There are two dynamics in California that are a problem.  First, conservatives don’t like the Republican candidates.  (They’re right not to.  Fiorina is lovely — and may she get well soon — but the others are “eh” at best.)  This means California conservatives may be tempted to (a) sit this one out or (b) vote for a write-in or minor candidate.  Those are luxuries of ordinary elections, though.  In California, this election is not about a favored conservative candidate winning; it’s about making sure the Democratic candidate loses.  And the only way to do that is with vast numbers of votes for the Republican, even if that requires some nose holding.

The other dynamic is Prop. 19, the initiative to legalize marijuana.  Have you wondered by George Soros is promoting it?  Do you think George Soros gives a flying whatsit about whether Californians have legal marijuana?  I can assure you that he doesn’t.  But he knows one group that does care a great deal, and it’s a group that votes reliably Democrat:  young people.  Yup.  Prop. 19 is a “get out the youthful Democrat vote” effort.  This means that, while most young people around America are sitting out this election, there is a very good chance that California’s young people will be heading to the polls.

So if you’re a Californian, and you have memories, increasingly faint memories, of a true Golden State, VOTE and VOTE REPUBLICAN.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

No compromise on American values — by guest blogger Zhombre

Mike Pence asked me for money today. He seems like a good guy. I hope he wins.

Life, liberty and limited government, he wrote, these are the cherished ideals of our nation, and they are ideals from which we must never stray.

Indeed they are. Truly American ideals. As David Mamet, writes, as American as apple pie or stuffing the ballot box.

But I’m not giving money to Mr. Pence. I am tapped out at this point. I have already sent small contributions to Sharron Angle, Allen West, Dan Webster (who is running in Florida against the blunt, swaggering, third rate demagogue Alan Grayson, of course lionized by the so-called progressives), Sean Bielat (Barney Frank’s opponent), even Christine O’Donnell in Delaware (seems like a nice young lady, maybe she’s a flake, but the Senate already includes Al Franken, so the bar for flakiness has been lowered).

But I digress. The point I want to make is this: HOLD ‘EM ACCOUNTABLE. Republicans will no doubt win big in November. But, as PJ O’Rourke says, this is not an election as much as it’s a restraining order served on Democrats.

The Republican party should not get the idea that they have any intrinsic value, or merit. Damn them if they do. They got the boot in 2006 and 2008 and now want to convey the idea that “we get it.” Do they? That remains to be seen. Hornswoggle tends to outrun and outlast good intentions.

We the People are the source of political power and legitimacy. Says so in the Constitution and Constitution is the law of the land and the basis of our governance. A political party is merely an instrument of the people, a tool to be reworked or cast aside if it fails to do the job you set it to. Its institutional life is finite and its integrity can be bartered away by small weak men, and women, who believe they are something other than small weak men, and women.

So let me reiterate: the Republicans must be held accountable past November. And into 2011, and into 2012, and thereafter. The battle does not end. It’s not never-ending jihad, of course, but it is a long running conflict in the West between the people who would govern themselves,thank you very much, and the people who would rule over other people because We Know Better. Than you bitter clingers. Than you rabbit people. Than you teabaggers. Than you, well, you get the idea.

You don’t do the victory dance, get drunk and then go home to sleep it off and wake the next day to business as usual. As Franklin said (however apocryphal it may be) it’s a republic if you can keep it. Most haven’t been kept. History, like the casino, bets you lose. Study history: republics founder and fail. Machiavelli asserted so, and Cicero, for all his patriotism and fine words, got his head chopped off by Antony’s agents, with Octavian’s acquiescence. But Washington did not make himself emperor (if you want to see a contrast, google Iturbide). We’ve prided ourselves on American exceptionalism: America is the land of reinvention, restlessness and winning the trifecta. I am willing to take that bet.

“Call me unemployed”

Funny, funny David Zucker video challenging Boxer’s arrogance and cavalier approach to American money:

Call Me Senator from RightChange on Vimeo.

If you’re in California, this year you have a real choice: vote for Carly Fiorina. She’s a true conservative and a dynamic, effective individual.

My mom, who can’t quite let the MSM go, has been programmed to dislike Fiorina and Whitman (well, I actually agree, ’cause I don’t like Whitman much either). I’ve told her it doesn’t matter, even though Whitman is a RINO — because both Brown and Boxer are so much worse, not to mention being rubber stamps for the Obama agenda. You can’t sit this one out; you can’t let personal feelings dictate your vote; nor can you run from the RINO when the opposition is a Leftist dodo. Anything but an affirmative vote for Fiorina and Whitman constitutes active support for the massively damaging Obama/Boxer/Brown ultra statist agenda.

Can you donate to Pat Toomey?

Across the conservative blogosphere, a single cry for help is going out:  Please donate money to Pat Toomey, who is running against Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania.  Not only is Toomey the real deal on small government (less spending, lower taxes), Sestak is awful.  He’s an Obama rubber stamp, and a staunch, but dissimulating, foe of Israel.  Whether at home or abroad, Toomey is bad news.

Unfortunately, however, the polls are showing that the money bombs the Democrats have been dropping in Pennsylvania are working, and Toomey is slipping in the polls.  Let’s counter that.  If you have an extra $10 lying around that you were thinking of spending in a frivolous way (a book?  a scarf?  two cups of coffee?), perhaps you can redirect that money to Toomey’s campaign.

And yes, I know that, in an ideal world, we would donate to every single campaign.  It’s almost unfair to target one for special help.  But Toomey, who has been a loud voice for fiscal conservatism for just about forever, would be a truly symbolic victory.  His is also a do-able — that is, a realistic — victory, and that counts for money too.

