IRS Scandal: Becky Gerritson of Wetumpka

Wednesday, June 5, AD 2013

Yesterday victims of the IRS targeting of conservative groups spoke before the House committee investigating this attempt to use the IRS as a political weapon.  The most riveting testimony was by Becky Gerritson of Wetumpka, Alabama:

 

“In Wetumpka, we are patriotic Americans. We peacefully assemble. We petition  our government. We exercise the right to free  speech. And we don’t understand why the government tried to stop us.

“I’m not here as a serf or a vassal. I’m not begging my lords for mercy. I’m  a born free American woman. Wife, mother, and citizen. And I’m telling my  government that you’ve forgotten your place. It’s not your responsibility to  look out for my wellbeing and to monitor my speech. It’s not your right to  assert an agenda. Your post, the post that you occupy, exists to preserve  American liberty. You’ve sworn to perform that duty, and you have faltered…

“What the government did to our little group in Wetumpka, Alabama is  un-American. It isn’t a matter of firing or arresting individuals. The  individuals who sought to intimidate us were acting as they thought they should,  in a government culture that has little respect for its citizens. Many of the  agents and agencies of the federal government do not understand that they are  servants of the people. They think they are our masters.  And they are mistaken.

“I’m not interested in scoring political points. I want to protect and  preserve the America that I grew up in. The America that people crossed oceans  and risked their lives to become a part of. And I’m terrified it is slipping  away.

“Thank you.”

Continue reading...

5 Responses to IRS Scandal: Becky Gerritson of Wetumpka

  • What exactly has changed since 167 BC?

    Then the king’s officers who were enforcing the apostasy came to the city of Modein to make them offer sacrifice. Many from Israel came to them; and Mattathias and his sons were assembled. Then the king’s officers spoke to Mattathias as follows:

    “You are a leader, honored and great in this city, and supported by sons and brothers. Now be the first to come and do what the king commands, as all the Gentiles and the men of Judah and those that are left in Jerusalem have done. Then you and your sons will be numbered among the friends of the king, and you and your sons will be honored with silver and gold and many gifts.”

    But Mattathias answered and said in a loud voice:

    “Even if all the nations that live under the rule of the king obey him, and have chosen to do his commandments, departing each one from the religion of his fathers, yet I and my sons and my brothers will live by the covenant of our fathers. Far be it from us to desert the law and the ordinances. We will not obey the king’s words by turning aside from our religion to the right hand or to the left.”

    When he had finished speaking these words, a Jew came forward in the sight of all to offer sacrifice upon the altar in Modein, according to the king’s command. When Mattathias saw it, be burned with zeal and his heart was stirred. He gave vent to righteous anger; he ran and killed him upon the altar. At the same time he killed the king’s officer who was forcing them to sacrifice, and he tore down the altar. Thus he burned with zeal for the law, as Phinehas did against Zimri the son of Salu. Then Mattathias cried out in the city with a loud voice, saying:

    “Let every one who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come out with me!”

    (1st Maccabees 2:15-27)

  • Becky is living in Wetumpka; Indian for
    waters rumbling…..hummmm?

  • Hi Becky Gerritson of Wetumka! I am proud to say that I agree with everything you stated in your emotional speech…God bless you for having the courage to stand up to obama and his kind…we need more like you in this great country, possibly to save it from the clutches of those who really don’t care about it, just what this country can DO for THEM. I hope and pray that those of us who really love the good ol’ USA vastly outnumber those who don’t, and that some day in the near future, we will see the country that so many of our brave young men and women died for become what it used to be…what it was founded on, and for which it is loved and respected throughout the world.

  • God bless you Becky Gerritson of Wetumka!!!

  • The Black Robe Brigade (Churchmen) led from the pulpit and also in battle
    at the time of the American Revolution.

    Today there is silence from both Protestant and Catholic Pastors and
    Bishops regarding the tyranny of this administration. Why? They promote
    socialism labeled as “social justice.” How deceptive!!!

8 Responses to Occupy Wall Street vs. Tea Party

  • Okay I admit that I never saw The Colbert Report before but that was side splittingly funny. But seriously famale bodied? What insanity….

  • It was funny. What’s even more funny to me is that in an effort to put their best face forward a group of people got together and through silly little hand signs selected this couple to represent them. Based on what I’ve seen I think they made the right choice, but it still doesn’t say much for them whether they be male bodied males, female bodied females, female bodied males, male bodied females, etc.

  • I need the source for those stats. Please post a link. Thanks and God Bless.

  • PBW Einstein: Contact NYC City Hall.

    The source isn’t the regime’s propaganda machine (NYT, Commie News Net, etc.) or Obama’s Ministry of Troof. That’s why God created FOXNEWS.

    Additionally, the above support the violence. The think it distracts we the people from the economic misery your brilliant Obama regime is causing.

    There have been several more sexual assaults (including a hearing-impaired man) and assaults and batteries which the anarchists refuse to report allowing the criminals to persist in plying useful (to Obama) avocations.

    NB: Obama and his hate-filled co-conspirators have not condemned the violence.

    Obama-worshiping imbeciles unite you have nothing to lose!

  • You should add the “autonomous collective” bit from Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail. When I hear OWS ppl speak, I immediately think of it.

  • Actually, the Tea Party paid for permits for their demonstrations – which entailed paying for a prescribed amount of porta-potties too. I remember how hard they worked to raise the money from a gress roots movement.

    And let’s not forget the open drug sales, unbridled sex, and scabies.

  • Their great contribution to the Commonweal: Zuccotti Lung.

    They’re threatening to close down Wall Street this morning.

    This PM rush hour, they’re promising to clog the Brooklyn Bridge (it’s for sale, ya’ know).

    Way to win friends and influence people.

    There are a couple hundred of them. There are 3,000,000 men and women coming and going to work today in NYC.

    I hope they don’t get too close to my stocks.

    Yesterday, one of them said we were going to see what molotov cocktails do for Macy’s. I work a block away from there. I’m scared.

    “Annoy a liberal: Work, Succeed, Be Happy.” – bumper sticker

Biden to the Rescue!

Wednesday, August 10, AD 2011

In these dark days of the credit downgrade of the nation, an economy falling back into recession, a crashing stock market, etc, one man shines out as a beacon of hope:  Veep and Beloved National Clown Joe Biden.  As the Three Stooges lightened the American mood during the Great Depression with their comic pratfalls and buffoonish antics, so Biden lightens the national mood by constantly, and deliberately I am sure, saying the stupidest things imaginable.

When Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford recently returned to Congress after being shot in the head, Biden welcomed her as a fellow  member of the “cracked head club”.  As the nation was still howling at that, he dauntlessly followed up with the gutbuster that the members of the Tea Party were “acting like terrorists“.

Note the master at work.  Joe of course realizes that calling people who organized peacefully, won the Congressional elections in 2010, and whose representatives in Congress are seeking to enact legislation embodying the beliefs they campaigned on as terrorists, is absurd.  He therefore willingly makes himself absurd and a national joke in order to give us all something to laugh about in these dark days.  What a true patriot!

However, in the event that I am wrong and that Joe really meant that tea party members are acting like terrorists, below are depicted the intellectual godfathers of this dangerous movement, and perhaps Homeland Security needs to put them under surveillance pronto:

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Biden to the Rescue!

  • He’s more than a clown, if you want to read a story about how sinister and sick Joe Biden is, have at it:

    http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/05/the_history_of.html

  • Don, isn’t Joe one of yours?

  • Yep Joe, he is an attorney. He almost got thrown out of law school due to an incident of plagiarism in his first year. He also got poor grades in college and law school. From the start, he was marked for a great political career!

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html

    After Biden was forced to own up to his lawschool plagiarism scandal in 1987, the next year when he was running for President he was forced out after it was learned that he plagiarized during the campaign a speech of Neal Kinnock, then leader of the British labor party, virtually verbatim.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2198543/

    The man is an ignorant, dishonest piece of work. I do find him truly funny however, in a Three Stooges style.

  • That’s not what I meant, Don. He’s a Catholic, at least nominally. Then again, so are Cuomo, Pelosi and the NY GOP State Senators responsible for putting the gay marriage bill over the top.

    I think you once brought up Jackie Gleason who described himself as a “bad Catholic,” which, I believe you commented on by saying, “Once Catholic always Catholic.”

    As a lapsed Catholic myself, I never understood that, given that I no longer go to mass, confession or otherwise embrace the faith. But it’s there on every “religious preference” form I fill out. Makes me feel hypocritical, to say the least, but I openly admit my doubts whereas the aforementioned “Catholics” consider themselves “faithful” followers.

    My previous mention, BTW, of “smileys” referred to the lack of emoticons that used to show when one wished to add to posts. They are no longer there.

  • “Sinister” is exactly right, Jasper. I don’t give Biden the benefit of laughing him off as merely a buffoon. Oh, he’s a buffoon, alright. But he’s also a Grade “A” abortion-loving @$$h—, as evidenced by the piece to which you linked. I remember all too clearly Biden’s performance during the Bork hearings, in which he ran interference for Planned Parenthood and the rest of the pro-abortion crowd, in torpedoing a nomination that would have eventually led to Roe being overturned – something for which I’ve detested the man for close to a quarter of a century.

    But I hesitate to describe my emotions when I read that piece a few years ago about Biden jumping and crying for joy on a train platform in celebration of the holocaust of the unborn. Or when he threatened to shove his rosary beads down the throats of his critics who believe his pro-abortion advocacy disqualifies him from being a Catholic in good standing. He’s a nasty piece of work, and should not be merely laughed off as a clown. Oh yes, he is a clown, but one of those evil ones like you see in the horror movies.

  • “That’s not what I meant, Don. He’s a Catholic, at least nominally.”

    Nominal is the word Joe. He is a CINO. However, even for Biden there is hope that he can become a real Catholic before his end.

  • Biden voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning abortion in the early Reagan administration. Yet another Catholic Democrat in Congress who moved from the pro-life to the pro-abort side of the equation, and barely a peep from the relevant Catholic ecclesiastics in Delaware.

  • “As a lapsed Catholic myself, I never understood that, given that I no longer go to mass, confession or otherwise embrace the faith. But it’s there on every ‘religious preference’ form I fill out. Makes me feel hypocritical, to say the least, but I openly admit my doubts whereas the aforementioned ‘Catholics’ consider themselves ‘faithful’ followers.”

    One is either 100% fully, authenticly and orthodoxly (is that a valid adverb?) Catholic, or one is not even remotely Catholic. There are no in-betweens. To be a non-practicing Catholic is to be not a Catholic, for a true Catholic practices his faith as though the final state of his soul depends on it (and as a matter of fact, it does!). Such non-practitioners should call themselves what they are: atheist, agnostic, deist, or whatever else may validly apply, but not Catholic since they don’t practice what it means to be Catholic.

    Now that doesn’t mean a Catholic won’t sin and need to go to Confession (e.g., myself, and I probably need to go more than once a month). However, those who describe themselves as lapsed Catholics are either “blackslidden” (to use a Protestant term) or apostate (which implies a formal disaffiliation). Unrepentent blackslidden or apostate “Catholics” are not going to Heaven were they to die in their state of being backslidden or apostate. Of course, the same is true of me were I to die in a state of unrepentent mortal sin.

    Nevertheless, to feel hypocritical over calling one’s self “Catholic” while in a backslidden or apostate state (I won’t judge which one if any applies) is perhaps a glimmer of gold in amongst the trash: at least one feels some effects of the truth of the situation. So there is hope for Joe Green after all! 😉

  • Darn, Don. As a ‘tweenie,’ I’d like to have it both ways playing Pascal’s Wager. That ‘glimmer’ you refer to is embodied in this quote by Evelyn Waugh, which stays on my desktop whenever the doubts increase:

    “The Roman Catholic Church has the unique power of keeping remote control over human souls which have once been part of her. G.K. Chesterton has compared this to the fisherman’s line, which allows the fish the illusion of free play in the water and yet has him by the hook; in his own time the fisherman by a ‘twitch upon the thread’ draws the fish to land.”

    The Lord is still fishing, and I hope I may be the catch of the day some day. : )

  • “The Lord is still fishing, and I hope I may be the catch of the day some day. : )”

    As long as we live Joe, the Hound of Heaven is always hot on our trail.

  • “The Lord is still fishing, and I hope I may be the catch of the day some day.”

    Just say “yes” to Jesus and go to Confession, Joe. You don’t have to be perfect, but you do have to be forgiven.

  • Biden and about 100,000 other progressive idiots ruining America call to mind St. Augustine’s comments/observations in the City of God.

    “The half-wits we have to endure and must answer.”

    “If the wicked refuse to join in the blessed endeavor, they should be loved as enemies are loved in Christian charity, since, as long as they live, there is the possibility that they may come to a better mind.”

  • Don, thought you might post something about the 406th anniversary of Guy Fawkes Gunpowder Plot, a failed attempt by Catholics to take over the English throne.

  • Biden has his mouth so full of his own footwear i find it amazing he can still speak.
    But then, away he goes again, cramming his foot into his mouth and dribbling some idiotic garbage. No wonder his mouth is getting bigger.

    Joe Green.

    Despite what Paul has said, hang onto that litle peice of you that still says “hey, I’m Catholic.” That’s the tiny mustard seed – it just isn’t being watered or fertilized. One day there will be an event in your life that clears away the mist and makes things clear for you. There are many canonised saints in the Church who were much worse than you are.
    To be hanging around a Catholic blog actually says something. Hang in there.