Stealing an election?

I wrote earlier this week that I was going to vote in person, rather than by mail, which is what I usually do.  There’s just too much risk that my absentee ballot will “accidentally” get lost in liberal Marin.  Meanwhile, at the polling place, they scan it instantly.  Better odds for a fair outcome.

In Houston, things are getting very ugly when it comes to attempts to subvert the election outcome.  Melissa Clouthier has a long, detailed post about claims that Houston polling places in minority precincts are using harassment and intimidation — including judicial action.

If you find Melissa’s report interesting, please pass it along.  Americans need to be aware of the way in which democracy can be stolen.  Whether it’s Black Panthers whom a radical Justice Department refuses to prosecute, troops who are denied their ballots, or ordinary Americans harassed at polling places, it is all anti-democratic, and can be countered only if Americans are aware and, as they should be, outraged.

Poise

Put aside the fact that Bawney Fwank sent his boyfwiend out to heck his opp0nent.  What I like about this video clip is Sean Bielat‘s poise and humor in handling said boyfwiend’s heckling:

Bielat seems to have mastered many of the US Marine’s Leadership Traits which is, in itself, a recommendation for a leadership role in our nation.

Personally delivering my absentee ballot to the polling place

I’ve been an absentee ballot voter for years.  This election, however, I’m personally handing in my absentee ballot.  Fellow conservatives and I have already talked about the risk that our ballots, if mailed, may never be counted.  At my polling place, however, it will be instantly scanned — with me watching.

I suggest that those of you who are normally absentee ballot voters make a similar decision.

Military ballots in Illinois

This is how it works if you’re a Democrat:  They’ve got your back, fighting against our nation’s mortal enemies (so you don’t have to), and you respond by stabbing them in their collective back, by denying them their constitutional right to have a say in our government.

VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! (Except if you’re a Progressive. You can stay home. You’ve done enough damage.)

About Meg Whitman’s maid *UPDATED*

I keep meaning to blog about Meg Whitman’s maid, and then I don’t.  Factually, it’s an insanely stupid story, although the lurid headlines in California’s lefty papers may be enough to confuse some independents into abandoning any vague ideas they may have been having about voting for Whitman.  In other words, the story is ridiculous (at best), but still potentially important.  Meaning that really should blog about it . . . but, as I said, I don’t.

Fortunately, Dafydd, at Big Lizards, has paid attention to Gloria Allred’s nasty pro-Brown campaign, so if you’re interested in all that you need to know about the story, check out his post.

UPDATE:  Another good summary of this sordid (from the Brown side) story, along with a good question:  Do Californians still have the critical reasoning skills to understand that they are being conned?

Help Daniel Webster refute Alan Grayson’s lies

I’m heading off to a client, so I don’t have time to blog.  Here’s all you need to know:

Rep. Alan Grayson is despicable, even by the low standards of despicable-ness currently emanating from the Democratic party.  His Republican opponent, Daniel Webster (and isn’t that a great American name) is currently being slandered and libeled at an unprecedented rate.  You can read the details here.

Unfortunately, because the Democratic party is the party of the rich, Grayson has a war chest ten times the size of Webster’s — which means that he can afford to promulgate these lies, but Webster may not have the money to refute them. If you’d like to change this scenario, and help fund Webster’s advertising defense, please think about contributing here.

Remember, every penny counts.  Whether you contribute $1 or $1000, it’s all to the good.

(Also, check out Caleb Howe for more on Alan Grayson.)

‘Cause other people aren’t so thrilled about the Dems either

If you’re looking for posts providing substantive information about problems with myriad Democratic candidates in the upcoming election, this list, which a friend sent me, is a wonderful start.  As you can see, it’s organized by candidate name, but each link will lead you to a full length post about problems with that candidate.  If any one of these candidates is running in your district, you may find this information useful.  You know, you can drop polite little fact bombs into otherwise uninformed conversations.

Travis Childers
Dina Titus
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann Kuster
Harry Teague
John Hall
Michael Arcuri
Larry Kissell
Earl Pomeroy
Steve Driehaus
Mary Jo Kilroy
Zack Space
Kathy Dahlkemper
Bryan Lentz
Patrick Murphy
Chris Carney
Paul Kanjorski
John Spratt
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Roy Herron
Chet Edwards
Ciro Rodriguez
Glenn Nye
Tom Perriello
Denny Heck
Mike Oliviero
Julie Lassa
Steve Kagen
Steve Raby
Ami Bera
Joe Garcia
Trent Van Haaften
Stephene Ann Moore
John Callahan
Jon Hulburd
Jon Hurlburd
Stephen Pougnet
Lori Edwards
Ravi Sangisetty
Pat Miles
Tarryl Clark
Tom White
Matthew Zeller
Paula Brooks
Manan Trivedi
Brett Carter
Suzan Delbene
Colleen Hanabusa
Robert Dold
Cedric Richmond
Lisa Murkowski
Barbara Boxer
Michael Bennet
Alexi Giannoulias
Robin Carnahan
Paul Hodes
Lee Fisher
Joe Sestak
Harry Reid
Scott McAdams
Kendrick Meek
Charlie Crist
Jack Conway
Patty Murray
Russ Feingold
Richard Blumenthal
Joe Manchin
Chris Coons
Ron Wyden
Kirsten Gillibrand
Mike McMahon
Scott Murphy
Bill Owens
Heath Schuler
Charlie Wilson
Betty Sutton
Kurt Schrader
Mark Critz
Lincoln Davis
Rick Boucher
Gerry Connolly
Rick Larsen
Ann Kirkpatrick
Harry Mitchell
Jerry McNerney
John Salazar
Betsy Markey
Allen Boyd
Alan Grayson
Alan Grayson
Suzanne Kosmas
Jim Marshall
Debbie Halvorson
Bill Foster
Phil Hare
Baron Hill
Leonard Boswell
Frank Kratovil
Gary McDowell
Mark Schauer
Mike Ross
Dennis Cardoza
Christopher Murphy
John Barrow
Melissa Bean
Bruce Braley
Dave Loebsack
John Yarmuth
Chellie Pingree
Tim Walz
Russ Carnahan
Rush Holt
Carolyn McCarthy
Dan Maffei
Bob Etheridge
Mike McIntyre
David Wu
Jason Altmire
Tim Holden
David Cicilline
Jim Matheson
Ron Kind
Bobby Bright
Gabrielle Giffords
Jim Costa
Loretta Sanchez
Ed Perlmutter
Jim Himes
John Carney
Ron Klein
Sanford Bishop, Jr.
Walter Minnick
Joe Donnelly
Ben Chandler
Gary Peters
Ike Skelton
John Adler
Martin Heinrich