  • Thanks, Don the Kiwi, for your encouraging comments. I think that it is not God who has moved from me, but me from Him.

  • In reference to Guy Fawke’s Day Joe, I have written about it before and I may again when it rolls around on November 5.

  • Some how, Don, I was thinking it was Aug. My bad.

  • I remember it because of the poem Joe:

    November, November, the 5th of November,
    Gunpowder Treason and Plot.
    I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
    Should ever be forgot.

  • Petty sure there was a saloon in NYC called “Guy Fawkes’.” Not sure. It was over 40 years ago. I was drinking. I needed no reason for it.

    Anyhow, was one GF. There were probably 600 bars in NYC where, any time, you could run into a dozen or so Irish cops, firemen, and/or an IRA men (passing the hat), and Guiness on tap.

Senator Jefferson Smith, the Tea Party and America

Friday, January 21, AD 2011

My colleague Michael Denton has a thought provoking post which may be read here, in which he contends that the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington does not stand for the ideals of America, but rather that the Christian message of Love Thy Neighbor is what saves Senator Smith.  Michael makes many valid points in his cogent post, but I respectfully disagree that the film is as negative about America as Michael contends, and I think that if the fictional Senator Jefferson Smith were brought to life in our day, he would be a leader of the Tea Party movement.  Here are my reasons for making these statements:

1. The Founding Fathers:  Like the Tea Party movement, Jefferson Smith takes his inspiration and his political principles from the Founding Fathers (with Lincoln thrown in).  We see this clearly in this scene:

Smith is a reminder to a jaded world that, “Great principles don’t get lost once they come to light. They’re right here; you just have to see them again!”

When he momentarily loses his idealism about these principles he is reminded that the principles are true by his formerly cynical secretary Clarissa, stunningly portrayed by Jean Arthur, who he, unbeknownst to himself, has converted to his point of view:

“Your friend, Mr. Lincoln had his Taylors and Paines. So did every other man who ever tried to lift his thought up off the ground. Odds against them didn’t stop those men. They were fools that way. All the good that ever came into this world came from fools with faith like that. You know that, Jeff. You can’t quit now. Not you. They aren’t all Taylors and Paines in Washington. That kind just throw big shadows, that’s all. You didn’t just have faith in Paine or any other living man. You had faith in something bigger than that. You had plain, decent, everyday, common rightness, and this country could use some of that. Yeah, so could the whole cockeyed world, a lot of it. Remember the first day you got here? Remember what you said about Mr. Lincoln? You said he was sitting up there, waiting for someone to come along. You were right. He was waiting for a man who could see his job and sail into it, that’s what he was waiting for. A man who could tear into the Taylors and root them out into the open. I think he was waiting for you, Jeff. He knows you can do it, so do I.”

2.  Faith in the People-This of course is an axiom of democracy.  Democracy makes absolutely no sense unless one believes that most people do wish to do the right thing most of the time, once they are sure of what is right.  Jefferson Smith has this faith as does the Tea Party with its populist appeals.  He believes that once the people of his state know the type of political corruption that controls their state, they will rise up to crush Taylor and his machine.  The villains of the film agree with him:

James Taylor to Senator Paine:  “If he even starts to convince those Senators, you might as well blow your brains out, you know that, don’t ya? This is the works, Joe! Either we’re out of business or we’re bigger than we ever were before. We can’t miss a trick. We can’t stop at anything until we’ve smashed this yokel and buried him so deep…”

Taylor fears the people of his state and that is why he uses gangster tactics to keep the news of what Jefferson Smith is saying on the floor of the Senate from getting to them.

When Smith is confronted with Taylor’s astroturfed messages denouncing him, he refuses to give up, his body giving way, but not his spirit.  Ironically, I think if a vote were cast thereafter in the Senate, Smith would have won.  The Senators are viewed in the film as listening to him intently towards the end of the filibuster and are portrayed in the film as increasingly sympathetic to him:

Senator:  “I didn’t like this boy from the beginning. But most of us feel that no man who wasn’t sincere could stage a fight like this against these impossible odds.”

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Senator Jefferson Smith, the Tea Party and America

  • This works as a feel-good movie and Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur are wonderful in this flick, but it’s so far removed from reality as to make it almost parody. There never has been a senator, or U.S. politician in any office for that matter, who remotely resembles the ideas of Jefferson Smith. Can anyone truly imagine ANYONE in either chamber today, or in recent memory, who comes close to expressing the ideals that Smith evoked?

    Sen. Joe Payne (Claude Rains) comes a lot closer to reality — a puppet on a string pulled by the James Taylors of the world, who are the real power wielders.

  • I tend to be cynical about cynicism Joe. There are many politicians who remind me of Jefferson Smith. Rick Santorum for example, who realized that his strong opposition to abortion and his strong support for the war in Iraq were unpopular in blue Pennsylvania, but who stuck to his convictions and lost his Senate seat in 2006. Sarah Palin who rose to the governorship of Alaska by taking on a corrupt old boy network in her state in her own party. Governor Casey of Pennsylvania who suffered the wrath of his party for his pro-life convictions. The late Congressman Henry Hyde, ever the champion of the unborn. Christopher Smith, Congressman from New Jersey, ever a tireless champion of the unborn, although he is from one of the bluest states of the Union.

  • My cynicism — more skepticism and realism — stems from more than 30 years in journalism, often with a front row seat to political chicanery at all levels, from the town supervisor to the POTUS.

    I would not disabuse you of your choices — although none would make my list (particularly the adulterer and hypocrite Hyde), which is otherwise countable on the fingers of one hand after a bad lawn mower accident of those who merit standing in the pantheon of political heroes. Lincoln for starters.

    If memory serves — and I have a good one — let us recall the 2008 “financial coup d’etat,” as some have called it, engineered by BOTH PARTIES, in which $700 million in taxpayer money was used to bail out Goldman, Sachs, et al. First defeated in Congress after 70% of the American people vehemently objected, it was passed 3 days later, thanks to Hank Paulson and his Goldman pals crafting a 3-page bill that eliminated any possible challenge by the courts. Your government and mine at work. Part credit goes to Machiavelli and John Maynard Keynes for the inspiration to the gang of crooks that run Washington. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman CEO, was at Obama’s Chinese dinner the other night. A million-dollar “political contribution” buys you a lot of friends.

    Harsh words, but there are so many other examples of political corruption and misrepresentative democracy (Prop 8, Obamacare, ad nauseum) that one wonders how you can find any nobility or honesty in, collectively, a venal bunch, then and now.

    I no longer, though I once did, share your idealist view — it is admirable and one that I held many years ago, but since have discarded despite hopes that notions of honesty, fairness and justice might prevail in the conduct of the people’s business. Lincoln warned that this nation could only be defeated “by the vandals within.” Nearly century earlier, jefferson, Madison & Co. sounded similar jeremiads about veering from the Founding principles. Also, a little H.L. Mencken wouldn’t hurt to keep from taking it all too seriously.