Ellison has a substantive challenger

I didn’t say that Ellison has a challenger who can win.  I’m not sure the voters in Minnesota’s 5th CD have enough sechel to make the smart choice.  But Joel Demos is a substantive challenger, because he understands the real issues facing Americans — and, as this video shows, their children:

Hat tip:  Hot Air (which adds that Demos would be helped by some contributions).

A really powerful get-out-the-vote video

This video ought to combat the “plague on both your houses” mentality that prevents people (especially independents) from voting entirely, or that keeps lukewarm Democrats still checking off the Democrat box on their ballots:

Hat tip:  American Thinker

A great campaign commercial

Yesterday, I blogged about Murkowski’s embarrassing, condescending, crude, inept campaign commercial.  Now I’ve got a good one for you — although you have to be familiar with the Old Spice ad to appreciate it:

In November, it’s all about the conservative Congressional body count *UPDATED*

My mother has announced her voting position this November, and it can be summarized as “a plague on both their houses.”  A Democrat since she came to this country, she is disgusted by the Obamites, and cannot in good conscience vote the Democratic ticket.  However, she told me that she believes that Republicans are virtually indistinguishable from Democrats, so why bother to vote for them either?  She is therefore thinking of sitting this election out.  I suspect she represents the new Independents, who have become so independent that they can’t be bothered with voting at all.

My take on things is that my mother, bless her heart, is dead wrong.  Sure, the game of politics, as played by both politicians and wannabes, is the same as always, complete with jockeying for both power and money.  Given the superficial sameness that afflicts all politicians (same talking points, same power suits, same cant phrases, and canned speeches), it’s really no wonder that my mother looks at Congress as it is, and looks at the new candidates who want to join that club, and thinks that her so-called “choices” merely mean that she can have any colored car, so long as it’s black.

This superficial similarity, however, hides profound ideological differences that are usually hidden when the money is rolling in and security is strong.  When money is scarce, however, and national security is a grave concern, those ideological differences come to the fore, and it matters greatly which party in our two-party system, has the majority:

1.  Republicans do not believe that government is the solution to every problem.  This is true despite the fact that Republicans in Congress regularly take your and my tax dollars to pay for government programs in their home states, all with the hope that they will be reelected.  The fact is that, even though these Republicans believe in greed and power for their own benefit, this does not mean that they buy into the whole Big Government theory.  When the chips are really down, as they were with ObamaCare, Republicans (with the exception of a small, but horribly damaging, handful of RINOs) are able to pull back from the Big Government abyss.  Thus, when it wasn’t just a matter of a freeway or an airport or a museum that would carry their name, they were able to distinguish between garden-variety greed for power and money, on the one hand, and an unconstitutional government takeover of individual freedom, on the other hand.  The fact that they were the minority party, however, made their principled stand ineffectual and irrelevant.

2.  Republicans believe in American exceptionalism.  Whether they are rich or poor, or in between, they think America is a great place.  They believe in the Pledge of Allegiance; they believe in the virtues of America’s capitalist system; they believe in the Constitution; they believe that America is a force for good in the world; and they believe that the American people are good folk.  Because they have been the minority party in Congress since 2006, however, the bills and policy statements emanating from Congress reflect, not the Republican belief in American greatness, but the Democratic belief that America is a spoiled, bullying nation, peopled by racist ignoramuses.

3.  Republicans understand that radical Islam, whether in the form of weapons-carrying jihad or word-carrying Islamist propaganda, is a threat to America and to all of Western civilization.  Even though the average wishy-washy Congressional Republican will usually yield to the liberal media when the “R” word comes out (that would be “racist”), that same Republican still understands that, if you love America, and believe in the Constitution, you ultimately must take a stand against a group of people who hate America and who are quite vocal about their goal of replacing the Constitution with the Koran.  This is why Republicans are a reliable vote for keeping our military well-funded and supporting its missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They know that, unless we want this existential war fought on American soil, we’re going to have to fight it abroad — because, one way or another, we’re going to have to fight it.  Unfortunately, what with being the minority party in Congress since 2006, and with having a president who is deeply hostile to American exceptionalism and American values since 2008, Republicans in Congress are increasingly hamstrung and ineffectual when it comes to holding the line against radical Islam.

4.  Israel.  Despite the Jews’ blinkered affiliation with the Democratic party, that party is increasingly hostile to Israel.  The Republican party is consistently supportive of Israel.  While the president may get to be in the driver’s seat for foreign policy, having a Congressional majority that is strongly supportive of Israel matters when it comes to money and morale.  The last two years have amply demonstrated how fragile is Israel’s security when Washington, D.C., is controlled entirely by Democrats.