    God bless.

  • Whoops, make that $700 BILLION.

  • Hyde was not a hyprocrite Joe, and I am surprised that you fell for the Clintons digging up an affair from the sixties to attempt to discredit one of the true heroes of Congress of our time. Whatever damage that Hyde’s adultery did to his marriage did not destroy it, his wife and he staying together for 47 years until her death in 92, and to dig it up was simply the type of petty cruelty associated with the Clintons. Hyde, in the face of this, successfully completed his task of having the House vote to impeach the worst man ever to sit in the White House, another reason I honor his memory.

    In regard to the bailout swindle of 2008, there were a fair number of Congressmen and 25 Senators who kept their heads and did not panic in a situation of crisis, when they were told that the economic system was near collapse. I think those who voted for the bailout were gravely in error, but I do not think that most of those who voted for it did so out of bad faith.

    As for H.L. Mencken, he was a good writer, but as a human being he deserved only a punch in the nose.

  • ‘As for H.L. Mencken, he was a good writer, but as a human being he deserved only a punch in the nose.’

    ———————————————————-
    Perhaps, but that could apply to many good writers. : )

    That I am a regular followers of TAC suggests I am not totally jaded.
    There’s a sliver of the idealist left in me.

  • The Tea Party is the mob George Washington and the Founding Fathers feared.

  • Why of course they are John! Why didn’t I see that. The Founding Fathers regarded as a “mob”, assemblages of citizens, peacefully petitioning the government for redress of grievances, exercising their freedom of speech and voting for candidates who reflect their views. How terrifyingly “mob-like”. That of course is why the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Non-rights denied freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances. Thank you much John. That is also why the Constitution begins “We the Elite”. Now I understand!

  • The January 2007 edition of Godspy had an article by Bod Bennet about Frank Capra’s vision that explains his work. I extracted the key sections here

    This is why Frank Capra, contrary to popular opinion, is one of the most challenging of all filmmakers and in some ways the most disturbing. Most “serious films”—the “hard-hitting” “uncompromising” films—ask us only to accept, for example, that poverty is bad, relationships are hard, that politics is corrupt. In short, their “challenge” consists precisely in asking us to accept ideas that we already accept anyway, even if we struggle to know just what to do about them. In these comedies, Capra asks us to accept that the old-fashioned American ideals are still good, that David really can whip Goliath, that our prayers do not go unheard, that the meek shall inherit the earth. In other words, he asks us to accept things about which we have grave, grave doubts. And he is uncompromising in his asking: he doesn’t ask us to accept these propositions as nice or inspirational or comforting or helpful—he asks us to accept them as true. That, my friend, is a challenging filmmaker. That is serious, avant-garde cinema, if you will.

  • Your comment is way off topic Adrian, and I have removed it.

  • Did you ban Adrian Wainer from posting in this site simply because he posted a posting in the wrong thread by accident ?

  • He isn’t banned, and I believe he intended the comment for this thread. I simply removed the comment because it was off topic.

  • Are you sure about that Mr McClarey, that he is not banned ?

  • Positive. I did precisely what I said I did.

  • Genuinely I was confused as there are two articles which reference to the film.

  • By the way, Charles was right in so far as I genuinely could not post. But Mr Donald R. McClarey I accept you are being perfectly honest as does Charles. Sometimes, there are additional features built in to software, which are not explained to users and there could be a lock which kicks in when a posting is deleted which stops a poster from posting for a couple of hours as an auto-spam protection, so that could be an explanation.

  • I only saw one comment which mentioned the ground zero mosque. I agree with you in regard to the mosque but I didn’t want the thread going off on that tanget. I didn’t see another comment by you on this thread. Sometimes akismet can get cranky and for no apparent reason toss a comment into the spam file, but I saw nothing there either.

Castro Hates the Tea Party

Friday, November 19, AD 2010

An English translation of the first portion of the above video.

Fidel Castro: Comrades, our nation is completely bankrupt! We have no choice but to abandon communism!
Castro’s Aide #1, Castro’s Associates: [sigh]
Fidel Castro: I know, I know, I know… but we all knew from day one this mumbo jumbo wouldn’t fly! I’ll call Washington and tell them they won.
Castro’s Aide #1: But presidente, America tried to kill you!
Fidel Castro: Ah, they’re not so bad. They even named a street after me in San Francisco!
[Aide #2 whispers something into his ear]
Fidel Castro: It’s full of what?

Hattip to the Babalu Blog, the go to blog on the net to keep advised of the follies of the Castro regime in Cuba.  It seems the Bearded One views the Tea Party as “fascist”: 

Speaking to a group of students visiting Havana, former Cuban leader Fidel Castro accused the Tea Party of leading the United States towards “fascism.”

In his comments, Castro chided the United States as a “ruined nation” and derided the Tea Party as “extreme right.”

Castro also announced that health concerns had forced him to step down from his position as head of the Cuban Communist Party.

Castro’s exchange with the students was published in Granma, the state-run newspaper.

“I got sick and did what I had to do — delegate my powers.” Granma reported.

Castro ceded the Presidency of Cuba in 2006 after 46 years in power. He was replaced by his younger brother Raúl.

Under both brothers, Cuba has been isolated from the international community, criticized for its lack of democratic elections and for its systematic abuse of human rights.

Continue reading...

White Tea Party Racist to Run for 2012 US Presidency

Friday, September 24, AD 2010

[Update:  There is already a Draft Cain 2012 website up!]

Oh wait, the picture doesn’t follow the mainstream meme does it!

I guess Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann’s running narrative of extremists running the Tea Party doesn’t quite fit the pic.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to White Tea Party Racist to Run for 2012 US Presidency

  • Token… or Uncle Tom?

  • Neither.

    He’s the real deal.

    Alex V.,

    That’s a bit of a borderline racist comment there. Be careful, we don’t tolerate that here at TAC.

    We’ll let it slide this one time in case you weren’t aware of how your comment could be read.

  • After reading this post, about a man I had never heard of, I simply had to click the link to his website, which you put in your post.

    I read the following and simply must comment that what I am posting is a quote from Mr. Cain himself, which made me laugh for the content/comment in the final line of this quote and the joy it brought to me for his having said it and the relief of having not said it myself, although I wish I did.

    He said:

    “Keep one thing in mind as we get into 2011. There are a lot of people that may be interested in seeking the Republican nomination, but I want you to remember one thing, there might also be a dark horse candidate that you don’t know about.”
    Herman Cain

    Mr Cain. Thank you. Tito, thanks to you too. I love this guy’s sense of humor.

  • Maybe it’s time again to elect someone who’s not a career politician. Couldn’t do any worse than the one we’ve got.

  • Sounds like a good man with alot of common sense. Thats exactly what we need.

  • I voted for this class act in the primary in 2004. While Isakson has been much better than expected, we really missed our chance to send a great conservative to the Senate. Herman is the real deal.

  • if you elect a career politician… you get a career politician. if you elect someone who isn’t a career politician… eveyone complains because they aren’t experienced enough.

    I’m beginning to see a slight difference with the crowd the tea party is gathering. there is a faint “so what” when someone in the media tries to make the “not enough experience” argument.

Electoral Revolt

Wednesday, September 15, AD 2010

In a year of political stunners, last night’s result in the GOP primary in Delaware still stood out.  Christine O’Donnell, Palin-endorsed tea party activist, upset Mike Castle, former two-term Governor of Delaware and long term GOP congressman, who, until last week, was expected to be an easy victor, both in the primary and in the general election.  Castle is the archetypal Republican Rino and O’Donnell a life long conservative activist, and the GOP Delaware voters decided that counted for more than electability.  I view O’Donnell as a highly flawed candidate due to instances of bizarre behavior in her life, but nevertheless if I lived in Delaware I would have voted for her.  James Antle of of the American Spectator explains why:

For how is it a victory to elect a liberal with an “R” next to her name rather than a “D?” What does it profit a movement to win an election but lose its soul? Conservatives are saying to the Republican Party: for years you have taken us for granted. Now you can either win with us or lose without us. And if a conservative candidate loses anyway, so be it.

Rank-and-file conservatives no longer trust the Republican establishment. They don’t trust big-spending incumbents. They don’t even trust conservative magazines, websites, and commentators who in their view run down conservative candidates.

Are there drawbacks to this approach? As one Mama Grizzly might say, “You betcha.” Ideology and values are vital, but qualifications matter too. So do local conditions and regional differences, where one size doesn’t fit all.

Finally, few RINOs are as brazen as Castle or Scozzafava. They now have learned to talk like conservatives and check the right boxes on conservative litmus tests even as they expand government once in power. The George Romneys have become Mitt Romneys, the George Bushes George Ws. Will conservatives be as demanding of them?

But for now, this much is clear: Grassroots conservatives picked Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle, electoral consequences be damned. If it can happen in Delaware, it can happen anywhere.

Continue reading...

52 Responses to Electoral Revolt

  • I have had a feeling something else was going on this race that was not exactly send Washington D.C a message. I thought this person hit it right that it might not have been what people have been thinking. That is the social dynamic

    http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/246617/long-overdue-overhaul-delaware-republicans

    That being said I can’t see this as anything but a disaster. I am praying it is not. The stuff Karl Roves was talking about as well as other conservatives concerning well Character and ethical issues cannot be swept aside by charges of RINO and estabishment.

    As I have mentioned elsewhere perhaps someone can explain to me if we are going to have a conservative WHY HER. Is this the best they got?

    This very well could backfire. If she becomes in the media’s eye or public eyes the symbol of the Tea party and these eithical problems and other issues are true then we have a major problem on our hands.

    So as soon as someone can get me the talking points on how to address these “quirks” so I can look at them it would be appreciated.

    The interesting thing about that race if the above article is correct is perhaps Castle lost that race on the GUN issue. He did seem very stubborn on the Pro-Gun Control stance though it was clear the countires mood had shifted. IF he has moderated on that he might have picked up enough votes in those Southern Counties to win it last night.

  • Well, the lawsuit allegations are pretty run of the mill for a discrimination suit. Some of the statements (implying currently taking classes at Princeton vs. planning to) may have been some miscommunication between her and her attorney.

    I also don’t get how she could have sold her house to her boyfriend if the bank had already foreclosed, unless she got the money from him and paid of the mortgage before the sheriff sale, which is perfectly legal in most states. I don’t know about Delaware, but in Texas, foreclosure can be a nonjudicial proceeding, so you are not “sued”. You are usually given notice of default, notice of acceleration of the debt, then notice of foreclosure, and notice of foreclosure sale (first Tuesday of the month). Usually, the sale isn’t done by the sheriff, but by a disinterest 3rd party (usually lawyer or representative of the bank/mortgage co.).

  • That Weekly Standard story you linked was either a vicious hit piece with loads of dubious info- or quite disturbing as to the qualifications of O’Donnell for leading anything- There is a similar disconnect with Florida’s Rick Scott and his leadership of a corporate entity that ripped off government monies- This isn’t about ancient history- I have noted in running for office myself that you have to be really cautious to vett candidates because a lot of people are drawn to political leadership and political activism with serious personal issues that they are seemingly working through in very public ways- like high-wire risk-takers they are drawn to media glare like bugs who just want to get zapped- I would recommend that whoever is responsible for directing Tea party monies slow down a beat and consider the consequences of having some serious melt-down characters- reminds me of Ross Perot when he was positioned to win the presidency and he went off half-cocked with some crazy story of Bush harassing his daughters or some such thing, and he dropped out and came back and still ate up votes because people are that hungry for something non-establishment to turn up that is viable- the usual case is for shady or crazy multi-millionaires to come crashing into the party trying to buy their way into political leadership.

    For me, the Tea Party would get serious consideration only if it put the Pro-Life issue at the top of the heap- I recently dropped my own association with a major party because I could not make any headway in Florida as a pro-life Democrat and if I am going to go around and say that ‘a life is a life no matter how small’ then one would have to conclude that we have a genocide of the unwanted, unborn children in our country and any party or psuedo-party that makes the claim that they are pro-life and understand the seriousness of systemic killing of unborn kids- will have to be putting that kind of thing on the front-burner- even more so than tax and spend issues – If that isn’t happening then the public witness will go down as something like this: “Well yes I believe we have a genocide of killing unborn children going on- and I am pro-life, but what really ticks me off is Obama’s stimulus spending and repeal of my tax cuts- and don’t get me started on his socialist health care”. That approach is what I consider a lukewarm kind of ‘realism’ ‘pragmatism’ that smacks of Jesus’ warning to be hot or cold, the lukewarm He will spit out. I tried going the route of covert subversive as a pro-lifer inside the Democratic party fold- i’ve given over that role so I can now be as open as I want to be- but I have little sympathy for those who are ostensibly belonging to a party that makes pro-life claims but does precious little to prioritize Pro-Life issues when economics, taxes, and immigration seem to be so much more pressing and passionate causes for most Repubs and Tea Partiers I have known or read about.

  • I wouldn’t have voted for either one.

    O’Donnell seems to be a burrito short of a combo plate (“Castle operatives are ransacking my house!”), not to mention a permanent campaigner with no resume’. The “Did you hear the rumor Mike Castle is gay?” ad was despicable, too.

    That said, I wouldn’t have eaten the crap sandwich labelled “Mike Castle,” either.