Bottom line:  Republicans en masse are better than Democrats, because Republican beliefs and values are profoundly different from Democrat beliefs and values.  This is completely separate from the fact that any mass of Republicans is going to have some weak sisters who can be bullied by a majority of Democrats, or by the fact that any mass of Republicans can have some members who have unpleasant behaviors or personal belief systems.

I freely concede every bad thing about O’Donnell — I think she’s a fruit loop, but she’s our conservative fruit loop.   Her election will make the difference between a Republican majority or a continued Democratic majority in Congress.

This is no longer about an individual candidate; this is about a numbers game:  If the good Republicans in Congress are to make a difference, they must have a majority.  Without that, they are useless, and we are in for another two years of unbridled far Left Progressivism emanating from Washington, D.C.  Sadly, it’s not entirely clear to me that the U.S. can handle that strain.  At this point, O’Donnell’s individual merits, which are admittedly few, are infinitely less important than the fact that she, just by being a warm Republican body, may be the pebble that, finally, diverts the Democratic stream.

UPDATE:  I got an email from an astute friend who understands, better than just about anyone, the way votes play out.  He does not think O’Donnell can win — and he’s certainly right on the merits.  Moderate conservatives will run a mile from her, tossing Delaware to the Democrats.  But I’m trying to say that moderate Republicans must get over their revulsion.  Now that the primaries are over, and moderates voted their conscience by trying for a Castle win, I see only three ways for Delaware voters to go:

1.  Vote for O’Donnell, which is a vote to get turn Congress over to the Republicans (which, presumably, is what conservatives, and worried Independents want).

2.  Vote for the Democrat what’s-his-name, which is a vote to keep Congress in the hands of the Democrat party.

3.  Abstain, which is also a vote to keep Congress in the hands of the Democrat party.

In other words, now that the primary is over, this is not about O’Donnell; instead, this about which party controls Congress.  There were a lot of people who, in 2008, refused to hold their noses and vote for McCain, and look at how well that turned out.  Sometimes pragmatism has to override principle.

Carly Fiorina — with luck, California’s next U.S. Senator *UPDATED*

[I didn’t take notes at the meeting I’m about to describe.  If you were there and did take notes or have a better memory than mine, and if you find any mistakes in what I wrote, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I’LL CORRECT MY POST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.]

I just returned from a Carly Fiorina townhall in Mill Valley, California.  Just to orient you, Mill Valley is located in Marin County which, in 2008, saw 78% of its population vote Democratic.

When I arrived at the venue, I couldn’t find parking.  This wasn’t just because more than 300 conservatives showed up to hear Carly speak.  It was also because several dozen Boxer “community organizers” (and didn’t we used to call them “rabble rousers”?) showed up as well.  Their little signs said that they were infuriated that Carly supports Proposition 23, which will suspend California’s Proposition 32 (aka California’s Global Warming laws).  They also had signs lambasting Fiorina for firing HP workers during her tenure there.

Most amusingly, the protesters also had signs stating that Fiorina was “too extreme” for California.  I had a hard time squaring this complaint with reality, considering that Boxer is one of the most partisan Senators in U.S. Senate History.  During her 28 years — 28 years! — in Congress, Boxer has shown herself to be a tried-and-true liberal, who has never seen a tax she hasn’t supported, or a tax break she hasn’t attacked, whose support for abortion rights takes her to extremes even pro-Choice people don’t like to explore, who consistently fails to support our military (which is entirely separate from opposing the war as a matter of principle), who supported the stimulus wholeheartedly, who voted for ObamaCare, and who agrees with and votes for every cause near and dear to the liberal heart.

That’s the scene:  outside, noisy, scraggly rabble rousers; inside, very happy, relaxed conservatives, delighted at long last to have a credible candidate running in a year in which she just might win.  The room in which we sat had floor-to-ceiling windows on both sides and, until they got bored, the protesters kept plastering their little signs up on the glass, as if by waving these one liners, they could convince these committed Carly supporters suddenly to yell out “I surrender,” and then run screaming from the room.

The charming, ebullient Melanie Morgan invited all of us to give the protesters a big wave, and we cheerfully did so.  I think it took them aback, because they disappeared soon after that.  I think they found it disconcerting that we were unfazed by their presence.  There’s nothing like staring bullies down, especially if you can do so with a smile on your face.  (Islamist apologists and grovelers, please take note.)

Fiorina, who showed up right on time, which is always a nice sign of respect to ones audience, is shorter than I had thought she would be.  She’s such a trim, upright, tidy figure that I somehow had the impression that she’s a very tall woman.  She’s not; she just has a tall presence.

Carly is a wonderful speaker:  she has clear, warm voice, and speaks without any annoying verbal ticks.  No “ums” and “uhs” from this lady.  I guess you could call her the un-Obama.  (She didn’t need a teleprompter either.)  She also has a nice energy.  Even though it was obvious that this was her usual speech, it didn’t have a canned feel.  Instead, it had a fresh vitality that made those of us sitting there feel as if she was conversing with us, rather than going through the usual political “blah blah.”

Unsurprisingly, Carly attacked Boxer vigorously, castigating Boxer for being totally invested in big government and big spending (except, of course, when it comes to our military).  She also pointed out, as she has before, that Boxer, while a reliable vote for any liberal cause, has been an ineffectual Senator.  In Boxer’s twenty-eight years in Congress, she has succeeded in getting her name on only four bills, three of which were non-substantive bills (naming rivers and buildings).  Indeed, said Fiorina, Boxer is so ineffectual Democrats had to take Cap-and-Trade away from her, even though it was supposed to be her baby — apparently, no one likes to work with her.