    You could have picked two people at random out of a Wilmington phone book and done better.

  • This is not good – Coons, a dedicated leftist, will win, and the Senate will be more left-wing (Delaware is a Democratic state and he’s going to hold the seat, absent a scandal). Castle would have won, and he would have disappointed conservatives some of the time. Therefore, conservatives have lost, because he would have been an electable rightish figure in that state.

    Sometimes, the GOP establishment is right. Palin and DeMint and the Tea Party folks were wrong in this case – which will become evident probably before November, given her history of instability and emotionalism.

  • Therefore, conservatives have lost, because he would have been an electable rightish figure in that state.

    That argument doesn’t carry weight anymore. Conservatives sucked it up to try to push McCain and got the lousiest campaign possible and an Obama presidency. Who knows whether Castle would have won? I have no idea whether she was a good candidate, but she sold herself as truer to conservative principles and, just as the Dems did in 08 when they picked Obama over Clinton, the party base decided to take the risk in order to get the candidate closer to their views. It just doesn’t make sense anymore to vote based on who might have a better chance in the general election.

  • It just doesn’t make sense anymore to vote based on who might have a better chance in the general election.

    I am not sure I disagree with your conclusion, but I would caution against using McCain/Obama in 2008 as a basis for conclusions on statewide elections in 2010. It’s hard to disentangle the causality, of course, but I think any Republican would have lost the Presidential election in 2008; once the financial crisis hit, the Democratic candidate (whether Obama or Clinton) was going to win. In closely contested state-wide elections, sometimes moderates may legitimately have a better chance; that said, I will not be shedding any tears over Castle.

  • It seems some conservatives are fond of Buckley’s quip about being governed by the first 100 people out of the Boston phonebook (or something to that effect) instead of the graduating class of Harvard (or whatever it was) until it really happens.

    O’Donnell may be a little odd. But I am far past the point of expecting or demanding that politicians be perfect human beings, or anywhere near. I don’t doubt that people will be working overtime to make sure that the poor woman does have a meltdown, but if she can hold it together, good for her.

  • “It just doesn’t make sense anymore to vote based on who might have a better chance in the general election.”

    It does if conservatives believe that elections matter (I do) and value a conservative movement (which will contain, unfortunately, a lot of right-liberalism) capable of defeating candidates of the left (I do).

    I understand the reservations about Castle, but O’Donnell is a terrible candidate with a terrible history. Populist insurgents should find better candidates if they want to take on an establishment (Joe Miller, for example).

    Selling principles is not relevant in an electoral campaign if the candidate is unstable and unsuited for the electorate. Castle would have (poorly) advanced the conservative cause from his position (one of 100 is a big deal when the state is Democratic) and Coons will actively oppose it.

  • I haven’t sorted through the allegations to see which are true. I’ll say this, in general: there’s always a risk going with inexperience. This is why sports have farm teams, and political parties are active at the local level (because let’s be honest, most issues that the city comptroller has to deal with aren’t found in the D or R platform).

    The Republicans haven’t been building up a good farm team. A lot of them turned out to be sleeping with staffers. There’s the occasional Christie or Jindal, sure, but on another thread where potential 2012 presidential candidates were being discussed, I was really struck by the weakness of the Republican bench (mixed sports metaphors, I know).

  • I’m torn between the thought of taking the Senate with Castle vs. sticking with a conservative and potentially not taking the Senate. In the end I have a very hard time with someone like Castle who is essentially a liberal Democrat with an (R) after his name and am glad he went down.

    Given that there are plenty of politicians out there who can’t pass the decency test (look, Rangal just won his primary challange) I think the GOP should move forward and support her.

  • Yeah, what Michael Denton said.

    How any pro-life Catholic could justify a vote for Mike Castle is completely beyond me, unless, of course, the goal is merely to elect Republicans.

    Mike Castle is a Catholic who, despite claiming membership in the Catholic Church as well as the party that touts itself as pro-life, has a 100% NARAL rating, a 0 rating from National Right to Life, and is (at least until January, heh!) probably the biggest supporter and sponsor of embryonic stem cell research legislation in Congress.

    From a conservative (but not necessarily social conservative) perspective, he supports cap & tax, gun control, restrictions on political speech (see Disclose Act), etc., etc. As Don notes, Castle is the archetype of the RINO.

    To support Castle would be to say that there is no Republican who is too anti-life and/or too far to the left as to be undeserving of our vote. Our call is to vote our values, not vote for the most electable person with an “R” next to his name.

  • I agree with jonathanjones.

    DE will now elect a Dem Senator (RCP just switched DE from red to blue and they are right), and given CO’s baggage it is probably for the best.

    I just don’t understand the logic of some commentators. Yes, I’d rather have a true conservative than a moderate. But I’d also rather have a moderate than a liberal. It stands to reason that it makes sense to support the conservative over the moderate in the primary only if you think he or she has a legitimate shot to beat the liberal Dem. This is especially true in the US Senate where key votes usually are decided on party lines.

    The Tea Party has produced some good candidates, and they will show well; CO was not a good candidate and she will lose badly. Oh well.

  • I’m not sure that Castle was even a moderate. Sounds like he was about as liberal as they come.

  • Phillip,
    Even if that is true studies confirm that party matters greatly on key Senate votes. A liberal GOP Senator will vote more conservative than a liberal Dem Senator. Politics is a practical game. Purists lose. The constitutions framers knew that and anticipated compromises born of checks and balances. And no one understood it better than RWR.

  • Its a practical game I agree. Which is why I disagree with a lot of Catholic bloggers who insist on purity. But who is to know if Castle wouldn’t pull a Specter, or a Jeffords and change parties. Even more simply, who is to know if he would pull a Snowe or Collins. Studies say what a population will do, not what an individual will do.

    But Castle’s votes on abortion, stem cell research etc lead one to consider one’s vote beyond a practical level.

  • Fair enough, but a couple points:

    First, as odious as Specter and Jeffords are their desirablity in the Senate can only be judged in comparison to the alternatives, which is true also of Castle.

    Second, as much as I view abortion as by far the most important policy issue of our time, I do not think it is sensible (let alone morally required) to vote for a pro-lifer destined to lose over a pro-abort who could win if that pro-abort is likely to be less damaging than his ultimate opponent. A GOP pro-choice Senator is less likely to obstruct pro-life judicial nominees than a Dem pro-choice Senator.

    In the end, these are prudential decisions of course. And I certainly share one’s frustration with RINOs, especially pro-choice RINOs. But we can’t let those frustrations allow us to play our hand poorly. I suspect that many good people did just that in this case. I wish the Tea Party had been able to launch a better candidate.

  • I don’t know what the alternatives were to Spector and Jeffords as I’m still not sure what there were to Castle (or O’Donnell for that matter.) Perhaps there are some reading who know Delaware politics.