Fiorina steered away from giving specifics of what she’ll do when (if) she gets to D.C.  This was a wise move because, as a junior Senator, she will have somewhat limited power, given the Senate’s byzantine hierarchy — although Fiorina did joke that, as a medieval history major, she may be just the person to deal with that labyrinth.  In any event, it remains to be seen what the Senate’s composition will be, something that will affect Fiorina’s ability to put her beliefs and ideas into effect, at least in the short term.

Instead of nailing herself to impossible specifics, Carly focused on her philosophy of government and governing:  small government; states’ rights; accountability and daylight for all government agency spending; support for the military; support for small businesses and all businesses; world economic leadership, in all new fields (biotech, infotech, energy tech, etc.); the overturn of the congressionally-created Dust Bowl in California’s Central Valley, once the farming capital of America; and wise environmental stewardship that recognizes the need to develop clean new energies, including nuclear, even while taking advantage, in a environmentally-friendly way, of traditional energy (i.e., oil).

During question time, the two questions I found most interesting were these:  How will Carly counter the strongest attacks made against her, namely her support for Prop. 23 and her decision to fire HP workers; and how will she shrink government, since government has a natural tendency to make itself grow.  Carly answered the question about Prop. 23 by saying that the United States needs a reasonable, coherent, straightforward national energy policy, that nevertheless respects states’ rights.  The U.S. must also be an energy leader, if it is to maintain its position in the world, one that allows it to export its unique respect for freedom and social mobility.  Being an energy leader involves, as I mentioned above, environmentally sound development and use of all available energy sources.

As for having fired the HP workers, Carly said that sometimes, as a leader, you have to make tough choices.  There was a high tech recession then, and she had the choice of cutting some positions, or letting HP go entirely.  When she got HP back on track, she doubled its size and hired large numbers of workers.  Those are the choices government management has to make too.   (And let me add here my own opinion that one of the most outrageous things about the Democrats’ insistence that they must raise taxes on the employers and wealth-creators of America is so that Democrats can continue to fund our currently bloated government.  It doesn’t seem to occur to the yahoos in D.C. that they should trim government radically.)  Carly lucidly ran through the numbers about the way in which government has grown even as the private sector has deflated during the recession, not to mention the fact that struggling Americans are providing the government workers with a much higher standard of living than average Americans enjoy.

Speaking of trimming government radically, Fiorina says the solution is simple:  Search for and destroy waste, fraud and corruption.  She pointed out that most government agencies increase their spending dramatically right before the fiscal year ends, so that they can justify a demand for yet more money the next time they testify before the Appropriations Committee.  She explained that the Committee always opens with a single basic question:  “How much do you need?”

Carly wants to see a change in culture that has the Committee say “Tell us if you actually served your purpose and how you can fulfill that role using significantly less money.”  She would make each agency justify itself as is, rather than justify its demand for more.  Also, she would like to see a rule that has all Senate bills priced out to the last dollar, and then posted for two weeks before a vote.  (And wasn’t that one of Obama’s broken promises?)

If you’re interested in Carly Fiorina, here is her campaign website; here are the positions she’s taken on California propositions (although she is careful to point out that she is running for federal, not state, office); and here is the site where you can sign up to volunteer for her campaign.

UPDATE:  The local reporter managed to take all of the above, and make it about Tea Partiers (whom Fiorina, a Republican, never mentioned) and the environment.  Apparently he missed the rest.  He also refused to take Sally Zelikovsky’s challenge to report on the fact that the protesters damaged her car — a bit of news that is relevant when one considers that Tea Partiers are constantly charged with violence.

In 2010, we’ll finally see grown-ups in the voting booth

[How many people caught the fact that I put the wrong year in the post caption (2008, instead of 2010, which I’ve now written in)?  As I’m sure you’ve noticed before, I have problems with numbers.  This is why I’m not an economist.  What’s the excuse the Democrats have for their budget failures?]

The year 1920 marked the first time that American women got the vote in a federal election.  That same year, Warren Gamaliel Harding won the vote.  He was a disastrous president.  Although a very likable guy, even he knew that he was a dim bulb.  His presidency was marked by a level of corruption that America didn’t see again until the Clinton and Obama presidencies. Incidentally, women voted for him in droves.  He was the lady-killer candidate, the handsome man who wooed these women who, for the first time, could vote.

Just to tell you how times have changed, this was what 1920s “sexy” candidate looked like:

He wouldn’t sell well now, but he was hot, hot, hot back then.

The year 2008 marked the first time that America’s youth was galvanized to vote.  They too got the hot, hot, hot sexy candidate:

It wasn’t only the hitherto apathetic millenialists who voted.  Other people who had not previously taken their voting rights seriously — that would be minorities — also piled into the polling places.  As with the star-struck youngsters, minorities, even the more mature ones, didn’t think through the ramifications of an Obama presidency.  Instead, they voted for him because he was hot, hot, hot and black.

None of these new voters represented a thoughtful electorate.  They were, instead, committed to the electoral equivalent of a one night stand with the sexy quarterback.  And as most people discover after the one-night stand with the sexy quarterback, they’d been well and truly . . . well, you know.

Obama’s presidency, like Harding’s, has been a disaster.  It’s been marked by bad decisions (although we haven’t been as resilient as post WWI America, which was roaring through, not falling down), and exceptional degrees of corruption.

In both 1920 and 2008, the elections were marked by unusual frivolity.  The people who turned out to vote were new to the concept and they were not thinking seriously.  They were capable of serious thought — well, at least the women and older minorities were; I have my doubts about today’s untried, spoiled young people — but they didn’t bother.  They were excited and sex/race sold.

Of course, the morning after always arrives, and you have to take stock.  You can try to drown out that cheap, used feeling you have by behaving in exactly the same behavior in the hope of a different outcome; you can repent and try to undo the harm; or you can just slink away, pretend it never happened, and not do it again.

The 2010 election is going to be marked by the last two approaches.  The voters who could have been mature, and weren’t, have repented and will try to correct the situation.  The young’uns, the ones who were never serious, will fade into the woodwork and wait until they actually grow up before they vote again.  Pat Sajak puts it best:

I’m not what you’d call a Pollyanna. In fact, I’m pretty sure if something can go wrong, it will. As for the glass being half empty or half full, I not only come down on the half-empty side, I’m pretty certain there’s a crack in the bottom of the glass that will drain the whole thing dry. Despite all that, I’m growing more and more convinced that November’s elections will mark an extraordinarily important turning point in the relationship between the government and the governed, and not simply because the Democrats are likely to have their clocks cleaned. Despite the efforts of the Left and their cohorts in the press to paint their opponents as ignorant, hate-mongering racists, this is shaping up to be a serious election in which serious people are weighing serious issues. It’s not about slogans and personalities and trivialities; it’s about deficits and government power and the Constitution and the courts and scores of other important issues. In short, we’re about to have a grown-up election.

Lt. Col. Allen West — a real choice in Florida

Every two years, like clockwork, Marinites return the execrable Lynn Woolsey to Congress.  She’s so bad — by which I mean such a loopy Leftist — that I didn’t vote for her even when I was a Democrat.  I was a moderate; she was, and is, a nut case.  But still she wins, regularly sweeping in about 70% of the vote.

Voters here don’t care what Woolsey is, what she believes or what she offers; they just like that “D” after her name.  I have no doubt but that she’ll win again this year, for precisely the same reason.

If you’re in Florida’s 22nd District, however, you have the opportunity to vote for someone special.  I don’t know what the Republican/Democratic balance is in the 22nd District but, if it’s close, maybe he can win, and maybe there’ll be a true counterweight in Congress to Woolsey and her ilk.  If anyone has the cojones, as a freshman Congressman, to make waves, it’s West.

Renee Ellmers explains where the money is and, sadly, where it isn’t

My blog friend Lorie Byrd is working for Renee Ellmers, who is opposing Bob “Who are you?” Etheridge.  Ellmers has put out a plea for campaign money, which you can give voluntarily.  This is an important point, because her video is a reminder of the way in which Washington abuses the money it forces out of you through brute government power:

Etheridge may be sleazy, but he’s raking in the money (which kind of confuses me because I’m sure Obama and Pelosi, et al keep telling us Republicans are the party of the rich), so any help you can give would be great.

Random fascinating stuff out there, plus a few opinions of my own about the California Academy of Sciences *UPDATED*

Although it’s been open for more than a year now, I went for the first time today to the newly rebuilt California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park.  My visit there was an interesting contrast to my first visit, some years ago, to the newly rebuilt De Young Museum in Golden Gate Park.

Although I can’t find it now (I think it was on my old Word Press blog), my review of the De Young Museum was that, on the outside, it looks like a series of stacked chicken coops but that, on the inside, it is an exceptionally lovely museum, with beautiful flow and lighting.  And since I go to see the art and not the exterior, it’s basically a very satisfying experience to visit the place.  It makes the art accessible, which is all one can ask for.

I have the exact opposite view of the newly rebuilt Academy of Sciences.  On the outside, the designers managed to create a facade that is both classical and streamlined in a very modern way.  It nestles contently on the eastern side of the Park’s main concourse, and is a chic, appealing visual treat.  Inside, however, it is utterly chaotic.  Various exhibits all seem to struggle to occupy the same space.  There is no flow whatsoever, which is disastrous for a building that is meant to cater, not only to crowds, but to crowds composed, in significant part, of highly kinetic little children.

The underground aquarium, for example, is a maze of short tunnels, each of which has exhibits placed randomly in the center of the walkway, as well as along the sides.  Tossed about by the milling crowds, it is impossible to discern where one is or what one is seeing.  Although I grasped, intermittently, that there was some overarching geographic organization (e.g, fresh water, salt water, tide pools, etc.), everything was so noisy and chaotic, I couldn’t make sense of the exhibits.  The old Academy may have had a pokey rectangular layout, but it sure was easy to move through, to see things, and to understand.

Nor has the Academy improved the food problem that always vexed it.  For as long as I can remember, the old Academy offered vile food at a shabby underground food court dominated by a stuffed grizzly.  The new Academy now has three food venues:  a fancy hot dog stand, a buffet style restaurant, and a very pricey restaurant.  Oh, did I say that only the last named was very pricey?  Forgive me.  They all are.  If you want anything more than a $3.00 pork bun, feeding a family of three in the Academy will run you close to $50.  The prices are justified by the fact that everything is organic this and organic that, but the fact is that the all-organic ham and cheese sandwich tastes remarkably like an ordinary ham and cheese sandwich, only $4.00 more than I usually pay.  Of course, the food prices are consistent with the admission prices.  It cost me almost $50.00 to take my two kids there, which is a pretty hefty price tag for an experience that left me with an eyeball popping headache.

The new Academy also disappointed me for a very personal reason:  they’ve done away entirely with the old gem and mineral collection.  Although not of the scale or caliber of the amazing gem and mineral collection at the New York Museum of Natural History, this was a lovely, little gathering of precious, semi-precious and simply interesting stones.  For me, it was always one of the highlights of a visit to the Academy, and I sorely missed it today.