    But if there are no good alternatives then, as you say, we are stuck with prudential judgment. I also agree one is not obliged to vote for a pro-lfe candidate that has no chance of winning and take in the calculus of supporting a Republican majority that will be more pro-lfe than a Dem. majority. As I’ve said I’ve disagreed with Catholic bloggers who hold such can’t be done. I accept your point of view in this regard. I just don’t agree with it in this case.

    As far as not voting to block a pro-life judicial nominee, that’s moot at this point. There won’t be any. At least not until 2013. And perhaps by then we could have secured a Republican majority that is truly conservative.

  • Yes, I’d rather have a true conservative than a moderate. But I’d also rather have a moderate than a liberal.

    That, I think, is what’s up for debate. Conservatives have been told for years that moderates are better when quite frankly most of them are only marginally distinguishable from Democratic counterparts and worse on most issues than Blue dog Democrats. Yes, a moderate might be better than a liberal but if a moderate is only slightly better than the liberal it makes far less sense to abandon the opportunity to vote for a person who truly represents you view (i.e. the possible gain is slim in moderate whereas the potential in the conservative is great).

    It’s not puritanical or a lack of prudence; it’s a different assessment of the gains moderates have given us. From my perspective and many others, that’s not been much, especially as one who cares primarily about abortion and I’d rather have my views represented.

    And if Castle is such a great candidate, why the heck couldn’t he beat O’Donnell?

  • Conservatives have been told for years that moderates are better when quite frankly most of them are only marginally distinguishable from Democratic counterparts and worse on most issues than Blue dog Democrats.

    See Ehrlich, Robert L., Jr.

  • ” I wish the Tea Party had been able to launch a better candidate.”

    Exactly. And if she has ethical problems are we suppose to go oh well she is pro life?

    Problematic to say the least

  • “Castle would have (poorly) advanced the conservative cause from his position (one of 100 is a big deal when the state is Democratic) and Coons will actively oppose it.”

    Plus coons could have that seat forever. Castle was 71. Chances are he would not have ran again in 6 years

  • “It’s not puritanical or a lack of prudence; it’s a different assessment of the gains moderates have given us. From my perspective and many others, that’s not been much, especially as one who cares primarily about abortion and I’d rather have my views represented. ”

    You will never get gains in the first place if you don’t have majority controls of the committees.That is just the fact.

  • Agreed on all counts, Jh. Overall I have been pleased by the Tea Party alternative (i.e., anti-establishment) candidates. But I’m afraid this is not electable, which is probably for the best given her embarrassment potential.

  • Committees mean squat if they don’t have the votes on the floor.

  • Michael,
    But the fact is that party matters when it comes to votes on the floor. When a representative changes parties his voting record changes promptly and considerably, even if his views obviously have not.

  • I think that is characteristic of the last 15 years, when party caucuses have been more uniform than they were previously (and refers to the pressures on legislators, not executives).

  • Agreed on both counts, though party discipline has always been a material factor on important votes. And I agree without reservation that this phenomenon is largey irrelevant to executive branch offices.

  • The arguments put forward here in favor of Castle would also apply if he were running in the General Election against a moderate pro-life, pro-2nd amendment Democrat.

    I mean, if the majority is all that matters, why not support support the pro-abort, radically pro-ESCR, anti-gun, pro-cap-and-tax “Catholic” RINO over the pro-life moderate Democrat?

    Again, it all seems to come down to voting for the “R”. Well, I don’t buy it anymore. I’ve been sold that bill of goods for far too long and with far too few REAL results to play the part of the pro-GOP-at-any-cost lemming.

    I won’t be going over the cliff for Mike Frickin’ Castle, believe you me.

  • But who is to know if Castle wouldn’t pull a Specter, or a Jeffords and change parties.

    Spector was a former Democrat with a long history of buffoonish and histrionic behavior. Jeffords changed parties due to a dispute over dairy subsidies or some such. You could investigate Castle’s history to see if these sort of antecedents were present.

  • Not true, Jay. The argument being put forward is that a liberal Republican is better than a liberal Democrat, and that therefore it is sensible to vote for a liberal Republican who can defeat a liberal Democrat in the general election over a conservative Republican who cannot defeat the liberal Dem in the general election. No one is suggesting that it is better to vote for a liberal pro-choice Republican over a moderate pro-life Democrat should such a circumstance actually present itself. I regret if any of my comments suggested otherwise, but I think a fair reading of them in the context of the exchange is pretty clear.

  • I don’t think that is what you are saying, Mike.

    But many (most?) of the arguments in favor of Castle have focused on the GOP effort to regain majority status. If regaining majority status is the goal of electing Castle, then, yes, it does seem to be an argument in favor of electing him over any Democrat.

    But given Castle’s horrific record on virtually every issue that matters most to me, I don’t think I’d vote for him under any circumstances, even if it meant the seat went to a leftist (for whom I wouldn’t vote either).

  • And Jay, to be clear. The point I was making (and I think Art and jh were largely supporting) is that the argument in favor of supporting a conservative Republican over a liberal Republican in a primary election when one believes that the conservative has little or no chance of defeating the liberal Dem in the general election while the liberal has a good chance of defeating the liberal Dem is weak insomuch as it rests on the assumption that the liberal Dem and liberal Repub are functionally equivalent, which is empirically very unlikely to be the case. My apologies for the run-on sentence.

  • Let me amend my previous comment: I KNOW I’d never vote for Mike Castle under any circumstances. Period.

  • Jay, I have re-read my posts and am surprised that you think I’m saying anything different than what I posted in the comment to which you responded. Puzzling really.

  • AD,

    If Jeffords could go over dairy subsidies I don’t see why Castle couldn’t go over being defied about abortion, stem-cell research or any other thing.

    I do not think the psychological profiles of a Spector or Jeffords are necessary precursors for Castle causing problems.

  • The more interesting question for me is whether I’d support a pro-life Dem over a a pro-choice Republican. The likely answer is yes, but this too is a prudential decision since the empirical evidence suggests that legislators usually discard their personal beliefs in favor of party unity when their vote is critical. One can of course simply say that this is just partisanship masquerading as prudence, and it could be in some cases. But not for me.

  • Mike,

    I just told you that I didn’t think that was what you were saying, so I’m not sure what you find puzzling. In other words, I was agreeing with you that you were NOT arguing the GOP majority card, but that others were.

    As for whether the liberal Dem and the liberal Repub are functionally equivalent, I am of the opinion that the liberal Repub is actually worse because he gives bipartisan cover to such mischief as ESCR, cap & tax, and the Disclose Act.

    I mean, seriously, people should look up Castle’s role in sponsoring ESCR legislation and being one of the most vocal critics of Bush’s executive order and subsequent vetoes of ESCR legislation. If ESCR (not to mention abortion) is really what we and the Church claim that it is, I just could never in good conscience vote for such a person. Especially one claiming to be a Catholic.