Speaking of all-powerful centralized government, if you haven’t thought long and hard about the implications of Obama’s appointing a “Food Czar,” you should.

What I also disliked about the Academy (and what I also dislike about the newly, and nicely, refurbished San Francisco Zoo), is the hectoring tone all these places take.  In the old days, the message was, “Aren’t these natural wonders great?”  Nowadays, the relentless message is “These natural wonders are great, but you’re destroying them by your very existence.”  I don’t take kindly to spending massive amounts of money only to be insulted.

The only part of the Academy that I thought was wonderful, although it too had design problems, was the rain forest dome, which was almost, standing alone, worth the price of admission.   It’s a clear plastic dome that has a spiral walkway that takes one up through three levels teaming with trees, plants, birds, butterflies, moths, frogs and lizards.  It’s truly beautiful and really well done.  The only down side is that the only way to get out is to stand in line at the very top, waiting for an elevator.  The lines are long and chaotic.  Additionally, since the elevator is at the very top of a rain forest dome, it’s incredibly hot, steamy and, as with the rest of this echo-y, clamorous place, incredibly noisy.

I will say that what made the trip there a much greater pleasure than it would otherwise have been was the fact that I met up with my brother-in-law and niece there.  My two were delighted in the company of their cousin, and I always feel lucky when I get to spend time with my brother-in-law, no matter where that time is spent.  What a nice man he is.

Whining is finished now.  This is where I put in all the links for the things I read today, many of which readers brought to my notice (thank you!), but that I really didn’t get a chance to think about.

I think I am the last conservative blogger in America to link to it, but link to it I will.  You must read Angelo Codevilla’s America’s Ruling Class — and the Perils of Revolution, which pretty accurately spells out the state of American politics.  You won’t be less worried or frustrated when you’re done reading it, but you will be enlightened.

Did I mention whining a couple of paragraphs above?  That’s actually something important to think about.  Although I do it all the time, I’m aware that whining is not an attractive quality.  A couple of PR and public policy experts have figured out that Israel has been whining lately.  The whines are completely righteous and justified, but they fall into a vacuum of ignorance.  Listeners are not sympathetic.  It turns out that the effective way for Israel to deal with her plight is to do exactly what the Palestinians and their fellow travelers have been doing for so long:  she needs to demonize the opposition.  And what’s so great about this tactic is that, rather than making things up, as her enemies do, all that Israel has to do is broadcast the opposition’s actual words and deeds.  When people see what Israel is up against, as opposed to just hearing how Israel suffers, they become remarkably more sympathetic to Israel’s situation and dire security needs.

By the way, those same Palestinians who have managed to convince just about everyone in the world that the Israelis are worse than Hitler, have managed to hide from the world’s view the fact that, with Israel as their enemy, they are living high on the hog, enjoying standards far in excess of those Arab Muslims in lands that don’t have the good fortune to have Israel as their next door neighbor and enemy.

I loooove Andrew Breitbart.  Seriously.  I’m just crazy about the guy.  I think he is one of the most brilliant political thinkers in America right now.  He’s figured out what the PR folks are talking about:  show the opposition’s ugly side, using real footage of them being really ugly.  And to that end, immediately after the NAACP made waves complaining about unprovable and almost certainly non-existent Tea Party racism, he came out with actual footage of vile racism courtesy of — the NAACP.  Genius.  Sheer genius.  Here’s just one example of the ugly, discriminatory race obsession that characterizes the NAACP and its fellow travelers:

UPDATEAndrew Breitbart jumped the gun.  The snippet he got was taken out of context and, when put back into context, shows Sherrod explaining that, having once been a racist, she’s learned the error of her ways.  It also appears that the NAACP audience, which should have been the real focus of this video, as the video was a counter-attack to the NAACP’s decision to lambaste the Tea Party on racism grounds, murmurs approvingly when Sherrod reveals her new, enlightened views of race.

If you need it, here’s a little more on the Democrats’ entire ugly obsession with race, one that turns on its head Martin Luther King’s vision of an America in which people are judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  Oh, and here’s one more thing about that race obsession, and how Obama’s administration uses it to consolidate power, while sowing civil dissent.

When I wrote my post about burqas as a weapon, not just a type of clothing, I dragged in discussions of mosques and minarets too.  I entirely forget to mention in that article the mosque that is plotted for Ground Zero.  Pat Condell did not forget:

Even the New York Times periodically recognizes that federalizing school funding with no regard whatsoever for the situation at the ground is unfair, disruptive and damaging.  What staggers me is that these same NYT types are incapable of recognizing an overarching principle, which is that reactive government closer to home is always more understanding than directive central government far away.

Whether you’re in the military or not, don’t believe this administration when it claims to love the military and cries crocodile tears over its sufferings.

It took me almost half a lifetime to figure out that the NRA has always been right:  “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”  I needed to see crime rates soaring in London, in Chicago, and in Washington, D.C., as well as the chaos in post-Katrina New Orleans neighborhoods that did not have gun owners to finally understand this simple principle.  More and more, statistics are revealing the obvious:  a law-abiding, armed citizenry is safer than a law-abiding unarmed citizenry.  Contrary to liberal fears that arms will automatically turn us into Liberia or some equally horrific anarchic society, it’s clear that what effects such a change is leaving arms only to the criminals.

Three things I want to bring to your attention

Because it’s summer, the family, rather than being at school and work, is still home.  That certainly changes blogging dynamics.  Really, really changes blogging dynamics.  Really.

But….  I still read stuff and, even though my thinking cap seems to have been misplaced, I still have information I want to pass along to you.

To begin with, if you’re a Maryland resident, Cynthia Yockey, who writes at A Conservative Lesbian, is adamant that Jim Rutledge is the real deal and can beat Barbara Mikulski in the Maryland Senate race.  Read what she has to say and, if you can, help Rutledge out.  After all, this is the year.  If Babs Boxer can be trembling on the brink of destruction at the hands of Carly Fiorina, Rutledge can beat Mikulski.

Oh, and as for helping out, here’s a wonderful idea:  Ten Bucks Friday.  The deal with this is that, every Friday until the election, you donate $10 bucks (or whatever amount works for you) to a conservative candidate.  It’s this kind of discipline that can really help fund conservatives across the board.

Lastly, just so you remember why you want to spend $10 a week (or more or less), Rhymes with Right has discovered something new and amazing about one person in the White House.

Attention Neocons: Just do it!

A couple of years ago, I switched my lifelong party affiliation from Democrat to Independent.  The fact is that I’m more closely aligned with Republicans than Independents, despite having some serious reservations about Republican Party management, but I just couldn’t make myself put that “R” by my name.  Today, however, I switched once again, registering as a Republican.

I thought I’d feel weird, but I actually feel good about it — and for a very specific reason.  By officially changing to a Republican voter, I’m both a part of and creating momentum.  Who cares if the pollsters never call me to learn that I’m part of a growing crowd of self-identified conservatives?  By placing that voter registration form in the mail, I’ve made a statement even bigger than the pollsters’ numbers:  I’m Republican and I vote.

If you’re an Independent or a Democrat who’s changed values but hasn’t yet changed parties, do it now.  I know that the Republican Party in Marin is swelling (at least by Marin standards) and these things do make a difference.

Sometimes it’s good when things come to a head

For many years (probably more than a decade), I battled a subcutaneous staph infection.  Most of the time, it wasn’t a problem, but when my immune system got low for any reason, I’d get painful outbreaks.  I hated the outbreaks, but tolerated them without medical intervention because they invariably went away on their own.  Given that tincture of time worked, I was loath to try more aggressive treatment, which would have come in the form of antibiotics.  I react very, very badly to antibiotics, veering between disabling nausea and hives, which are scary, since they can be the predicate to a full blown anaphylactic reaction.  In other words, I had a problem and, while it often had a debilitating effect on me, I avoided addressing it directly, since passivity seemed to work.

A couple of months ago, possibly because years of dealing with the staph infection had finally compromised my immune system beyond the point of no return, I had an outbreak that I couldn’t ignore.  A trip to the doctor’s office gave me only three alternatives, none of which was tincture of time:  surgery, which wasn’t likely to be successful; antibiotics; or almost certain sepsis.  I bit the bullet and took the antibiotics.  I was sick as a dog for 10 days, but I didn’t get hives, so I stuck with the horrible cure.

I’ve now gone two months without an outbreak, which is a record for me.  It’s also a great relief not to suffer the pain and inconvenience of the outbreaks.  The fact is, though, if things hadn’t become serious — that is, if matters hadn’t come to a head — I would have just bumbled along, dealing ineffectually with a chronically recurring problem, rather than submitting to a comprehensive treatment that terminated the staph infection entirely.  As I’d feared, the treatment was awful but, in retrospect, the relief from a chronic staph infection made it all worth while.

It occurred to me looking back on my experience that it works pretty well as a political analogy.  America has had a Statist infection for a long time.  Most of the time it wasn’t a problem but, whenever the opportunity arose, Statists inserted themselves into the body politic.  America was always big enough to absorb the hits to its “immune system,” whether those hits occurred in the areas of education, the economy, social norms, or national security.  The country bumbled along, electing Democratic presidents and booting them out (1980) or bringing them to heel (1994).  Meanwhile, without our becoming aware of it, our national immune system weakened incrementally in the face of these continued, but tolerable, assaults.

Starting in 2008, however, the American immune system had clearly become too weakened to bounce back from the continued hits.  In the past two years, we’ve seen that tincture of time is inadequate to deal with the sustained Statist assaults on the American body politic.  Matters are coming to a head in the form of a corrupt, inept, and quite possibly highly malevolent White House and Congress, both of which seem to be unconstrained by constitutional concerns.

Under the watch of this malignant duo, we’ve seen our economy come near collapse under policies that are stupidly, or, perhaps, intentionally, geared towards its total destruction; our national security become a “man caused disaster” joke; our southern coast line, not to mention our energy underpinnings, threatened with destruction as a result of federal policies that reflect either gross incompetence or a deliberate intention, either to destroy Big Oil or to enrich president-maker George Soros (or both); our health care system become subject to legislation that will bring down America’s premier health care system; our enemies empowered; and our allies assaulted.

In other words, matters have come to a head.  The Statist infection that’s been lurking forever has so compromised our nation that we are on the verge of going septic.  We can no longer sit back and wait for things simply to resolve themselves by virtue of America’s social and political immune system.  We, as Americans, must act.  And indeed, that’s what Americans have been doing.  The Tea Party movement, which has seen normally placid conservatives taking to the streets in the hundreds and thousands is a form of aggressive treatment that is already putting the Statist infection on the defensive.  The internet is another weapon in the arsenal, as people committed to individual freedoms exercised within a strong and safe America bypass the media that has helped spread the infection.

The last weapon, of course, is a totally engaged electorate.  Being passive, saying that one political party is pretty much like the other, or that one vote really doesn’t matter very much, is a death sentence to a healthy body politic, and an invitation to going toxic and going down.  In November, people who care about America’s fundamental health, people who recognize that matters have finally come to a head, must vote.

We’ve seen this moment before in American history.  I’ll leave you with Thomas Paine’s immortal words:

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

This is our winter and we must soldier on.