    It’s just simply not enough to me that he will be a vote for Mitch McConnell (cough, cough) as majority leader. And, again, Mike, I don’t believe that is what you are arguing either.

  • Oh, I understand now, Jay, thanks. I took “I don’t think that is what you are saying” as disagreeing with my immediately prior comment in which I took issue with your interpretation of prior comments as making arguments that would apply in the context of a choice between a pro-life Dem and and a pro-choice Repub. I see now that I simply misunderstood you.

    I have no specific quarrel with you at all re Castle. Your observation about “bipartisan cover for mischief” is certainly a fair prudential consideration, even though I think I would ordinarily give it less weight than you.

    In the end it does seem to me that the case for opposing Castle may be stronger than the case for supporting CO.

  • Jay,

    You are completely right about Castle. The difficulty, however, is that:

    1). He (very likely) would have won.
    2). His “moderate” stance has fit Delaware for some time now.
    3). This is a lot better than the activist leftist soon to win this seat.

    Tea Party people:
    Advocate for better candidates. O’Donnell is a terrible one, and she’s going to lose by double digits.

  • Jonathan,

    I agree that the tea party folks need to field some better candidates. I’m not an O’Donnell defender in the least.

    But I also believe that Ed Morrissey (as quoted above by Don) raises a valid point that, in the context of the present national mood, the GOP establishment in Delaware couldn’t come up with anything better than a 70+ year old retread who’s been in public office for 45 years. In a year when conservatives are expected to make big gains, the Delaware GOP didn’t even TRY to advance the ball by choosing someone more center-right:

    <em"They stuck with a liberal, establishment candidate in a cycle where liberals and establishment figures are uniquely unpopular. Had the Republican leadership been in touch with Delaware Republican voters, they might have found a more suitable candidate for the popular mood, and would not have had to deal with Christine O’Donnell and her outsider bid. They have no one to blame but themselves."

  • the GOP establishment in Delaware couldn’t come up with anything better than a 70+ year old retread who’s been in public office for 45 years…. the Delaware GOP didn’t even TRY to advance the ball…

    Welcome to New York.

  • Yeah, if Castle really was the only thing standing between the GOP and the majority, then they deserve to sit in the minority for another 2 years. If it’s that important, but out the effort to find a candidate who isn’t going to get smoked by someone as “nutty” as Rove put it as O’donnell.

  • People forget that Castle, for all his pro-abort tendencies, at the very least supports the PBA ban, parental notification, and judges that would overturn ROE. That makes him better than Biden by a notch, and certainly better than Coons.

    O’Donnell’s website right now is simply a donation page; she is doing everything she can to prove all of her critics right. I really don’t trust her. Sorry.

  • She has raised over half a million since last night. Harry Reid’s “pet” is in for the fight of his life.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/15/harry-reid-chris-coons-is-my-pet/

  • Pace Richard Brautigan, “Palin Drives on Deep into Egypt.” Her influence is a phenomenon. Palin attracts flawed candidates who dislike making a deal with the Devil. She plays chess while the establishment plays checkers.

    I grow weary of comments that a given candidate does not measure up to the moral and intellectual excellence expected of politicians. If everything said about O’Donnell and about Palin are correct, they would rank somewhere in the top quartile of American political figures. It’s a pretty sorry bunch, American politicians.

  • The complaint about Miss O’Donnell is that she shows evidence of being an incompetent human being. Gov. Palin has been for 22 years married to a man she’s been appended to since high school, has five children, and a dozen years under her belt as a public executive. Generically incompetent she is not. As for the Governor’s critics, they may have a reasonable point her or there, but the disjunction between their assessment of her and their assessment of the President suggests they equate intellectuality with intelligence and confound articulateness with intelligence.

  • Agree with AD. People who comment on blogs often fancy themselves as intellectuals and favor candidates who appear intellectual. But intellectualism is not the same as intelligence. Palin is hardly the ideal presidential candidate, but the argument that she is less fit than the person who now occupies that post just doesn’t wash.

  • You will never get gains in the first place if you don’t have majority controls of the committees.That is just the fact.

    And you won’t get more coservative candidates if you keep voting for more moderate ones. That is also a fact. So what to do?

  • Pingback: Of Black Magic and Bearded Marxists « The American Catholic

Tea Party Claims Another Scalp

Wednesday, August 25, AD 2010

Pro-abort incumbent Lisa Murkowski, apparently was defeated in the Republican primary in Alaska for the US Senate nomination by Palin endorsed pro-life Joe Miller, a tea party activist.  This is the most stunning political upset thus far this season.  Miller was widely viewed as a sure loser going into election night, especially by the internet Journal Slate which began a story on Monday with this opening:  On Tuesday, in her home state, Sarah Palin’s favorite will probably get trounced. Joe Miller is widely expected to lose by a large margin to incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary—an embarrassing defeat for the former governor, who has endorsed Miller, but also to Miller’s other major backer, the Tea Party Express.  Go here to read this monument to far sighted political prognostication.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Tea Party Claims Another Scalp

  • Here are other bits of wisdom from the author of the Slate piece.

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/author?id=2232

    This broad is the news director of a television station in Alaska, a position acquired after working at an opinion magazine. Fred Barnes said a while back that in his years at the Weekly Standard, he could scarcely recall a single member of the staff or intern who had been hired by an ordinary metropolitan newspaper. Funny how that works.

  • Political reporting in this country Art is mostly 90% “That is what I hope happens” and 10% “Well this is what the facts say”.

  • The dnc propaganda organ, you call it the media, spews 90% fiction to advance the mythical liberal narrative.

  • I just hope IF he wins I hope he can beat the Democrat.

  • The only time Alaska has elected a Democrat to Congress in the last 36 years was when the Republican was under indictment.

    Miss Gutierrez offers her post-mortem here:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2265056/

    Some of the commenters proceed to hand her her ass.

  • I haven’t seen an exact tally of how many Tea Party candidates have won in the primaries, but I heard that not all of them have been as spectacular. However add a Sarah Palin endorsement and voila! Tea Party score. So is Palin the codeine in the Tea Party Tylenol?

    I think she is the secret ingredient. The reason in short, IMHO, is that the Tea Party people are focused on economic issues, and I don’t fault them for that. But to put it bluntly, Palin brings God and Guns to the party. That completes the “Reagan coalition” on the issues.

    Please disprove me on this if I am off; as I said, I don’t have an exact tally.

  • Pauli, her endorsement of Clint Didier didn’t help him beat out Dino Rossi to win the primary here in Washington state.

  • Dino Rossi. Yeah, sounds like a good fella. Maybe he can fit Patty Murray with a pair of concrete overshoes.

    Either way, I ain’t sayin’ nothin’.

  • Dewey Defeats Truman!